That's your opinion. Conservatives think it is rational policy, liberals do not. That is why there are different political parties.
That's your opinion. Conservatives think it is rational policy, liberals do not. That is why there are different political parties.
Nope. American. Why do I care? Because it's becoming the most overused argument against the news.
Oh but I there are many books and websites all dedicated to liberal bias in the media. The only way you might think they aren't is if you are liberal and see everything through a liberal 'filter.'
Raising taxes is not a liberal policy. Creating social programs that will require raising taxes to support them is a liberal policy. Raising taxes is the fiscallly responsible approach to balancing the budget if cuts do not sufficiently work to sustain government. Taxes by themselves do not make the policy liberal, it's the services rendered that do.
I'm quite liberal(socially), and I honestly do not want to see taxes raised at all. Not my taxes, at least. However, we can use some of the money from the millionaires though. You know, as a patriotic jesture perhaps. We are your fellow Americans.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
That's what I thought you would say. Who gives a flying fvck where the money comes from as long as "I" don't have to pay for it. Typical......typical....and not suprising.
I do think that they matter and as far as I'm concerned, cut the goddamned services to the bone (hell, eliminate them all) to cut spending or raise taxes. The borrowing in this country is ridiculous.
*sigh*
I never denied instances of bias occuring. But the original quotes you put up don't seem like bias to me. And yes, I know there are plenty of sites devoted to the whole media slant thing.
Heh. Using the old "Liberal Bias in the Press" to segue into the usual anti-tax song and dance isn't working, taggart.
If anything, it's backfired, and raised related questions that you don't want to deal with, illustrating the contradictions in Repub governance, not the least of which is waging war and long term occupation while simultaneously cutting taxes, a feat never before attempted.
"Only Liberals want to raise taxes" is an extremely misleading premise. Only the current repub leadership and their fanbois want to have it both ways- big govt and low taxes, which is impossible in the long run. Budget cutters pretty much run away, as you did earlier, when confronted with the truth about spending and borrowing and taxes, which are really all the same subject. The public will accept tax increases if required, particularly on those who can best afford to pay them, which is precisely why the Repubs are trying so desperately to avoid the subject. Their basic strategy is dependent on political money from those same people, who won't come across quite so generously if they have to pay more in taxes.... The public will want to see a reduction in pork in exchange for those higher taxes, something else that the current repub leadership can't and won't deliver- it's part and parcel of the quid pro quo mentioned above...
Better to face up to the fact that Repubs can't, won't deliver as promised. They never had any intention of doing what they've promised. Do it now, rather than later, when the biggest single expense for the federal govt is debt maintenance... We still have a lot of choices, not paying our debts will never be one of them.
If anything, it's backfired, and raised related questions that you don't want to deal with, illustrating the contradictions in Repub governance, not the least of which is waging war and long term occupation while simultaneously cutting taxes, a feat never before attempted.
"Only Liberals want to raise taxes" is an extremely misleading premise. Only the current repub leadership and their fanbois want to have it both ways- big govt and low taxes, which is impossible in the long run. Budget cutters pretty much run away, as you did earlier, when confronted with the truth about spending and borrowing and taxes, which are really all the same subject. The public will accept tax increases if required, particularly on those who can best afford to pay them, which is precisely why the Repubs are trying so desperately to avoid the subject. Their basic strategy is dependent on political money from those same people, who won't come across quite so generously if they have to pay more in taxes.... The public will want to see a reduction in pork in exchange for those higher taxes, something else that the current repub leadership can't and won't deliver- it's part and parcel of the quid pro quo mentioned above...
Better to face up to the fact that Repubs can't, won't deliver as promised. They never had any intention of doing what they've promised. Do it now, rather than later, when the biggest single expense for the federal govt is debt maintenance... We still have a lot of choices, not paying our debts will never be one of them.
And what do you think is going to happen if they continue to spend like they do without raising taxes now? All we're doing right now is borrowing from developing countries. It eventually needs to be paid back.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: ysperalda
That's evidence of liberal bias?Nice try. That sounds to me like they are doing their jobs. I guess you prefer them to not ask where all the money is going to come from. Or perhaps you prefer to just not raise taxes altogether and let future generations deal with the current deficit. Bush has expanded the government, not liberals.
You didn't read the thread did you? They only ask about taxes, no other alternatives. They are reporting, and the public would think raising taxes is the only answer.
He's supposed to be an unbiased reporter. His show is not designed for him to make biased commentary. If you were to ask ABC, he is an unbiased newsman.
Thank you for reinforcing my claim that the media does have a liberal bias. Why in the hell is a former Clinton-aide a journalist, and supposed to be taken seriously?
So are you calling for us to leave Iraq this week or next?
Your attempt to troll has nothing to do with the OP.
Yes it does, and it leaves you in a conundrum. If you want an interventionist policy you have to pay for it, or borrow and the sky is the limit. Or you can raise taxes. You find yourself in a bind because you have two opposing goals. The third alternative is not worth considering, because you already know from your OP that it's not a good choice or you would have given it. That leaves you with the possible suggestion of cutting social spending, but then I would counter that you would have to eliminate programs that have in fact helped people, while you cannot show with certainty that the war in Iraq has saved one US life. Not one. US tax dollars benefiting US tax payers.
So you have a choice of what to cut. What has helped people, or something that you cannot show has benefited the US in tangible, concrete sense. It's all maybes for the war. Multi-hundred billon dollar maybes.
Now you want a war and you don't want to pay for it. You certainly have carved out the perfect argument for why people ought to seriously consider taxes, and THAT is why it is relevent to your post.
Oh common man stop lying war has too benefitted some.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
I think we needs a big cut in law enforcement and defense, so I can start selling crack and robbing rich. That'll help cut the deficit, and even things out a bit.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: ysperalda
That's evidence of liberal bias?
You didn't read the thread did you? They only ask about taxes, no other alternatives. They are reporting, and the public would think raising taxes is the only answer.
He's supposed to be an unbiased reporter. His show is not designed for him to make biased commentary. If you were to ask ABC, he is an unbiased newsman.
Thank you for reinforcing my claim that the media does have a liberal bias. Why in the hell is a former Clinton-aide a journalist, and supposed to be taken seriously?
So are you calling for us to leave Iraq this week or next?
Your attempt to troll has nothing to do with the OP.
Yes it does, and it leaves you in a conundrum. If you want an interventionist policy you have to pay for it, or borrow and the sky is the limit. Or you can raise taxes. You find yourself in a bind because you have two opposing goals. The third alternative is not worth considering, because you already know from your OP that it's not a good choice or you would have given it. That leaves you with the possible suggestion of cutting social spending, but then I would counter that you would have to eliminate programs that have in fact helped people, while you cannot show with certainty that the war in Iraq has saved one US life. Not one. US tax dollars benefiting US tax payers.
So you have a choice of what to cut. What has helped people, or something that you cannot show has benefited the US in tangible, concrete sense. It's all maybes for the war. Multi-hundred billon dollar maybes.
Now you want a war and you don't want to pay for it. You certainly have carved out the perfect argument for why people ought to seriously consider taxes, and THAT is why it is relevent to your post.
Oh common man stop lying war has too benefitted some.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
I made money WOOT!!! It was a sure thing.
Maybe I should go around following people half my age, post the same trite lies and accusations, and repeat, again, and again, and again, and again. I guess I wouldn't be trolling anymore then, eh?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
So it's okay that GWB is about to cut spending on social programs to bail out Katrina victims? That these programs which field more social workers and teachers to help in the inner-cities are less important than keeping YOUR taxes low? I'm sorry, but the wealthiest section of America's society has clearly demonstrated that they do not know how to spend the millions they make every year. And, while they go out and buy their 4th house, we have children who aren't receiving good educations, families without homes, and people going hungry.
How else are we going to raise the money we need to help the 37 million people that now live below the poverty line in America? Or is that just social darwinism? The strongest survive while the weak suffer what they must? I mean, parts of our country are rotting from the inside-out and you can blame the people in those situations all you want, but the reality is they have no opportunities, no chances, and no hope. How are we being responsible citizens if we cannot provide for our own? How long are we going to allow the gap between rich and poor to grow in this country?
Taxing the rich isn't fair. There is no real justification for making certain people pay more to the government than others, except that the wealthiest people in this country are financially irresponsible. That isn't to say our current administration is more responsible, but I would hope in the future a government would raise taxes, particularly those of the wealthiest in this country, to increase services to the poor.
Americans don't like paying taxes, but we are now being rediculous. The US has one of the LOWEST tax rates of 'developed' nations. In countries like Israel a wealthy person can wind up giving more than 60% of their income to the government, most of which goes to funding public services. So, before everyone gets bent out of shape about a possible tax increase, let's keep it in perspective.
How else are we going to raise the money we need to help the 37 million people that now live below the poverty line in America? Or is that just social darwinism? The strongest survive while the weak suffer what they must? I mean, parts of our country are rotting from the inside-out and you can blame the people in those situations all you want, but the reality is they have no opportunities, no chances, and no hope. How are we being responsible citizens if we cannot provide for our own? How long are we going to allow the gap between rich and poor to grow in this country?
Taxing the rich isn't fair. There is no real justification for making certain people pay more to the government than others, except that the wealthiest people in this country are financially irresponsible. That isn't to say our current administration is more responsible, but I would hope in the future a government would raise taxes, particularly those of the wealthiest in this country, to increase services to the poor.
Americans don't like paying taxes, but we are now being rediculous. The US has one of the LOWEST tax rates of 'developed' nations. In countries like Israel a wealthy person can wind up giving more than 60% of their income to the government, most of which goes to funding public services. So, before everyone gets bent out of shape about a possible tax increase, let's keep it in perspective.
I find the usage of 'increasing debt' being equivalent to 'paying for something' to be fairly disturbing.
I mean it's worked so far, but something about the idea of spending far more than you earn each year by putting things on credit card, and seeing raising the credit limit as being equivalent to earning more income seems wrong when applied at a national level.
But, Velk, we absolutely need these things!
Thank goodness for those fiscally responsible GOP members of Congress, right? It's sad how much of a joke they are, yet still manage to get so many people to follow them blindly. I guess that's why the Democrats have such a weak following compared to the GOP; they realized how much of a joke their party is a while ago.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Let me sum this thread up:
(O/P): OH noes libruhl bias, they wanna *gasp* raise taxes
(General Population): O/P knows jack about macro economics. Since we're not gonna cut down spending, taxes will have to be raised in the future to ballance the budget.
(O/P): But but but O'Reailly says libruhls this and that...
(O/P): OH noes libruhl bias, they wanna *gasp* raise taxes
(General Population): O/P knows jack about macro economics. Since we're not gonna cut down spending, taxes will have to be raised in the future to ballance the budget.
(O/P): But but but O'Reailly says libruhls this and that...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter