Republican Summer Wish List: Make Bush tax cuts permanent, Dismantle 'Obamacare', Cut down energy re
139 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36161441]...yet you cited a source known predominantly for being funded by and supporting very conservative viewpoints, including [URL="http://www.heritage.org/events/2009/06/signature-in-the-cell-dna-evidence-for-intelligent-design"]intelligent design "theory".[/URL]
I'd be very wiling to take you seriously if you didn't post "pure rhetoric, appeals to emotion, and very little discussion of facts, logic, and evidence" if you had the good common courtesy to do the same. As is, it just appears you're a nimrod.[/QUOTE]
I don't care about their views on evolution, we're talking about the bush tax cuts. I posted that source because they had a chart there which was relevant to what I was talking about. Disregarding what I'm saying because you have an irrelevant beef with the authors of the source material I posted [url="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html"]is fallacious[/url].
And yes, there is too much rhetoric and appeals to emotion when just about everyone is posting "welp, time to leave the country!" .. "time for a revolution".. "they are just evil and want to hurt poor people" etc, instead of laying down some arguments and presenting facts to support their position.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36163611]If you're claiming
and yet the entirety of the republican party is demonstrably socially conservative except one individual, then social conservatives [I]do[/I] make up the entirety of the republican party.
You don't get to say different "factions" exist if only one individual behaves outside the norm.
I'm trying to go easy here because I think you've got a point and just don't know what it is yet. I asked you before to cite an example of some republicans demonstrably not socially conservative, just, in general, and you're not doing that, just acting weird. Meanwhile it's very easy to cite instances of the republican party acting as a cohesive, socially conservative block, as I've now done twice.[/QUOTE]
But, but but but but I never attempted to apply that to the GOPs in congress. I think we can all pretty easily agree the ones in Congress are, by a massive majority, classified as "Social Conservatives". Those that claim otherwise, yet still vote along those lines, are either spineless or mindless. Not one of those qualities is a good thing, regardless of faction. The fact that she voted away from majority lines shows she has some individuality and integrity, regardless of what faction she aligns with.
I was talking about the rest of the people in the country, everyone that is NOT part of Congress. The others in the country that classify themselves as Republicans fall into a variety of factions. The largest and noisiest right now are the Social Conservatives... but there are still other factions and while most of the rest of the factions are rather small and quiet, there are a couple that are gaining momentum and making themselves known.
I'm simply trying to defeat the oh-too-common occurrence of people here seeing "GOP" and "the latest bullshit" and immediately asserting that the Republican Party as a whole are evil. Its ridiculous. They're not all bad, and the Social Conservatives are doing a fantastic job of painting everyone else to look like them. The SCs are the stupid ones here, and it'd be nice to see a thread where it didn't immediately devolve into calling out the entire party for one factions stupid actions.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;36164019]But, but but but but I never attempted to apply that to the GOPs in congress.[/QUOTE]
Do you, uh, not know how voting works?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36164315]Do you, uh, not know how voting works?[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant. That wasn't my argument. It wasn't at the beginning, and it isn't now.
[QUOTE=Noble;36163758]I don't care about their views on evolution, we're talking about the bush tax cuts. I posted that source because they had a chart there which was relevant to what I was talking about. Disregarding what I'm saying because you have an irrelevant beef with the authors of the source material I posted [url="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html"]is fallacious[/url].[/QUOTE]
Economics is a science, science relies on peer review and credibility for claims that stand alone, you cited a source known for presenting the ramblings of any drunkard that fits the narrative. If you'd like more discrediting, the author of your gibberish is primarily known in the field for [URL="http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/09/what_kind_of_mo.html"]being incompetent,[/URL] not knowing how citations work, and trolling The Economist.
I'm sorry your source won't fly here. Highlights for Children won't be acknowledged in an academic discussion either. Try harder.
I'll deign to shit all over your chart since it's short: [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42870"]he cherrypicked his data.[/URL] Individual income taxes don't represent the entirety of the tax burden, which is the figure he cited. Idiots are very fond of pretending, via these figures, that the tax burden on certain classes is negative. It isn't. [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Tax_liability_Shares.pdf"]In the time period cited, real tax burden went from 66.6% to 67.2% for the highest quintile. Second highest was 17.5% to 17.6%. Third, 9.8% to 9.7%. Fourth, 4.8% to 4.4% and lowest, 1.1% to 0.9%.[/URL] That's a superficial at best change in tax burden, and is still meaningless by itself.
It would help to know what the primary complaints in the Democratic camp regarding the Bush cuts actually are. First, they claim paying a larger amount of a smaller total tax load does indeed benefit the top quintile unevenly, because they have a lesser reliance on the things those taxes fund. That's not really disputable. Second, there's the fact that [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/after-tax_income_shares2010.pdf"]share of after-tax income is increasing for the highest quintile, while it had been decreasing steadily for everyone else.[/URL] Third, that second fact in tandem with the fact that marginal propensity to consume decreases as income increases would imply the tax cuts gradually eroded the economy, putting more money into the hands of the group least likely to spend it. Fourth, as everyone has noted, the tax cuts weren't particularly well thought-out, so they exacerbated the deficit issue.
Granted, you can argue the second and third complaints are just the inexorable implosion of capitalism when bereft of meaningful regulation, and that the fourth is just bureaucracy being bureaucracy- I'm not a Democrat, so I can't say what their reasoning is. But I [I]can[/I] say you're clueless.
Now try making whatever point you wanted to like a big kid with real data or take your economic fanfiction with you back to Reddit.
[editline]2nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;36164329]Irrelevant. That wasn't my argument. It wasn't at the beginning, and it isn't now.[/QUOTE]
You don't get to dismiss anything that devastates your argument just because it's inconvenient.
You cannot talk about "the rest of the people in the country, everyone that is NOT part of Congress", independent of [B]the Congress they support.[/B] I mean, hate to borrow a Carlin joke, but how do you think the social conservatives get into office? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. Republicans vote for them. An entire group of citizens, every republican "that is not part of Congress", funnels socially conservative republicans into Congress. You're like the Catholic who argues only a few bad members of the institution give it a bad image while simultaneously funding that same institution unquestioningly. It's doublethink. I'm sorry you're only having to face that truth now.
The republicans [I]are[/I] evil bigoted shits. Don't like it? Go independent. Whatever you do, don't vote for a fuckwad just because it's convenient for your tax bill and try telling me you're not really a social conservative, or I will slap you so hard your face will look like a modern art masterpiece.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36165187]Now try making whatever point you wanted to like a big kid with real data or take your economic fanfiction with you back to Reddit.[/QUOTE]
Did you forget what my point was?
[QUOTE=Noble;36153471]They do in fact get the most benefit. I never said they didn't. They save much more money in terms of actual dollars than working class people (because say, 2% of a rich man's income is much more than 2% of a working class person's income, obviously). I said that since the lower classes received tax cuts as well, the end effect was that the rich shouldered a higher percentage of the tax burden (even though their savings in actual dollars was exponentially greater than the savings of a working class individual).
I was not saying that the rich got a raw deal compared to the poor as a result of these tax cuts, far from it.
What I am saying though, is that repealing the bush tax cuts means tax hikes for everybody, not just the rich.[/QUOTE]
By your own admission you agree that the tax burden on the rich increased (albeit a small amount), which is one of the claims I made.
So which point of mine are you disagreeing with? You've gone on a long rant about someone else's claims and then somehow come to the conclusion that I'm clueless, even though my original claim still stands.
My overall point is that the bush tax cuts affect everybody's taxes, and if you want to entirely let the bush cuts expire, everyone's taxes are going to go up. It seems the source link that I posted, which had little to do with my overall point, has been too much of a distraction for people.
[QUOTE=Noble;36165410]Did you forget what my point was?
By your own admission you agree that the tax burden on the rich increased (albeit a small amount), which is one of the claims I made.
So which point of mine are you disagreeing with? You've gone on a long rant about someone else's claims and then somehow come to the conclusion that I'm clueless, even though my original claim still stands.
My overall point is that the bush tax cuts affect everybody's taxes, and if you want to entirely let the bush cuts expire, everyone's taxes are going to go up. It seems the source link that I posted, which had little to do with my overall point, has been too much of a distraction for people.[/QUOTE]
You do know that the rich being taxed more doesn't bother them as much as the poor right? Financially or personally it seems.
Taxes going up in this case isn't bad. It's required.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36165895]You do know that the rich being taxed more doesn't bother them as much as the poor right? Financially or personally it seems.
Taxes going up in this case isn't bad. It's required.[/QUOTE]
It's not required. Cut government spending and you won't need to raise taxes. The money will instead be spent in the private sector where it will be used more efficiently than it would by being taken by force to pay for inefficient government programs.
[QUOTE=Noble;36168382]It's not required. Cut government spending and you won't need to raise taxes. The money will instead be spent in the private sector where it will be used more efficiently than it would by being taken by force to pay for inefficient government programs.[/QUOTE]Hah, that's either misguided or naive, not sure which. The reason for many government programs is because of the failings of the private sector, where they value their profit margin over providing effective goods and services.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36165187]You don't get to dismiss anything that devastates your argument just because it's inconvenient.
You cannot talk about "the rest of the people in the country, everyone that is NOT part of Congress", independent of [B]the Congress they support.[/B] I mean, hate to borrow a Carlin joke, but how do you think the social conservatives get into office? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. Republicans vote for them. An entire group of citizens, every republican "that is not part of Congress", funnels socially conservative republicans into Congress. You're like the Catholic who argues only a few bad members of the institution give it a bad image while simultaneously funding that same institution unquestioningly. It's doublethink. I'm sorry you're only having to face that truth now.
The republicans [I]are[/I] evil bigoted shits. Don't like it? Go independent. Whatever you do, don't vote for a fuckwad just because it's convenient for your tax bill and try telling me you're not really a social conservative, or I will slap you so hard your face will look like a modern art masterpiece.[/QUOTE]
Except I do get to dismiss it, because it [I]is[/I] irrelevant.
Yes, the reason social conservatives get into office is because social conservatives vote them in, that doesn't make the Republican Party a group of bigoted evil shits. That makes [I]that majority of people[/I] the evil bigoted shits. There is a majority of SCs in the voting sectors that voted that person in, the rest of them obviously didn't vote for that person, probably because they didn't like them, probably because they didn't agree with them, probably because they aren't straight up "Social Conservatives". Either because they didn't like their economic policies, or more likely because they didn't like the fact that they are stupid, bigoted shitheads.
The Social Conservatives in office, and the majority that voted them in, THOSE are the evil bigoted shits in the Republican party. When the next voting cycle comes in, am I going to vote for them? No! Are my parents? No! Friends? No! Grandparents? No idea, they're from an older generation and pretty damn racist on their own, so we'll see!
Every person that [I]I[/I] choose to socialize with that votes Republican isn't going to vote for those people because we don't like them. We are NOT evil bigoted shits, and you don't get to classify us as evil bigoted shits simply because of those loud assholes over there. We're trying to get rid of said assholes because they're making us look bad. I didn't vote for those fuckwads, I won't ever vote for those fuckwads. So again, your point, is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36168636]Hah, that's either misguided or naive, not sure which. The reason for many government programs is because of the failings of the private sector, where they value their profit margin over providing effective goods and services.[/QUOTE]
There is profit in providing effective goods and services to your customers though. Since there is competition in the market you have to produce better and more effective goods and services than your competitor so that you don't go out of business. This drives technological improvements so that companies can produce more with less, and offer equally or better goods and services than their competitor at lower prices. The competitor has to improve their productive capabilities too or they will go out of business. Profit provides an incentive for efficiency and providing effective goods and services that people want.
Government on the other hand works differently. They're spending other people's money. There is little incentive for them to use it efficiently, and a lot of incentive to use it for political purposes (re-elections for example). As far as efficiency, for example a private company usually will not pay people to stand around doing nothing at their jobs, they will just fire them because those employees are wasting the owner's money. Government on the other hand has little incentive to fire that employee, it's not coming at a personal cost to them, it's other people's money, and providing lots of jobs makes them look good when it's time for re-election.
[QUOTE=Noble;36168894]There is profit in providing effective goods and services to your customers though. Since there is competition in the market you have to produce better and more effective goods and services than your competitor so that you don't go out of business. This drives technological improvements so that companies can produce more with less, and offer equally or better goods and services than their competitor at lower prices. The competitor has to improve their productive capabilities too or they will go out of business. Profit provides an incentive for efficiency and providing effective goods and services that people want.[/QUOTE]You don't have to worry about providing better and more effective goods and services if you all provide roughly the same low quality good and services for roughly the same price. That leaves the consumer with no real choice or better alternative. And if the prices are high enough, you can have an absolutely massive profit margin for that low quality good or service, and no one can challenge it because they can't get anything better, and you are massive enough to stifle virtually any upstart business that might possibly challenge you through sheer size and reach.
Just vote Democrat, because they're the only ones not actively working at killing you for Jesus...
[QUOTE=Noble;36168894]Government on the other hand works differently. They're spending other people's money. There is little incentive for them to use it efficiently, and a lot of incentive to use it for political purposes (re-elections for example). As far as efficiency, for example a private company usually will not pay people to stand around doing nothing at their jobs, they will just fire them because those employees are wasting the owner's money. Government on the other hand has little incentive to fire that employee, it's not coming at a personal cost to them, it's other people's money, and providing lots of jobs makes them look good when it's time for re-election.[/QUOTE]
I don't really get this train of thought that the government is incapable of being efficient. You act like they don't understand the concept of money as soon as the money reaches their greasy palms.
[quote]I don't really get this train of thought that the government is incapable of being efficient. You act like they don't understand the concept of money as soon as the money reaches their greasy palms.[/quote]
I brought up the US health care system in another topic but he seems to be entirely operating on libertarian idealism and not actual reality.
[QUOTE=Noble;36168382]It's not required. Cut government spending and you won't need to raise taxes. The money will instead be spent in the private sector where it will be used more efficiently than it would by being taken by force to pay for inefficient government programs.[/QUOTE]
Actually it'll just sit in some dude's bank account indefinitely. Ideally he'll spend it, stimulate the economy, etc. But in reality he's just going to sit on that money 'till he dies. But who knows, maybe his children will spend it, if we're lucky.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36165895]You do know that the rich being taxed more doesn't bother them as much as the poor right? Financially or personally it seems.
Taxes going up in this case isn't bad. It's required.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. We don't need to raise taxes at all. In fact, lower taxes(especially on the middle class) might be helpful.
Increase spending, lower taxes, that's what we should be doing right now.
[editline]2nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36171452]Actually it'll just sit in some dude's bank account indefinitely. Ideally he'll spend it, stimulate the economy, etc. But in reality he's just going to sit on that money 'till he dies. But who knows, maybe his children will spend it, if we're lucky.[/QUOTE]
That's now how money works dude. That money won't be put into bank accounts, it will be invested since you will make a shitload of interest from investing.
Either way, even if it's put in a bank account, it's still helpful to the economy since bank money doesn't just sit, it gets loaned out.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36171480]No it's not. We don't need to raise taxes at all. In fact, lower taxes(especially on the middle class) might be helpful.
[B]Increase spending[/B], lower taxes, that's what we should be doing right now.
[editline]2nd June 2012[/editline]
That's now how money works dude. That money won't be put into bank accounts, it will be invested since you will make a shitload of interest from investing.
Either way, even if it's put in a bank account, it's still helpful to the economy since bank money doesn't just sit, it gets loaned out.[/QUOTE]
I seriously hope you mean consumer spending.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;36171706]I seriously hope you mean consumer spending.[/QUOTE]
Government spending on infrastructure specifically, also stimulus packages for the middle and low class might be helpful as well.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36171724]Government spending on infrastructure specifically, [B]also stimulus packages for the middle and low class might be helpful as well.[/B][/QUOTE]
I thought we kinda just tried that. And then it didn't work.
Wait no we did that to the corporations, nevermind
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36171480]No it's not. We don't need to raise taxes at all. In fact, lower taxes(especially on the middle class) might be helpful.
Increase spending, lower taxes, that's what we should be doing right now.[/QUOTE]
Money doesn't magically materialise from nowhere, how do we increase spending [I]and[/I] lower taxes at the same time? That money comes from somewhere, that's either the people or [contributing to] the national debt.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36171812]Money doesn't magically materialise from nowhere, how do we increase spending [I]and[/I] lower taxes at the same time? That money comes from somewhere, that's either the people or [contributing to] the national debt.[/QUOTE]
Money is loaned out to the federal government. We don't need to increase revenue, we just need to make sure our debt doesn't get our of control.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36171872]Money is loaned out to the federal government. We don't need to increase revenue, we just need to make sure our debt doesn't get our of control.[/QUOTE]
Okay, and how to you plan to control the debt while contributing a significant portion of your spending to it?
I guess you could say it's a controlled fire, but the problem is controlled or not, that fire is burning our country, we should be trying to extinguish it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36171907]Okay, and how to you plan to control the debt while contributing a significant portion of your spending to it?
I guess you could say it's a controlled fire, but the problem is controlled or not, that fire is burning our country, we should be trying to extinguish it.[/QUOTE]
Actually a fire is a bad analogy. It's more like taking out a loan on an investment that will eventually pay itself off in the long run, akin to buying a house.
[editline]2nd June 2012[/editline]
That's not an analogy though, more like a metaphor.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36171948]Actually a fire is a bad analogy. It's more like taking out a loan on an investment that will eventually pay itself off in the long run, akin to buying a house.
[editline]2nd June 2012[/editline]
That's not an analogy though, more like a metaphor.[/QUOTE]
But I think what he's asking is how do you increase spending, decrease tax revenue, AND control debt?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;36172033]But I think what he's asking is how do you increase spending, decrease tax revenue, AND control debt?[/QUOTE]
How does an individual control their debt? They don't take out more loans than they are able to sustain. The same goes for the federal government, except the federal government has the bonus of being able to keep a debt indefinitely and have their revenue steadily increase over time.
As long as we know how much debt we can sustain without fucking up our economy, we can continue to take out loans.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36172069]How does an individual control their debt? They don't take out more loans than they are able to sustain. The same goes for the federal government, except the federal government has the bonus of being able to keep a debt indefinitely [B]and have their revenue steadily increase over time. [/B][/QUOTE]
But how is it going to steadily increase if you keep cutting taxes?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36172069][B]How does an individual control their debt? They don't take out more loans than they are able to sustain.[/B] The same goes for the federal government, except the federal government has the bonus of being able to keep a debt indefinitely and have their revenue steadily increase over time.
As long as we know how much debt we can sustain without fucking up our economy, we can continue to take out loans.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, and the best way to stop taking out more loans than we need is to... decrease spending, so we don't need to take out more loans.
Plus, lowering tax revenue would increase the amount of loans we need, would it not?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36172069]As long as we know how much debt we can sustain without fucking up our economy, we can continue to take out loans.[/QUOTE]
We shouldn't be relying so much on loans, that's not a good thing. We should try to live off what we have, not borrowing someone else's money because we refuse to spend our own.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36172129]We shouldn't be relying so much on loans, that's not a good thing. We should try to live off what we have, not borrowing someone else's money because we refuse to spend our own.[/QUOTE]
Or because we have no money of our own to spend cause we keep cutting taxes further.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.