Dems and taxes

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: blackangst1
How come any time a thread questioning Republicans comes up, and someone says "yeah but look at the Democrats", most on this board snap back with accusations of deflection, yet when a thread comes up questioning Democrats, they do the same thing?

and GOP supporters come in and decry deflection....just the same as the Dem supporters. There is no difference in either side when it comes to actions like this.

So why are 90% of the posters on this board incapable of sticking with the topic?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: blackangst1
How come any time a thread questioning Republicans comes up, and someone says "yeah but look at the Democrats", most on this board snap back with accusations of deflection, yet when a thread comes up questioning Democrats, they do the same thing?

and GOP supporters come in and decry deflection....just the same as the Dem supporters. There is no difference in either side when it comes to actions like this.

So why are 90% of the posters on this board incapable of sticking with the topic?

Because the R's want to blame the D's and the D's want to blame the R's. The other 10% are Libertarians!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

With the Republicans? That won't go over well at all. Bush was, after all, the President who doubled the size and cost of Medicare.

Why do you guys actually believe that 'Republicans want small government' bullshit that right-wing radio sells? And then constantly apologize for them when the exact opposite occurs in real life?

Who says I believe that bullshit?? When have I apologized for them?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

With the Republicans? That won't go over well at all. Bush was, after all, the President who doubled the size and cost of Medicare.

Why do you guys actually believe that 'Republicans want small government' bullshit that right-wing radio sells? And then constantly apologize for them when the exact opposite occurs in real life?

Who says I believe that bullshit?? When have I apologized for them?

Sorry, I must have confused you for PJ.

Anyway, social programs are not the obvious first place to cut. For 2 reasons. One, they are burdens on society regardless. The only argument is who pays. Two, given a situation of vast wealth disparity, societies are compelled to placate their desperate poor in some fashion in order to maintain social order and keep crime down. Usually govts choose between 'social programs,' which function as a kind of bribery, or between jackbooted 'law-and-order.' We do both in this country, although I prefer the way we always talk about but have really never tried, equal opportunity capitalism.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, I must have confused you for PJ.

Anyway, social programs are not the obvious first place to cut. For 2 reasons. One, they are burdens on society regardless. The only argument is who pays. Two, given a situation of vast wealth disparity, societies are compelled to placate their desperate poor in some fashion in order to maintain social order and keep crime down. Usually govts choose between 'social programs,' which function as a kind of bribery, or between jackbooted 'law-and-order.' We do both in this country, although I prefer the way we always talk about but have really never tried, equal opportunity capitalism.

So your belief is without the social programs we would have riots from the poor who attack the rich?
I understand what you're saying, but I do not believe it myself. Our country made it a long time without social programs with very little problems.

The problem isnt the income gaps or wealth concentrations, the problem is tne entitlement mentality that affects so many in this country.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ron Paul didn't deliver babies, he read them the constitution and they crawled out looking for the freedom offered to them, get it right.

Well, it's a good thing the first thing they didn't hear is McCain's policy on Iraq. They would have crawled back in and asked to be aborted.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, I must have confused you for PJ.

Anyway, social programs are not the obvious first place to cut. For 2 reasons. One, they are burdens on society regardless. The only argument is who pays. Two, given a situation of vast wealth disparity, societies are compelled to placate their desperate poor in some fashion in order to maintain social order and keep crime down. Usually govts choose between 'social programs,' which function as a kind of bribery, or between jackbooted 'law-and-order.' We do both in this country, although I prefer the way we always talk about but have really never tried, equal opportunity capitalism.

So your belief is without the social programs we would have riots from the poor who attack the rich?
I understand what you're saying, but I do not believe it myself. Our country made it a long time without social programs with very little problems.

The problem isnt the income gaps or wealth concentrations, the problem is tne entitlement mentality that affects so many in this country.

Entitlement mentality by who? The rich or the poor? I'm never quite sure... except that I know that the middle class are constantly getting squeezed by each side.

And I wasn't talking about riots, just crime. Which has been rampant in our country since... its founding, I'd say. Even a cursory look back at the history of crime in America is hardly what I would call 'very little problems.'
And like I said, the 2 ways we deal with it are welfare and jackboots. Either way costs about the same and serves the rich more than anyone else.

 

[ProfJohn]

Vic, we don't have to 'cut' anything. We just have to limit the growth in spending.

In 2008 the government will take in around $500 billion more than it did in 2000 if Bush had kept a lid on spending we wouldn't have a deficit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic, we don't have to 'cut' anything. We just have to limit the growth in spending.

In 2008 the government will take in around $500 billion more than it did in 2000 if Bush had kept a lid on spending we wouldn't have a deficit.

Even in some fantasy world where a Republican President does keep a lid on spending (which hasn't happened since Coolidge IIRC), he'd just cut taxes by the same amount and grow the deficit accordingly.

C'mon, this is simple 2-column accounting here. You can balance your checkbook, right? I wonder sometimes...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic, we don't have to 'cut' anything. We just have to limit the growth in spending.

In 2008 the government will take in around $500 billion more than it did in 2000 if Bush had kept a lid on spending we wouldn't have a deficit.

I remember when Mulla Nasrudin, before he went out of business, got the bright idea he could save money raising donkeys by limiting the amount he spent of feed. Nice to know PJ is as bright as the Mulla.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski
Raising Taxes is a key part of Deficit elimination.

The other key part is lowering spending. Which one is more beneficial to the avg person and the economy?

Sadly neither party is interested in giving up control of the money we make and are forced at the barrel of a gun to send them.

True, you do both together.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski
Raising Taxes is a key part of Deficit elimination.

The other key part is lowering spending. Which one is more beneficial to the avg person and the economy?

Sadly neither party is interested in giving up control of the money we make and are forced at the barrel of a gun to send them.

True, you do both together.

I'm ready to use the gun on the next person who uses the overblown wingnut cliche about all taxes being 'at the barrel of a gun'.

Let the lords of the flies go find an island to turn into a no-tax utopia and kill each other in the poverty and chaos.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

With the Republicans? That won't go over well at all. Bush was, after all, the President who doubled the size and cost of Medicare.

Why do you guys actually believe that 'Republicans want small government' bullshit that right-wing radio sells? And then constantly apologize for them when the exact opposite occurs in real life?

You dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

First I will point out, the Democrats own plan was just as costly as the Bush plan.

Second Medicare is a $50trillion problem over the next couple decades, Bush didnt do much to add to it.

Im just going to leave it at that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

First I will point out, the Democrats own plan was just as costly as the Bush plan.

Democrats wouldn't give away $150B of taxpayers's (borrowed from China) money to the drug companies on top of the normal profits by outlawing negotiating the prices.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So why are 90% of the posters on this board incapable of sticking with the topic?

Because it's an obvious flame bait troll post.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Vic
The Pubs have no intention of cutting spending. They haven't spent your great-great-great-grandchildren's tax cuts yet.

Based on percentage of budget the obvious plaace to start cutting is in social programs.
How well do you think that will go over?

With the Republicans? That won't go over well at all. Bush was, after all, the President who doubled the size and cost of Medicare.

Why do you guys actually believe that 'Republicans want small government' bullshit that right-wing radio sells? And then constantly apologize for them when the exact opposite occurs in real life?

You dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

First I will point out, the Democrats own plan was just as costly as the Bush plan.

Second Medicare is a $50trillion problem over the next couple decades, Bush didnt do much to add to it.

Im just going to leave it at that.

I don't see how what you're saying is relevant to my point that the Pubs are no more willing to cut social spending than the Dems. Thanks for the tone though.