Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Since liberals "want to destroy the world"...

Page 7 of 8 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 7:33 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
StevieC wrote:
so what about a centric-liberal?


They tend to be attacked by the Far-Left, if they work in media they can even lose their jobs for not being pure. See Juan Williams whom is a centric-liberal being fired from NPR for not mindlessing spewing left-wing talking points.

auntblabby wrote:
no, only on the faces of the weak, the poor, the addled.


Uh considering that Conservatives tend to be the ones that give more of their income (percentagewise) to charities, volunteer more of their time, etc. That assessment doesn't fit with the facts. Conservatives take issue with Government taking away their money and giving it to other people. They have no issue with voluntarily choosing to donate their time and money to helping others.


If voluntary charity was enough, we wouldn't have so many families living in poverty. The problem is getting worse, not better. In 2009, 20.7% of all children under the age of 18 were living in poverty. How can any human being find this statistic acceptable? http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 0-144.html


It is a disheartening situation, but I think there is a better solution than taxing small business out of existance like you and the Democrats have suggested.


Such as...?


They could start by getting rid of the Community Reinvestment Act, as well as all the anti-business red tape Obama has shoved into place. Additionally not raising taxes, start cutting spending, etc.

1) How does that solve the problem being discussed, namely, that an alarmingly high percentage of people in the wealthiest country in human history are living in poverty?
2) You do realize that Obama has, on balance, cut taxes? (A simple yes or no on this one, please. I am interested in seeing the extent of your Obama derangement syndrome)


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Dec 2010, 7:43 pm

Orwell wrote:
an alarmingly high percentage of people in the wealthiest country in human history are living in poverty?


Wasn't that the case back in the Roman Empire also? The Patricians had their little elitist attitudes of looking down upon the Plebeians. Both are still here, rich and poor. People who are rich in wealth look down upon those who cannot figure out how to get out of poverty or are otherwise unable to due to compound circumstances.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Dec 2010, 7:50 pm

Orwell wrote:
2) You do realize that Obama has, on balance, cut taxes? (A simple yes or no on this one, please. I am interested in seeing the extent of your Obama derangement syndrome)


Personally, I didn't know this. Let's work with this though. He's cut taxes and given out stimulus packages. That would be decreasing government income but increasing government spending. Wisdom itself! 8O



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

14 Dec 2010, 7:54 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Quartz11 wrote:
With that said, what then is the conservative of conservative ideal world?


Personally, I'd think it would be one where the government of a nation does not micromanage its population nor treat their population like potential criminals.
Yes exactly.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 8:12 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
2) You do realize that Obama has, on balance, cut taxes? (A simple yes or no on this one, please. I am interested in seeing the extent of your Obama derangement syndrome)


Personally, I didn't know this. Let's work with this though. He's cut taxes and given out stimulus packages. That would be decreasing government income but increasing government spending. Wisdom itself! 8O

It's the standard Keynesian recommendation in times of economic crisis, although many economists would argue that his stimulus measures (both in government spending and in tax reductions) were not targeted in the most effective way to boost the economy, since the money went primarily to the wealthy, whose Keynesian multiplier is very low. In principle, you are supposed to run a budget surplus during economic good times (as Clinton did) in order to finance budget deficits during economic downturns. Republican presidents in the past 30 years, however, have consistently run massive budget deficits regardless of the state of the economy.

But thank you for demonstrating an important point: Republicans will denounce Obama (or any Democrat) as an idiot who is recklessly destroying our economy whether he raises or lowers taxes. It is pure partisanship, utterly devoid of any understanding of the actual issues.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Dec 2010, 8:27 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
2) You do realize that Obama has, on balance, cut taxes? (A simple yes or no on this one, please. I am interested in seeing the extent of your Obama derangement syndrome)


Personally, I didn't know this. Let's work with this though. He's cut taxes and given out stimulus packages. That would be decreasing government income but increasing government spending. Wisdom itself! 8O

It's the standard Keynesian recommendation in times of economic crisis, although many economists would argue that his stimulus measures (both in government spending and in tax reductions) were not targeted in the most effective way to boost the economy, since the money went primarily to the wealthy, whose Keynesian multiplier is very low. In principle, you are supposed to run a budget surplus during economic good times (as Clinton did) in order to finance budget deficits during economic downturns. Republican presidents in the past 30 years, however, have consistently run massive budget deficits regardless of the state of the economy.

But thank you for demonstrating an important point: Republicans will denounce Obama (or any Democrat) as an idiot who is recklessly destroying our economy whether he raises or lowers taxes. It is pure partisanship, utterly devoid of any understanding of the actual issues.


You're welcome for my pure partisanship. After 8 years of having to hear it about Bush from the democrats, it is the "Democratic" Party who have earned their due measure of blind condemnation and ridicule.

Anyhow, yes it would be better if the stimulus packages weren't given to well established businesses only to be put into the office redecoration account. If a government is going to attempt such a stupid notion as the redistribution of wealth, they ought to at least provide it to people starting up new businesses and not just playing musical money amongst those already wealthy.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Dec 2010, 9:25 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
StevieC wrote:
so what about a centric-liberal?


They tend to be attacked by the Far-Left, if they work in media they can even lose their jobs for not being pure. See Juan Williams whom is a centric-liberal being fired from NPR for not mindlessing spewing left-wing talking points.

auntblabby wrote:
no, only on the faces of the weak, the poor, the addled.


Uh considering that Conservatives tend to be the ones that give more of their income (percentagewise) to charities, volunteer more of their time, etc. That assessment doesn't fit with the facts. Conservatives take issue with Government taking away their money and giving it to other people. They have no issue with voluntarily choosing to donate their time and money to helping others.


If voluntary charity was enough, we wouldn't have so many families living in poverty. The problem is getting worse, not better. In 2009, 20.7% of all children under the age of 18 were living in poverty. How can any human being find this statistic acceptable? http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 0-144.html


It is a disheartening situation, but I think there is a better solution than taxing small business out of existance like you and the Democrats have suggested.


Such as...?


They could start by getting rid of the Community Reinvestment Act, as well as all the anti-business red tape Obama has shoved into place. Additionally not raising taxes, start cutting spending, etc.

1) How does that solve the problem being discussed, namely, that an alarmingly high percentage of people in the wealthiest country in human history are living in poverty?
2) You do realize that Obama has, on balance, cut taxes? (A simple yes or no on this one, please. I am interested in seeing the extent of your Obama derangement syndrome)


Seriously, stop with the lieing... Using your own liberal sources:

Still, Obama did speak of "tax rates," not "taxes" or "tax burdens," so we'll stick to the tax bracket comparison in making our ruling.

The second caveat we'll mention is that conservatives say it's inappropriate for Obama to claim credit for lower taxes. They note that today's tax rates were established by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. In fact, they say, it is [u]Obama's stated intention to increase taxes on individuals earning $200,000 and couples earning $250,000, which would push the top tax bracket to 39.6 percent.

They also note (as we have, in giving him a Promise Broken on the Obameter) that the president has already signed into law several tax increases. He hiked the levy on cigarettes; imposed tax penalties on people without insurance; taxed tanning services, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and raised Medicare tax rates for upper-income individuals. (Not all of these taxes kick in immediately.)

We think it's fair to note that Obama has raised taxes and promises to do so again. But we don't think that undermines the factual accuracy of his statement from the town hall. If you make the comparison using tax brackets -- which we think was Obama's clear intent -- then the president is right when comparing today's rates to Eisenhower's, and he's close to right when he makes the comparison to Reagan. On balance, we rate Obama's statement Mostly True.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/sta ... nder-reag/

He has been harping for raising taxes, he's taking credit for Bush's tax rates while his tax hikes haven't kicked in yet.

He is giving money to people that don't pay taxes that isn't tax cuts for people that is handouts to people that don't pay taxes.

It isn't a tax cut when the person isn't paying taxes to begin with, it is a government handout at that point.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm

Are you illiterate, Inuyasha? Do you understand what is meant by "on balance?" Obama has signed in a number of tax cuts, and his proposed resolution to the Bush tax cut extension includes several new tax cuts beyond what the Republicans even wanted. The Politifact article you're citing is outdated by now in its references to Obama's plans to let the tax cuts expire. The overwhelming majority of Americans are paying lower tax rates now than they were under Bush.

And in what universe is Politifact a liberal source?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Quartz11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: New England

14 Dec 2010, 10:09 pm

Orwell wrote:
And in what universe is Politifact a liberal source?



I've come to the conclusion that anything that doesn't say exactly what he believes is liberal, regardless of whether or not it actually is.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Dec 2010, 10:19 pm

Orwell wrote:
Are you illiterate, Inuyasha? Do you understand what is meant by "on balance?" Obama has signed in a number of tax cuts, and his proposed resolution to the Bush tax cut extension includes several new tax cuts beyond what the Republicans even wanted. The Politifact article you're citing is outdated by now in its references to Obama's plans to let the tax cuts expire. The overwhelming majority of Americans are paying lower tax rates now than they were under Bush.


When they aren't paying taxes to begin with, it is no longer a tax cut, it is a government handout.

And in what universe is Politifact a liberal source?[/quote]


Eventually he declares the assertion "absurd" and "irresponsibly misleading on several levels" as the Truth-O-Meter officially pronounces the claim "False."

But is it?

Not at all. As Farley acknowledged, I am the original source for the $8.5 billion figure that was reported by the Washington Examiner. I covered the complexities of housing finance on Capitol Hill for nearly seven years as a reporter in the Washington bureau of the venerable Wall Street daily, the Bond Buyer. Here's how I came up with the amount.

The $800 billion-plus stimulus bill that President Obama signed into law Feb. 17 contains $2 billion in funds for housing redevelopment and $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Separately, the proposed $47.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides $1 billion for an affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds.

There is no legal impediment of which I am aware that would prevent ACORN taking in the whole $3 billion sum from the stimulus package, which has already been enacted. There is also no bar to ACORN taking in the entire $5.5 billion from the HUD budget, which is pending before Congress.

In other words, ACORN is indeed eligible for the whole $8.5 billion, as Bachmann said.

The congresswoman said much the same thing on the May 18 edition on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. Debating ACORN ally House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Bachmann, a former tax litigation attorney, chose her words carefully.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-va ... e-bachmann



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Dec 2010, 11:11 am

Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
StevieC wrote:
so what about a centric-liberal?


They tend to be attacked by the Far-Left, if they work in media they can even lose their jobs for not being pure. See Juan Williams whom is a centric-liberal being fired from NPR for not mindlessing spewing left-wing talking points.

auntblabby wrote:
no, only on the faces of the weak, the poor, the addled.


Uh considering that Conservatives tend to be the ones that give more of their income (percentagewise) to charities, volunteer more of their time, etc. That assessment doesn't fit with the facts. Conservatives take issue with Government taking away their money and giving it to other people. They have no issue with voluntarily choosing to donate their time and money to helping others.


If voluntary charity was enough, we wouldn't have so many families living in poverty. The problem is getting worse, not better. In 2009, 20.7% of all children under the age of 18 were living in poverty. How can any human being find this statistic acceptable? http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 0-144.html


It is a disheartening situation, but I think there is a better solution than taxing small business out of existance like you and the Democrats have suggested.


Such as...?


They could start by getting rid of the Community Reinvestment Act, as well as all the anti-business red tape Obama has shoved into place. Additionally not raising taxes, start cutting spending, etc.


Enough with the baloney about the Community Reinvestment Act. In case you haven't noticed, nobody's even getting a mortgage these days without 20% down and a credit score over 700. Besides, I was talking about rising poverty rates and the reality that there are over 1 million homeless kids in this country. The republican idea to address this problem directly is to end unemployment extensions and entitlement programs and reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. This is completely ass-backwards and will only exacerbate the problem, as it has for the past 30 years or so.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Dec 2010, 11:53 am

Inuyasha wrote:

Uh considering that Conservatives tend to be the ones that give more of their income (percentagewise) to charities, volunteer more of their time, etc. That assessment doesn't fit with the facts. Conservatives take issue with Government taking away their money and giving it to other people. They have no issue with voluntarily choosing to donate their time and money to helping others.


I do volunteer work for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (New Jersey Branch). Among the thirty or so volunteer readers, checkers and markers who work here I have yet to see or hear a flaming liberal. Most of the people who do volunteer work for RFDBH seem to be Just Plain Folk who want to do something useful with their time. I would characterize the group as politically moderate.

ruveyn



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

24 Dec 2010, 6:16 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You're welcome for my pure partisanship. After 8 years of having to hear it about Bush from the democrats, it is the "Democratic" Party who have earned their due measure of blind condemnation and ridicule.


It's pretty ironic for someone who has lived through the travesty of entry-level Anglo-American labour relations to be this oblivious to the ideological cause.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Anyhow, yes it would be better if the stimulus packages weren't given to well established businesses only to be put into the office redecoration account. If a government is going to attempt such a stupid notion as the redistribution of wealth, they ought to at least provide it to people starting up new businesses and not just playing musical money amongst those already wealthy.


The problem is that many small businesses have very poorly designed business plans and end up failing. Small businesses create about as many jobs as they shed.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

24 Dec 2010, 10:22 pm

russell wrote:
I am fine with liberal viewpoints being stated in a free society. Conservatives have every right to respond though without being unfettered by PC or worrying about being spuriously labled a bigot or something.

Liberals seem to have a problem with free speech coming from Conservatives, especially when it comes to the spectrum of social issues. I would like to see Conservatives be able to state their positions clearly and definitely without worrying about PC infractions, being decried as offensive, labled racist, sexist, or getting banned from an internet forum, etc..........

I would also like to see more conservative representation in higher education, in fields like History, Philosophy, sociology, etc. I'd like to reopen the study of Eugenics as well. I would also like to return the West to the pre-1948 demographics(roughly) + a severe clampdown on 3rd world immigration. I'd like to end any and all reverse discrimination against whites and white males, and return to Caucasian predominance.


Can you give examples of comments you would like to be able to make without being decried as offensive, labeled racist, sexist, or getting banned from internet forums..etc?



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

24 Dec 2010, 10:43 pm

Only classical liberals threaten to destroy the world.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

24 Dec 2010, 10:48 pm

An effective stimulus package should never give a penny to any business. It must be nothing but such things as the following; government-run projects - some components of which may require a competitive bid process for contracts. Also, direct payments to high-MPC people. This helps with demand in the economy and more customers for business. Giving money to business is a terrible idea. Better to allow business to compete for customers better able to be customers because they either have work on a project or have more money in their pocket from the government.

Aside from stimulus, government must use the tax code to dissuade destructive behaviour that the rich do. So taxes should punish outsourcing and so forth. The rich must be made to behave!