Topic: Obama wants to close tax loopholes for the super rich -- Republicans refuse.
Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 15 years ago #8,432
And they walk out. Jesus fucking Jehova, America. :(
We need less spending and less 'breaks' for the super rich. Yet nothing is changing, more of the same old rhetoric and bullshitting between the two parties. Our system is failing, rotting from the inside out.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/obama-republican-leaders-must-bend-on-taxes/
Foxygen !xVulpesUUg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #147,401
Kill the lot of them.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,402
Scratch that; lolamerica.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,405
“60 percent of Americans using a prominent tax deduction believe they get nothing from ‘government social programs.’†http://t.co/DY6I3XB
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,406
@147,402 (C)
Yes... right now I agree. lolamerica :(
Fact is we're at (or very near) depression era levels of unemployment, and our leaders are just bumbling fucking idiots.
Yes... right now I agree. lolamerica :(
Fact is we're at (or very near) depression era levels of unemployment, and our leaders are just bumbling fucking idiots.
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,409
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
NH is under 5%. More states should step up and stop being pussies. Don't expect washington to do a damn thing.
edit: WTF phone
NH is under 5%. More states should step up and stop being pussies. Don't expect washington to do a damn thing.
edit: WTF phone
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,410
Why not reduce spending instead of increasing taxes?
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,411
> that feel when rich people get a bunch of hate from jealous poorfags
But yeah, they need higher taxes
But yeah, they need higher taxes
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,414
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,415
@147,410 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Because the aggregate spending is much more poorly allocated than it is excessive.
Because the aggregate spending is much more poorly allocated than it is excessive.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,426
After a few taxpayer-funded bailouts, corporations and the super-rich are now back complaining about paying taxes. Ho-hum.
At least Obama has grown a little backbone and stopped pretending to be some great compromiser.
At least Obama has grown a little backbone and stopped pretending to be some great compromiser.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,431
@147,409 (Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k)
> NH is under 5%. More states should step up and stop being pussies. Don't expect washington to do a damn thing.
A lot of states report similar numbers (5-9%), but those numbers are only representative of the small portion of unemployed people still actively involved with the state's unemployment program/s. Long term unemployment and folks who never dealt with the state aren't even counted, the real numbers are two to three times higher (impossible to say exactly), but definitely much higher than a state's weekly report.
States are fairly limited in regards to creating jobs, the feds are in a much better position. Shovel ready jobs are a good way to stimulate an economy in the short term, and can help stimulate future, natural growth.
But none of that addresses the core issues of over spending, poorly managed (costly) programs, and under-taxation.
> NH is under 5%. More states should step up and stop being pussies. Don't expect washington to do a damn thing.
A lot of states report similar numbers (5-9%), but those numbers are only representative of the small portion of unemployed people still actively involved with the state's unemployment program/s. Long term unemployment and folks who never dealt with the state aren't even counted, the real numbers are two to three times higher (impossible to say exactly), but definitely much higher than a state's weekly report.
States are fairly limited in regards to creating jobs, the feds are in a much better position. Shovel ready jobs are a good way to stimulate an economy in the short term, and can help stimulate future, natural growth.
But none of that addresses the core issues of over spending, poorly managed (costly) programs, and under-taxation.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,432
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,433
@147,426 (I)
He needs to start manning up or he's going to get steamrolled by the rednecks who will all vote GOP in 2012.
edit: My phone has gone crazy
He needs to start manning up or he's going to get steamrolled by the rednecks who will all vote GOP in 2012.
edit: My phone has gone crazy
(Edited 1 minute later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,444
@147,432 (hamfist !!mtq555+/1)
> Has he done anything for the economy so far?
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
> Has he done anything for the economy so far?
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,447
@147,432 (hamfist !!mtq555+/1)
He's the president of the united states. Nowhere in his job description does it say "fix the economy". His primary job is to execute and enforce the laws passed by congress, not singlehandedly repair the world's largest economy.
He's the president of the united states. Nowhere in his job description does it say "fix the economy". His primary job is to execute and enforce the laws passed by congress, not singlehandedly repair the world's largest economy.
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,449
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,450
@147,447 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
This.
Conservative-ish thought would argue that economy planning by the federal government should never happen. A more appropriate role for the federal government is the enforcement of law and actions that ensure free, stable, and trustworthy commerce.
I think it’s clear how he has done a lot in that regard.
This.
Conservative-ish thought would argue that economy planning by the federal government should never happen. A more appropriate role for the federal government is the enforcement of law and actions that ensure free, stable, and trustworthy commerce.
I think it’s clear how he has done a lot in that regard.
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,451
@147,431 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> States are fairly limited in regards to creating jobs, the feds are in a much better position.
Gotta agree to disagree there man, the feds are in a terrible position to do anything for X state. The state has to get off it's ass and make local changes to spur job growth. Washington is never going to do anything to help Kanasas (6.6%), Kansas has to help Kansas. Your state reps to Washington don't even vote with "Is this bill what is best for Kansas?" in mind. They vote with "Is this bill what is best for the GOP and how I look to my peers?"
Over reliance on Washington is a big problem in America.
edit: If you reply to me and I don't continue the conversation it's because my phone is slurping dildos at the moment and I have to get back to work.
> States are fairly limited in regards to creating jobs, the feds are in a much better position.
Gotta agree to disagree there man, the feds are in a terrible position to do anything for X state. The state has to get off it's ass and make local changes to spur job growth. Washington is never going to do anything to help Kanasas (6.6%), Kansas has to help Kansas. Your state reps to Washington don't even vote with "Is this bill what is best for Kansas?" in mind. They vote with "Is this bill what is best for the GOP and how I look to my peers?"
Over reliance on Washington is a big problem in America.
edit: If you reply to me and I don't continue the conversation it's because my phone is slurping dildos at the moment and I have to get back to work.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,455
@previous (Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k)
> Over reliance on Washington is a big problem in America.
I think the words you're looking for are "Over expectations of Washington is a big problem in America" and I agree.
States simply do not have the extra money to do anything of significance, dems da facts, the Feds would have to be involved to some extent. Still though, even that happened its tantamount to applying a bandaid to a cut jugular vein.
> Over reliance on Washington is a big problem in America.
I think the words you're looking for are "Over expectations of Washington is a big problem in America" and I agree.
States simply do not have the extra money to do anything of significance, dems da facts, the Feds would have to be involved to some extent. Still though, even that happened its tantamount to applying a bandaid to a cut jugular vein.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,465
@147,432 (hamfist !!mtq555+/1)
With the automotive and housing industries crumbling at the beginning of his term, rising unemployment, and a metric fuckton of money dumped into foreign wars, a lot has been going on economically. As the office of president only represents one branch of government and one final step in the legislative process, a lot of the real action falls to congress. Unfortunately, congress is mostly full of wealthy old people who are more invested in playing politics than solving problems and who are almost completely detached from the world that most of us know.
Some would say that what he needs to be doing is leading. Maybe he is finally figuring this out.
With the automotive and housing industries crumbling at the beginning of his term, rising unemployment, and a metric fuckton of money dumped into foreign wars, a lot has been going on economically. As the office of president only represents one branch of government and one final step in the legislative process, a lot of the real action falls to congress. Unfortunately, congress is mostly full of wealthy old people who are more invested in playing politics than solving problems and who are almost completely detached from the world that most of us know.
Some would say that what he needs to be doing is leading. Maybe he is finally figuring this out.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,466
@147,455 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure it’s the most effective or accurate statement. Much of the federal budget that you’re talking about—the non-defense, job-creating stuff—is disbursed directly to the states so they can manage the programs and spending on behalf of the federal government.
Think health departments, land management, and the likes. The feds disburse the money, but it’s the states who spend it.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure it’s the most effective or accurate statement. Much of the federal budget that you’re talking about—the non-defense, job-creating stuff—is disbursed directly to the states so they can manage the programs and spending on behalf of the federal government.
Think health departments, land management, and the likes. The feds disburse the money, but it’s the states who spend it.
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,468
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,471
@147,466 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Yes, but that money is already allocated. Nothing new or more of anything is being created. Just bloated, inefficient programs wasting money we don't have to waste. Not everything has to be so complicated, back in the day 'shovel ready' jobs meant just that, planting trees in Federal/State parks etc (Hoover Dam), money almost directly from government to the people.
I'm not claiming that is the best solution by any means, but it would most likely beat the hell out of nothing, which is what is happening right now, nothing.
Yes, but that money is already allocated. Nothing new or more of anything is being created. Just bloated, inefficient programs wasting money we don't have to waste. Not everything has to be so complicated, back in the day 'shovel ready' jobs meant just that, planting trees in Federal/State parks etc (Hoover Dam), money almost directly from government to the people.
I'm not claiming that is the best solution by any means, but it would most likely beat the hell out of nothing, which is what is happening right now, nothing.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #147,474
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
More progressive states are doing interesting new things with health and transportation funding, brah. ;-)
More progressive states are doing interesting new things with health and transportation funding, brah. ;-)
Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #147,476
When America goes to hell I'm going to flee to Holland and spend my days trying to locate dreamworks. (My GF has citizenship)
edit: FUCK THIS PHONE. Buying a new one tomorrow.
edit: FUCK THIS PHONE. Buying a new one tomorrow.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #147,499
@previous (Deckard Cain !xhERPesk0k)
Well don't plan on staying for much longer then. Our economy is very much at a tipping point, could go either way, at the moment it is just precariously hanging in the balance.
Well don't plan on staying for much longer then. Our economy is very much at a tipping point, could go either way, at the moment it is just precariously hanging in the balance.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,035
> money from government to people
Is actually
> money from people to government to people
Why not
> money from people to people
Is actually
> money from people to government to people
Why not
> money from people to people
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,036
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,039
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,046
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Whether you call it money from the government or money from the people, it still comes from the people. In fact the government itself is made of people, citizens just like any other.
I see your point, but my point is; the money always has and always will come from the people. We don't disagree a whole lot on politics. That's refreshing.
Whether you call it money from the government or money from the people, it still comes from the people. In fact the government itself is made of people, citizens just like any other.
I see your point, but my point is; the money always has and always will come from the people. We don't disagree a whole lot on politics. That's refreshing.
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,066
@147,410 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Because, the cuts to spending hurt the poor the most. Without people working shitty jobs the wealthy have nothing to exploit to make their ungodly sums of money.
By focusing solely on spending cuts the burden falls solely on the poor.
Because, the cuts to spending hurt the poor the most. Without people working shitty jobs the wealthy have nothing to exploit to make their ungodly sums of money.
By focusing solely on spending cuts the burden falls solely on the poor.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,072
@148,046 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
My point is that party a wants to give money to party b. Why should party c intervene and take the money and then give it to party d?
My point is that party a wants to give money to party b. Why should party c intervene and take the money and then give it to party d?
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,077
@148,066 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
This has a lot of truth to it. Its referred to as "Trickle Up Poverty".
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Without context what you're saying doesn't make sense. I could guess at what scenario you're trying to describe, but I'm just not sure what you're trying to say.
This has a lot of truth to it. Its referred to as "Trickle Up Poverty".
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Without context what you're saying doesn't make sense. I could guess at what scenario you're trying to describe, but I'm just not sure what you're trying to say.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,079
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,100
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,105
@148,077 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's a logical abstraction. The idea of expressing it this way is that it doesn't need context to be understood.
It's a logical abstraction. The idea of expressing it this way is that it doesn't need context to be understood.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,110
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Yeah I get that, but what's important is who you're implying wants to give money to who. You're using an example that may, or may not, apply to this situation. Given that no one wants to give money to anyone, I just don't see what there is to discuss about your scenario.
Yeah I get that, but what's important is who you're implying wants to give money to who. You're using an example that may, or may not, apply to this situation. Given that no one wants to give money to anyone, I just don't see what there is to discuss about your scenario.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,141
Not super rich yet I do enjoy many of those special tax breaks.
Tax breaks are good. If people are dumb enough to vote the tax breaks people in2 power, then more power to them.
Thank goodness for dumb voters lol
Now to be fair about this and fair is fair. That extra $$$$ is good for the economy. I TRY VERY Hard to buy american yet not sure my BMW's qualify but IF I do buy the Z5 next year it will. I do employ more people then eye wood if not for tax breaks. I sure buy better made Booze made in USA with Tax breaks.
I am playing monopoly with real prosperity and wood not if not for tax breaks.
Now I do NOT VOTE 4 the current people offering me more tax breaks, but only a damn fool wood not accept what is there eh
Tax breaks are good. If people are dumb enough to vote the tax breaks people in2 power, then more power to them.
Thank goodness for dumb voters lol
Now to be fair about this and fair is fair. That extra $$$$ is good for the economy. I TRY VERY Hard to buy american yet not sure my BMW's qualify but IF I do buy the Z5 next year it will. I do employ more people then eye wood if not for tax breaks. I sure buy better made Booze made in USA with Tax breaks.
I am playing monopoly with real prosperity and wood not if not for tax breaks.
Now I do NOT VOTE 4 the current people offering me more tax breaks, but only a damn fool wood not accept what is there eh
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,159
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,161
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,167
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Taxation? Of course. Its necessary. No one is going to volunteer their money. Free markets and all is a good idea in theory, but the selfishness and greed of humans would never allow it to work. There must be some element of control, and taxation.
Given our current structure is already in place and is not likely to undergo any significant changes there's not much point in discussing whether or not its good/best, because this is a discussion about current and actual issues. Cut spending, cut waste, and tax the people who can easily afford it more. Giving a rich man more money in no way helps anything.
Taxation? Of course. Its necessary. No one is going to volunteer their money. Free markets and all is a good idea in theory, but the selfishness and greed of humans would never allow it to work. There must be some element of control, and taxation.
Given our current structure is already in place and is not likely to undergo any significant changes there's not much point in discussing whether or not its good/best, because this is a discussion about current and actual issues. Cut spending, cut waste, and tax the people who can easily afford it more. Giving a rich man more money in no way helps anything.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,181
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
People don't volunteer their money - they exchange it for good and services.
Actually they do volunteer - its called charity.
The current system can and should be changed. "pragmatists" like you existed at the revolution; abolition, and civil rights.
People don't volunteer their money - they exchange it for good and services.
Actually they do volunteer - its called charity.
The current system can and should be changed. "pragmatists" like you existed at the revolution; abolition, and civil rights.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,185
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
State clearly how could it be changed, why it should be changed, and where such change should begin.
State clearly how could it be changed, why it should be changed, and where such change should begin.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,186
@148,100 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Tell you what. We can stop giving to the poor when the wealthy stop taking from the poor.
Tell you what. We can stop giving to the poor when the wealthy stop taking from the poor.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,187
@previous (!JuMPb0dbaE)
The wealthy do not take from the poor DIRECTLY
The poor help keep the Wealthy Wealthy. Because the poor are too dumb to vote, they get what they put in2 the election. NADA
The wealthy do not take from the poor DIRECTLY
The poor help keep the Wealthy Wealthy. Because the poor are too dumb to vote, they get what they put in2 the election. NADA
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,191
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,193
@148,187 (Syntax)
No. Its idiots like you who buy into propaganda and hate that benefits people willing to screw you.
Companies doing poorly will lay-off workers while giving ridiculous bonuses to upper level management. The people who are likely at fault for the poor performance are rewarded.
Also, people vote but when the wealthy are contributing heavily to their candidates it's essentially making their vote count a shit ton more. Yes, people are stupid. It's not their fault. A lot o the stupidity is the result of the wealthy manipulating flaws of the human mind.
Look at enron. Watch The Smartest Guys in the Room. It shows what happens when republicans get their way. Fuck, the fact we haven't learned our lesson about deregulation from Enron is just amazing to me. It shows exactly what happens. The poor are fucking screwed over so the rich can make boatloads of money.
Remember how you asked Ks to demonstrate how you are retarded? It's shit like this.
Why is that the more religious someone is, the more they support the wealthy dicking over the poor? Christianity is all about sacrifice and shit, but when you talk to believers you find out they are just brainwashed idiots. You don't even realize how you have been manipulated. I guess it makes sense. By being religious it demonstrates you can be delusional, so it's the same weakness that is being exploited.
No. Its idiots like you who buy into propaganda and hate that benefits people willing to screw you.
Companies doing poorly will lay-off workers while giving ridiculous bonuses to upper level management. The people who are likely at fault for the poor performance are rewarded.
Also, people vote but when the wealthy are contributing heavily to their candidates it's essentially making their vote count a shit ton more. Yes, people are stupid. It's not their fault. A lot o the stupidity is the result of the wealthy manipulating flaws of the human mind.
Look at enron. Watch The Smartest Guys in the Room. It shows what happens when republicans get their way. Fuck, the fact we haven't learned our lesson about deregulation from Enron is just amazing to me. It shows exactly what happens. The poor are fucking screwed over so the rich can make boatloads of money.
Remember how you asked Ks to demonstrate how you are retarded? It's shit like this.
Why is that the more religious someone is, the more they support the wealthy dicking over the poor? Christianity is all about sacrifice and shit, but when you talk to believers you find out they are just brainwashed idiots. You don't even realize how you have been manipulated. I guess it makes sense. By being religious it demonstrates you can be delusional, so it's the same weakness that is being exploited.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,195
@148,185 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
I'm on phone so I can't really type an essay. Why is easy - moral and economic. Coercion is wrong. The free market is best at generating wealth, govt is terrible at it.
it should begin with the offensive wars, then the war on drugs. then unconstitutional federal departments. then allow people to opt out of social security.
I'm on phone so I can't really type an essay. Why is easy - moral and economic. Coercion is wrong. The free market is best at generating wealth, govt is terrible at it.
it should begin with the offensive wars, then the war on drugs. then unconstitutional federal departments. then allow people to opt out of social security.
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,196
@148,186 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
Jump you are confused. i support voluntary giving to the poor. I oppose forceful taking from the poor and giving to the rich (inflation, bailouts).
Jump you are confused. i support voluntary giving to the poor. I oppose forceful taking from the poor and giving to the rich (inflation, bailouts).
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,198
@148,193 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
Yo do not cum down on me for the Tax problems.
Nor is this a Republican vs Democratic issue. Take the Wall Street bailouts and Bank bailouts.
USA under Demos loaded massive Zillions to Wall Street and Banks. Banks made huge profits and paid back USA and used the bonus money to have parties and vacations and bonus's bonus's.
Because both parties are owned by the Wall Street and Bank lobbies no new serious law changes were made to prevent a future collapse.
All I do which is what I am supposed to do is take advantage of all I can take advantage of re IRS Rules.
> wealthy are contributing heavily to their candidates it's essentially making their vote count a shit ton more.
Yes and now that the US Super court has opened up flood gates with NO LIMITS to Corporations, which are now allowed to buy unlimited ads, its all legal re vote counts worth shit tons more.
> Christianity .
Christianity is mostly about turning the other cheat er I mean turning the other check er is that turning the other cheek.
Christians are allowed to be crooked and then ask forgiveness and do it all over again.
Yo do not cum down on me for the Tax problems.
Nor is this a Republican vs Democratic issue. Take the Wall Street bailouts and Bank bailouts.
USA under Demos loaded massive Zillions to Wall Street and Banks. Banks made huge profits and paid back USA and used the bonus money to have parties and vacations and bonus's bonus's.
Because both parties are owned by the Wall Street and Bank lobbies no new serious law changes were made to prevent a future collapse.
All I do which is what I am supposed to do is take advantage of all I can take advantage of re IRS Rules.
> wealthy are contributing heavily to their candidates it's essentially making their vote count a shit ton more.
Yes and now that the US Super court has opened up flood gates with NO LIMITS to Corporations, which are now allowed to buy unlimited ads, its all legal re vote counts worth shit tons more.
> Christianity .
Christianity is mostly about turning the other cheat er I mean turning the other check er is that turning the other cheek.
Christians are allowed to be crooked and then ask forgiveness and do it all over again.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,201
Our dear MM is taking a reasonable, constructive debate and framing it to his own masturbatory buzzwords of peace, love, and freedom to derail the substantive conversation of the topic.
For shame.
For shame.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,203
@148,193 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
You have serious issues. You externalize all negative outcomes and blame particular entities and individuals for societal problems.
If you disagree with a companies practices don't do business with them. There is no right to be employed.
You blame the republicans for everything! You are a delusion utopian. If the republicans were eliminated there would still be evil in the world.
Christianity follows the "law of liberty" and the law of love. Coercion has no place in this system. Voluntary charity is strongly encouraged. Greed is strongly denounced.
You have serious issues. You externalize all negative outcomes and blame particular entities and individuals for societal problems.
If you disagree with a companies practices don't do business with them. There is no right to be employed.
You blame the republicans for everything! You are a delusion utopian. If the republicans were eliminated there would still be evil in the world.
Christianity follows the "law of liberty" and the law of love. Coercion has no place in this system. Voluntary charity is strongly encouraged. Greed is strongly denounced.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,205
Rather than debating the most effective and equitable methods of achieving a goal we generally agree upon, he turns it into a debate of "which definition of freedom is the most free?" Next, he tries to claim victory (by never wavering from his framing) because nobody else proposes a more aesthetic definition of freedom.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,206
@148,201 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
I put forward rational arguments; you resort to trolling. Stop. Respond to my arguments with your own or be quiet.
I put forward rational arguments; you resort to trolling. Stop. Respond to my arguments with your own or be quiet.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,207
@previous (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
aint even trolling, bud
I'm exposing your rhetorical style and calling out your intellectual dishonesty.
> respond to my arguments
That's exactly what framing the debate does, bud, is steer it off course to your own mastubatory vision :')
aint even trolling, bud
I'm exposing your rhetorical style and calling out your intellectual dishonesty.
> respond to my arguments
That's exactly what framing the debate does, bud, is steer it off course to your own mastubatory vision :')
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,208
@148,205 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Rather than refute my arguments or defend your own, you pretend my arguments are so beneath you that you won't even bother to respond.
Rather than refute my arguments or defend your own, you pretend my arguments are so beneath you that you won't even bother to respond.
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,209
@148,196 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)> Jump you are confused. i support voluntary giving to the poor.
That's not working out so well now is it?
> I oppose forceful taking from the poor and giving to the rich (inflation, bailouts).
Some of the bailouts were absolutely necessary for the greater good, though just like in any situation the rich took complete advantage of the situation. You're looking at this like the majority of people are good and do the right thing... they don't, they never have, and they probably never will.
I know you're not as dense as you pretend be. :/
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,210
@148,208 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
We could go back to other threads where others and myself have all done that. You're just taking this new thread as a convenient venue for expressing PEACE LOVE RON PAUL FREEDOM without context.
We could go back to other threads where others and myself have all done that. You're just taking this new thread as a convenient venue for expressing PEACE LOVE RON PAUL FREEDOM without context.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,211
@148,209 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Some of the bailouts were absolutely necessary for the greater good
inb4 somebody tries to call that out as wrong. Paul Krugman has repeatedly made it entirely clear how this is the most defensible and appropriate method of saving the economy.
> Some of the bailouts were absolutely necessary for the greater good
inb4 somebody tries to call that out as wrong. Paul Krugman has repeatedly made it entirely clear how this is the most defensible and appropriate method of saving the economy.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,213
RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,216
@148,207 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
It is you who is offtopic! This is not a metatopic about my arguments!
It is you who is offtopic! This is not a metatopic about my arguments!
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,217
@148,203 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> Christianity follows the "law of liberty" and the law of love
Yea them Catholics sure know all about taking liberties with kiddlets and giving them a lot of Christian love in all the wrong places.
> Christianity follows the "law of liberty" and the law of love
Yea them Catholics sure know all about taking liberties with kiddlets and giving them a lot of Christian love in all the wrong places.
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,219
@148,216 (RonPaul2012 !4EB6xd.Oos)
This topic is not about "how awesome is MM's vision of a free world?" This topic is about "how do tax policies affect classes of people and why, and how can we make that meet our general goals?"
Please stay on topic. Thanks, bud.
This topic is not about "how awesome is MM's vision of a free world?" This topic is about "how do tax policies affect classes of people and why, and how can we make that meet our general goals?"
Please stay on topic. Thanks, bud.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,221
@148,198 (Syntax)
You are right that both democrats and republicans are involved in deep corruption and part of the problem.
However, republicans are across the board pushing really crazy shit right now and trying as hard as possible to make Obama fail.
They do not want to do anything that will help the country because they see it as helping Obama.
They arent hiding it either. Boehner has said it flat out in a criticism of a fellow republican. Shit is bad in country. The corruption and fucking over our economy isn't a republican only issue, very true. However, there are a ton of key issues republicans are pushing heavily right now, like deregulation --as I mentioned -- that is fucking insane.
I'm not really a democratic supporter. I only support them because they are only hope. There isn't one republican right now I could support. I certainly wouldn't vote for any of the candidates who have announced they are running so far.
Obama's next term (assuming he has one) should prove a little better as there isn't as much incentive to fight him so much.
Why did republicans walk out over helping such a minuscule portion of the population who are doing extremely well?
We do have a huge republican problem in our country. They aren't serving the people. They are serving the people who will contribute to their campaigns.
Keep thinking republicans arent killin our country though. The evidence is all over.
They are saying that a minuscule portion of the population are the most important people simply because they are extremely wealthy. It's not like it's gonna drive anyone to the poor house.
You are right that both democrats and republicans are involved in deep corruption and part of the problem.
However, republicans are across the board pushing really crazy shit right now and trying as hard as possible to make Obama fail.
They do not want to do anything that will help the country because they see it as helping Obama.
They arent hiding it either. Boehner has said it flat out in a criticism of a fellow republican. Shit is bad in country. The corruption and fucking over our economy isn't a republican only issue, very true. However, there are a ton of key issues republicans are pushing heavily right now, like deregulation --as I mentioned -- that is fucking insane.
I'm not really a democratic supporter. I only support them because they are only hope. There isn't one republican right now I could support. I certainly wouldn't vote for any of the candidates who have announced they are running so far.
Obama's next term (assuming he has one) should prove a little better as there isn't as much incentive to fight him so much.
Why did republicans walk out over helping such a minuscule portion of the population who are doing extremely well?
We do have a huge republican problem in our country. They aren't serving the people. They are serving the people who will contribute to their campaigns.
Keep thinking republicans arent killin our country though. The evidence is all over.
They are saying that a minuscule portion of the population are the most important people simply because they are extremely wealthy. It's not like it's gonna drive anyone to the poor house.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,228
@previous (!JuMPb0dbaE)
Not trying to disagree with you. However Obama is stuck in a terrible situation. THEY hold him responsible for the horrid state of USA economy. Then Obama goes after a long term goal to solve the health care system for the masses. Now I do not really know how much any one administration can put people back to work OTHER then as they did wayyyyyy back in WPA era. I still see public works by WPA in National Parks.
The massive bail out of Wall Street and Banks with no real bail out aka WPA type of program. The huge extension of unemployment sure has helped keep crime rates down
So Republicans get to tear apart Obama on the Health care plan and horrid economy and even claim we need out of Afghanistan. At least McCain knows better.
Now I am a Liberal who will benefit if Republicans win. Benefit wood be huge for me
Weird stuff going on. Take corn for food and use inefficiently for car gas and drive food prices up.
Long term you and I know the Republicans will end up in office as history proves. Then it will turn to Demos.
I just need to make sure I have my bets placed so my wallet continues to fill up.
Not trying to disagree with you. However Obama is stuck in a terrible situation. THEY hold him responsible for the horrid state of USA economy. Then Obama goes after a long term goal to solve the health care system for the masses. Now I do not really know how much any one administration can put people back to work OTHER then as they did wayyyyyy back in WPA era. I still see public works by WPA in National Parks.
The massive bail out of Wall Street and Banks with no real bail out aka WPA type of program. The huge extension of unemployment sure has helped keep crime rates down
So Republicans get to tear apart Obama on the Health care plan and horrid economy and even claim we need out of Afghanistan. At least McCain knows better.
Now I am a Liberal who will benefit if Republicans win. Benefit wood be huge for me
Weird stuff going on. Take corn for food and use inefficiently for car gas and drive food prices up.
Long term you and I know the Republicans will end up in office as history proves. Then it will turn to Demos.
I just need to make sure I have my bets placed so my wallet continues to fill up.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,233
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,239
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,240
@148,228 (Syntax)
It's gonna go back and forth, as it does. It's just right now republicans are fucking crazy. Obama would have been a republican during the Clinton years. Look
at where he stands on shit.
If there another option, I'd take it. Unfortunately, he is the best viable option.
It's gonna go back and forth, as it does. It's just right now republicans are fucking crazy. Obama would have been a republican during the Clinton years. Look
at where he stands on shit.
If there another option, I'd take it. Unfortunately, he is the best viable option.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,243
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,245
@148,240 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
No why no how. Obama cums out of infamous Chicago Demo machine. More honest then most and with clowns like Rod Blagojevich, who gets to join George H. Ryan the former Governor of the state who will be in for a couple more years.
Just after Rod was convicted he said in an interview that maybe he talked too much lol
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Ah the Elephant in the room lol
No why no how. Obama cums out of infamous Chicago Demo machine. More honest then most and with clowns like Rod Blagojevich, who gets to join George H. Ryan the former Governor of the state who will be in for a couple more years.
Just after Rod was convicted he said in an interview that maybe he talked too much lol
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Ah the Elephant in the room lol
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #148,279
dem republicans...