Republican Tax Nonsense

[Reverend Rick]

1) Republican economic policies destroy the economy.
2) Republicans lose elections.
3) Republicans blame the Democratic Party for the poor economy.
4) Stupid people vote for the Republicans because of the poor economy.

I mean, seriously. If that's not stupid, I'd like to know what the hell is.

1) Barney Frank forcing banks to lend money to unqualified home buyers who had no skin in the game who signed mortages with variable interest rates that would reset to outrageous home payments was a ticking time bomb.

2) Because people voted for BHO just because he was not GWB.

3) Guilty as charged

4) That just about sums it up. This is why we are a Republic and not a democracy.

It's real cool when ignorant voters cast a vote in the direction you like. Thing is, it is a double edged sword. :yes:

 

[Smoke]

1) Barney Frank forcing banks to lend money to unqualified home buyers who had no skin in the game who signed mortages with variable interest rates that would reset to outrageous home payments was a ticking time bomb.

Not a fan of Barney Frank. However: Myths and falsehoods about the purported link between affordable housing initiatives and the financial crisis | Media Matters for America

 

[Sunstone]

The liberal argument for more government spending has no credibility because people see the sorry state of the economy as liberals have spent trillions attempting to jumpstart it.

You've over stated the size of the Federal Stimulus. No one has spent trillions on stimulus. You're probably just being sloppy by lumping TARP funds, bailouts, tax cuts, etc., in with actual stimulus funds. Actual stimulus funds spent is considerably less than a trillion dollars. And that's why the stimulus hasn't worked all that well -- it's been too small.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's real cool when ignorant voters cast a vote in the direction you like. Thing is, it is a double edged sword. :yes:

The difference is Democrats don't kill and eat the ignorant people that vote for them.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi AE,



Yes it is normal. It's just funny hearing liberals puzzle at why they will lose seats this November. It's fairly obvious.

Again, who's puzzling at it? It is fairly obvious. The answer has already been given by Smoke. You cite the amount of spending Obama's done and the lack of results as the reason for voting against Democrats. I don't doubt that's the case. However, if people were smart, they wouldn't be voting for Republicans because of that.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi T-Dawg,
Look at the economy right now, the trillions being spent is not helping.

Do you have a source about these trillions? Unless you know something I don't, that's an exaggeration.

The liberal argument for more government spending has no credibility because people see the sorry state of the economy as liberals have spent trillions attempting to jumpstart it.

Again, where does this "trillions" number come from? And who are these liberals who have spent this money? Surely you don't mean Obama, since he's not a liberal.

You are right, Republicans don't have a great fiscal track record, yet Obama and the Democrats are making Republicans look like penny pinchers.

Really? Have you actually looked at the numbers or are you just going with what you've heard from Fox News, because, newsflash: Obama hasn't spent trillions, and Bush spent $700 billion right before he left office. Plus, at least for a good chunk of Obama's spending we're getting something more than some dead Americans in return.

 

[Engyo]

The Vanishing US Middle Class:

The reasons aren't what you may think.............

 

[T-Dawg]

However, if people were smart, they wouldn't be voting for Republicans because of that.

This is America.

 

[justbehappy]

But more importantly, you don't understand socialistic policies' necessity in a good society.

Necessity?? Do you not know how similiar Communism is to Socialism??

Please tell me you're kidding. Either that, or I want whatever you're smoking.

Obama doesn't want what we want, he wants what he wants. Unless doing so would jeopardize his popularity of course - and then he'll pretend to comply for a short time.

He doesn't care what some people think because he knows in some ways what this country needs.

Does that sound like a democracy to you...?

It's kind of like opposing slavery before it was generally opposed by people.

And what happened when one side of the country felt one way and the other side felt another?

The majority of people have healthcare, so it's hard to make them care. The same way most people are allowed to marry the person they want, so it's hard to make them care about same-sex marriage. Sometimes you have to go against what the general populace wants to do what's best for the populace. Of course, that's assuming the majority was against healthcare reform. I don't think that's the case.

I agree with this logic - but you should convince them to care, rather than forcing it on them. For example, as a bisexual, I am strong supporter for gays to marry. But would I want it to become law before a good majority of the country agrees with it? No. Because I want the country to agree with the government's decisions. Especially since we live in a democracy...

Anyway, this doesn't support your point. Do you really think Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan because it was best for the country? What about his presidency makes you think he cared about the people?[/quote]
I just think he cared more than Obama does, that's all.

 

[T-Dawg]

Necessity?? Do you not know how similiar Communism is to Socialism??

Of course. We need communism, too, but that comes later.

Oh, were you meaning to imply that communism is inherently evil or something? Go back to the 50s, McCarthy!

Obama doesn't want what we want, he wants what he wants. Unless doing so would jeopardize his popularity of course - and then he'll pretend to comply for a short time.

He's been complying to the republican criminals far too long. I agree, he doesn't do what we want - he's far too right-wing for that.

Does that sound like a democracy to you...?

No, but it sounds like a republic.

And what happened when one side of the country felt one way and the other side felt another?

Blood was spilled, because some people were ok with compromising and complying with pro-slavery people who didn't want compromise, and they hemmed and hawed until war was inevitable. Just like the democrats are compromising with the republicans now. Your point?

I agree with this logic - but you should convince them to care, rather than forcing it on them. For example, as a bisexual, I am strong supporter for gays to marry. But would I want it to become law before a good majority of the country agrees with it? No. Because I want the country to agree with the government's decisions. Especially since we live in a democracy...

These are fundamentalist Christians we're talking about here. They aren't going to be convinced.

I just think he cared more than Obama does, that's all.

Bush was passionate about doing evil, and Obama is slightly less passionate about doing evil. Your point?

 

[justbehappy]

First, he signed the healthcare bill into law the end of March. The oil spill didn't happen until April 20. I think you have your timeline and facts a little mixed up.

I definitey know when the oil spill happened... I don't know exactly what he's doing with the healthcare now, but I know he planned some campaign for it. It was on the news here because people were upset about it. It's possible he cancled it, though, because of public dissaproal.

Second, 'm not sure how these things contradict each other. Even if he went against the will of the people for the health care bill (which I don't think he did)

I read an article yesterday that 58% of the country still thinks it should be repealed (maybe the campaign I was talking about had something to do with this)

Do you have any examples other than the oil spill?

Read this: Neal Boortz: Enjoy paying bill for president’s PR  | ajc.com

They are. If you get laid off from your job, you can collect unemployment. If you then lose your house and car and everything else you own, you can get food stamps and other programs for the poor. I'm not sure how you think it's only for some.

It is only for those people. And if we all lost our house and job, who would pay for us?

First, because it wasn't for the general public. It was directed to help a group of people that isn't the majority.

Yet it will affect all of us (AKA taxes). So the majority agreeing with is definitely important.

Second, because there was a lot of misinformation spread about the bill.

Then maybe we should get this information instead of being assured "we're doing the best we can to analyze it." But with Obama rushing through the process so much, that was basically impossible!

Third, the approval rating for the bill went up after the bill was signed.

As I said above, the majority still dissaproves.

 

[Magic Man]

Necessity?? Do you not know how similiar Communism is to Socialism??

First, I'd like to know what this has to do with anything. I mean, not that I'm surprised by the "sky is falling" fear tactics you're employing.

Obama doesn't want what we want, he wants what he wants. Unless doing so would jeopardize his popularity of course - and then he'll pretend to comply for a short time.

Huh? Wait, so how does the healthcare bill fit in then? Is that something he wants? I would assume so since it's not something, according to you that we want. But then he kept up with it even though it didn't help his popularity. You seem to be confusing yourself here.

Does that sound like a democracy to you...?

Indeed it does. That's because through a democratic process he was elected to lead us. Our democracy is not set up for us to vote on everything. It's a representative democracy, where we are represented by a few people in the government whom we elect to the positions.

And what happened when one side of the country felt one way and the other side felt another?

Is it possible for you to just stick with a conversation without jumping all over the place? This question of yours is irrelevant.

I agree with this logic - but you should convince them to care, rather than forcing it on them.

That would be great. It was tried, but the conservative propaganda machine is way too effective for that at this point. But the people who need the healthcare can't wait politely for others to figure out how badly they need it. It needs to happen now, whether or not some people feel it's forced onto them.

For example, as a bisexual, I am strong supporter for gays to marry. But would I want it to become law before a good majority of the country agrees with it? No. Because I want the country to agree with the government's decisions. Especially since we live in a democracy...

Then you're crazy. I'm not sure how you got so caught up in the propaganda, but you need to snap out of it. You need to realize that we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. That means we get to vote on some things, but there are other things that are non-negotiable, like basic civil rights. Your right to marry the person you want is not something that should be voted on. It's a basic right as a human being. It disappoints me that you're far enough gone that you think this way.

I just think he cared more than Obama does, that's all.

Then all you have to do is explain why. Obama's healthcare bill that you dislike is going to help the citizens here. So far the only thing the wars have done is hurt our country's citizens. That would seem to indicate that Obama is one up on caring about Americans.

Also, you said that Bush cared for the people, while Obama is only after his own agenda. That would seem to indicate that you think Bush cared for the people and Obama doesn't, not that one cares more than the other. And it's simply not true.

 

[T-Dawg]

I read an article yesterday that 58% of the country still thinks it should be repealed (maybe the campaign I was talking about had something to do with this)

Roughly 40% of the country is conservative, and roughly 20% considers itself liberal. That number is about right for the only opposition to the bill to be lunatic conservatives who aren't worth listening to and rational liberals who are disappointed at how right-wing Obama turned out to be.
Granted, this is just me speculating, I could be completely wrong...

 

[Magic Man]

I definitey know when the oil spill happened... I don't know exactly what he's doing with the healthcare now, but I know he planned some campaign for it. It was on the news here because people were upset about it. It's possible he cancled it, though, because of public dissaproal.

So, maybe you shouldn't rant about the horrible things he's doing without knowing what he's doing. I never heard about this campaign, and as far as I know nothing of the sort ever happened, at least not since the law as signed.

I read an article yesterday that 58% of the country still thinks it should be repealed (maybe the campaign I was talking about had something to do with this)

Source?

Read this: Neal Boortz: Enjoy paying bill for president’s PR *| ajc.com

Sorry, don't have time. Can you give me the gist of it?

It is only for those people.

Yes, and "those people" would include you if you ended up in their situation.

And if we all lost our house and job, who would pay for us?

I know they say there are no stupid questions, but I think you just proved them wrong.

Yet it will affect all of us (AKA taxes). So the majority agreeing with is definitely important.

It would be nice, but it's not crucial. It needs to happen whether or not the majority approves.

Then maybe we should get this information instead of being assured "we're doing the best we can to analyze it."

What are you talking about? Obama's administration did its best to get the real information out there. The problem is that Fox News and affiliates are just too good at propaganda, which was my point.

But with Obama rushing through the process so much, that was basically impossible!

You should really get your information from a non-Fox News source sometime. It took Obama a year to get through the process. I'd hardly call that rushing it. You should probably go ahead and check back into reality at some point.

As I said above, the majority still dissaproves.

Source?

 

[justbehappy]

Good propaganda can do that.

Regardless, in a democracy, legislators should take people's appoval into account.

If government funded social services (which are paid for by taxes) were eliminated and people had to pay for such services themselves, those services would have to rely on the goodness of people's hearts to donate and for people to pay for the services themselves. You can say "people just need to get off their lazy *****" all you want, but if you take away a poor person's free education, then you significantly reduce (if not completely eliminate) their chances to succeed.

They don't make enough money, so they need a better job. The can't get a better job, because they lack the education. They can't get the education, because they don't make enough money. They don't make enough money, so they need a better job. Rinse. Repeat. You get the idea, right?

If you were to take away these government funded services, it would be crucial to raise wages as well, since people would need more money so that they could pay for those, formerly, government funded services.

I wouldn't propose taking it out of the government's funding. Don't worry. I do see justification in it because it's not just a giveaway. But even with free public education they still arn't 'working there way up.' Because a lot drop out. And it's not the "I had to get a job to support my family" nearly as much as people think it is. Around here, you either got pregnant or school was "boring."

There's also the idea that it will allow the "cream of the crop to rise." The thing is, if we don't support those at the bottom, they will, literally, die off, leaving nobody to do those jobs that those at the top hate and/or are unwilling to do.
United Farm Workers invite Americans to 'Take Our Jobs' - Jul. 7, 2010

Die off?? We arn't an animal species you know.

 

[justbehappy]

Of course. We need communism, too, but that comes later.

Oh, were you meaning to imply that communism is inherently evil or something? Go back to the 50s, McCarthy![/quote]

Dear God... Why don't you go move to China then and let me know how much better your life is, kay? But don't expect a country that's in perfectly good working order with great standards of livings to change how it's been doing things for 300 years just because you have such a 'brilliant' philosophy.

He's been complying to the republican criminals far too long. I agree, he doesn't do what we want - he's far too right-wing for that.

Saying Obama is a moderate is like saying your views arn't insanely extreme.

Blood was spilled, because some people were ok with compromising and complying with pro-slavery people who didn't want compromise, and they hemmed and hawed until war was inevitable. Just like the democrats are compromising with the republicans now. Your point?

Because they thought the new Republican president was going to make slavery illegal. When the country doesn't agree with proposed laws, there can be chaos.

These are fundamentalist Christians we're talking about here. They aren't going to be convinced.

You know as well as I do that times are changing when it comes to religious tolerance. People are becoming increasingly more open-minded. The day will come when people stop trying to put their religion into the government.

Bush was passionate about doing evil, and Obama is slightly less passionate about doing evil. Your point?

HA! Am I evil as well because I don't agree with your views?

 

[justbehappy]

First, I'd like to know what this has to do with anything. I mean, not that I'm surprised by the "sky is falling" fear tactics you're employing.

You honestly want the United States to be Communist...?

Huh? Wait, so how does the healthcare bill fit in then? Is that something he wants? I would assume so since it's not something, according to you that we want. But then he kept up with it even though it didn't help his popularity. You seem to be confusing yourself here.

I put this on another post. If it's something he's passionate about, he'll put that first. If it's something he's not passionate about, he'll put popularty first.

Indeed it does. That's because through a democratic process he was elected to lead us. Our democracy is not set up for us to vote on everything. It's a representative democracy, where we are represented by a few people in the government whom we elect to the positions.

Of course. But in today's day and age, legislators have the ability (because of technology) to find out what we want, and so they have the responsibility to make that a large factor in their decision.

Is it possible for you to just stick with a conversation without jumping all over the place? This question of yours is irrelevant.

Would you like me to not use examples to prove my point? Or are you just afraid I'm going to prove you wrong?

That would be great. It was tried, but the conservative propaganda machine is way too effective for that at this point.

You say that as though Liberals don't have Propoganda either.

But the people who need the healthcare can't wait politely for others to figure out how badly they need it. It needs to happen now, whether or not some people feel it's forced onto them.

Let's not care about what the people want, it's all about what mball thinks is best for the country!

Then you're crazy. I'm not sure how you got so caught up in the propaganda, but you need to snap out of it. You need to realize that we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. That means we get to vote on some things, but there are other things that are non-negotiable, like basic civil rights. Your right to marry the person you want is not something that should be voted on. It's a basic right as a human being. It disappoints me that you're far enough gone that you think this way.

Because I don't let MY opinions affect the way this country should be run like YOU do. You complain that Republicans try to stick their religious feet into the law, bu you only care about your own opinions and think that's the way things should be no matter what. How dare you bring up the Constitution - because you don't even follow it!

Then all you have to do is explain why. Obama's healthcare bill that you dislike is going to help the citizens here.

No, it's going to help some and it's going to hurt some.

So far the only thing the wars have done is hurt our country's citizens. That would seem to indicate that Obama is one up on caring about Americans.

I fail to understand how keeping terrorism out of the country is not caring?

 

[justbehappy]

Source?

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Sorry, don't have time. Can you give me the gist of it?

Obama spent tons of tax-payer money on signs to gain support for the Stimulus bill.

Yes, and "those people" would include you if you ended up in their situation.

Many people will never be in that situation, whether they are close to it or far from it. Therefore, it does not help all. And it hurts the ones it doesn' help through more taxes.

It would be nice, but it's not crucial. It needs to happen whether or not the majority approves.

So you're putting your opinion over everyone elses. You're saying that what you think is best is more important than what the country thinks is best.

What are you talking about? Obama's administration did its best to get the real information out there. The problem is that Fox News and affiliates are just too good at propaganda, which was my point.

WOW WOW WOW. An 1,000 page bill? Oh yeah, we knew so much. CONGRESS was even saying they didn't know what they were voting on.

You should really get your information from a non-Fox News source sometime. It took Obama a year to get through the process. I'd hardly call that rushing it. You should probably go ahead and check back into reality at some point.

You really don't think I know how long it took?? Is Fox brainwashing me into thinking that one year = 1 month? Oh yeah, that's definitely it. With all the changes, it should have taken MUCH more than a year.

Source?[/quote]
Same as above

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

But would I want it to become law before a good majority of the country agrees with it? No. Because I want the country to agree with the government's decisions. Especially since we live in a democracy...

If we all subscribed to this way of thinking then African-Americans would still have separate drinking fountains. I can just picture Martin Luther King Jr telling the crowds to be patient, that the whites will change their minds someday...

 

[justbehappy]

If we all subscribed to this way of thinking then African-Americans would still have separate drinking fountains. I can just picture Martin Luther King Jr telling the crowds to be patient, that the whites will change their minds someday...

Umm, we did change our minds...