• New York Times: Obama Coalition Is Fraying, Poll Finds
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strider*;25715872]So you don't think politics need to be discussed? You think that you are the sultan of all great knowledge in the world and you can't possibly be wrong? This is why we need moderation in politics let's debate things and not label them so clearly as right/wrong. As long as people believe two different conclusions about one thing there is room for debate. What's next FDR's social programs "don't deserve to be discussed, they were probably one of the most destructive decisions any modern president ever made"? No. Let's talk about things here I know this is a mostly a democratic favored forum but can we at least talk about things? [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] Okay well how about this.. Why do you think Reaganomics didn't work? Do you have any evidence? Or are your thoughts on it all theorized? What were the direct results of Reaganomics which you disagree with? I'm honestly intrigued and I'd like to learn if you can attempt to enlighten.[/QUOTE] No, but it's damage is well documented. To consider re instituting that... it's just ridiculous. I agree we should talk about it, but frankly, it's shitty one way or the other about it.
No, it has been discussed to death, and most non-partisan economists agree it is one of the worst ways to structure your economy.
[QUOTE=5killer;25715999]No, it has been discussed to death, and most non-partisan economists agree it is one of the worst ways to structure your economy.[/QUOTE] Can there really be such thing as a non-partisan economist? You'd figure they'd side one way or the other.. Fiscal liberal or fiscal conservative at least to some degree.
[QUOTE=Strider*;25716034]Can there really be such thing as a non-partisan economist? You'd figure they'd side one way or the other.. Fiscal liberal or fiscal conservative at least to some degree.[/QUOTE] Or you know, not be between only one of two parties, there are more than 2.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25716055]Or you know, not be between only one of two parties, there are more than 2.[/QUOTE] Did I say anything about parties?
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;25710193][url]http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/[/url] The deficit has been growing at a steady rate of 4 billion dollars a day, for 3 years. As of october 24, 2008, the debt was 10 trillion. As of october 28, 2010, the debt is 13.6 trillion. Deficit has not gone down. The stimulus did create 3 million jobs, however it could not stem the rate at which unemployment was still rising.[/QUOTE] :byodood:
[QUOTE=Strider*;25716173]Did I say anything about parties?[/QUOTE] The fuck do you think "partisan" means?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25716245]The fuck do you think "partisan" means?[/QUOTE] What I was trying to say that in any party you can organize their theory of economy into two very broad brackets free market (fiscal conservative) and controlled market (fiscal liberal).
[QUOTE=Strider*;25716278]What I was trying to say that in any party you can organize their theory of economy into two very broad brackets free market (fiscal conservative) and controlled market (fiscal liberal).[/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure an economist can entertain an idea without accepting it, no?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25716362]I'm fairly sure an economist can entertain an idea without accepting it, no?[/QUOTE] Haha why do you try so hard to attack me? And yes they absolutely could that's why they debate and argue frequently..
[QUOTE=Strider*;25716386]Haha why do you try so hard to attack me? And yes they absolutely could that's why they debate and argue frequently..[/QUOTE] If that's attacking you, then I don't want to know what actually going at you looks like. And yeah, most of them agree that it's a bad idea. Most of them look at the evidence and all the history and conclude it was incredibly damaging.
Flat tax is best tax. Tax every single person the same percentage. That, or a VAT tax on purchases, and that alone. Would certainly help do away with the class warfare that both parties love to use to suit their agendas...
[QUOTE=Ridge;25717492]Flat tax is best tax. Tax every single person the same percentage. That, or a VAT tax on purchases, and that alone. Would certainly help do away with the class warfare that both parties love to use to suit their agendas...[/QUOTE] I wholeheartedly agree with this. Ron Paul 2012. Edit: I wasn't trying to make a joke 5killer.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25717492]Flat tax is best tax. Tax every single person the same percentage. That, or a VAT tax on purchases, and that alone. Would certainly help do away with the class warfare that both parties love to use to suit their agendas...[/QUOTE] 25% of 100,000$ a year is 25,000. That's a substantial amount of money in that bracket. 25,000 is a big difference when that's all you make. However, say you make a 10 million, 25% of that is 2.5 million, but that doesn't really change his life, or negatively affect his life style or well being as much as it does for the poorer person. That's not fair obviously.
Flat taxes are an awful idea, progressive are the most ideal. Lower for lower income, higher for higher. EDIT: Or maybe the conservative's wet dream, a reverse progressive tax.~50% for under $100,000, and like 5% for $1m and above
[QUOTE=Strider*;25717574]I wholeheartedly agree with this. Ron Paul 2012. Edit: I wasn't trying to make a joke 5killer.[/QUOTE] I knew you were serious, that's what made it hilarious.
[QUOTE=Strider*;25715726]Hey if that's what you think I can't change that. Although Aristotle once said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." How about instead of laughing, questioning and reasoning?[/QUOTE] Well I think Fascism has been proven several times before that it doesn't work. So when other systems go through similar tests, I think reason leads me to think that the idea doesn't fucking work Lets look at it this way: >you have a chair is it broken? >Let me sit on it It looks broken >No it's ok you just fell through it and smashed your head open >PERFECTLY FINE! I don't think that chair can be fixed either conclusion: the chair is fucked and your friend needs to call an ambulance. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;25715403]Reagan's economic policy worked at the time. The reason the debt was raised during his presidency was excess military spending which perhaps wasn't necessary.[/QUOTE] If you were rich as fuck, yeah it worked for you. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;25716034]Can there really be such thing as a non-partisan economist? You'd figure they'd side one way or the other.. Fiscal liberal or fiscal conservative at least to some degree.[/QUOTE] Reality has a bit of a liberal bias. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;25717492]Flat tax is best tax. Tax every single person the same percentage. That, or a VAT tax on purchases, and that alone. Would certainly help do away with the class warfare that both parties love to use to suit their agendas...[/QUOTE] a 20% tax can barely scratch a rich persons wallet. A 20% tax can severely cripple a poor family. you should seriously stop posting. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;25717574]I wholeheartedly agree with this. Ron Paul 2012. Edit: I wasn't trying to make a joke 5killer.[/QUOTE] I agree, fuck gay people and the economy.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25718166]100,000$ a year[/quote] [quote]all you make.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;25718230]Flat taxes are an awful idea, progressive are the most ideal. Lower for lower income, higher for higher. EDIT: Or maybe the conservative's wet dream, a reverse progressive tax.~50% for under $100,000, and like 5% for $1m and above[/QUOTE] Right because when has there ever been in the history of the United States a period where the rich payed lower tax rates than the lower classes?
[QUOTE=Strider*;25723613]Right because when has there ever been in the history of the United States a period where the rich payed lower tax rates than the lower classes?[/QUOTE] how do i tax cuts [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;25722832]empty[/QUOTE] what is your point?
[QUOTE=Warhol;25724059]what is your point?[/QUOTE] $100,000 per annum is rich.
Not really.
Is that low end in your country?
100,000 isn't thaaaat rich. Even a million dollars doesn't get you that far these days.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25714758]You have NO idea what the fuck cap and trade is, do you? [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] And just let the economy crumble. great plan! [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] Thomas Jefferson wanted an equal balance between State and Federal government. You want the articles of confederation + radical You are an idiot, Jefferson was a scholar. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] Big difference. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] You failed in your failure NICE! broski [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] ok, you see, this is where your opinion falls apart. As demonstrated above, your modifications takes the Jefferson out of Jeffersonian and replaces it with shithouse opinions from uberman[/QUOTE] You obviously are the idiot here, because guess what Jefferson did? Eliminated all internal taxation and instituted tariffs on exports. He cut government spending by 50%, and reduced the size of the military to only some border troops. The Federal government at this time was at most a few dozen employees. Also, YOU have no idea what cap and trade is. Companies buy "carbon credits" that translate into an emission cap, and companies can buy other companies' carbon credits to increase their cap. It supports business, but it just allows corporations to continue to shit up the environment. You, sir, don't know what you're talking about. Oh, and unlike your perfect communist wonderland, in a free market economy, the government isn't needed to keep the economy going. One more thing, the articles of confederation are nothing what I want. The federal government was far too weak to work, hence Shays' rebellion. Jeffersonian sized government is the way to go. And I'm talking the early presidency, before the Louisiana purchase. Because Jefferson had to drastically increase government size to deal with making up the lost money, and funding westward expansion. Also, I am trying to have a civilized discussion. I didn't know showing one's opinion warranted flaming in a civilized discussion. I'm pretty sure just calling somebody an idiot without a base, and just shouting overly generalized facts that seem to dispute one's opinion is not how one argues.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;25704207]I really doubt there would be a mass, or even significant migration of support to the GOP. I know i'm not exactly happy with the Democrats right now, but the GOP is way, way the greater of two evils.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because our descendents a century or two down the line are going to be in massive debt only because of the GOP, right? Always the GOP's fault. The democrats have never wronged us or spent us into a debt we'll never climb out of, clearly. I get a kick out of it when people willfully ignore glaringly obvious facts. Neither Obama nor the democrats have done us any real favors, and while Bush wasn't good either, I find it difficult to believe the GOP could even fathom doing something to outclass the massive fail the democrats are constantly rolling out on us.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;25733149]Yeah, because our descendents a century or two down the line are going to be in massive debt only because of the GOP, right? Always the GOP's fault. The democrats have never wronged us or spent us into a debt we'll never climb out of, clearly. I get a kick out of it when people willfully ignore glaringly obvious facts. Neither Obama nor the democrats have done us any real favors, and while Bush wasn't good either, I find it difficult to believe the GOP could even fathom doing something to outclass the massive fail the democrats are constantly rolling out on us.[/QUOTE] I like the democrats better because they aren't crazy.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;25722832][/QUOTE] your point? If you're trying to make one, you didn't. The fact of the matter is, 100,000$ isn't as much as it used to be, and taking 20% of that is a lot of your money. [editline]29th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Jenkem;25733149]Yeah, because our descendents a century or two down the line are going to be in massive debt only because of the GOP, right? Always the GOP's fault. The democrats have never wronged us or spent us into a debt we'll never climb out of, clearly. I get a kick out of it when people willfully ignore glaringly obvious facts. Neither Obama nor the democrats have done us any real favors, and while Bush wasn't good either, I find it difficult to believe the GOP could even fathom doing something to outclass the massive fail the democrats are constantly rolling out on us.[/QUOTE] Dems are bad, sure. Republicans at this point are worse. Far worse. Why you believe that just "freeing" everything from government regulation will favour anyone but the rich is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;25731659]You obviously are the idiot here, because guess what Jefferson did? Eliminated all internal taxation[/quote] Well no shit, it was an outdated system. [quote]and instituted tariffs on exports. [/quote] So? [quote]He cut government spending by 50%, and reduced the size of the military to only some border troops.[/quote] Source. [quote]The Federal government at this time was at most a few dozen employees.[/quote] Source. [quote]Companies buy "carbon credits" that translate into an emission cap, and companies can buy other companies' carbon credits to increase their cap. It supports business, but it just allows corporations to continue to shit up the environment.[/quote] That is totally fucking different from what you said. [quote]You, sir, don't know what you're talking about.[/quote] Uberman, you live in a weird little world where Reagan poses naked on your front lawn in a very stylish and sexy pose. I think you need to reevaluate who doesn't know what. [quote]Oh, and unlike your perfect communist wonderland, in a free market economy, the government isn't needed to keep the economy going.[/quote] first of all, who the fuck said ANYTHING about [quote]One more thing, the articles of confederation are nothing what I want. The federal government was far too weak to work, hence Shays' rebellion. Jeffersonian sized government is the way to go. [/quote] The Articles of confederation pretty much mirror what you're talking about. Jefferson had government where it was necessary. The problem is, you're also thinking America is like the 1700's, its not. The US now has this thing called "Industry". You're a lot like your Randian Regressive Tea party compatriots, you seem to think the US can be thrown back to a state set in the early 1800's, and expect it to work just as well. Have you EVER read ANYTHING by Thomas Jefferson? Or history or anything at all? Like a children's book or something? [quote]And I'm talking the early presidency, before the Louisiana purchase. Because Jefferson had to drastically increase government size to deal with making up the lost money, and funding westward expansion. [/quote] What, a year into his presidency? He was still dealing with debts and shit. He didn't walk into it with a perfect cheque book. [quote]Also, I am trying to have a civilized discussion. I didn't know showing one's opinion warranted flaming in a civilized discussion. I'm pretty sure just calling somebody an idiot without a base, and just shouting overly generalized facts that seem to dispute one's opinion is not how one argues.[/QUOTE] You make the most ridiculous claims half the time.
Warhol, when will you stop being such a huge idiot? Go look at a fucking history book. There is your source. You blatantly make shit up about the past. Not only this, but you fucking libel me. But really, you want a source about something that happened 200 years ago? Ok, here is your source. [quote=wikipedia] n domestic affairs Jefferson tried to weaken Federalist influences, especially in the judiciary, and succeeded in limiting the size of government by reducing taxes and the national debt Jefferson also decreased the size of the military, which he believed was an unnecessary drain on the resources of the republic. Much of the federalist navy that was created under the Adams administration was scrapped. Jefferson believed that the federal government was able to operate exclusively on customs revenue and need no direct taxation.[/quote] You are the one making the most ridiculous claims. Your grasp of reality is equivalent to a piece of string. How many times do I have to say I don't fucking support the tea party, I think Reagan was an OK president. When did I mention either of those things? God damn, I'm not some backwater hick. I tried to give you some respect, but clearly you don't give me any, so you don't deserve fucking respect. And I have taken advanced history courses. This is where I'm fucking getting the information from. I even have my fucking history book from 3 years ago open right here, saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming. And if you try to refute the validity of said book, here is my textbook. Look it up. [img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d-MsIGQWL._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.