|
|
I think as much debt Obama has added to the USA...it would be dumb to re-elect him..i mean if you spend that much money and still fail and eco still going downward... There isn't any show of increase in jobs in US, or in the economy( that is a stable increase). I don't care for either but I just think with amount of power obama has in the US and inside of congress..we should have seen some improvement by now. Why i think just be waste of 4 years to give it to obama again while he gets rich out of putting rest of lower/mid class americans out of jobs..which eventually will make the rich lose money also, once no americans can spend to buy the items being produced by these rich peoples companies.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:18 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote: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. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw. Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't denounce the Constitution. I just think it's ignorant to believe in it as absolute (just as Muslims believe in their religion as absolute). It's dangerous and impedes progress. If everyone believed in the Constitution as absolute, it never would have been amended, then where would we be? btw I also don't believe America is the 'greatest democracy' in the history of the world. Richest? Yeah. Unrivaled military might? Yeah. But I'm an idealist. I believe the happiness of its citizens is what makes a country great. We, my friend, are far from the happiest. How can you seriously say that believing in the Constitution absolutely precludes amendment ? Amendment of the Constitution is part of the Constitution ... There is nothing more Constitutional than a Constitutional Amendment. Also, the Constitution is not a religion, it's the law. What is the greatest democracy in the history of the world, if not America ? It may not be perfect, as you agree, but it's better than any alternative.
If we were to believe in the Constitution absolutely, then we would never have any qualms as to its provisions, and would have no need to amend it. "Oh, look, the Constitution says we can impose a poll tax on you poor folk. Blame the Constitution, not us." But since we don't believe in it absolutely, and since the Constitution (with full intent from the founding fathers) is flexible and adapts to the needs of the people it represents, we amend it.
I do not know what the greatest democracy in the world is, but I do know a democracy so pervaded by money can never be the greatest democracy. I can tell you that there are plenty of democracies with higher standards of living, longevity, less money in politics, more representative of its people, and have higher average levels of happiness (apparently you can calculate that), but I don't know what the greatest is.
|
Why are you two arguing about the Constitution? The federal government of America has plenty of power under the Constitution. It has the commerce clause, it has to take care of the general welfare, blah blah blah. The actions of the federal government have been generally approved by the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitutionality of laws.
The restrictions we have on the federal government are not that unreasonable. There are some things that get a little iffy, of course, but we try to sort them out.
Just because the federal government does stupid bullshit doesn't mean that bullshit is unconstitutional.
The fact is that you totally just let Kaitlin dodge your question. You asked him what the government should do. He responded with the Constitution, which says what the government can do. Not what it should do.
|
On September 17 2012 12:29 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:18 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote: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. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw. Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't denounce the Constitution. I just think it's ignorant to believe in it as absolute (just as Muslims believe in their religion as absolute). It's dangerous and impedes progress. If everyone believed in the Constitution as absolute, it never would have been amended, then where would we be? btw I also don't believe America is the 'greatest democracy' in the history of the world. Richest? Yeah. Unrivaled military might? Yeah. But I'm an idealist. I believe the happiness of its citizens is what makes a country great. We, my friend, are far from the happiest. How can you seriously say that believing in the Constitution absolutely precludes amendment ? Amendment of the Constitution is part of the Constitution ... There is nothing more Constitutional than a Constitutional Amendment. Also, the Constitution is not a religion, it's the law. What is the greatest democracy in the history of the world, if not America ? It may not be perfect, as you agree, but it's better than any alternative. If you agree that amendments are part of the heart and soul of the constitution, then you also agree that the strength of the constitution is in its flexibility, and its ability to adapt to changing times. One of those changes is the role of the federal government. I respect your right to disagree with big government, but you can't go flinging the constitution in our faces as end-all proof that the federal government should never be allowed to fund programs to elevate its own citizens.
How do you get from:
a) Amendments being part of the heart and soul of the Constitution,
to:
b) ignoring the entire process of Constitutional Amendments in claiming some imaginary power of the federal government to fund programs ?
It seems to me that your argument is that such provisions are not in the Constitution, but can be allowed because the Constitution is flexible. Well, it's flexible via Amendment. No Amendy, no Flexy.
Ya know, part of the 'welfare' part refers to future generations. It's an absolute certainty, that future generations are being fucked by what people are doing, and have been doing.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:35 DoubleReed wrote:
Why are you two arguing about the Constitution? The federal government of America has plenty of power under the Constitution. It has the commerce clause, it has to take care of the general welfare, blah blah blah. The actions of the federal government have been generally approved by the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitutionality of laws.
The restrictions we have on the federal government are not that unreasonable. There are some things that get a little iffy, of course, but we try to sort them out.
Just because the federal government does stupid bullshit doesn't mean that bullshit is unconstitutional.
The fact is that you totally just let Kaitlin dodge your question. You asked him what the government should do. He responded with the Constitution, which says what the government can do. Not what it should do.
I was assuming he thought the government should do what the Constitution designed it to do. I just wanted to point out the fundamental flaw of that argument, regardless of what is actually in the Constitution.
|
On September 17 2012 12:35 DoubleReed wrote:
Why are you two arguing about the Constitution? The federal government of America has plenty of power under the Constitution. It has the commerce clause, it has to take care of the general welfare, blah blah blah. The actions of the federal government have been generally approved by the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitutionality of laws.
The restrictions we have on the federal government are not that unreasonable. There are some things that get a little iffy, of course, but we try to sort them out.
Just because the federal government does stupid bullshit doesn't mean that bullshit is unconstitutional.
The fact is that you totally just let Kaitlin dodge your question. You asked him what the government should do. He responded with the Constitution, which says what the government can do. Not what it should do.
I didn't dodge anything. What the government should do is limited by what it can do. Incidentally, pretty soon, what the government can do will be much less as our economy suffers the wrath of retard politics.
Also, as for greatest democracies, I propose that any 'high standard of living', 'happy' country in the world today would be decidedly less 'happy', with a lower standard of living if the U.S. were no longer in a position to defend their democracy.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:35 DoubleReed wrote:
Why are you two arguing about the Constitution? The federal government of America has plenty of power under the Constitution. It has the commerce clause, it has to take care of the general welfare, blah blah blah. The actions of the federal government have been generally approved by the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitutionality of laws.
The restrictions we have on the federal government are not that unreasonable. There are some things that get a little iffy, of course, but we try to sort them out.
Just because the federal government does stupid bullshit doesn't mean that bullshit is unconstitutional.
The fact is that you totally just let Kaitlin dodge your question. You asked him what the government should do. He responded with the Constitution, which says what the government can do. Not what it should do. I didn't dodge anything. What the government should do is limited by what it can do. Incidentally, pretty soon, what the government can do will be much less as our economy suffers the wrath of retard politics. Also, as for greatest democracies, I propose that any 'high standard of living', 'happy' country in the world today would be decidedly less 'happy', with a lower standard of living if the U.S. were no longer in a position to defend their democracy.
The U.S. has done a lot of good for the world in the World Wars. But we've fucked up as many countries as we've saved.
|
On September 17 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:29 rogzardo wrote:On September 17 2012 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:18 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote: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. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw. Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't denounce the Constitution. I just think it's ignorant to believe in it as absolute (just as Muslims believe in their religion as absolute). It's dangerous and impedes progress. If everyone believed in the Constitution as absolute, it never would have been amended, then where would we be? btw I also don't believe America is the 'greatest democracy' in the history of the world. Richest? Yeah. Unrivaled military might? Yeah. But I'm an idealist. I believe the happiness of its citizens is what makes a country great. We, my friend, are far from the happiest. How can you seriously say that believing in the Constitution absolutely precludes amendment ? Amendment of the Constitution is part of the Constitution ... There is nothing more Constitutional than a Constitutional Amendment. Also, the Constitution is not a religion, it's the law. What is the greatest democracy in the history of the world, if not America ? It may not be perfect, as you agree, but it's better than any alternative. If you agree that amendments are part of the heart and soul of the constitution, then you also agree that the strength of the constitution is in its flexibility, and its ability to adapt to changing times. One of those changes is the role of the federal government. I respect your right to disagree with big government, but you can't go flinging the constitution in our faces as end-all proof that the federal government should never be allowed to fund programs to elevate its own citizens. How do you get from: a) Amendments being part of the heart and soul of the Constitution, to: b) ignoring the entire process of Constitutional Amendments in claiming some imaginary power of the federal government to fund programs ? It seems to me that your argument is that such provisions are not in the Constitution, but can be allowed because the Constitution is flexible. Well, it's flexible via Amendment. No Amendy, no Flexy. Ya know, part of the 'welfare' part refers to future generations. It's an absolute certainty, that future generations are being fucked by what people are doing, and have been doing.
We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do.
|
On September 17 2012 12:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:35 DoubleReed wrote:
Why are you two arguing about the Constitution? The federal government of America has plenty of power under the Constitution. It has the commerce clause, it has to take care of the general welfare, blah blah blah. The actions of the federal government have been generally approved by the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitutionality of laws.
The restrictions we have on the federal government are not that unreasonable. There are some things that get a little iffy, of course, but we try to sort them out.
Just because the federal government does stupid bullshit doesn't mean that bullshit is unconstitutional.
The fact is that you totally just let Kaitlin dodge your question. You asked him what the government should do. He responded with the Constitution, which says what the government can do. Not what it should do. I didn't dodge anything. What the government should do is limited by what it can do. Incidentally, pretty soon, what the government can do will be much less as our economy suffers the wrath of retard politics.Also, as for greatest democracies, I propose that any 'high standard of living', 'happy' country in the world today would be decidedly less 'happy', with a lower standard of living if the U.S. were no longer in a position to defend their democracy.
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do.
|
On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do.
By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires.
So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo:
We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do.
|
On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: Show nested quote +We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do.
The ideal behind republicanism is that you delegate governance to the lowest practical level. Right now, the US federal government is massive and very bureaucratic. It's OK to promote progressive ideals, but not at the expense of regional power. The lower point at which you localize the power, you will have increased contentment amongst the people as government policies will more likely reflect their wishes.
|
On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: Show nested quote +We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do.
Is this really that hard to understand ? If a "Get the Fuck Out of the Way Act of 2012" bill were introduced, it would get Republican support. The government is not the reason an economy prospers. It is the people.
edit: It seems like people judge a Congress by how many new laws they can pass.
edit2:
Ok, you want a couple of examples of some laws I'd like to see passed, here are some:
1. Impose a 100% tax on political campaign contributions received. Mandate major TV networks provide time allotments for political candidates to get their message out, since they will no longer have campaign funds to use.
2. Impose a Warren Buffett tax on Warren Buffett. It excludes the Estate Tax Deduction for Charitable Contributions so this hypocrite can pay his fair share, instead of dictating that upon his death, the government gets $0. Fuck his hypocrasy (sp?).
3. Propose a Constitutional Amendment whereby every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate are ineligible from future elections if they do not pass a budget for the government every year. If they can't do their job, they should be ineligible for renewal.
4. Eliminate the tax-exempt status of all tax-exempt sources of interest income for all taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000. I'm tired of hearing the rich don't pay their fair share, so this will have the exact effect that I desire.
5. Require that all taxes paid by businesses are stated in the price of all goods and services sold. In other words, if there is a tax on sunbathing, the customer is separately made aware of the amount of this tax. This should raise some about lying politicians claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class.
6. Impose an excise tax on the production of motion pictures. Compensation paid in excess of $50,000 per production per person generates a surtax of 50%. This is an example where we can stick it to the rich without affecting the creation of jobs.
7. Open, but registered, immigration to anyone without a criminal record, provided they have a work sponsor. These immigrants will not be subject to the minimum wage. Not a path to citizenship, but a perpetually renewable work permit provided requirements continue to be met. A tax credit to employers for hiring such immigrants, if they are located in a non-right to work state.
That's a start.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 13:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do. The ideal behind republicanism is that you delegate governance to the lowest practical level. Right now, the US federal government is massive and very bureaucratic. It's OK to promote progressive ideals, but not at the expense of regional power. The lower point at which you localize the power, you will have increased contentment amongst the people as government policies will more likely reflect their wishes.
Yeah, I understand Republicanism. Was just wondering what you guys think the federal government should be doing. I do, for the most part, agree with Republicanism, but no one agrees on the 'lowest practical level.'
On September 17 2012 13:14 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do. Is this really that hard to understand ? If a "Get the Fuck Out of the Way Act of 2012" bill were introduced, it would get Republican support. The government is not the reason an economy prospers. It is the people. edit: It seems like people judge a Congress by how many new laws they can pass.
So your argument is an economy makes the country? Can I ask you then what is the point of having a good economy at the expense of individual satisfaction and standard of living? The general argument is that we want a good economy so people can have more money, and more money = more satisfaction, which is not totally off-target; however, wealth has been trickling upwards. The U.S. is now 5th in the world in terms of income inequality. Ever since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the introduction of the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1% have experienced over 80% of all income growth while the other 99% are fighting over bits. There was also a graph posted previously that showed the correlation between union strength and middle-class incomes, and as union power lessens, so do middle-class incomes.
So I ask you again. What is the purpose of the government? Is the government's job to "get the fuck out of the way" because better economy = more satisfaction when that obviously is not the case for the majority? Are we just happy if our numbers increase with disregard to the state of our citizenry?
1. Impose a 100% tax on political campaign contributions received. Mandate major TV networks provide time allotments for political candidates to get their message out, since they will no longer have campaign funds to use.
2. Impose a Warren Buffett tax on Warren Buffett. It excludes the Estate Tax Deduction for Charitable Contributions so this hypocrite can pay his fair share, instead of dictating that upon his death, the government gets $0. Fuck his hypocrasy (sp?).
3. Propose a Constitutional Amendment whereby every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate are ineligible from future elections if they do not pass a budget for the government every year. If they can't do their job, they should be ineligible for renewal.
4. Eliminate the tax-exempt status of all tax-exempt sources of interest income for all taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000. I'm tired of hearing the rich don't pay their fair share, so this will have the exact effect that I desire.
5. Require that all taxes paid by businesses are stated in the price of all goods and services sold. In other words, if there is a tax on sunbathing, the customer is separately made aware of the amount of this tax. This should raise some about lying politicians claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class.
Isn't this the opposite of 'getting the fuck out of the way' (aside from #3)?
|
On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote: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. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw.
Nobody has a "to hell with the constitution" view, at least nobody with any ideological traction. Most of the bad press that the constitution gets these days is backlash from Ron Paul style constitutional purists who treat the document as infallible doctrine similar to the Bible.
The constitution outlines how things are, not how they should be. I wish ideologues would stop confusing the two and start giving real world justifications for the direction our country should go.
|
On September 17 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 13:13 BluePanther wrote:On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do. The ideal behind republicanism is that you delegate governance to the lowest practical level. Right now, the US federal government is massive and very bureaucratic. It's OK to promote progressive ideals, but not at the expense of regional power. The lower point at which you localize the power, you will have increased contentment amongst the people as government policies will more likely reflect their wishes. Yeah, I understand Republicanism. Was just wondering what you guys think the federal government should be doing. I do, for the most part, agree with Republicanism, but no one agrees on the 'lowest practical level.' Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 13:14 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do. Is this really that hard to understand ? If a "Get the Fuck Out of the Way Act of 2012" bill were introduced, it would get Republican support. The government is not the reason an economy prospers. It is the people. edit: It seems like people judge a Congress by how many new laws they can pass. So your argument is an economy makes the country? Can I ask you then what is the point of having a good economy at the expensive of individual satisfaction and standard of living? The general argument is that we want a good economy so people can have more money, and more money = more satisfaction, which is not totally off-target; however, wealth has been trickling upwards. The U.S. is now 5th in the world in terms of income inequality. Ever since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the introduction of the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1% have experienced over 80% of all income growth while the other 99% are fighting over bits. There was also a graph posted previously that showed the correlation between union strength and middle-class incomes, and as union power lessens, so do middle-class incomes. So I ask you again. What is the purpose of the government? Is the government's job to "get the fuck out of the way" because better economy = more satisfaction when that obviously is not the case for the majority? Are we just happy if our numbers increase with disregard to the state of our citizenry? Show nested quote +1. Impose a 100% tax on political campaign contributions received. Mandate major TV networks provide time allotments for political candidates to get their message out, since they will no longer have campaign funds to use.
2. Impose a Warren Buffett tax on Warren Buffett. It excludes the Estate Tax Deduction for Charitable Contributions so this hypocrite can pay his fair share, instead of dictating that upon his death, the government gets $0. Fuck his hypocrasy (sp?).
3. Propose a Constitutional Amendment whereby every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate are ineligible from future elections if they do not pass a budget for the government every year. If they can't do their job, they should be ineligible for renewal.
4. Eliminate the tax-exempt status of all tax-exempt sources of interest income for all taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000. I'm tired of hearing the rich don't pay their fair share, so this will have the exact effect that I desire.
5. Require that all taxes paid by businesses are stated in the price of all goods and services sold. In other words, if there is a tax on sunbathing, the customer is separately made aware of the amount of this tax. This should raise some about lying politicians claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class. Isn't this the opposite of 'getting the fuck out of the way' (aside from #3)?
No, not at all.
#1 helps get the money out of politics. Money in politics is why politicians want to pass so many laws to pay back their contributors and corruptors. This helps get the government out of the way.
#2 undoes a law creating a tax deduction for the rich, so undoing a law, is getting out of the way.
#4 is similar to #2. It undoes a law creating a tax exempt source of income, and therefore is getting out of the way.
#5 gives people a heads up to exactly how many ways from Sunday we are getting fucked. It raises awareness of just how up in our "stuff" the government is. It prevents politicians from claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class, when that is exactly what they are doing.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 13:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 13:13 BluePanther wrote:On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do. The ideal behind republicanism is that you delegate governance to the lowest practical level. Right now, the US federal government is massive and very bureaucratic. It's OK to promote progressive ideals, but not at the expense of regional power. The lower point at which you localize the power, you will have increased contentment amongst the people as government policies will more likely reflect their wishes. Yeah, I understand Republicanism. Was just wondering what you guys think the federal government should be doing. I do, for the most part, agree with Republicanism, but no one agrees on the 'lowest practical level.' On September 17 2012 13:14 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 12:51 aksfjh wrote:
Exactly. When Republicans keep getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades, aka "retard politics," the economy suffers. The biggest regulatory/tax uncertainty we face comes from their brinkmanship and refusal to compromise on things Congress has HAD the power to do. By "getting in the way of what government can do and has been doing for decades", you wouldn't be referring to something called 'VOTING', would you ? You want those policies win back a majority in the House, maintain it in the Senate and keep the Presidency. Otherwise, don't expect a significant enough portion of the country to hold one of those three to just roll over to your desires. So, this brings us back to our original argument. What are Republicans voting for? What do they think the federal government should be doing? Quoting rogzardo: We asked you what you think role of government should be. You said, here is the constitution. The constitution says the role of the government is flexible.
Now we're back where we started. You don't want to tell us what you think the role of the federal government is. For someone as opinionated and aggressive as you, its odd that you won't state what you actually think the government should do. Is this really that hard to understand ? If a "Get the Fuck Out of the Way Act of 2012" bill were introduced, it would get Republican support. The government is not the reason an economy prospers. It is the people. edit: It seems like people judge a Congress by how many new laws they can pass. So your argument is an economy makes the country? Can I ask you then what is the point of having a good economy at the expensive of individual satisfaction and standard of living? The general argument is that we want a good economy so people can have more money, and more money = more satisfaction, which is not totally off-target; however, wealth has been trickling upwards. The U.S. is now 5th in the world in terms of income inequality. Ever since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the introduction of the Bush Tax Cuts, the top 1% have experienced over 80% of all income growth while the other 99% are fighting over bits. There was also a graph posted previously that showed the correlation between union strength and middle-class incomes, and as union power lessens, so do middle-class incomes. So I ask you again. What is the purpose of the government? Is the government's job to "get the fuck out of the way" because better economy = more satisfaction when that obviously is not the case for the majority? Are we just happy if our numbers increase with disregard to the state of our citizenry? 1. Impose a 100% tax on political campaign contributions received. Mandate major TV networks provide time allotments for political candidates to get their message out, since they will no longer have campaign funds to use.
2. Impose a Warren Buffett tax on Warren Buffett. It excludes the Estate Tax Deduction for Charitable Contributions so this hypocrite can pay his fair share, instead of dictating that upon his death, the government gets $0. Fuck his hypocrasy (sp?).
3. Propose a Constitutional Amendment whereby every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate are ineligible from future elections if they do not pass a budget for the government every year. If they can't do their job, they should be ineligible for renewal.
4. Eliminate the tax-exempt status of all tax-exempt sources of interest income for all taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000. I'm tired of hearing the rich don't pay their fair share, so this will have the exact effect that I desire.
5. Require that all taxes paid by businesses are stated in the price of all goods and services sold. In other words, if there is a tax on sunbathing, the customer is separately made aware of the amount of this tax. This should raise some about lying politicians claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class. Isn't this the opposite of 'getting the fuck out of the way' (aside from #3)? No, not at all. #1 helps get the money out of politics. Money in politics is why politicians want to pass so many laws to pay back their contributors and corruptors. This helps get the government out of the way. #2 undoes a law creating a tax deduction for the rich, so undoing a law, is getting out of the way. #4 is similar to #2. It undoes a law creating a tax exempt source of income, and therefore is getting out of the way. #5 gives people a heads up to exactly how many ways from Sunday we are getting fucked. It raises awareness of just how up in our "stuff" the government is. It prevents politicians from claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class, when that is exactly what they are doing.
Yeah, if you put it like that it's getting out of the way. To the people on the receiving end, though...
|
Constitution talks zzz....
Hey where did that "Noncarpet" guy go? His sheer one dimensional view of the world was pretty entertaining!
|
So I ask you again. What is the purpose of the government? Is the government's job to "get the fuck out of the way" because better economy = more satisfaction when that obviously is not the case for the majority? Are we just happy if our numbers increase with disregard to the state of our citizenry? Show nested quote +1. Impose a 100% tax on political campaign contributions received. Mandate major TV networks provide time allotments for political candidates to get their message out, since they will no longer have campaign funds to use.
2. Impose a Warren Buffett tax on Warren Buffett. It excludes the Estate Tax Deduction for Charitable Contributions so this hypocrite can pay his fair share, instead of dictating that upon his death, the government gets $0. Fuck his hypocrasy (sp?).
3. Propose a Constitutional Amendment whereby every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate are ineligible from future elections if they do not pass a budget for the government every year. If they can't do their job, they should be ineligible for renewal.
4. Eliminate the tax-exempt status of all tax-exempt sources of interest income for all taxpayers with AGI in excess of $250,000. I'm tired of hearing the rich don't pay their fair share, so this will have the exact effect that I desire.
5. Require that all taxes paid by businesses are stated in the price of all goods and services sold. In other words, if there is a tax on sunbathing, the customer is separately made aware of the amount of this tax. This should raise some about lying politicians claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class. Isn't this the opposite of 'getting the fuck out of the way' (aside from #3)?
May I just get this out there that this is exactly true. The measures proposed limit freedom and GETS government in the way. Government stands in the way of citizens banding together into assemblies and uniting their voices in the form of purchased television/radio/internet ads to get their message and whatever candidate is supporting their message out there. 1. is IN THE WAY in this manner.
2. Warren Buffet is entitled to keep as much property as is his under taxation law. He is entitled to give as much of it away as he chooses. He is entitled to share any scatter-brained notion about progressive taxes, politics, and baggy suits as he wants. A tax on hypocrisy is hypocritical for you:"Get the Fuck Out of the Way Act of 2012" You are now in the way of Mr. Buffet and his free speech.
3. Making a law to try to force Congressman to pass a law is a fool's errand. Congress already operates on continuing resolutions while they debate a budget proposal that the President MUST submit (See link for full story). Pretending that the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and others were just written wrong will not help you. They already skirt the rules, and though you cannot conceive it, any attempt to force them out of office to skirt the rules WILL lead to more skirting of the rules on that one. (More likely, loopholes will be introduced in your legislation cleverly because everybody knows they will like help when people seek to remove them from office ... picture an "Emergency Clause" for extreme cases being liberally applied.
4. Choosing to keep more freedoms of the middle and poor while abridging the freedoms of the rich is Getting The *(*& Out of the Way ACT? 5. Forcing the customer to become better informed isn't close to being a good way of going about it. If it was written that 0.00374 cents of this price is taxes the business is paying on profits generated by this item to the federal government and 0.00263 cents to state and 1.6$ is from sales tax due to the state sales taxes aint helping anybody ... its hurting business. It's costing businesses manpower time dividing their tax burden into every product and service they sell, then printing up the signs on it on their packaging. Adjusted every year or every time taxes go up? That's significant cost. That's not a government getting out of the way, that's a government getting very much in the way for the stated purpose or goal of getting out of the way.
And the response:
No, not at all.
#1 helps get the money out of politics. Money in politics is why politicians want to pass so many laws to pay back their contributors and corruptors. This helps get the government out of the way.
#2 undoes a law creating a tax deduction for the rich, so undoing a law, is getting out of the way.
#4 is similar to #2. It undoes a law creating a tax exempt source of income, and therefore is getting out of the way.
#5 gives people a heads up to exactly how many ways from Sunday we are getting fucked. It raises awareness of just how up in our "stuff" the government is. It prevents politicians from claiming they aren't raising taxes on the middle class, when that is exactly what they are doing.
1b. I'll repeat myself here, but give an example. One man standing on the street corner with his sign supporting his cause would be legal, but cost himself the money he'd rather earn working. One man finding 20 friends that can stay working convincing candidates that their views are right and spending money to advance their views carried by the candidate is illegal. You can't take money out of politics by passing the law prohibiting campaign contributions without denying people their free speech rights. Simultaneously, every media member preserves their right to get on the air and promote or attack whichever party or candidate they so choose or like and may claim they were doing it in the name of Fairness and Balance or make no such claims whatsoever.
2b. If you aren't prepared to repeal the tax deduction for all charitable contributions, and instead only for one type, then you are making government the ballplayer in which contributions it deigns to keep legal. This is more meddling. Government picks the winners and the losers, and that hypocritical 18 year old that gives 20$ to the food kitchen ... he's going to pay his fair share because I'm the rich man and he doesn't deserve the charitable deduction off his general income tax!
4b. Again, the government is the ballplayer in how much money we take and why. If I make 3 cents less than whatever amount is "TOO RICH FOR ME!" then I lose my lawful right to deduct charitable contributions I just made to UNICEF and the University of California system. And somebody from the upper 50% can apply the same logic (Hey, man, that dude claimed an EVIL TAX EXEMPTION. Johnny that bags for Supermarket Chain, you now gotta pay taxes on that money you earned that went to gas!). You're the ballplayer, and if you're TOO RICH or TOO POOR or WHATEVER ELSE WE DEEM IS A PROBLEM, I'm gonna make darn well sure you're punished.
TL;DR: When you set new thresholds for things like deductions and not repeal them across the board, you're being meddlesome, discriminatory, and ad hoc or arbitrary.
5b. I'd say enacting education policies teaching about the history of taxation in America and letting them make their own decisions is the non-meddling way to do it. Yes, it would be great if everybody in America knew basic economics, and the impact that income taxes & rates and sales taxes impact. The sales tax for your state is 5 seconds on google, any surcharges for your county/city might take you 10 seconds. Your phone can multiply (1 - That) by (The price of the good) to discover that 30 cents more you paid from it. Forcing businesses to print that is a poor way to GET OUT OF THE WAY.
We're being more meddlesome and arbitrary for the stated purpose of become less meddlesome. It will not end well. You have a vision where the rich and powerful are disproportionately to blame for serious societal ills, claim enacting laws enforced by government are a way of getting both them and government out of the way, and picture a resulting betterment in conditions as the logical result. I see nothing of the kind but worse conditions than prior and more license for additional meddling by the next noble, wise guy identifying problems and forcing others to follow his fixes instead of letting people do what they want to do.
|
On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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.
I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
