|
|
On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:48 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
Obama's point is that business owners in the United States utilize infrastructure supported by the government. Roads, police, mail, cities, and almost anything else you can imagine exists because a government exists. Without government, you have no business.
Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: ![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/293191_10150918893749205_189142814_n.jpg) At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough.
Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system.
And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks.
On September 17 2012 10:09 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
Please refrain from being patronizing.
I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported.
Here is the transcription.
"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? Don't feed the troll.
Huh? Kaitlin isn't being trollish...?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Since we're on the topic of corporate taxes:
The 10 most profitable companies in the U.S., including Apple and Exxon Mobil, paid an average tax rate of just 9 percent last year, according to a study by the site NerdWallet. If you want to get technical about it, many large companies essentially turn a profit on taxes, according to a recent Citizens for Tax Justice study. And even as Obama was coming up with his proposal to cut corporate tax rates, the Congressional Budget Office pointed out that corporate tax receipts as a percentage of corporate profits tumbled to just 12.1 percent in fiscal 2011, the lowest rate since 1972. Obama has proposed closing some of the loopholes that let companies pay lower rates than 28 percent, which is one reason businesses aren't exactly throwing parades over his plan to lower the statutory rate. In fact, one company mentioned in the WSJ story, Rowan Cos., says it is leaving the U.S. because of its fear of loophole shrinkage. The problem here is that tax rates will never be low enough for any companies. Some of the same companies that pay no taxes are among those complaining most loudly about taxes. Nobody really enjoys paying taxes, and it's only natural -- maybe even a duty to shareholders -- for companies to constantly try to pay less. But we've got to call them out when they try to snow us with fake numbers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/corporate-tax-rate-us-2012_n_1839693.html
I actually agree that we don't really need to raise taxes. What we need is tax reform. ;(
|
On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:00 Risen wrote:
[quote]
How does that represent anything close to what you just said? You didn't build the roads, you didn't build the bridges, you didn't build the water treatment plants, you didn't build X, you didn't build Y, but you take advantage of all those. That's literally all he meant by that. He was saying you didn't get where you are solely on your own, you did it with the help of others. That's true, no one can dispute that (and still be considered sane).
Why keep holding on to that tired and dead explanation that he hates private businesses rofl. It just makes you sound ignorant :/ Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made. The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment.
You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong.
edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans.
|
On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right?
The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way.
|
On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made.
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans.
You won the argument as soon as you said "The End." That's how it works in your world, right ?
|
On September 17 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
Please refrain from being patronizing.
I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported.
Here is the transcription.
"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way.
The economy is going to recover with or without deregulation... don't be a doomsayer.
There are good regulations and bad regulations. Protecting consumers is good for the economy in the long run. I don't really know where this kind of simplistic "Regulations = Bad" mentality comes from...
|
On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:54 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Yes, clearly the only alternative to Obama's policies is complete anarchy. Well considered. Please refrain from being patronizing. I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported. Here is the transcription. "Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks.
Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden.
|
On September 17 2012 10:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. You won the argument as soon as you said "The End." That's how it works in your world, right ?
Again, I showed how what you had agreed with was the point Obama had been making. I guess that's what ended the discussion :-)
|
On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 07:57 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
Please refrain from being patronizing.
I'll say it again. Obama's speech was pointing out that nobody in the country exists in a vacuum. We are all part of the same team, and we all use the same infrastructure, most of which is government supported.
Here is the transcription.
"Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become. In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden.
???
Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing?
The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers (and small business owners) in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!!
|
On September 17 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become.
In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way. The economy is going to recover with or without deregulation... don't be a doomsayer. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Protecting consumers is good for the economy in the long run. I don't really know where this kind of simplistic "Regulations = Bad" mentality comes from...
Regulations, like taxes, have an inherent negative effect on business. They are tradeoffs. The regulation imposed on the business, and the money extracted have an absolutely negative effect on that business. You must then compare how the tax dollars are spent, and the positive benefit generated elsewhere to get an assessment of the value of the overall tradeoff. That doesn't change the fact that taxes and regulation negatively impact business. Taxes spent foolishly, such as Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival don't recover the cost and are an overall negative. I'm not saying all Regulation tradeoffs are overall bad, but I would argue that trying to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina because it's a right to work state is bad overall, not good.
|
On September 17 2012 10:24 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become.
In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden. ??? Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing? The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!!
Don't get the wrong idea. I simply try to see both sides of the coin. I consider the phrase "but at what cost?". Ok, the government imposes laws and regulations to "protect the consumer". Is that good ? Maybe. What is the flipside to the coin ? Are rent controls good ? Are price controls good ? We'd all love to have $1.00 / gallon gasoline, but what would be the effects of that ? That's a hypothetical. Here's an actual. The minimum wage. I think it's about $7.25 / hour or somewhere in that neighborhood. Is this good ? I suppose you would say that's a worker protection, so it's good. I look at it as a restriction for unskilled laborers and new laborers to enter the market. It's also a restriction for people to start businesses that would require menial tasks to be performed, but can't justify $7.25 / hour, so that business never starts. Or perhaps it drives employment overseas where employers are not subject to such high wages. What's the unemployment rate among African-American, unskilled laborers in this country ? Pretty fucking high. Does minimum wage have something to do with that ? Yep. Not the entire cause, but it certainly doesn't help them any.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 10:31 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:24 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden. ??? Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing? The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!! Don't get the wrong idea. I simply try to see both sides of the coin. I consider the phrase "but at what cost?". Ok, the government imposes laws and regulations to "protect the consumer". Is that good ? Maybe. What is the flipside to the coin ? Are rent controls good ? Are price controls good ? We'd all love to have $1.00 / gallon gasoline, but what would be the effects of that ? That's a hypothetical. Here's an actual. The minimum wage. I think it's about $7.25 / hour or somewhere in that neighborhood. Is this good ? I suppose you would say that's a worker protection, so it's good. I look at it as a restriction for unskilled laborers and new laborers to enter the market. It's also a restriction for people to start businesses that would require menial tasks to be performed, but can't justify $7.25 / hour, so that business never starts. Or perhaps it drives employment overseas where employers are not subject to such high wages. What's the unemployment rate among African-American, unskilled laborers in this country ? Pretty fucking high. Does minimum wage have something to do with that ? Yep. Not the entire cause, but it certainly doesn't help them any.
Can I ask you something before I am inclined to throw a bunch of statistics at you? What is, in your opinion, the purpose of a country and government?
|
On September 17 2012 10:43 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:31 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:24 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat.
Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden. ??? Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing? The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!! Don't get the wrong idea. I simply try to see both sides of the coin. I consider the phrase "but at what cost?". Ok, the government imposes laws and regulations to "protect the consumer". Is that good ? Maybe. What is the flipside to the coin ? Are rent controls good ? Are price controls good ? We'd all love to have $1.00 / gallon gasoline, but what would be the effects of that ? That's a hypothetical. Here's an actual. The minimum wage. I think it's about $7.25 / hour or somewhere in that neighborhood. Is this good ? I suppose you would say that's a worker protection, so it's good. I look at it as a restriction for unskilled laborers and new laborers to enter the market. It's also a restriction for people to start businesses that would require menial tasks to be performed, but can't justify $7.25 / hour, so that business never starts. Or perhaps it drives employment overseas where employers are not subject to such high wages. What's the unemployment rate among African-American, unskilled laborers in this country ? Pretty fucking high. Does minimum wage have something to do with that ? Yep. Not the entire cause, but it certainly doesn't help them any. Can I ask you something before I am inclined to throw a bunch of statistics at you? What is, in your opinion, the purpose of a country and government?
In the U.S., we don't have just one government, we have many. The role of the Federal government is limited by the Constitution, but includes protecting citizens from threats from foreign countries. State governments fill in the blanks.
I don't even know how to respond to the "purpose of a country". I suppose the purpose of the U.S. of A is an amalgamation of the purpose of each individual in the country, given that this country is "We, the People".
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
|
On September 17 2012 10:31 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:24 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden. ??? Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing? The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!! Don't get the wrong idea. I simply try to see both sides of the coin. I consider the phrase "but at what cost?". Ok, the government imposes laws and regulations to "protect the consumer". Is that good ? Maybe. What is the flipside to the coin ? Are rent controls good ? Are price controls good ? We'd all love to have $1.00 / gallon gasoline, but what would be the effects of that ? That's a hypothetical. Here's an actual. The minimum wage. I think it's about $7.25 / hour or somewhere in that neighborhood. Is this good ? I suppose you would say that's a worker protection, so it's good. I look at it as a restriction for unskilled laborers and new laborers to enter the market. It's also a restriction for people to start businesses that would require menial tasks to be performed, but can't justify $7.25 / hour, so that business never starts. Or perhaps it drives employment overseas where employers are not subject to such high wages. What's the unemployment rate among African-American, unskilled laborers in this country ? Pretty fucking high. Does minimum wage have something to do with that ? Yep. Not the entire cause, but it certainly doesn't help them any.
Err... so I don't get the point here. Obviously something like the minimum wage is about trying to balance between worker protection and unemployment issues.
And suddenly you're about 'seeing both sides of the coin'??? So far you have only said all the horrible things government does for anything and everything. That's all you've discussed so far. Now suddenly you're mister cost/benefit analysis? Bullshit.
|
On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Ermmm, that's not the only speech Obama has ever made.
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. The "one liner" is a complete distortion of what he said, since he was not talking about any business but about roads and bridges. I'm surprised it's even still brought up considering the amount of times it's been explained. And regarding the so-called "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", care to share examples? Sure, Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism" Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits" "fat cats" on wall st Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans.
Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years.
Articles like "The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and "No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda.
|
On September 17 2012 10:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:43 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 10:31 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:24 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments.
It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health.
Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden. ??? Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing? The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!! Don't get the wrong idea. I simply try to see both sides of the coin. I consider the phrase "but at what cost?". Ok, the government imposes laws and regulations to "protect the consumer". Is that good ? Maybe. What is the flipside to the coin ? Are rent controls good ? Are price controls good ? We'd all love to have $1.00 / gallon gasoline, but what would be the effects of that ? That's a hypothetical. Here's an actual. The minimum wage. I think it's about $7.25 / hour or somewhere in that neighborhood. Is this good ? I suppose you would say that's a worker protection, so it's good. I look at it as a restriction for unskilled laborers and new laborers to enter the market. It's also a restriction for people to start businesses that would require menial tasks to be performed, but can't justify $7.25 / hour, so that business never starts. Or perhaps it drives employment overseas where employers are not subject to such high wages. What's the unemployment rate among African-American, unskilled laborers in this country ? Pretty fucking high. Does minimum wage have something to do with that ? Yep. Not the entire cause, but it certainly doesn't help them any. Can I ask you something before I am inclined to throw a bunch of statistics at you? What is, in your opinion, the purpose of a country and government? In the U.S., we don't have just one government, we have many. The role of the Federal government is limited by the Constitution, but includes protecting citizens from threats from foreign countries. State governments fill in the blanks. I don't even know how to respond to the "purpose of a country". I suppose the purpose of the U.S. of A is an amalgamation of the purpose of each individual in the country, given that this country is "We, the People". http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
I'm curious too. What do you think the role of government should be? What you wrote here isn't an answer, and for somebody as opinionated as you, I feel like you have a very clear idea of what you think the government should and shouldn't be doing. Care to share with us what it is?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 10:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:43 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 10:31 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:24 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:20 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:03 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments.
It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health.
Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? And again, doctors decide what should go into healthcare. Not you. I have no idea why you think you have any authority on what should go into healthcare. I have authority on what should go into MY healthcare. A topic between me, my doctor, and my insurance provider. Everybody else can GTFO of that relationship. Under Obamacare, government bureaucrats can make decisions overriding this relationship, but don't worry, it affects you too. Well see just how kind the government is when "austerity" hits our shores and it affects government-funded healthcare. Healthcare, which when poorly provided, actually reduces future Social Security and Medicare outlays, ironically enough. Uhh... okay, that kind of goes against the whole idea of insurance. You don't just pay for your own healthcare. By definition, the insurance pays for other people's care with the income from your insurance. So to ask other people to get out of the relationship is just absolute nonsense. What you're suggesting is simply not getting health insurance, which means you're just a burden on our healthcare system. And I have no idea why you want insurance providers the ability to fuck you over in all sorts of ways. Unless you have an army of lawyers at your disposal, you don't stand a goddamn chance without some government checks. Don't be so naive to think that the government is there to help you, while a private insurance company is there to fuck you. They will both be in the same position in their relationship with you, and believe me, when you're going to get fucked, the government has a much bigger stick. Just ask Biden. ??? Man, this antagonistic relationship to the government just amazes me. Do you still stand by the whole "we aren't anarchists" thing? The government does a hell of a lot to protect consumers in this country. It's depressing how people like you take that for granted. Just because they also fuck things up does not mean they are some evil entity out to screw over the general populace. That's just republicans in government. OOOOHHHHHH!!!! Don't get the wrong idea. I simply try to see both sides of the coin. I consider the phrase "but at what cost?". Ok, the government imposes laws and regulations to "protect the consumer". Is that good ? Maybe. What is the flipside to the coin ? Are rent controls good ? Are price controls good ? We'd all love to have $1.00 / gallon gasoline, but what would be the effects of that ? That's a hypothetical. Here's an actual. The minimum wage. I think it's about $7.25 / hour or somewhere in that neighborhood. Is this good ? I suppose you would say that's a worker protection, so it's good. I look at it as a restriction for unskilled laborers and new laborers to enter the market. It's also a restriction for people to start businesses that would require menial tasks to be performed, but can't justify $7.25 / hour, so that business never starts. Or perhaps it drives employment overseas where employers are not subject to such high wages. What's the unemployment rate among African-American, unskilled laborers in this country ? Pretty fucking high. Does minimum wage have something to do with that ? Yep. Not the entire cause, but it certainly doesn't help them any. Can I ask you something before I am inclined to throw a bunch of statistics at you? What is, in your opinion, the purpose of a country and government? In the U.S., we don't have just one government, we have many. The role of the Federal government is limited by the Constitution, but includes protecting citizens from threats from foreign countries. State governments fill in the blanks. I don't even know how to respond to the "purpose of a country". I suppose the purpose of the U.S. of A is an amalgamation of the purpose of each individual in the country, given that this country is "We, the People". http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What?
|
On September 17 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 08:02 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
What was the point of his speech ? He is calling for support for higher taxes to support higher government spending. The fact that people translate "Roads are good" into "Government needs to spend more and more and more and more and tax more and more and more and more" is a sad reflection of the idiocracy this country is becoming, or maybe has already become.
In short, where is the line ? At what point would any of the liberals in this thread say "that is too much to tax". Where is the line of too much government spending ? Is there any thought whatsoever given to what the actual role of the Federal government should be limited to ? Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way. The economy is going to recover with or without deregulation... don't be a doomsayer. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Protecting consumers is good for the economy in the long run. I don't really know where this kind of simplistic "Regulations = Bad" mentality comes from...
Most likely the same place the "Regulations = Good" mentality came from.
|
On September 17 2012 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Oh okay, I guess that's fair then. Nevermind. It does, however, remind me of this graphic: At least the Democrats want to do something. You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat. Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way. The economy is going to recover with or without deregulation... don't be a doomsayer. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Protecting consumers is good for the economy in the long run. I don't really know where this kind of simplistic "Regulations = Bad" mentality comes from... Most likely the same place the "Regulations = Good" mentality came from.
Holy fuckchrist, I'm sick of these idiotic, simple-minded strawmen. I need a break from this thread.
Honestly, it's the second sentence in my post. In a post with four sentences.
Like... fuck, dude. I don't even understand people like you.
|
On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What?
Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide.
If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
