The Obama Tax Cuts?

[Reagraham Lincool]

Proof of you saying the state would put down par-econ(so for it to work it would either have to be the state or is a pipe-dream, yes?) is me saying it now?

Yeah that's clearly what I was saying because that line of thinking is really logical. I believe the premises, the logic is clearly valid, and so that's what I'm saying. That characterization is it. It's like I'm talking to a genius.

Explain it to me then

Yeah, that'll go well since you seem so interested in honestly learning about ideas you disagree with. You very clearly make it worth my time.

As far as being an economic genius, not really. Compared to the vast majority of bumbling idiots out there, that aren't smart enough to not loan the government money interest free all year, I do pretty well. It's certainly not because I'm the smartest, the rest of you just act so stupid that someone with any basic math skills can beat you.

You clearly have read what I had to say and really thought about it. A lot of people would have just heard whatever moronic, shallow, incoherent idiocy they already thought, but not you, Poki. You read what I had to say and you really distilled the essence out of it.

[Pokaris]

Yeah, that'll go well since you seem so interested in honestly learning about ideas you disagree with. In the future I'm just going to pretend I have an argument without presenting one. I have resigned myself to making snarky comments because I have nothing to offer.

Accuracy improved.

I'm the one asking about things based on your statements. You're the one posting trash. Who's the one having honesty issues?

[Reagraham Lincool]

Accuracy improved.

As accurate as ever, Poki.

I'm the one asking about things based on your statements.

Yeah I'm sure you're actually interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation and that's why you're asking about things that are based on my statements and not at all on random premises that only you hold and insanely illogical reasoning that only you hold so that you can offer up the gibberish such a sorry system of beliefs might produce as being mine. Clearly CLEARLY you are interested in having a conversation that is about honest representation of opinions other than your own and not at all about assuaging your considerable consternation at the discovery of their mere existence (never mind the consternation at their flourishing in the absence of your attention and the obvious intelligence behind it).

[Pokaris]

Accuracy improved.

As accurate as ever, Poki.

I'm the one asking about things based on your statements.

Yeah I'm sure you're actually interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation and that's why you're asking about things that are based on my statements and not at all on random premises that only you hold and insanely illogical reasoning that only you hold so that you can offer up the gibberish such a sorry system of beliefs might produce as being mine. Clearly CLEARLY you are interested in having a conversation that is about honest representation of opinions other than your own and not at all about assuaging your considerable consternation at the discovery of their mere existence (never mind the consternation at their flourishing in the absence of your attention and the obvious intelligence behind it).

If you're going to say something is untrue back that assertion up. Did you do that or did you just make snarky comments? If you put as much time into making a point as you've done being bitchy, you'd be done. It was but a short while ago you'd have been ranting that your current comments were ban worthy, I'm sure the hilarity of this is lost on you but I figured I'd point it out.

[Alice Ayers]

we will see all the current programs bankrupt in our lifetime. I will have no need for them and anyone with any intelligence in our generation should get themselves to that point.

I guess I agree-I am trying to save enough for retirement to supplant social security and medicaid and everything, but I don't think most Americans have long term care insurance yet at all. Most people our age say that they just plan to die before they get really sick and they don't really have a plan for taking care of their parents in old age, either. It's a difficult premise, I know that our nation can't support medicare and medicaid or social security and I know I won't get any of it, but I really don't think most Americans understand the concern about long term care needs when we start aging. I guess I wish that bozo Glenn Beck would harp about this more than his shrilling about storing a year's supply of food.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Accuracy improved.

As accurate as ever, Poki.

I'm the one asking about things based on your statements.

Yeah I'm sure you're actually interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation and that's why you're asking about things that are based on my statements and not at all on random premises that only you hold and insanely illogical reasoning that only you hold so that you can offer up the gibberish such a sorry system of beliefs might produce as being mine. Clearly CLEARLY you are interested in having a conversation that is about honest representation of opinions other than your own and not at all about assuaging your considerable consternation at the discovery of their mere existence (never mind the consternation at their flourishing in the absence of your attention and the obvious intelligence behind it).

If you're going to say something is untrue back that assertion up.

Yeah let's try to have a rational debate. That'll be awesome! Just like every other time! You can tell me what I think by ascribing some completely retarded line of argument to me and when I tell you that I don't believe the premises you've put in my mouth, you can tell me that if I don't believe them, I should back up the claim that they're false (and we'll ignore the whole part about how the reasoning to get from those premises I don't hold to the absurd [when they're not too busy being totally incoherent] caricatures of things I do believe oscillates wildly between totally illogical to completely unintelligible gibberish).

In other words, the way for me to avoid making the claims you're insisting I'm making is not merely to establish that I'm not starting from the premises you are (apparently my statements about my own beliefs are insufficient to prove to you what I believe) I have to show that I don't believe it because it shouldn't be believed by ANYONE (because it's false). Because that's what a rational debate is. It's where one side asserts their positions not directly, but instead STARTS from the position that premises the other side fucking obviously does not hold are, in fact, the very premises they are starting from (because clearly they believe what you believe...because your beliefs are the default). With those premises now "established" as belonging to the other side and the conclusion coming from their own mouths (and completely distorted by yours) ANYTHING in the middle whatsoever that gets from A to B (no matter how FUCKING RETARDED it is) is therefore reasonably attributable to the other side. That's great. That's exactly how I want to spend my time again and again and again forever. That's what rational debate is.

Did you do that or did you just make snarky comments? If you put as much time into making a point as you've done being bitchy, you'd be done.

Yeah I'm sure that exercise would go great. You can tell how great it would go by how well similar attempts have gone in the past!

It was but a short while ago you'd have been ranting that your current comments were ban worthy, I'm sure the hilarity of this is lost on you but I figured I'd point it out.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Pokaris]

Yeah let's try to have a rational debate. That'll be awesome! Just like every other time! You can tell me what I think by ascribing some completely retarded line of argument to me and when I tell you that I don't believe the premises you've put in my mouth, you can tell me that if I don't believe them, I should back up the claim that they're false (and we'll ignore the whole part about how the reasoning to get from those premises I don't hold to the absurd [when they're not too busy being totally incoherent] caricatures of things I do believe oscillates wildly between totally illogical to completely unintelligible gibberish).

In other words, the way for me to avoid making the claims you're insisting I'm making is not merely to establish that I'm not starting from the premises you are (apparently my statements about my own beliefs are insufficient to prove to you what I believe) I have to show that I don't believe it because it shouldn't be believed by ANYONE (because it's false). Because that's what a rational debate is. It's where one side asserts their positions not directly, but instead STARTS from the position that premises the other side fucking obviously does not hold are, in fact, the very premises they are starting from (because clearly they believe what you believe...because your beliefs are the default). With those premises now "established" as belonging to the other side and the conclusion coming from their own mouths (and completely distorted by yours) ANYTHING in the middle whatsoever that gets from A to B (no matter how FUCKING RETARDED it is) is therefore reasonably attributable to the other side. That's great. That's exactly how I want to spend my time again and again and again forever. That's what rational debate is.

I told you what you thought based on what you said, the common interpretation of those words, and what happens when said actions have been tried throughout history. Now, I will grant your thoughts seem to change by the minute but there's not much I can do about that other than ask you to explain your current thinking, is there?

You could simply re-state what you meant? Apparently that is too much to ask. So instead you type a bunch of snark that took more time than any of the above would have. Who's "FUCKING RETARDED"?

[Reagraham Lincool]

I told you what you thought based on what you said

Yeah, that's what happened.

the common interpretation of those words, and what happens when said actions have been tried throughout history.

Well that's the appropriate way to determine what I think. Take what you believe to be the common interpretation of my words and what you believe the history to be. Not what I think. That'd be a crazy way to determine what thoughts are reasonably attributable to me. The best part about this response is that this totally isn't exactly what I was just insinuating you do.

Now, I will grant your thoughts seem to change by the minute but there's not much I can do about that other than ask you to explain your current thinking, is there?

Yeah that's what you're interested in. That's why you'd start from the position of acting like I'm arguing from premises that only complete fucking retards like yourself would start from. Well that's because you really give a shit about rational debate and not at all because you'd like some fresh hook upon which to hang your particular brand of idiocy (and incidentally, it's pretty obvious that the lack of these fresh hooks is the source your newfound frustration at my more recent strategy for managing the circle of complete morons around here).

So yeah, I'm going to sit here and walk you through the terminology and walk you through the theoretical underpinnings of anarchism going all the way back to Proudhon and I'll walk you through some of the real life examples and try to explain all of the political background in each example so that way we can start the conversation without you putting your idiotic ideas in my mouth because apparently, you have no ability whatsoever to discern which types of premises I'm likely to start from and you don't have the intellectual honesty to ask before you go ahead and assume whatever retarded bullshit is most convenient for the manufacture of your ridiculous characterizations of what I think. That's...that's really the best way for me to spend my time. As a long-term strategy I really see that one saving on my time and energy.

You could simply re-state what you meant? Apparently that is too much to ask. So instead you type a bunch of snark that took more time than any of the above would have. Who's "FUCKING RETARDED"?

Well I don't know, Poki. Obviously it can't be you!

[Pokaris]

I told you what you thought based on what you said

Yeah, that's what happened.

the common interpretation of those words, and what happens when said actions have been tried throughout history.

Well that's the appropriate way to determine what I think. Take what you believe to be the common interpretation of my words and what you believe the history to be. Not what I think. That'd be a crazy way to determine what thoughts are reasonably attributable to me. The best part about this response is that this totally isn't exactly what I was just insinuating you do.

Now, I will grant your thoughts seem to change by the minute but there's not much I can do about that other than ask you to explain your current thinking, is there?

Yeah that's what you're interested in. That's why you'd start from the position of acting like I'm arguing from premises that only complete fucking retards like yourself would start from. Well that's because you really give a shit about rational debate and not at all because you'd like some fresh hook upon which to hang your particular brand of idiocy (and incidentally, it's pretty obvious that the lack of these fresh hooks is the source your newfound frustration at my more recent strategy for managing the circle of complete morons around here).

So yeah, I'm going to sit here and walk you through the terminology and walk you through the theoretical underpinnings of anarchism going all the way back to Proudhon and I'll walk you through some of the real life examples and try to explain all of the political background in each example so that way we can start the conversation without you putting your idiotic ideas in my mouth because apparently, you have no ability whatsoever to discern which types of premises I'm likely to start from and you don't have the intellectual honesty to ask before you go ahead and assume whatever retarded bullshit is most convenient for the manufacture of your ridiculous characterizations of what I think. That's...that's really the best way for me to spend my time. As a long-term strategy I really see that one saving on my time and energy.

You could simply re-state what you meant? Apparently that is too much to ask. So instead you type a bunch of snark that took more time than any of the above would have. Who's "FUCKING RETARDED"?

Well I don't know, Poki. Obviously it can't be you!

I gave you a direct link, how much more hand holding do you need? What do you state about top down anarchism? Then what do you state the government will do about bottom up anarchism? I don't think I stated anything that you didn't.

Two paragraphs, no clarification. Either have the guts to take a position or the sense to shut up. You're not introducing anything new to show that you can babble endlessly, the mentally challenged have been doing it for years (like you they seem to have problems clearly asserting a position). This doesn't require a lot of theory you can either demonstrate how something works, or acknowledge the flaws that lead it not to work. If you think a bunch of well it would present the ideal society but .... means jack squat you don't get the problem. Here's a hint to the source of it: who is making excuses constantly?

I'm not the one making multiple posts of tripe to avoid having to defend my previous assertions am I?

[Reagraham Lincool]

I gave you a direct link, how much more hand holding do you need? What do you state about top down anarchism? Then what do you state the government will do about bottom up anarchism? I don't think I stated anything that you didn't.

The fact that you honestly believe that's true is what makes me so confident we can have a decent conversation.

Two paragraphs, no clarification. Either have the guts to take a position or the sense to shut up. You're not introducing anything new to show that you can babble endlessly, the mentally challenged have been doing it for years (like you they seem to have problems clearly asserting a position). This doesn't require a lot of theory you can either demonstrate how something works, or acknowledge the flaws that lead it not to work. If you think a bunch of well it would present the ideal society but .... means jack squat you don't get the problem. Here's a hint to the source of it: who is making excuses constantly?

That's some really good English there, Poki. I'm glad you got the thoughts straight in your mind before you just vomited them up like some people like to do.

I'm not the one making multiple posts of tripe to avoid having to defend my previous assertions am I?

Yeah, that's what's happening here.

[nippletwister]

* press L R L R L R L R to longer thread *

[Pokaris]

I'm not the one making multiple posts of tripe to avoid having to defend my previous assertions am I?

Yeah, that's what's happening here.

Indeed.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I'm not the one making multiple posts of tripe to avoid having to defend my previous assertions am I?

Yeah, that's what's happening here.

Indeed.

Good job, Columbo.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

It's funny to see someone who puts fiscal responsibility above all else mad about a 1 year cut to payroll taxes but still supports the party who promised to block all bills until a $900 billion bill is passed for them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-republican-tax-cut-extension-carries-heavy/story?id=12337495

Blocking the new START treaty until they can drive the US further into debt. Now that's some good leadership!

Choosing not to raise taxes is not an expenditure.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

That's true but it's just semantics. Whether the federal government spends $900B more or takes in $900B less either way the deficit grows by the same amount.

If the agreed upon bill had $900B in spending reductions along with the tax cuts I would have said this bill costs the federal government nothing.

Also, trying to describe the designed end of a tax cut bill (that seemingly had little effect other than raising the deficit greatly) as a choice to raise taxes is a bit dishonest. The CBO likely had made it's budget predictions based on the bill's expiration.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

But it's not just semantics. Are you married or is your significant other an overly cautious accountant?

No matter what your ability to bring in money, you're always going to be admonished for how you spend what you have.

edit to your edit: The reason there was a sunset provision was to get the dems to go quietly about it, and the unstated premise was that it would be renewed permanently if the republicans were still in power. I realize this doesn't change the fact that it was designed to end, but the CBO should have known better.

[Reagraham Lincool]

That's true but it's just semantics. Whether the federal government spends $900B more or takes in $900B less either way the deficit grows by the same amount.

And this is where the hidden premises about the proper role of government come in.

[DTower5]

But it's not just semantics. Are you married or is your significant other an overly cautious accountant?

No matter what your ability to bring in money, you're always going to be admonished for how you spend what you have.

edit to your edit: The reason there was a sunset provision was to get the dems to go quietly about it, and the unstated premise was that it would be renewed permanently if the republicans were still in power. I realize this doesn't change the fact that it was designed to end, but the CBO should have known better.

But the idea that people should expect anything to be renewed ten years later is ABSURD. It's almost as absurd as saying that tax cuts don't add to the deficit if they are unpaid for.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

edit to your edit: The reason there was a sunset provision was to get the dems to go quietly about it, and the unstated premise was that it would be renewed permanently if the republicans were still in power. I realize this doesn't change the fact that it was designed to end, but the CBO should have known better.

So as long as Republicans unspokenly intended for something to happen the CBO should budget for it? Should they be budgeting for the invasion of Iran also?

[MarcusAurelius]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_bud ... 52ZWlscw--

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling lower below $607 billion, a figure that would still exceed the previous deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.

Man, I love the master wordsmithing they use for this.

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.73 trillion spending blueprint that pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.

It takes some pretty serious nerve to call an insane record deficit for a full decade "savings."

[Thinine]

If you really believe that's what that sentence meant, you're truly an idiot. It's savings vs. what the deficit would have been without spending cuts or tax increases. How would you express that? Only other way I can think of is deficit reduction.

saving |ˈsāvi ng |
noun
1 an economy of or reduction in money, time, or another resource

Obama makes major cuts in government spending and you complain about savings vs. reduction? WTF?

[MarcusAurelius]

you're honestly going to give obama the credit for spending cuts? that's rich, no pun intended.

It's savings vs. what the deficit would have been without spending cuts or tax increases.

right, the deficit of his budget. man, that obama sure is a great fiscal conservative!

here's a real simple idea for you: if you quadruple something, and then halve it, the end result isn't halving it.

[Thinine]

you're honestly going to give obama the credit for spending cuts? that's rich, no pun intended.

Who else do I give credit to for spending cuts in his budget? I suppose you could say the White House, but for most people it's one in the same.

right, the deficit of his budget. man, that obama sure is a great fiscal conservative!

here's a real simple idea for you: if you quadruple something, and then halve it, the end result isn't halving it.

I'm not sure what your problem is here. Is it that Obama didn't eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop or that deficit reduction is expressed in terms of this years budget vs. last years? Aside from pointing out there's still a deficit, you've offered no reasoning as to why his cuts are good or bad.

[MarcusAurelius]

you're honestly going to give obama the credit for spending cuts? that's rich, no pun intended.

Who else do I give credit to for spending cuts in his budget? I suppose you could say the White House, but for most people it's one in the same.

you are aware of what happened during the 2010 elections, right?

right, the deficit of his budget. man, that obama sure is a great fiscal conservative!

here's a real simple idea for you: if you quadruple something, and then halve it, the end result isn't halving it.

I'm not sure what your problem is here. Is it that Obama didn't eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop or that deficit reduction is expressed in terms of this years budget vs. last years? Aside from pointing out there's still a deficit, you've offered no reasoning as to why his cuts are good or bad.

because of the bolded part, moron. left to their own devices, he and his party were very very clear that they didn't give two shits about reducing the deficit. they increased entitlements and general spending more than any time in history. they railroaded an obscenely expensive health care bill that accomplished next to nothing and without public support. then came a very clear mandate from the voting masses, "fuck you stop spending so much," and you're still drinking the koolaid.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

It doesn't matter how much discretionary spending we freeze or how much we cut funding to NPR or any other politicized bullshit.

Unless the politician mentions cutting social security, medicare, defense, or raising taxes they're not serious about the budget. And that's the bulk of them. Republicans and democrats. Even healthcare refrom is irrelevant in the face of the big 4 budget issues that nobody touches for fear of getting run out of office.

Edit: Typo

[Thinine]

Here's a cool graphic with the spending distribution: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ne ... index.html

[MarcusAurelius]

It doesn't matter how much discretionary spending we freeze or how much we cut funding to NPR or any other politicized bullshit.

Unless the politician mentions cutting social security, medicare, defense, or raising taxes they're not serious about the budget. And that's the bulk of them. Republicans and democrats. Even healthcare refrom is irrelevant in the face of the big 4 budget issues that nobody touches for fear of getting run out of office.

no shit, but that's far from my point. anyone that would suggest that obama would have curtailed "his" budget like this if the dems weren't handed their ass and a plate full of humble pie in 2010 is a drooling retard. but i'm gonna disagree on healthcare reform. $1 trillion over 10 years still counts as "substantial" in my book, even with these budgets.

i'm guessing that when they say "freeze on discretionary spending", they're being awfully particular about what constitutes "discretionary." i'm assuming they don't consider obamacare to be "discretionary", am i right?

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

I guess what I am getting at is that the rate of SS/Medicare growth alone is going to swallow the budget. We could turn the $1T over 10 years of health care reform completely around into a $1T surplus and SS would still destroy it in no time.

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

With the amount of people retiring soon we could cut the budget to nothing but medicare and SS and we'd still be in debt but we're busy splitting hairs over health care reform to win political brownie points.

The average voter has no idea that the driver behind our future debt is really a demographic change.

[MarcusAurelius]

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

See, this bugs me. What you just said has been said by many many republicans in the past few years. Case in point: Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, elected to fix a massive budget problem, flat out told the teachers union that they wouldn't be getting the 4% per year, no strings attached, raises that were in their contracts. Yet you'll sit here and trot out the same old tired line that republicans are all bigoted rich morons, and their opposition to democrat legislation is because they hate the poor or some such nonsense.

Yeah, both parties have been very bad about fiscal conservatism in the past 10 years, but right now we at least have one party trying to reign it in (or at least slow down the shitstorm), while the other has just been taking the ball and running up spending like a balanced budget will give them aids. this is why the republicans have been getting my "lesser of two evils" votes in recent elections.

[DTower5]

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

Drop 106K cap on FICA contributions, roll back REAGAN tax cuts

[DTower5]

I guess what I am getting at is that the rate of SS/Medicare growth alone is going to swallow the budget. We could turn the $1T over 10 years of health care reform completely around into a $1T surplus and SS would still destroy it in no time.

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

With the amount of people retiring soon we could cut the budget to nothing but medicare and SS and we'd still be in debt but we're busy splitting hairs over health care reform to win political brownie points.

The average voter has no idea that the driver behind our future debt is really a demographic change.

Secondly, Social Security is a transfer system - while it is paid out and is technically part of the budget, it does not effect the deficit, and will not until (if no changes are made) the intake exceeds the outlays...

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

See, this bugs me. What you just said has been said by many many republicans in the past few years. Case in point: Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, elected to fix a massive budget problem, flat out told the teachers union that they wouldn't be getting the 4% per year, no strings attached, raises that were in their contracts. Yet you'll sit here and trot out the same old tired line that republicans are all bigoted rich morons, and their opposition to democrat legislation is because they hate the poor or some such nonsense.

Yeah, both parties have been very bad about fiscal conservatism in the past 10 years, but right now we at least have one party trying to reign it in (or at least slow down the shitstorm), while the other has just been taking the ball and running up spending like a balanced budget will give them aids. this is why the republicans have been getting my "lesser of two evils" votes in recent elections.

I am not the stereotypical liberal you want to be arguing with. I will never trot out anything about anyone hating the poor or that republicans are all bigoted morons.

[MarcusAurelius]

I guess what I am getting at is that the rate of SS/Medicare growth alone is going to swallow the budget. We could turn the $1T over 10 years of health care reform completely around into a $1T surplus and SS would still destroy it in no time.

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

With the amount of people retiring soon we could cut the budget to nothing but medicare and SS and we'd still be in debt but we're busy splitting hairs over health care reform to win political brownie points.

The average voter has no idea that the driver behind our future debt is really a demographic change.

Secondly, Social Security is a transfer system - while it is paid out and is technically part of the budget, it does not effect the deficit, and will not until (if no changes are made) the intake exceeds the outlays...

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[MarcusAurelius]

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

See, this bugs me. What you just said has been said by many many republicans in the past few years. Case in point: Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, elected to fix a massive budget problem, flat out told the teachers union that they wouldn't be getting the 4% per year, no strings attached, raises that were in their contracts. Yet you'll sit here and trot out the same old tired line that republicans are all bigoted rich morons, and their opposition to democrat legislation is because they hate the poor or some such nonsense.

Yeah, both parties have been very bad about fiscal conservatism in the past 10 years, but right now we at least have one party trying to reign it in (or at least slow down the shitstorm), while the other has just been taking the ball and running up spending like a balanced budget will give them aids. this is why the republicans have been getting my "lesser of two evils" votes in recent elections.

I am not the stereotypical liberal you want to be arguing with. I will never trot out anything about anyone hating the poor or that republicans are all bigoted morons.

sure thing, chief.

[WrenchHead]

Is MA anti gun?

[MarcusAurelius]

like many divisive issues, i see valid arguments on both sides and don't have strong opinions one way or the other. except for the strong opinion that anyone on one side that will totally discount/ignore/belittle arguments from the other side is a moron.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

So I'm anti-gun now. I wish I would have known that before I blew a bunch of money on ammo this last weekend at the range.

[MarcusAurelius]

jesus. fucking. christ. you are mind-bogglingly stupid. i wasn't talking about you and guns. i was pointing out that you characterized "real conservatives" as gun owners. FUCK.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

What does that have to do with people hating the poor or republicans being bigoted assholes?

[MarcusAurelius]

because "gun owner == conservative" is a stupid goddam stereotype, just like hating the poor and bigotry, JFC.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

So because I generalize conservatives as gun owners I must think they're bigots and poor haters also even though I am a gun owner myself. Now that's a rational train of thought!

[MarcusAurelius]

you own a gun and support drastic reductions in government spending. congratulations, you're a republican.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

A republican that supports universal healthcare, drug legalization, immediate end to foreign military presence, and returning tax rates to 1990s levels. I'm pretty sure I'd be laughed out of CPAC.

[MarcusAurelius]

eliminating foreign military presence and slashing medicare and social security would eliminate the need for higher tax rates. you're 75% sitting on ron paul territory here. welcome to the fold. don't worry, it took me a while to realize that my views were more in line with the stereotypically evil republicans, too. i once voted for nader!

[WrenchHead]

The red circle rolls up most people that post in this forum other than Sherm and Reagraham Lincool.

The green circle rolls up the opinions of most people with most non-religious strangetalk users.

Most people on here are truly for more freedom whether than means bong hits or gun shots. Most people like less taxes and less welfare. Most people oppose the amount of military spending we undergo. Most people would get along well at a drunken night at Welch Ave. Station.

[MarcusAurelius]

i'm pretty sure i can hate/like/get along with someone without their political views being a factor.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

What republican in the last 20 years has done anything to reduce military presence around the world?

On paper I might fall a little more in line with Republicans but in reality they're all talk. They'd rather fight about the 10 commandments on public ground than actually increase liberty and mobility. Medicare part D, Patriot act, TSA, no child left behind, Homeland Security, bush tax cuts, etc. So many poor changes made by the recent GOP.

And I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. I don't agree with him 100% but he's honest and he sticks to his guns. Not exactly pragmatic but much better than you're average toe-the-party-line politician.

[WrenchHead]

That's the reason I've gone over to democrat party.. The stuff that republicans tell you the democrats will do (raise taxes and take away guns) typically never happens. They only raise taxes when times are good enough to pay them without suffering much (Clinton era.)

They haven't taken away our guns. Brady bill stuff didn't affect me because I am not so paranoid I need 30 shot magazines to get the job done properly.

Democrats at least show promise to attack domestic issues and cut military spending. So they've won out. I've also come to realize how necessary taxes are, so I have given up caring about what tax rates are. For a while I thought I fit in with the Libertarian movement, but it's full of religious, two-faced bigots. The tea party is fucking crazy, with their Minutemen membership and association with people like Sarah Palin.

There hasn't been a political party (that I know of) that I fit into. Democrat is the easy answer based on what really happens in politics vs what gets fear-mongered. Domestic issue spending, more social freedoms like abortion and gay marriage... Basically anything that pushes against fanatical Christianity crap gets my vote. Over the past 20 years the main attack I've seen on the advancement of American people in general is the backwards push of Christianity fueled fanaticism.

And like MA mentioned, not all Christians are bad people. Not all tea party people are bad and crazy. It's the collective behavior that happens once you ball up all the propaganda at voting time that has pissed me off. My level of suffering (ha) went up during the Bush years. Nothing got better for me or presumably 75% of the American public during those eight years.

[MarcusAurelius]

What republican in the last 20 years has done anything to reduce military presence around the world?

what democrat in the last 20 years has done anything to reduce military presence around the world? obama sure as shit hasn't despite myriad campaign promises to the contrary, clinton had several "police actions" overseas.

They'd rather fight about the 10 commandments on public ground than actually increase liberty and mobility.

hey, another stereotype without basis. fun! what have the dems done to "increase liberty and mobility"? forcing every citizen to purchase a privately traded product doesn't sound like increased liberty to me. i'll argue that no child left behind helps to increase mobility. what's the dem version? increasing grants specifically targeting minorities? gimme a break.

Medicare part D, Patriot act, TSA, no child left behind, Homeland Security, bush tax cuts, etc. So many poor changes made by the recent GOP.

nice of you to give no reasons for any of those. have the dems ever actually opposed the patriot act? obama personally signed its extension.

but in reality they're all talk.

right now, i'd prefer a bunch of hot air with no action to a bunch of hot air followed by a decade of trillion-dollar deficits. what'd that TV judge say... don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining? well we've got democrats absolutely demolishing all records for deficit and overall spending while they tell me that they're actually giving us savings! fuck. that. by the motto of "the government which does least governs best", the past two years have been a total clusterfuck. it sucked when bush had a republican congress, and they passed some legislation with very bad social liberty implications. fortunately those questionably-constitutional rights the government gave itself haven't seemed to have been exploited too much. but this democratic president with a democratic congress was able to push through legislation that very concretely has financially fucked us in the ass for decades to come.

[MarcusAurelius]

That's the reason I've gone over to democrat party.. The stuff that republicans tell you the democrats will do (raise taxes and take away guns) typically never happens.

yeah, see, you're a dumbass though. raising taxes is exactly what happened.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -form-tax/

but shit, that doesn't even matter since there's two sides to the equation. if you don't raise taxes, but massively raise spending, well then fuck, all you've done is passed the buck so someone further down the line has to raise taxes to pay for the shit you just threw into the deficit. sorry if i can't get all excited when taxes stay the same but spending increases by trillions of dollars. knowing basic math sucks.

[WrenchHead]

You are right. Obama has reneged on a lot of things and can't get anything else done. It's disappointing. What sort of good things to you envision would have happened with McCain running things? I doubt we'd be saving much more money. Approval ratings of the president would probably be lower as well.

[WrenchHead]

That's the reason I've gone over to democrat party.. The stuff that republicans tell you the democrats will do (raise taxes and take away guns) typically never happens.

yeah, see, you're a dumbass though. raising taxes is exactly what happened.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -form-tax/

but shit, that doesn't even matter since there's two sides to the equation. if you don't raise taxes, but massively raise spending, well then fuck, all you've done is passed the buck so someone further down the line has to raise taxes to pay for the shit you just threw into the deficit. sorry if i can't get all excited when taxes stay the same but spending increases by trillions of dollars. knowing basic math sucks.

They haven't raised taxes enough in my opinion to matter. I don't care that they went up as much as they did. And I'm in the evil group of people that support taxing wealthy people at a progressively higher rate all the way up to earnings of infinity dollars/year.

[MarcusAurelius]

That's the reason I've gone over to democrat party.. The stuff that republicans tell you the democrats will do (raise taxes and take away guns) typically never happens.

yeah, see, you're a dumbass though. raising taxes is exactly what happened.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -form-tax/

but shit, that doesn't even matter since there's two sides to the equation. if you don't raise taxes, but massively raise spending, well then fuck, all you've done is passed the buck so someone further down the line has to raise taxes to pay for the shit you just threw into the deficit. sorry if i can't get all excited when taxes stay the same but spending increases by trillions of dollars. knowing basic math sucks.

They haven't raised taxes enough in my opinion to matter. I don't care that they went up as much as they did. And I'm in the evil group of people that support taxing wealthy people at a progressively higher rate all the way up to earnings of infinity dollars/year.

yeah except they raised taxes on the not-rich too. so your opinion is dumb.

who cares if they haven't raised taxes more than some X% that you think "matters"? they increased spending from $2.66T in 2008 to $3.55T in 2010, an increase of 33%. If taxes were raised by 33% to actually pay for that, would that percentage matter? or you just don't care because it's deficit spending and who gives a shit?

[WrenchHead]

Weren't you just bitching about absolute statements like "because you believe ____ you're ___ extreme opinion ___"

Do you believe we'd not have deficit spending under a McCain presidency?

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

right now, i'd prefer a bunch of hot air with no action to a bunch of hot air followed by a decade of trillion-dollar deficits.

Do you remember where the federal budget was before 2000? Do you remember where the budget was after 2008? Where does this fantasy that the GOP doesn't run us into debt come from?

[Thinine]

I don't know why you guys keep arguing with MA, as it's clear he can't have any sort of reasonable conversation. It's tough to talk to someone who thinks they're right all time time and and thinks no one else could possibly understand their reasoning. I've had better conversations with the mentally ill.

[WrenchHead]

It hasn't been proven yet that he is not mentally ill.

[MarcusAurelius]

Weren't you just bitching about absolute statements like "because you believe ____ you're ___ extreme opinion ___"

you're a fucking idiot. you just fucking said:

The stuff that republicans tell you the democrats will do (raise taxes and take away guns) typically never happens.

and i pointed out that taxes and spending were raised in a huge huge huge fucking way. don't deflect how categorically wrong you are.

Do you believe we'd not have deficit spending under a McCain presidency?

i believe we wouldn't have trillion dollar obamacare spending, yes. both parties have bad records, but if you think the difference between a $438B deficit in 2008 and a $1,420B deficit in 2010 isn't significant, you're insane. one is horrible, the other is 3 times horrible.

right now, i'd prefer a bunch of hot air with no action to a bunch of hot air followed by a decade of trillion-dollar deficits.

Do you remember where the federal budget was before 2000? Do you remember where the budget was after 2008? Where does this fantasy that the GOP doesn't run us into debt come from?

i know i have to routinely lecture you on simple matters of indisputable facts, so here goes again. republicans had control of both houses of congress for 6 out of the 8 clinton years. clinton tried to ram home a universal health care bill not unlike obama, and even with dem control of both houses at the time, it was stifled by overwhelming public opposition, and the democratic congress was wiped out in 1994, very much like happened last year, for surprisingly similar reasons. oh and guess what, in 2008 the dems had control of congress.

as a country, we've been most prosperous at times when congress and the presidency were controlled by different parties. obama and friends were able to fuck us through the ass in new entitlements for the past two years, and enough people stopped drinking the koolaid to hinder their ability to keep up that pace.

tldr:
democratic control of presidency and congress: end-of-days level wtf holy shit bad
republican control of presidency and congress: pretty goddam bad
opposing control of presidency and congress: not so bad

[MarcusAurelius]

I don't know why you guys keep arguing with MA, as it's clear he can't have any sort of reasonable conversation. It's tough to talk to someone who thinks they're right all time time and and thinks no one else could possibly understand their reasoning. I've had better conversations with the mentally ill.

yeah, blaming 100% of the nation's problems on the republicans and categorically rejecting anything to the contrary is very "reasonable."

[WrenchHead]

I think you're wrong about the end-of-days scenario.

I agree that it's bad to have a deficit. But you and I probably blame the deficit on different things. I blame it on not collecting enough taxes on corporations and the wealthy during Bush years teamed with deregulation and retarded lending practices.

I don't think we're at end-of-days just yet though...

Lets put republicans and democrats to bed for a bit and we'll let you, MA run the country.

How do you get us out of the deficit situation? What gets cut and/or what happens to taxes?

I'm just honestly curious as to why you side with republicans when you seem to hate the deficit the most, but they seem to be more efficient at causing gaping money bleeding holes in the economy than democrats.

Democrats like to spend money, but collect money with raised taxes. It's true they overspend and under collect.

Republicans like to spend money, but cut taxes. Does not compute.

[MarcusAurelius]

I agree that it's bad to have a deficit. But you and I probably blame the deficit on different things.

probably, but that's only because i blame deficit on what it actually is. the difference between income and spending.

I blame it on not collecting enough taxes on corporations and the wealthy during Bush years teamed with deregulation and retarded lending practices.

okay great, you're stupid. it's 2011 right now, congress was controlled by the dems for 4 years, the presidency for 2, and they managed to quadruple the annual deficit of "the bush years." the blame-everything-on-bush strategy won the democrats the 2006 congress and 2008 presidency. you don't get to use it anymore.

I'm just honestly curious as to why you side with republicans when you seem to hate the deficit the most, but they seem to be more efficient at causing gaping money bleeding holes in the economy than democrats.

Democrats like to spend money, but collect money with raised taxes. It's true they overspend and under collect.

Republicans like to spend money, but cut taxes. Does not compute.

yeah, see, you're factually wrong here again. there is a very clear lesser evil here, now that we've been promised annual deficits in excess of a trillion dollars for several years. at their very worst, bush republicans (whom no one would claim were fiscal conservatives) never held a torch to this.

[WrenchHead]

That's fine, but what would you do to solve these issues?

[Gretyl]

the blame-everything-on-bush strategy won the democrats the 2006 congress and 2008 presidency. you don't get to use it anymore.

Do Repub's get to wait until they get the presidency back before their argument is invalid?

[Gretyl]

That's fine, but what would you do to solve these issues?

capitulate to party politics and pull his own lever over & over

[DTower5]

I guess what I am getting at is that the rate of SS/Medicare growth alone is going to swallow the budget. We could turn the $1T over 10 years of health care reform completely around into a $1T surplus and SS would still destroy it in no time.

The country is getting older and some of the promises made to baby boomers will have to be broken. There is no other way.

With the amount of people retiring soon we could cut the budget to nothing but medicare and SS and we'd still be in debt but we're busy splitting hairs over health care reform to win political brownie points.

The average voter has no idea that the driver behind our future debt is really a demographic change.

Secondly, Social Security is a transfer system - while it is paid out and is technically part of the budget, it does not effect the deficit, and will not until (if no changes are made) the intake exceeds the outlays...

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question385.htm

In the Social Security system, the money you pay into the system gets immediately paid back out to the people who are currently getting Social Security checks.