President Obama Re-Elected - Page 482

On September 11 2012 05:57 xDaunt wrote:

Have you ever been to Europe? There are a lot of distinguishing characteristics between the countries. Take Germany and Italy for example. I don't think anyone would confuse them for being particularly similar.

On September 11 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:

And you'd argue the cultural background of Kazakhstan is the same as, Germany for example?
Also on the list of countries which are geographically nowhere near Europe but culturally similar would be Canada. Are they part of Europe?

On September 11 2012 06:00 NonCorporeal wrote:


I know, I'm not denying that, but they are also somewhat similar, especially now, and especially in terms of politics.

On September 11 2012 05:16 ziggurat wrote:


I was putting "we" in quotes because I do not want to have any kind of government-run health care system. But apparently a lot of american voters want this.

In Canada we have socialized medicine and everyone who gets sick or injured gets their care paid for by the state regardless of how they came to be sick or injured.

Under Obamacare it will be the same thing as I understand it. I believe that insurers will at least charge higher premiums for cigarette smokers, and they could do the same for marijuana users. In fact, they probably already do. I'm pretty sure that when I got life insurance (in Canada) I was asked if I used any illegal drugs.

So I don't really understand how your point relates to the "war on drugs". Are you saying that having universal health care means that we need to continue to outlaw marijuana? If so I'm not following you.

On September 11 2012 05:37 NonCorporeal wrote:

Nothing, you're entiteld to your opinion. You keep saying that America is "far-right," because we support capitalism. If you actually look at history though, America was a country founded on the ideas of freedom and capitalism. You Europeans were so inspired by America's ideas that you began adopting them in your own countries (French Revolution). Eventually Europe started moving further and further to the left, while America (more or less) stayed on the path of classical liberalism (freedom and capitalism). Thus would it not be correct to say that you have moved further to the left, as opposed to America moving further to the right? If anything, America has moved further to the left as well, with things like Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare, Food Stamps, and other such programs.

On September 11 2012 06:00 forgottendreams wrote:


Can you just give this guy a timeout? Comparing Near - Abroad countries like South Ossetia, Kazakhstan and Russia to the liberal governance platform of the EU is almost comedic.

On September 11 2012 06:09 NonCorporeal wrote:


I wasn't comparing them, I was merely listing the European countries that have communist parties in their governments.

On September 11 2012 06:00 NonCorporeal wrote:


I know, I'm not denying that, but they are also somewhat similar, especially now, and especially in terms of politics.

On September 11 2012 05:51 NonCorporeal wrote:

Europe is also a cultural entity, regardless of the EU; a cultural entity in which many different countries share relatively similar cultural and political ideas, even if they aren't formally part of a confederacy.

On September 11 2012 06:09 NonCorporeal wrote:


I wasn't comparing them, I was merely listing the European countries that have communist parties in their governments.

On September 11 2012 06:08 stk01001 wrote:


There's no question that the republican party and politics in general in America continue to move to the far right. Look at the tea party. Look at the social issues.. we're the only developed country where it's normal for a major political party to flat out deny global warming. Abortion rights is still a huge issue which was supposed to be settled back in the 70's. Gays continue to be discriminated against and demonized. The tea partiers are especially super far right and unwilling to compromise, it's generally accepted that the republican party is now the most conservative it's ever been in modern history. They make Ronald Reagan look like FDR. Yes we have programs like SS and food stamps, but if it were up to republicans SS would be privatized and food stamps wouldn't exist. They just aren't getting their way, doesn't mean they aren't super far right. Hell Rick Santorum wanted to get rid of public education all together, he wanted to privatize education lol. And the guy almost won his party's nomination. The election of Obama has scared people even further to the right. The fact is the Obama is very centrist and middle of the road, but in America he's viewed as a super liberal socialist because the whole political spectrum is pushed so far to the right.

On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:
Copied this from another site:

ECON 101: Tax cuts create a DIS-incentive to hire workers

How long have we been hearing about the "Job Creators" needing tax cuts in order to favor us with jobs. The natural instinct is to respond with "OK, where are the jobs?" That is a nice snarky response, but that leaves the issue open for Republicans to argue: a) the jobs were created -- you just didn't notice them, and b) we need even more tax cuts.

I rarely hear any Democrats addressing the basic premise, which is complete hogwash. It really isn't that complicated.

First of all, most of the discussions are about PERSONAL taxes, and that really has minimal bearing on job creation. But let's take the more general case of a company facing a decision whether to hire their next employee. Generally speaking, taxes do not even enter into that discussion, because companies hire the employees they need to conduct their business. They don't hire surplus employees when there is a favorable tax rate -- that would be socialism.

But let's look at the tax impact anyway. At the Federal level, and in almost every state, taxes are based on the net income (aka earnings). That is the amount of money you have left after you deduct the allowable business expenses.

Here is the key point. Wages and benefits are deductible expenses, so whenever you hire an additional employee, you automatically get a tax cut.

Now let's look at the effect of the tax rate. Let's consider two cases: one where the effective tax rate is 50% and one where the effective tax rate is 25%.

In the first case (50% tax) let's say the total cost of the next incremental employee (with benefits) is $100,000. You deduct $100,000 and that saves you $50,000 in taxes. The IRS is effectively paying for half the cost of that employee.

In the second case, you deduct $100,000, but this time you only save $25,000. The lower tax rate effectively RAISES the barrier to hiring new employees.

Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.

High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.

I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.

On September 11 2012 05:37 Souma wrote:
NonCorporeal has broken rule #4 time and time again. Why is he still allowed to continue this nonsense? -_- He has the whole thread up in arms proving him wrong yet his American-centrism blinds him.

On September 11 2012 06:25 NonCorporeal wrote:


Much like many Europeans here feel that Americans such as myself have "misrepresented" the European political structure, I feel as though you are no "misrepresenting" the American political structure. Oh don't get me wrong, there are a some Republicans out there who don't support gay marriage and/or abortion, but they don't represent the vast majority of the party, especially not members of the party who are under the age of 50; seniors in general tend to be more "religious," regardless of party or ideology. I live out in an area you would probably consider "redneck-ville" yet all of the people out where I live support gay marriage and they're all conservative Republicans. In the 12 years I have lived here, I only met one Republican who is opposed to gay marriage, and when I asked him why, he said he "wanted to stick with the old ways" (whatever that means).

Also, you seem to mistakenly think that the Tea Party are a bunch of neo-Nazis who are apparently "not working with the Democrats," because apparently only Tea Party members are bigots and would never work with the other side. If you actually learned what they stood for, things like small government and personal freedom, then you might actually agree with them; the left-wing media is trying to paint a negative picture of them. That's not to say there aren't a few extremists in the grassroots organization, but the left has it's fair share of bigoted extremists as well.

Though my primary complaint with your post is that you think Republicans want to get rid of Social Security and Food Stamps, which is a very misinformed statement indeed (no offense). Most conservatives support welfare for those who truly need it. What we are opposed to, is what welfare has become, handouts where able-bodied people receive unemployment five years after they lose their job. What's sad is that when they're unemployment finally runs out, they don't finally go to look for a job, they instead try to get on more government programs, such as Social Security Disability, even though they aren't really disabled.

On September 11 2012 06:29 Derez wrote:

No offense meant, but even when it comes to the opinion of your own republican electorate you are wrong.

Both taken from Gallup, both from 2012:

On September 11 2012 06:29 NonCorporeal wrote:

You're preaching that you're so tolerant and would never judge someone for their views; then you go and call for anyone who disagrees with you to be banned online and arrested in real life. Does that sound very tolerant to you?

On September 11 2012 06:31 Souma wrote:


What are you even talking about? I'm telling you to FACT CHECK. You've been dismissing any evidence tossed at you and just keep going on and on, changing topics at every turn and spouting more incorrect nonsense that posters have to go out of their way to refute. I don't care about your opinion, I want you to stop being blatantly factually incorrect.

On September 11 2012 06:31 NonCorporeal wrote:

I would have to see the collection methods used as well as the groups surveyed.

On September 11 2012 06:33 NonCorporeal wrote:

When haven't I fact checked? When have I dismissed evidence? And when have I changed topics? If you're going to put words in my mouth, then is it too much to ask that you atleast try to provide some evidence to back it up?

On September 11 2012 06:34 Derez wrote:

Enjoy.

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/154754/Abortion_legality_labels_120523.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/154538/Gay_Marriage_120508.pdf

Note that my post actually included data from a reputable polling firm and your posts so far have been without any reasonable sources at all.