|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 02:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. After all, Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic. And what should we do about it? Another tax cut. Spending your way out of debt makes about as much sense as putting out a fire with gasoline in my book. Tax cuts make more sense to me. Give money back to the people so they can invest it in business. This is why I tend to side more with the Republicans than Democrats even though I am neither. On November 12 2012 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic, and what should we do about it? Another tax cut. that is a misunderstanding of how taxes work, and also betrays the inner feeling you have. it's not about fixing the economy, it's about punishing the rich. Republicans want to cut spending and simplify the tax-code, then cut taxes to spur economic growth. Democrats just want to raise the debt ceiling again, and again, and again, and again. ignoring the clear fact that the rich will pass any tax off onto the poor. So you're both going all in with the right wing dogma, that tax cuts are good for the economy. Except there is no evidence of that as this recent CRS report shows: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdfAnd there's the recent CBO report on the fiscal cliff, which shows that tax cuts have minimal effects on growth compared to spending as I've already explained here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=1423#28442Of course it's not surprising that the party of anti-intellectuals is ignoring the evidence. Kmillz, you talk about reducing the debt. And how are tax cuts going to reduce the debt? If you're serious about reducing the debt above all else, why don't you call for spending cuts and tax increases? Why don't you embrace the fiscal cliff? That CRS report is fairly useless. You can't take one thing, be it highest tax rates or education spend or whatever, and see if it has a noticeable effect on the overall economy. Its just too minor to make a noticeable difference. I don't know why you insist on being anti-intellectual and arguing otherwise.
that report has some other conclusions, such as relationship between top tax rate and distributions. those are more significant.
and given the magnitude of the claimed growth effect from tax cutting made by supplly siders, an empirical historical study showing no effect is significant.
|
On November 12 2012 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:43 Omnipresent wrote:On November 12 2012 02:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:19 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
If you're going to "protest the President", why would you question his place of birth? His place of birth has nothing to do with his policies. The most radical attacks against Bush, amongst other things, include him being a warmonger and hating black people because of Katrina. But these attacks are all related to his policies and actions.
Disputing Obama's place of birth has nothing to do with policies, so it's not just protesting the President. The attack is only possible because he's black and his father is from Kenya. people accused Bush of planning and executing 9/11. being accused of lying about your place of birth ain't shit compared to that disgusting attack that liberals panned for years. This is pretty ridiculous. You're comparing the actions of a bunch of random assholes on the internet (9/11 Truthers) to the widespread attacks on Obama's citizenship from major politicians (from Bachmann all the way up to Romney), prominent conservative figures (Trump), and key conservative media outlets (Fox, Drudge, etc.). Somewhere out there, there is a group of people saying stupid, hateful shit. They don't have any power, and they don't matter. Birtherism, on the other hand, was a concerted effort by major factions in the conservative movement and the Republican party to delegitimize the first black president through a very thinly veiled racist attack. There's really no comparison. 9/11 truthers, at one point, made up 1/3 of the country.never once heard Romney or Bachmann attack Obama's citizenship. would definitely like to see some evidence of that. no Fox reporter or opinion guy has ever pressed that point of view either, definitely want some evidence of that claim. Let's just continue to make things up without evidence. Because that's just what Republicans do. Where's the evidence that 1/3 of the country once believe the 9/11 conspiracy? http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604lets just accuse people of making things up without evidence.... lol Awesome, a third of the country is crazy. Now where's the evidence for your statements on tax? And there's nothing wrong me calling you out for not providing a source. there's nothing wrong with asking for a source, but there is something wrong with assuming that its a lie without evidence of a lie: Let's just continue to make things up I've found a very interesting rhythm in this thread. millions of claims are made by liberals, un-sourced of course, and they never provide a source. one claim is made by me, and suddenly it's a sin that I didn't provide seven thousand sources before ever making the claim. well, buddy, first give me your sources. You've been saying things about taxes, without any sources. And you still haven't provided any sources. Then you ignored the sources that I provide, for no reason. Just because. So there was nothing wrong with me saying that you're continuing to make things up. Because that's what you've been doing. what sources did you provide? I must have missed them, my bad. but in a word, about the CBO, they can only run the numbers they are given. that's why referencing them as stone-cold fact without understanding their conclusions.... not usually the best idea.
Completely irrelevant. The fiscal cliff is current law and the CBO is able to estimate the economic effects of the fiscal cliff. They have also estimated the economic effects of various actions, such as extending the Bush tax cuts, extending them only on households with less than $250k income, calling off the sequester, and so on, which they have done in that report. And it clearly shows as I've explained in the previous post, that tax cuts have relatively little economic effect, whereas spending cuts have relatively large effects. The CRS report also so little correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.
You point is a diversion. Either show the CBO is wrong, or give a reason why taxes should not raised and only spending cuts should occur.
|
On November 12 2012 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 02:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. After all, Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic. And what should we do about it? Another tax cut. Spending your way out of debt makes about as much sense as putting out a fire with gasoline in my book. Tax cuts make more sense to me. Give money back to the people so they can invest it in business. This is why I tend to side more with the Republicans than Democrats even though I am neither. On November 12 2012 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic, and what should we do about it? Another tax cut. that is a misunderstanding of how taxes work, and also betrays the inner feeling you have. it's not about fixing the economy, it's about punishing the rich. Republicans want to cut spending and simplify the tax-code, then cut taxes to spur economic growth. Democrats just want to raise the debt ceiling again, and again, and again, and again. ignoring the clear fact that the rich will pass any tax off onto the poor. So you're both going all in with the right wing dogma, that tax cuts are good for the economy. Except there is no evidence of that as this recent CRS report shows: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdfAnd there's the recent CBO report on the fiscal cliff, which shows that tax cuts have minimal effects on growth compared to spending as I've already explained here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=1423#28442Of course it's not surprising that the party of anti-intellectuals is ignoring the evidence. Kmillz, you talk about reducing the debt. And how are tax cuts going to reduce the debt? If you're serious about reducing the debt above all else, why don't you call for spending cuts and tax increases? Why don't you embrace the fiscal cliff? That CRS report is fairly useless. You can't take one thing, be it highest tax rates or education spend or whatever, and see if it has a noticeable effect on the overall economy. Its just too minor to make a noticeable difference. I don't know why you insist on being anti-intellectual and arguing otherwise.
The data points for the Top Marginal Tax Rate used in the report are from about 30% to 90%. If you're saying that even such a wide range of rates makes no difference to growth, then why not raise it back up to 90%? After all, it makes no difference to growth, but it would be good for revenues.
|
This was talked about briefly on Meet the Press this morning and subsequently posted a few minutes ago. Thoughts? Perhaps a deal will be made more or less around these parameters.
+ Show Spoiler +Below are documents obtained by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that show a grand bargain proposal the White House was prepared to make in order to reach agreement with the House Republicans last year. This is how Woodward described the documents on Meet the Press this morning:
"This is a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain. And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it. But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses." So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far."![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AgjKS.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nkBN8.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aKr6O.jpg)
|
1019 Posts
Allen West is a black man, and a Tea Party favorite. Herman Cain was a Tea Party favorite, and is black. Mia Love is black, and again, a Tea Party favorite.
hell yeah we disrespect Obama. respect is earned, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of most conservatives, Obama has done nothing to earn our respect.
Yeah well, there you go again. Political disagreement is different from personal respect. You're just reaffirming what I just wrote, you know that? Saying that the GOP isn't racist because it has black politicians is like the common knee-jerk response saying "I'm not racist because I have black friends". Simply having black or minority members in the GOP or its tea party isn't justification that elements of the tea party and the GOP are not racist. Do you know why the GOP got their asses handed to them in this general election? They moved too far to the right and they don't show any signs of being more inclusive.
you might be able to point to one or two signs that one or two Tea Party people carried that could actually be construed as racist (not doctored photographs)
When conservatives talk like this, they are just being in denial over the state of their party. Until people admit that there are republicans who are bringing inappropriate discourse into political discussion, until you admit that protesting over obama's birthplace is laughably ridiculous, and until people in the GOP marginalize the tea party and other excess elements, the general public is not going to see republicans as a decent alternative to the democrats. Like I said, the GOP today is too far right, and you're being great evidence for me. GOP got burned in this election for a reason.
|
On November 12 2012 03:16 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 02:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 01:53 white_horse wrote:On November 12 2012 01:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 01:26 ZeaL. wrote:On November 12 2012 01:05 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 00:43 JinDesu wrote:On November 12 2012 00:12 D10 wrote:
How do you view the young turks ? Annoying and liberally biased. At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing. Feel the same way. I love when he pokes fun at Bill O'Reilly, even though on the issues I tend to agree with Bill a tiny bit more. I think Bill just makes an idiot out of himself and makes me wish I didn't agree with his main point. On November 12 2012 00:29 white_horse wrote:On November 11 2012 21:33 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
It saddens me that this is how the GOP is seen. Funny..I once considered myself a Republican and a Catholic and now I am neither. Didn't vote for Romney even though I think Obama's policies are terrible..its like I wanted to like him so much, but he literally made it impossible. He got whooped anyway, not like my one vote would've changed that..and now I get to have a clean conscience knowing I didn't vote for either evil! :D Well its kind of obvious why they are seen that way. The GOP has been jerked around by its tea party. The GOP doesn't just disagree with obama. They disrespect him. And I think part of the reason why is because he's black. Any republican will vehemently deny that they are racist if you ask them about it, but I think part of the reason of so much vitriol coming from the GOP is because obama is black. Accusing the president of not being born in the US even after proof is posted, accusing him to be some evil muslim, trump offering money to the public to uncover "secret' information about obama, accusing him of rigging the unemployment statistics for political gain, etc etc. Really now. I wonder how far the GOP would have gone with this kind of stuff had obama been white. These kind of antics scare away decent people who are only interested in whats good for the country. Racism is a two-way street, and to suggest that only vitriol is coming from the GOP because obama is black, but yet disregard the possibility that vitriol could come from the other side because Mitt Romney is white is just silly....Unless you have some evidence that the GOP is more racist to black people than the Democratic party is racist towards white people, I would suggest you stop listening to Chris Matthews so much. You really think the birther movement started because he is black? Let's not forget: Some bloggers are questioning John McCain's right to run for the presidency on the basis of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. Not EVERYTHING is about race....seriously. I'm not really that sympathetic towards any disrespect Obama gets after what George W. Bush endured. Not saying he was a good President...but as far as I'm concerned Obama is just as bad in the issues that concern me (liberty) and I can understand why half the country would have little respect for either of them. My honest opinion is that yes, there are people who are racist and simply do not like Obama for that reason (and again..its a 2-way street! Just ask Jay-Z why he isn't voting for smaller government), but I do not think it is the MAIN reason for the harshness towards him...I think that more stems from disagreement on policy. I wonder why a few bloggers questioned McCain's birth. Maybe because he was actually born outside the US and at the time there was a lot of questions already being directed at one particular candidate's location at birth. That didn't last very long because there's basically no proof to show that McCain, while born in another country, is not a US citizen. A few years after the release of both his short and long-form birth certificates and there's still people who think he's Kenyan. And these aren't just uneducated voters either, there are plenty of GOP politicians (mostly at the state level) who express the same sentiment. Things got quieter after the release of his long form birth certificate + Osama's death but the sentiment is still there. And D's racist against white people? lol. I guess that explains why Republicans won the white vote, they just felt disenfranchised and were afraid of those racist minorities. + Show Spoiler + Calling the Republican party as a whole racist to black people is just as ridiculous as calling the Democratic party as a whole racist to white people. Why do idiots thinking he is from Kenya have to be racist idiots? I don't get the connection. Because it feels like dog-whistle racism. The protests over obama's birthplace itself isn't ncessarily a problem. It's a problem when clear evidence has been made to the public and people still demand proof over obama's birthplace. That suggests anger toward obama that isn't just political. The GOP as a whole is definitely not racist. But there is a significant part of the GOP that certainly carries closeted racism, especially the tea party wing. Part of the GOP simply disrespects obama. Don't deny it. When obama was elected, republicans started to say "take our country back" as a slogan for the 2012 election campaign. Take our country back from whom? Are you suggesting a non-American is sitting in the white house? Who is controlling the white house such that we have to "take it back"? It doesn't sound like racism to white americans, but to minorities and whites who have experienced racism or know enough about it can tell. The GOP needs to marginalize its extreme elements and become center-right enough to become a legitimate opposition to democrats or else the left is just going to run amok without an alternative to keep it in check. I mean, I guess I can see how it could be perceived that way, but it might be a little oversensitive on the racial undertones considering they could just as easily mean take our country back from the democrats or from this terrible president who happens to be black...I won't deny that part of the GOP simply disrespects Obama, just as you shouldn't deny that Bush was at least as disrespected (some might even argue more). Basically I'm still leaning more towards the birther movement took off more as a protest to the President and anyone racist that has to do with the movement is correlation without causation. If you're going to "protest the President", why would you question his place of birth? His place of birth has nothing to do with his policies. The most radical attacks against Bush, amongst other things, include him being a warmonger and hating black people because of Katrina. But these attacks are all related to his policies and actions. Disputing Obama's place of birth has nothing to do with policies, so it's not just protesting the President. The attack is only possible because he's black and his father is from Kenya. people accused Bush of planning and executing 9/11. being accused of lying about your place of birth ain't shit compared to that disgusting attack that liberals panned for years. and to be perfectly honest, Obama loved the birther attacks. he courted them every chance he could by not just releasing his stupid birth certificate (ftr, I have no doubt that he was born in Hawaii, not the point) right away. he knew that conservatives who wanted him gone were going to reach for pretty much anything, and he knew that he could construe the birthers as being racist and then attack the entire GOP using guilt by association. Donald Trump was just dumb enough to fall for it. Just wanted to call attention to your original comment. You cited a poll that *randomly* sampled Americans across the political spectrum which found that one third of the population believed that the American government was very likely to have consciously ignored warnings about the attacks. This clearly does not equate to saying that that one third is all democrat, and even if it did, it would be saying that there are supporters of the democratic party that believe in conspiracy theories. This doesn't mean that the democratic party itself specifically endorses these ideas, or democrat leaning news stations. You'd need to link to some actual evidence here. On the other hand it would be good to hear some sources about how the republican establishment (not just some crazy people in the Tea Party base) supported the birther conspiracy theories. As far as I know its really only trump...news organizations like Fox may have reported on it but I'm not sure whether they've ever actually supported it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Political_candidates_and_elected_officials
quick and dirty. Probably more out there.
|
On November 12 2012 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 02:43 Omnipresent wrote:On November 12 2012 02:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 01:53 white_horse wrote:On November 12 2012 01:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 01:26 ZeaL. wrote:On November 12 2012 01:05 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 00:43 JinDesu wrote:
[quote]
Annoying and liberally biased.
At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing. Feel the same way. I love when he pokes fun at Bill O'Reilly, even though on the issues I tend to agree with Bill a tiny bit more. I think Bill just makes an idiot out of himself and makes me wish I didn't agree with his main point. On November 12 2012 00:29 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
Well its kind of obvious why they are seen that way. The GOP has been jerked around by its tea party. The GOP doesn't just disagree with obama. They disrespect him. And I think part of the reason why is because he's black. Any republican will vehemently deny that they are racist if you ask them about it, but I think part of the reason of so much vitriol coming from the GOP is because obama is black.
Accusing the president of not being born in the US even after proof is posted, accusing him to be some evil muslim, trump offering money to the public to uncover "secret' information about obama, accusing him of rigging the unemployment statistics for political gain, etc etc. Really now. I wonder how far the GOP would have gone with this kind of stuff had obama been white. These kind of antics scare away decent people who are only interested in whats good for the country. Racism is a two-way street, and to suggest that only vitriol is coming from the GOP because obama is black, but yet disregard the possibility that vitriol could come from the other side because Mitt Romney is white is just silly....Unless you have some evidence that the GOP is more racist to black people than the Democratic party is racist towards white people, I would suggest you stop listening to Chris Matthews so much. You really think the birther movement started because he is black? Let's not forget: Some bloggers are questioning John McCain's right to run for the presidency on the basis of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. Not EVERYTHING is about race....seriously. I'm not really that sympathetic towards any disrespect Obama gets after what George W. Bush endured. Not saying he was a good President...but as far as I'm concerned Obama is just as bad in the issues that concern me (liberty) and I can understand why half the country would have little respect for either of them. My honest opinion is that yes, there are people who are racist and simply do not like Obama for that reason (and again..its a 2-way street! Just ask Jay-Z why he isn't voting for smaller government), but I do not think it is the MAIN reason for the harshness towards him...I think that more stems from disagreement on policy. I wonder why a few bloggers questioned McCain's birth. Maybe because he was actually born outside the US and at the time there was a lot of questions already being directed at one particular candidate's location at birth. That didn't last very long because there's basically no proof to show that McCain, while born in another country, is not a US citizen. A few years after the release of both his short and long-form birth certificates and there's still people who think he's Kenyan. And these aren't just uneducated voters either, there are plenty of GOP politicians (mostly at the state level) who express the same sentiment. Things got quieter after the release of his long form birth certificate + Osama's death but the sentiment is still there. And D's racist against white people? lol. I guess that explains why Republicans won the white vote, they just felt disenfranchised and were afraid of those racist minorities. + Show Spoiler + Calling the Republican party as a whole racist to black people is just as ridiculous as calling the Democratic party as a whole racist to white people. Why do idiots thinking he is from Kenya have to be racist idiots? I don't get the connection. Because it feels like dog-whistle racism. The protests over obama's birthplace itself isn't ncessarily a problem. It's a problem when clear evidence has been made to the public and people still demand proof over obama's birthplace. That suggests anger toward obama that isn't just political. The GOP as a whole is definitely not racist. But there is a significant part of the GOP that certainly carries closeted racism, especially the tea party wing. Part of the GOP simply disrespects obama. Don't deny it. When obama was elected, republicans started to say "take our country back" as a slogan for the 2012 election campaign. Take our country back from whom? Are you suggesting a non-American is sitting in the white house? Who is controlling the white house such that we have to "take it back"? It doesn't sound like racism to white americans, but to minorities and whites who have experienced racism or know enough about it can tell. The GOP needs to marginalize its extreme elements and become center-right enough to become a legitimate opposition to democrats or else the left is just going to run amok without an alternative to keep it in check. I mean, I guess I can see how it could be perceived that way, but it might be a little oversensitive on the racial undertones considering they could just as easily mean take our country back from the democrats or from this terrible president who happens to be black...I won't deny that part of the GOP simply disrespects Obama, just as you shouldn't deny that Bush was at least as disrespected (some might even argue more). Basically I'm still leaning more towards the birther movement took off more as a protest to the President and anyone racist that has to do with the movement is correlation without causation. If you're going to "protest the President", why would you question his place of birth? His place of birth has nothing to do with his policies. The most radical attacks against Bush, amongst other things, include him being a warmonger and hating black people because of Katrina. But these attacks are all related to his policies and actions. Disputing Obama's place of birth has nothing to do with policies, so it's not just protesting the President. The attack is only possible because he's black and his father is from Kenya. people accused Bush of planning and executing 9/11. being accused of lying about your place of birth ain't shit compared to that disgusting attack that liberals panned for years. This is pretty ridiculous. You're comparing the actions of a bunch of random assholes on the internet (9/11 Truthers) to the widespread attacks on Obama's citizenship from major politicians (from Bachmann all the way up to Romney), prominent conservative figures (Trump), and key conservative media outlets (Fox, Drudge, etc.). Somewhere out there, there is a group of people saying stupid, hateful shit. They don't have any power, and they don't matter. Birtherism, on the other hand, was a concerted effort by major factions in the conservative movement and the Republican party to delegitimize the first black president through a very thinly veiled racist attack. There's really no comparison. 9/11 truthers, at one point, made up 1/3 of the country. never once heard Romney or Bachmann attack Obama's citizenship. would definitely like to see some evidence of that. no Fox reporter or opinion guy has ever pressed that point of view either, definitely want some evidence of that claim.
Prominent candidates have to take a more measured approach, but the appeal is obvious. In Bachman's case, you can probably thank Ed Rollins for managing her presidential bid so well.
Bachmann
+ Show Spoiler +Appeal to let us examine the certificate: ~1:40
Romney
+ Show Spoiler +
Perry
+ Show Spoiler +
Fox and Friends with Trump
+ Show Spoiler +
Hannity
+ Show Spoiler +Hannity, Palin, Steve Ducey (of Fox and Friends) Bonus Birtherism 2.0 on passport/college records
That's, of course, ignoring any straight news programs that cover the issue as though there may be a real question . This is all about editorial discretion. The network has mostly managed to hide behind the notion of balance ("Some say x, others say y."), but they produce stories about the controversy over a flat earth, alchemy, or 9/11 truth.
|
On November 12 2012 03:19 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 02:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. After all, Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic. And what should we do about it? Another tax cut. Spending your way out of debt makes about as much sense as putting out a fire with gasoline in my book. Tax cuts make more sense to me. Give money back to the people so they can invest it in business. This is why I tend to side more with the Republicans than Democrats even though I am neither. On November 12 2012 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic, and what should we do about it? Another tax cut. that is a misunderstanding of how taxes work, and also betrays the inner feeling you have. it's not about fixing the economy, it's about punishing the rich. Republicans want to cut spending and simplify the tax-code, then cut taxes to spur economic growth. Democrats just want to raise the debt ceiling again, and again, and again, and again. ignoring the clear fact that the rich will pass any tax off onto the poor. So you're both going all in with the right wing dogma, that tax cuts are good for the economy. Except there is no evidence of that as this recent CRS report shows: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdfAnd there's the recent CBO report on the fiscal cliff, which shows that tax cuts have minimal effects on growth compared to spending as I've already explained here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=1423#28442Of course it's not surprising that the party of anti-intellectuals is ignoring the evidence. Kmillz, you talk about reducing the debt. And how are tax cuts going to reduce the debt? If you're serious about reducing the debt above all else, why don't you call for spending cuts and tax increases? Why don't you embrace the fiscal cliff? That CRS report is fairly useless. You can't take one thing, be it highest tax rates or education spend or whatever, and see if it has a noticeable effect on the overall economy. Its just too minor to make a noticeable difference. I don't know why you insist on being anti-intellectual and arguing otherwise. that report has some other conclusions, such as relationship between top tax rate and distributions. those are more significant. and given the magnitude of the claimed growth effect from tax cutting made by supplly siders, an empirical historical study showing no effect is significant.
I agree. Looking at table A-2, the effect of top marginal and capital tax rates on income inequality is statistically significant at the 10% and 1% level, respectively.
|
On November 12 2012 03:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:43 Omnipresent wrote:On November 12 2012 02:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
people accused Bush of planning and executing 9/11. being accused of lying about your place of birth ain't shit compared to that disgusting attack that liberals panned for years.
This is pretty ridiculous. You're comparing the actions of a bunch of random assholes on the internet (9/11 Truthers) to the widespread attacks on Obama's citizenship from major politicians (from Bachmann all the way up to Romney), prominent conservative figures (Trump), and key conservative media outlets (Fox, Drudge, etc.). Somewhere out there, there is a group of people saying stupid, hateful shit. They don't have any power, and they don't matter. Birtherism, on the other hand, was a concerted effort by major factions in the conservative movement and the Republican party to delegitimize the first black president through a very thinly veiled racist attack. There's really no comparison. 9/11 truthers, at one point, made up 1/3 of the country.never once heard Romney or Bachmann attack Obama's citizenship. would definitely like to see some evidence of that. no Fox reporter or opinion guy has ever pressed that point of view either, definitely want some evidence of that claim. Let's just continue to make things up without evidence. Because that's just what Republicans do. Where's the evidence that 1/3 of the country once believe the 9/11 conspiracy? http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604lets just accuse people of making things up without evidence.... lol Awesome, a third of the country is crazy. Now where's the evidence for your statements on tax? And there's nothing wrong me calling you out for not providing a source. there's nothing wrong with asking for a source, but there is something wrong with assuming that its a lie without evidence of a lie: Let's just continue to make things up I've found a very interesting rhythm in this thread. millions of claims are made by liberals, un-sourced of course, and they never provide a source. one claim is made by me, and suddenly it's a sin that I didn't provide seven thousand sources before ever making the claim. well, buddy, first give me your sources. You've been saying things about taxes, without any sources. And you still haven't provided any sources. Then you ignored the sources that I provide, for no reason. Just because. So there was nothing wrong with me saying that you're continuing to make things up. Because that's what you've been doing. what sources did you provide? I must have missed them, my bad. but in a word, about the CBO, they can only run the numbers they are given. that's why referencing them as stone-cold fact without understanding their conclusions.... not usually the best idea. Completely irrelevant. The fiscal cliff is current law and the CBO is able to estimate the economic effects of the fiscal cliff. They have also estimated the economic effects of various actions, such as extending the Bush tax cuts, extending them only on households with less than $250k income, calling off the sequester, and so on, which they have done in that report. And it clearly shows as I've explained in the previous post, that tax cuts have relatively little economic effect, whereas spending cuts have relatively large effects. The CRS report also so little correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.You point is a diversion. Either show the CBO is wrong, or give a reason why taxes should not raised and only spending cuts should occur.
the CRS report that was pulled because of flawed methodology?
|
On November 12 2012 03:33 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +
Allen West is a black man, and a Tea Party favorite. Herman Cain was a Tea Party favorite, and is black. Mia Love is black, and again, a Tea Party favorite.
Show nested quote +hell yeah we disrespect Obama. respect is earned, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of most conservatives, Obama has done nothing to earn our respect. Yeah well, there you go again. Political disagreement is different from personal respect. You're just reaffirming what I just wrote, you know that? Saying that the GOP isn't racist because it has black politicians is like the common knee-jerk response saying "I'm not racist because I have black friends". Simply having black or minority members in the GOP or its tea party isn't justification that elements of the tea party and the GOP are not racist. Do you know why the GOP got their asses handed to them in this general election? They moved too far to the right and they don't show any signs of being more inclusive. Show nested quote +
you might be able to point to one or two signs that one or two Tea Party people carried that could actually be construed as racist (not doctored photographs)
When conservatives talk like this, they are just being in denial over the state of their party. Until people admit that there are republicans who are bringing inappropriate discourse into political discussion, until you admit that protesting over obama's birthplace is laughably ridiculous, and until people in the GOP marginalize the tea party and other excess elements, the general public is not going to see republicans as a decent alternative to the democrats. Like I said, the GOP today is too far right, and you're being great evidence for me. GOP got burned in this election for a reason.
there can be nothing more dishonest that suggesting that someone is racist, and then ignoring all indications of them being inclusive to all races. it's a catch-22. either we deny the charges without "evidence", and are ignored, or we provide the evidence and we are called racist for trying to provide evidence.
so you've abandoned your original position and are now moving toward the "Republicans are too right-wing" argument? already had that argument in here, and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
|
On November 12 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:43 Omnipresent wrote:
[quote]
This is pretty ridiculous. You're comparing the actions of a bunch of random assholes on the internet (9/11 Truthers) to the widespread attacks on Obama's citizenship from major politicians (from Bachmann all the way up to Romney), prominent conservative figures (Trump), and key conservative media outlets (Fox, Drudge, etc.).
Somewhere out there, there is a group of people saying stupid, hateful shit. They don't have any power, and they don't matter. Birtherism, on the other hand, was a concerted effort by major factions in the conservative movement and the Republican party to delegitimize the first black president through a very thinly veiled racist attack. There's really no comparison. 9/11 truthers, at one point, made up 1/3 of the country.never once heard Romney or Bachmann attack Obama's citizenship. would definitely like to see some evidence of that. no Fox reporter or opinion guy has ever pressed that point of view either, definitely want some evidence of that claim. Let's just continue to make things up without evidence. Because that's just what Republicans do. Where's the evidence that 1/3 of the country once believe the 9/11 conspiracy? http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604lets just accuse people of making things up without evidence.... lol Awesome, a third of the country is crazy. Now where's the evidence for your statements on tax? And there's nothing wrong me calling you out for not providing a source. there's nothing wrong with asking for a source, but there is something wrong with assuming that its a lie without evidence of a lie: Let's just continue to make things up I've found a very interesting rhythm in this thread. millions of claims are made by liberals, un-sourced of course, and they never provide a source. one claim is made by me, and suddenly it's a sin that I didn't provide seven thousand sources before ever making the claim. well, buddy, first give me your sources. You've been saying things about taxes, without any sources. And you still haven't provided any sources. Then you ignored the sources that I provide, for no reason. Just because. So there was nothing wrong with me saying that you're continuing to make things up. Because that's what you've been doing. what sources did you provide? I must have missed them, my bad. but in a word, about the CBO, they can only run the numbers they are given. that's why referencing them as stone-cold fact without understanding their conclusions.... not usually the best idea. Completely irrelevant. The fiscal cliff is current law and the CBO is able to estimate the economic effects of the fiscal cliff. They have also estimated the economic effects of various actions, such as extending the Bush tax cuts, extending them only on households with less than $250k income, calling off the sequester, and so on, which they have done in that report. And it clearly shows as I've explained in the previous post, that tax cuts have relatively little economic effect, whereas spending cuts have relatively large effects. The CRS report also so little correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.You point is a diversion. Either show the CBO is wrong, or give a reason why taxes should not raised and only spending cuts should occur. the CRS report that was pulled because of flawed methodology?
Yes. That is why that report was pulled.
|
On November 12 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:43 Omnipresent wrote:
[quote]
This is pretty ridiculous. You're comparing the actions of a bunch of random assholes on the internet (9/11 Truthers) to the widespread attacks on Obama's citizenship from major politicians (from Bachmann all the way up to Romney), prominent conservative figures (Trump), and key conservative media outlets (Fox, Drudge, etc.).
Somewhere out there, there is a group of people saying stupid, hateful shit. They don't have any power, and they don't matter. Birtherism, on the other hand, was a concerted effort by major factions in the conservative movement and the Republican party to delegitimize the first black president through a very thinly veiled racist attack. There's really no comparison. 9/11 truthers, at one point, made up 1/3 of the country.never once heard Romney or Bachmann attack Obama's citizenship. would definitely like to see some evidence of that. no Fox reporter or opinion guy has ever pressed that point of view either, definitely want some evidence of that claim. Let's just continue to make things up without evidence. Because that's just what Republicans do. Where's the evidence that 1/3 of the country once believe the 9/11 conspiracy? http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604lets just accuse people of making things up without evidence.... lol Awesome, a third of the country is crazy. Now where's the evidence for your statements on tax? And there's nothing wrong me calling you out for not providing a source. there's nothing wrong with asking for a source, but there is something wrong with assuming that its a lie without evidence of a lie: Let's just continue to make things up I've found a very interesting rhythm in this thread. millions of claims are made by liberals, un-sourced of course, and they never provide a source. one claim is made by me, and suddenly it's a sin that I didn't provide seven thousand sources before ever making the claim. well, buddy, first give me your sources. You've been saying things about taxes, without any sources. And you still haven't provided any sources. Then you ignored the sources that I provide, for no reason. Just because. So there was nothing wrong with me saying that you're continuing to make things up. Because that's what you've been doing. what sources did you provide? I must have missed them, my bad. but in a word, about the CBO, they can only run the numbers they are given. that's why referencing them as stone-cold fact without understanding their conclusions.... not usually the best idea. Completely irrelevant. The fiscal cliff is current law and the CBO is able to estimate the economic effects of the fiscal cliff. They have also estimated the economic effects of various actions, such as extending the Bush tax cuts, extending them only on households with less than $250k income, calling off the sequester, and so on, which they have done in that report. And it clearly shows as I've explained in the previous post, that tax cuts have relatively little economic effect, whereas spending cuts have relatively large effects. The CRS report also so little correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.You point is a diversion. Either show the CBO is wrong, or give a reason why taxes should not raised and only spending cuts should occur. the CRS report that was pulled because of flawed methodology?
Actually, the reason it was pulled is because Republicans complained about it (which is how I stumbled on the report). Also, you dodged the rest of my post.
|
Bachmann was just saying the truth, that Obama could have solved the birther issue very easily, but chose not to out of political expediency. even Obama said that birtherism helped him, so why is it wrong for her to point out that?
Romney was making a joke.
Perry said straight up that it wasn't a serious issue, and actually called it a distraction. lol, this proves your point wrong.
yes, Trump is a birther.... nothing new.
Hannity just said that birthers are not racist, and then made the very pertinent point of saying that Obama could have put a stop to the issue but didn't want to.
|
On November 12 2012 03:47 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
9/11 truthers, at one point, made up 1/3 of the country.
never once heard Romney or Bachmann attack Obama's citizenship. would definitely like to see some evidence of that. no Fox reporter or opinion guy has ever pressed that point of view either, definitely want some evidence of that claim. Let's just continue to make things up without evidence. Because that's just what Republicans do. Where's the evidence that 1/3 of the country once believe the 9/11 conspiracy? http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604lets just accuse people of making things up without evidence.... lol Awesome, a third of the country is crazy. Now where's the evidence for your statements on tax? And there's nothing wrong me calling you out for not providing a source. there's nothing wrong with asking for a source, but there is something wrong with assuming that its a lie without evidence of a lie: Let's just continue to make things up I've found a very interesting rhythm in this thread. millions of claims are made by liberals, un-sourced of course, and they never provide a source. one claim is made by me, and suddenly it's a sin that I didn't provide seven thousand sources before ever making the claim. well, buddy, first give me your sources. You've been saying things about taxes, without any sources. And you still haven't provided any sources. Then you ignored the sources that I provide, for no reason. Just because. So there was nothing wrong with me saying that you're continuing to make things up. Because that's what you've been doing. what sources did you provide? I must have missed them, my bad. but in a word, about the CBO, they can only run the numbers they are given. that's why referencing them as stone-cold fact without understanding their conclusions.... not usually the best idea. Completely irrelevant. The fiscal cliff is current law and the CBO is able to estimate the economic effects of the fiscal cliff. They have also estimated the economic effects of various actions, such as extending the Bush tax cuts, extending them only on households with less than $250k income, calling off the sequester, and so on, which they have done in that report. And it clearly shows as I've explained in the previous post, that tax cuts have relatively little economic effect, whereas spending cuts have relatively large effects. The CRS report also so little correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.You point is a diversion. Either show the CBO is wrong, or give a reason why taxes should not raised and only spending cuts should occur. the CRS report that was pulled because of flawed methodology? Actually, the reason it was pulled is because Republicans complained about it (which is how I stumbled on the report). Also, you dodged the rest of my post.
Republicans complained about it because it's methodology was ridiculous. they didn't take any outside factors in. I'm an idiot and even I can see why that is wack.
the rest of your post was basically just saying that the CBO said something. (still unsourced).
|
On November 12 2012 03:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 03:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 03:01 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:53 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
Let's just continue to make things up without evidence. Because that's just what Republicans do.
Where's the evidence that 1/3 of the country once believe the 9/11 conspiracy? http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604lets just accuse people of making things up without evidence.... lol Awesome, a third of the country is crazy. Now where's the evidence for your statements on tax? And there's nothing wrong me calling you out for not providing a source. there's nothing wrong with asking for a source, but there is something wrong with assuming that its a lie without evidence of a lie: Let's just continue to make things up I've found a very interesting rhythm in this thread. millions of claims are made by liberals, un-sourced of course, and they never provide a source. one claim is made by me, and suddenly it's a sin that I didn't provide seven thousand sources before ever making the claim. well, buddy, first give me your sources. You've been saying things about taxes, without any sources. And you still haven't provided any sources. Then you ignored the sources that I provide, for no reason. Just because. So there was nothing wrong with me saying that you're continuing to make things up. Because that's what you've been doing. what sources did you provide? I must have missed them, my bad. but in a word, about the CBO, they can only run the numbers they are given. that's why referencing them as stone-cold fact without understanding their conclusions.... not usually the best idea. Completely irrelevant. The fiscal cliff is current law and the CBO is able to estimate the economic effects of the fiscal cliff. They have also estimated the economic effects of various actions, such as extending the Bush tax cuts, extending them only on households with less than $250k income, calling off the sequester, and so on, which they have done in that report. And it clearly shows as I've explained in the previous post, that tax cuts have relatively little economic effect, whereas spending cuts have relatively large effects. The CRS report also so little correlation between tax cuts and economic growth.You point is a diversion. Either show the CBO is wrong, or give a reason why taxes should not raised and only spending cuts should occur. the CRS report that was pulled because of flawed methodology? Actually, the reason it was pulled is because Republicans complained about it (which is how I stumbled on the report). Also, you dodged the rest of my post. Republicans complained about it because it's methodology was ridiculous. they didn't take any outside factors in. I'm an idiot and even I can see why that is wack. the rest of your post was basically just saying that the CBO said something. (still unsourced).
Did you even look at the report? In Table A-1, you can clearly see that the regression was run accounting for other economic variables. So that complain is invalid. Republicans had the report pulled because they didn't like the findings. Some other criticisms are also wrong as explained here: http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/know-nothings/
So you're now also dismissing the CBO report, just because the CBO said it. The anti-intellectualism continues. Where have you argued that cutting tax rates and cutting spending is good for the economy, because of <this piece of evidence>? You haven't, you've got nothing, and you're just dismissing evidence that is contradictory to your faith-based Republican views.
|
On November 12 2012 03:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 02:41 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. After all, Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic. And what should we do about it? Another tax cut. Spending your way out of debt makes about as much sense as putting out a fire with gasoline in my book. Tax cuts make more sense to me. Give money back to the people so they can invest it in business. This is why I tend to side more with the Republicans than Democrats even though I am neither. On November 12 2012 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then. Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic, and what should we do about it? Another tax cut. that is a misunderstanding of how taxes work, and also betrays the inner feeling you have. it's not about fixing the economy, it's about punishing the rich. Republicans want to cut spending and simplify the tax-code, then cut taxes to spur economic growth. Democrats just want to raise the debt ceiling again, and again, and again, and again. ignoring the clear fact that the rich will pass any tax off onto the poor. So you're both going all in with the right wing dogma, that tax cuts are good for the economy. Except there is no evidence of that as this recent CRS report shows: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/r42729_0917.pdfAnd there's the recent CBO report on the fiscal cliff, which shows that tax cuts have minimal effects on growth compared to spending as I've already explained here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=1423#28442Of course it's not surprising that the party of anti-intellectuals is ignoring the evidence. Kmillz, you talk about reducing the debt. And how are tax cuts going to reduce the debt? If you're serious about reducing the debt above all else, why don't you call for spending cuts and tax increases? Why don't you embrace the fiscal cliff? That CRS report is fairly useless. You can't take one thing, be it highest tax rates or education spend or whatever, and see if it has a noticeable effect on the overall economy. Its just too minor to make a noticeable difference. I don't know why you insist on being anti-intellectual and arguing otherwise. The data points for the Top Marginal Tax Rate used in the report are from about 30% to 90%. If you're saying that even such a wide range of rates makes no difference to growth, then why not raise it back up to 90%? After all, it makes no difference to growth, but it would be good for revenues.
Between 1945 and 2010 more change occurred in the US economy than the highest tax rates.
For example, during the same period that top tax rates were generally declining, government spending was increasing.
![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&units=p&size=m&year=1950_2012&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g&spending0=23.95_22.38_27.88_29.02_29.27_26.70_26.47_27.21_28.84_28.77_28.74_30.25_28.94_28.71_28.50_26.96_27.45_29.80_30.47_30.08_31.00_31.49_31.36_29.78_30.23_33.62_34.00_32.91_32.02_31.58_33.72_33.64_36.25_36.31_34.44_35.48_35.71_35.09_34.73_34.93_36.01_37.22_37.04_36.31_35.38_35.53_34.69_33.76_33.24_32.64_32.56_33.33_34.74_35.31_34.86_34.83_35.12_35.09_37.16_42.83_40.91_40.52_40.63)
And its only in recent years that tax revenues have declined.
![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=m&year=1950_2012&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g&spending0=22.70_24.32_27.98_27.62_28.46_25.66_27.35_28.01_27.91_26.26_29.08_29.14_27.54_27.89_27.74_26.92_27.34_28.84_27.85_30.46_30.92_29.06_29.55_29.60_30.63_30.14_29.99_31.07_30.59_31.09_31.77_32.48_33.10_31.23_31.07_31.95_32.27_33.40_32.86_33.24_33.23_33.07_33.07_33.39_33.51_34.27_34.85_35.40_36.25_35.83_36.93_34.30_31.00_31.03_32.83_33.62_35.10_36.86_32.48_26.27_32.43_32.14_32.19)
So let's complete the picture. Top tax rates do not affect economic growth nor does government spending nor do top tax rates affect government revenue.
Now, I don't have the data to prove this but my intuition tells me that such an analysis (drawing trend lines and extrapolating conclusions) is at best, flaky, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
|
On November 12 2012 03:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Bachmann was just saying the truth, that Obama could have solved the birther issue very easily, but chose not to out of political expediency. even Obama said that birtherism helped him, so why is it wrong for her to point out that?
Romney was making a joke.
Perry said straight up that it wasn't a serious issue, and actually called it a distraction. lol, this proves your point wrong.
yes, Trump is a birther.... nothing new.
Hannity just said that birthers are not racist, and then made the very pertinent point of saying that Obama could have put a stop to the issue but didn't want to.
This is the same Romney joke that Chris Matthews cried race card to RNC chairman Reince Priebus...
Chris Matthews: "That cheap shot about 'I don’t have a problem with my birth certificate was awful. It is an embarrassment to your party to play that card. This part about getting rid of the work requirement for welfare is dishonest. Everyone has pointed it out and you are playing that little ethnic card there. You can play your game and giggle about it – but the fact that your side is playing that card, and you start to talk about work requirements you know what game you’re playing and everybody knows what game you’re playing a race card – and this thing about birth even if your name’s Romney – yeah you were well-born, you went to prep school. Yeah, brag about it. Yeah, this guy’s has got an African name and he has to live with it. Look whose going further in their life – just a minute. Who was born on third base?"
What a joke, and the best part about this joke is that people here actually agree with him. Insane. I'm also really getting tired of people insisting that the Republican party is pushing the birther movement just because it hurt Obama's feelings and Donald Trump wants to bring Obama down even if it means being blatantly dishonest. To quote Reince Priebus from the same interview:
Every person, myself, starting in February of last year, as soon as I became chairman of the RNC, Mitt Romney continuously has said this president was born in this country. It’s a non-starter. It’s a dumb issue. It’s a distraction. Forget about it.
|
1019 Posts
On November 12 2012 03:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 03:33 white_horse wrote:
Allen West is a black man, and a Tea Party favorite. Herman Cain was a Tea Party favorite, and is black. Mia Love is black, and again, a Tea Party favorite.
hell yeah we disrespect Obama. respect is earned, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of most conservatives, Obama has done nothing to earn our respect. Yeah well, there you go again. Political disagreement is different from personal respect. You're just reaffirming what I just wrote, you know that? Saying that the GOP isn't racist because it has black politicians is like the common knee-jerk response saying "I'm not racist because I have black friends". Simply having black or minority members in the GOP or its tea party isn't justification that elements of the tea party and the GOP are not racist. Do you know why the GOP got their asses handed to them in this general election? They moved too far to the right and they don't show any signs of being more inclusive.
you might be able to point to one or two signs that one or two Tea Party people carried that could actually be construed as racist (not doctored photographs)
When conservatives talk like this, they are just being in denial over the state of their party. Until people admit that there are republicans who are bringing inappropriate discourse into political discussion, until you admit that protesting over obama's birthplace is laughably ridiculous, and until people in the GOP marginalize the tea party and other excess elements, the general public is not going to see republicans as a decent alternative to the democrats. Like I said, the GOP today is too far right, and you're being great evidence for me. GOP got burned in this election for a reason. there can be nothing more dishonest that suggesting that someone is racist, and then ignoring all indications of them being inclusive to all races. it's a catch-22. either we deny the charges without "evidence", and are ignored, or we provide the evidence and we are called racist for trying to provide evidence. so you've abandoned your original position and are now moving toward the "Republicans are too right-wing" argument? already had that argument in here, and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
So you believe the GOP of today has not moved to the right in recent years?
|
I'd argue that the GOP has moved a little right over the past few years, but the rest of the country, especially Dems, have moved further and further left since decades ago. America may still be "highly conservative" to Europe, but I'd argue we've changed to a far more liberal general opinion on policies since as recent as the '40's post-WWII. Because of that, the GOP and conservatives, when they stamp their foot down on an issue, look as though they're becoming more right-wing (comparatively speaking to, say, the past two decades, is definitely true), when it's mostly more of the rest of the politicians moving further left. 'Least, as a conservative, that's how I've portrayed it.
|
On November 12 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 01:53 white_horse wrote:On November 12 2012 01:31 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 01:26 ZeaL. wrote:On November 12 2012 01:05 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 00:43 JinDesu wrote:On November 12 2012 00:12 D10 wrote:
How do you view the young turks ? Annoying and liberally biased. At least the Daily Show is funny and is less overbearing. Feel the same way. I love when he pokes fun at Bill O'Reilly, even though on the issues I tend to agree with Bill a tiny bit more. I think Bill just makes an idiot out of himself and makes me wish I didn't agree with his main point. On November 12 2012 00:29 white_horse wrote:On November 11 2012 21:33 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2012 15:45 Leporello wrote:
So, yeah, conservative ideology might be great (or not), but their politicians are what matter. And they're awful. If the GOP would elect a candidate to get on stage in a national debate, with a Democrat, and tell America they want to declare fetuses to be human in all cases of conception (we saw a little of that in some State elections this year, to hilarious results), call global-warming a giant conspiracy, cut the Estate Tax and cut down the top income-tax brackets, denounce evolution, denounce homosexuality, denounce Social Security and Medicare, make it easier for people to buy more assault weapons, etc. -- then I will vote for that person purely for their honesty, even though I'd be disagreeing with everything they're saying. But it'll never happen, because conservative ideology, even in at its most tepid, is currently not at all what America wants.
It saddens me that this is how the GOP is seen. Funny..I once considered myself a Republican and a Catholic and now I am neither. Didn't vote for Romney even though I think Obama's policies are terrible..its like I wanted to like him so much, but he literally made it impossible. He got whooped anyway, not like my one vote would've changed that..and now I get to have a clean conscience knowing I didn't vote for either evil! :D Well its kind of obvious why they are seen that way. The GOP has been jerked around by its tea party. The GOP doesn't just disagree with obama. They disrespect him. And I think part of the reason why is because he's black. Any republican will vehemently deny that they are racist if you ask them about it, but I think part of the reason of so much vitriol coming from the GOP is because obama is black. Accusing the president of not being born in the US even after proof is posted, accusing him to be some evil muslim, trump offering money to the public to uncover "secret' information about obama, accusing him of rigging the unemployment statistics for political gain, etc etc. Really now. I wonder how far the GOP would have gone with this kind of stuff had obama been white. These kind of antics scare away decent people who are only interested in whats good for the country. Racism is a two-way street, and to suggest that only vitriol is coming from the GOP because obama is black, but yet disregard the possibility that vitriol could come from the other side because Mitt Romney is white is just silly....Unless you have some evidence that the GOP is more racist to black people than the Democratic party is racist towards white people, I would suggest you stop listening to Chris Matthews so much. You really think the birther movement started because he is black? Let's not forget: Some bloggers are questioning John McCain's right to run for the presidency on the basis of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. Not EVERYTHING is about race....seriously. I'm not really that sympathetic towards any disrespect Obama gets after what George W. Bush endured. Not saying he was a good President...but as far as I'm concerned Obama is just as bad in the issues that concern me (liberty) and I can understand why half the country would have little respect for either of them. My honest opinion is that yes, there are people who are racist and simply do not like Obama for that reason (and again..its a 2-way street! Just ask Jay-Z why he isn't voting for smaller government), but I do not think it is the MAIN reason for the harshness towards him...I think that more stems from disagreement on policy. I wonder why a few bloggers questioned McCain's birth. Maybe because he was actually born outside the US and at the time there was a lot of questions already being directed at one particular candidate's location at birth. That didn't last very long because there's basically no proof to show that McCain, while born in another country, is not a US citizen. A few years after the release of both his short and long-form birth certificates and there's still people who think he's Kenyan. And these aren't just uneducated voters either, there are plenty of GOP politicians (mostly at the state level) who express the same sentiment. Things got quieter after the release of his long form birth certificate + Osama's death but the sentiment is still there. And D's racist against white people? lol. I guess that explains why Republicans won the white vote, they just felt disenfranchised and were afraid of those racist minorities. + Show Spoiler + Calling the Republican party as a whole racist to black people is just as ridiculous as calling the Democratic party as a whole racist to white people. Why do idiots thinking he is from Kenya have to be racist idiots? I don't get the connection. Because it feels like dog-whistle racism. The protests over obama's birthplace itself isn't ncessarily a problem. It's a problem when clear evidence has been made to the public and people still demand proof over obama's birthplace. That suggests anger toward obama that isn't just political. The GOP as a whole is definitely not racist. But there is a significant part of the GOP that certainly carries closeted racism, especially the tea party wing. Part of the GOP simply disrespects obama. Don't deny it. When obama was elected, republicans started to say "take our country back" as a slogan for the 2012 election campaign. Take our country back from whom? Are you suggesting a non-American is sitting in the white house? Who is controlling the white house such that we have to "take it back"? It doesn't sound like racism to white americans, but to minorities and whites who have experienced racism or know enough about it can tell. The GOP needs to marginalize its extreme elements and become center-right enough to become a legitimate opposition to democrats or else the left is just going to run amok without an alternative to keep it in check. I mean, I guess I can see how it could be perceived that way, but it might be a little oversensitive on the racial undertones considering they could just as easily mean take our country back from the democrats or from this terrible president who happens to be black...I won't deny that part of the GOP simply disrespects Obama, just as you shouldn't deny that Bush was at least as disrespected (some might even argue more). Basically I'm still leaning more towards the birther movement took off more as a protest to the President and anyone racist that has to do with the movement is correlation without causation.
OK, name a president who was ever heckled by a member of Congress during his State of the Union Address.
That's the level of disrespect the right have for Obama. Even during the worst of GWB's presidency, at least the left let the man have his legally-mandated speech without disrespect.
On November 12 2012 03:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Bachmann was just saying the truth, that Obama could have solved the birther issue very easily, but chose not to out of political expediency. even Obama said that birtherism helped him, so why is it wrong for her to point out that?
Romney was making a joke.
Perry said straight up that it wasn't a serious issue, and actually called it a distraction. lol, this proves your point wrong.
yes, Trump is a birther.... nothing new.
Hannity just said that birthers are not racist, and then made the very pertinent point of saying that Obama could have put a stop to the issue but didn't want to.
Romney: People love hiding assholish behavior behind the all-purpose "it was just a joke" shield. Also, the entire point of the joke is the continued de-legitimization of Obama. People questioned him, but not me. Obviously I'm more legitimate.
Bachmann and Hannity: The thing you keep forgetting is this: there was never any legitimate question of the place of Obama's birth! It was well known and verified that Obama was a viable candidate for Presidency. It should never have been a question.
Why should Obama have to publicly re-verify what's already been verified? Can you name a single candidate in Presidential history who ever had to do so? This is what minorities have to go through all the time: people making them jump through more hoops than others.
The fact that Obama would even have to publicly release his birth certificate at all is the problem. Furthermore, as you may have noticed, releasing his birth certificate did nothing to the birther movement. Either one.
Why do you suppose that is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9cp0jvui76k/UH8WYyWmDYI/AAAAAAABBtM/u0fNfuEGC8U/s1600/Obama-Renig-Sticker.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/a/img715/1715/whitewe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Maryland.jpeg)
.![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_l8xeX8k9lgo/SFEb14IoS0I/AAAAAAAADA8/j2sXO6OKfy8/s400/baby+mama+highlighted.jpg)
