The marriage amendment is part of the "American values agenda" the House is taking up this week that includes a pledge protection bill and a vote on President Bush's expected veto of a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research. Bush has asked, and social conservatives demanded, that the gay marriage ban be considered in the run-up to the election.
All this sucking up to the social conservatives and ignoring the fiscal conservatives will not win my vote. It's likely to get me to stay home or even vote for the other side.
But what's terrifying is appeals to bigotry always seem to work when you're trying to win votes. You can't kick around the irish or blacks anymore so let's deny rights to gay people to get votes from people who aren't really effected either way.
GAH!
You just can't win, ya know? If you believe in small government... Both sides, all they want is to run every aspect of your life. *sigh*
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But they want to run different aspects of it. The republicans want you to de able to do anything you want with your money; the democrats want you to be able to do anything you want with your body.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kmb: That's the way it used to be but the Republicans seem to care more about controlling these days than freeing you up economically.
Also the democrats, as a group, seem to support banning gay marriage too. Otherwise every ban ever proposed wouldn't have passed with 70+ percent of the vote when taken to the people.
CONTROL is the focus for both parties. They only talk of Freedom when they're contrasting themselves to the other side. And only when talking to the groups the other side wants to opress.
Pix
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think you greatly overestimate the degree to which they think at all, much less about you. George W. Bush is not up for reëlection and, thus, feels he can do anything, whereas Congressional Republicans always feel like they can do anything. Whereas the Democrats just won't do anything. Given the choice between stagnation and actively marching backwards, I shall always choose the former. Although, as a Texan, I can vote Green without worrying about diluting the electorate.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
This is how I feel... Plus someone needs to be blamed for me having to go the ER and end up with a two thousand dollar bill I can't pay that ruins my credit... When they cut taxes for the wealthy it has to come from SOMEONE! So most likely, it's me and other folks who are struggling to hold on to something they earn.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: Green are the worst of the lot, sorry to tell you. There's no economic freedom under the Greens.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I didn't say I agreed with them, although I do on many issues. I am a Liberal Democratic man, through and through, and thus a Capitalist. However, the Greens are largely post-materialist, and it is on non-materialist issues that I most agree with them, although I think that post-materialism is incredibly naïve, just as I think purely materialist schools are incomplete.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're assigning motives that aren't there. I don't believe the people in power want to take away your money or your ability to use it.
What they want to do instead is take away any and all restriction on how they acquire and use their money.
The result is much the same -- without regulations or any real enforcement of finance laws the unscrupulous rich (which is not all the rich) can dominate the financial field and keep others from profiting through unfair but legal practices.
The continuing refusal to raise minimum wage is an example. It's not being done to keep people under poverty level. It's being done because companies complained they wouldn't be able to continue making profits if they had to pay it.
They don't want to make poor people poorer. They want to make rich people richer. From the poor person's point of view there may not seem like much difference, but there is. The current administration and the people funding it are selfish, but they're not evil.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: Have you considered the Constitutionalist Party?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy...
It's also possible that she does not believe that Republican economic policies have the effect that Republicans say they do.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Republican Economic Conservative Policy--people can do whatever they want with their money.
Our Currently Elected Republican Economic Policy--If you donated to my cause, then you can do whatever you want to get more money.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I choose not to belong to a party, but I do consider myself a member of the The International Federation of Liberal Youth and, to a lesser degree, its parent organization Liberal International, even though, as an American, I cannot join officially.
quote:Plus someone needs to be blamed for me having to go the ER and end up with a two thousand dollar bill I can't pay that ruins my credit...
Yourself, for not having insurance? Whoever/whatever caused the injury in the first place? The hospital, for charging such obnoxious rates for emergency care? People who unjustly or unnecessarily file malpractice suits, resulting in rising costs?
quote:When they cut taxes for the wealthy it has to come from SOMEONE!
Yeah, it does - everyone.
quote:So most likely, it's me and other folks who are struggling to hold on to something they earn.
Why is it the responsibility of the rich to help pay for you? This question is directed at anyone believing in a "liberal" economic policy.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:I am a Liberal Democratic man, through and through, and thus a Capitalist.
The Capitalists I know would violently disagree.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
A Liberal economic policy is Capitalist, although most liberals, myself included, believe in some degree of a welfare state, financed by taxation, rather than state ownership, as more leftist groups favor. Please elaborate on your point.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:A Liberal economic policy is Capitalist,
Wrong.
A liberal economic policy favors extensive government regulation of all aspects of business, including production, taxation, trade, etc.
quote:although most liberals, myself included, believe in some degree of a welfare state, financed by taxation, rather than state ownership, as more leftist groups favor.
That's a difference of degree, not direction.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was under the impression that Pel was using the word "liberal" in its classical rather than modern sense.
A classical liberal would be a capitalist where as a modern liberal would be a socialist.
Am I wrong in interpreting your usage, Pel?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I was under the impression that Pel was using the word "liberal" in its classical rather than modern sense.
A classical liberal would be a capitalist where as a modern liberal would be a socialist.
Am I wrong in interpreting your usage, Pel?
Ah, that would be where the confusion lies, although given Pel's fondness for archaic language forms, I shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Not quite, no Liberal is a Socialist, the two are opposed ideologically. Marx and his followers, including the Socialists, believed in state ownership, Liberals believe in private ownership. The problem arises when "liberal" is used to mean "leftist," although the two are unrelated. The Economist is Liberal, Pravda was Leftist.
"That's a difference of degree, not direction." It is a massive difference in direction.
"A liberal economic policy favors extensive government regulation of all aspects of business, including production, taxation, trade, etc." WRONG. A Liberal economic policy favors taxation (I would like you to show me any serious political theories that do not), minimum wages, employee health insurance and laws designed to protect human rights and the environment, but not "extensive regulation of all aspects of business" and no constraints on production, which is a Marxist policy.
I recommend that you read the short manifesto I linked to, it is worth your time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A liberal economic policy favors extensive government regulation of all aspects of business, including production, taxation, trade, etc.
So does a conservative economic policy. People are in favor of enforceable contracts - an incredibly huge amount of regulation of business - the protection of private property - which also entails enormous quantities of regulation.
The two sides differ on what should be regulated.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Not quite, no Liberal is a Socialist, the two are opposed ideologically. Marx and his followers, including the Socialists, believed in state ownership, Liberals believe in private ownership. The problem arises when "liberal" is used to mean "leftist," although the two are unrelated. The Economist is Liberal, Pravda was Leftist.
Yeah, you're definitely using the classical definition of liberal. As per modern language, Pel, Liberal and Leftist are synonymous when it comes to economic policy, and you obviously know it.
Why bother to set up such a ridiculous, unnecessary trap? Given that the modern usage of "liberal" is overwhelmingly commonplace, simply acknowledging your own use of the classical definition would have gotten your point across. Instead, you choose this.
I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you really have been pointedly ignoring anything constructive people have to say. I give up on trying to have any sort of meaningful interaction with you.
quote:So does a conservative economic policy. People are in favor of enforceable contracts - an incredibly huge amount of regulation of business - the protection of private property - which also entails enormous quantities of regulation.
The two sides differ on what should be regulated.
Fair enough.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Actually, the government in power in Australia at the moment (The Liberal Party) is liberal in more or less the way Pelegius describes.
I don't get what's "classical" about it.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Demon, you need to calm down, and change your tone. Since you were talking about economic policy, do you not think that it's fair for Pel to use the economic/classical definition of liberal?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Actually, the government in power in Australia at the moment (The Liberal Party) is liberal in more or less the way Pelegius describes.
I don't get what's "classical" about it.
Forgive me, I tend to ignore that other countries exist except insofar as they affect my everyday life.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Pelegius, have you got MSN?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Demon, you need to calm down, and change your tone. Since you were talking about economic policy, do you not think that it's fair for Pel to use the economic/classical definition of liberal?
I think you're severely misreading my post, given that it's completely calm, and my tone is one of pity and surrender, not confrontation.
And no, I don't think it's fair.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
Do you not see agression in your tone here?
And then you went on to blame Syn for not being able to pay for insurance, and then gave attitude to Pel for using a correct definition that you misunderstood (don't get me wrong, ragging on Pel is great, but only when he deserves it, and he doesn't in this case).
Why are you so confrontational/angry? And if you are not, then maybe you should be more careful as to how your posts come off.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:They want RICH PEOPLE to do whatever they want with their money. People like me on the other hand will get robbed every second.
Syn, this says to me that you either really don't understand Republican economic policy, economics, or you view the underfunding of public resources as "robbery" (which it isn't).
Do you not see agression in your tone here?
And then you went on to blame Syn for not being able to pay for insurance, and then gave attitude to Pel for using a correct definition that you misunderstood (don't get me wrong, ragging on Pel is great, but only when he deserves it, and he doesn't in this case).
Why are you so confrontational/angry? And if you are not, then maybe you should be more careful as to how your posts come off.
...are you serious?
Did you READ syn's posts?
Frankly, I think my response was pretty level-headed given how amazingly accusatory, offensive and ill-informed hers was. My response advanced several much more likely possibilities for her inability to pay for her insurance, rather than blaming TEH REPUBLICANZ Z0MG!!!! for it and, by extension, for her bad credit.
Edit to add:
You know, maybe Pel didn't deserve it here from a purely objective standpoint, but I'm no longer willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt.
Edit to further add:
Pel's definition, while definitively correct, is still deliberately deceptive, the same way it would be deceptive of me to walk up to some random guy on the street and say "you're so gay!" quickly followed by "what? I meant happy. Gay means happy."
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Could Syn's post not be construed as a valid commentary on the failings of trickle down economics? I'm being facetious, but really, Syn hardly wrote enough for you to accuse her of being "amazingly accusatory, offensive and ill-informed". All I'm saying is maybe take a deep breath before you go and acuse someone of being completely ignorant, maybe there is some validity in their opinions?
And yes, I agree that Pel has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt, but why not give it to him anyway, at least he wrote a semi-coherent post.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Could Syn's post not be construed as a valid commentary on the failings of trickle down economics? I'm being facetious, but really, Syn hardly wrote enough for you to accuse her of being "amazingly accusatory, offensive and ill-informed". All I'm saying is maybe take a deep breath before you go and acuse someone of being completely ignorant, maybe there is some validity in their opinions?
Given the way she wrote and formatted it and given that she doesn't (if ever) post sarcastically, I'm going to go ahead and venture that all facetiousness aside, there's really only one way to interpret her post: life sucks, bad things happened, it's all the fault of The Republicans (tm).
quote:And yes, I agree that Pel has done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt, but why not give it to him anyway, at least he wrote a semi-coherent post.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. This thread has more or less removed any shred of a forgiving mood I had.
That and work. This, THIS is why you shouldn't forum at work.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Also the democrats, as a group, seem to support banning gay marriage too. Otherwise every ban ever proposed wouldn't have passed with 70+ percent of the vote when taken to the people.
So what you're saying is that many of the people who vote Democratic are opposed to gay marriage. That says nothing about whether Democratic politicians are opposed to it.
In fact, almost all of them are for it. If the Democrats held Congress and the White House securely, gays would have the right to marry.
When you vote Democrat, you're not voting for the average blue-state resident. You're voting for the Democratic candidate, who will almost always be pro-gay.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I find foruming at work to be quite nice actually. Though I don't have the typical job.
I work in a lab as a summer student, so my work (ie experiements) plan my day for me. What is nice about scientific work is that there are ALOT of breaks. Right now, I'm waiting for a gel to harden, and there really isn't anything else to do but surf around the net.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I would consider the Australian Party to be Conservative. Parties that I would consider Liberal include the British Liberal Democrats, the Irish Progresive Democrats and the German Free Democrats, to name a few.
"you're definitely using the classical definition of liberal. As per modern language, Pel, Liberal and Leftist are synonymous when it comes to economic policy" I am using the definition used by Liberals around the world, including the parties I mentioned.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Destineer: Is that why Bill Clinton signed the DOMA? Becuase he was pro-gay marriage? *grr*
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Clinton is pro-gay marriage, but he's also a pragmatist who doesn't always let his ideals dictate his actions. If he'd had a Democratic congress, Defense of Marriage would never have happened.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
(I should prolly edit this into my previous post but I'm not gonna.)
Destineer: See, the thing is, the democrats have proven they don't give a rats buttocks about gay people. That's the problem If I really thought they would give equal rights to gay people I'd probably vote for them.
But they've proven they won't. When they had both houses of congress and the presidency, after promising "gays in the military" they couldn't even pull that off. They gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Now the Republicans are showing that they don't care about the main issue I share with them. Cutting the grotesque size of the federal government and cutting taxes across the board. They did some lame little tiny tax cut when Bush first got into office and now they're debating if they even want to keep that. At the same time they're throwing money around like Ted Kennedy at a strip bar.
So who do I vote for? The party that says they want to give me equal rights but instead wants to take all my money... or the party who says they want to let me keep most of my money (but not really) and so long as I'm in a relationship with One Man and One Woman, cuz them there dykes are icky and against god.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:They gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell.
My fondest memory of the recruiting process was when we got to the DADT form. It's a lot of jargon, and I got the gyst, but I looked at the colonel who was presiding and asked him to explain it.
"You a f***in' f**got?"
"...nope."
"Sign."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I am using the definition used by Liberals around the world, including the parties I mentioned.
However, since the context of this thread deals with Democrats and Republicans (American parties), for the sake of clarity you could have either gone with the American usage or explained right off the bat that you were using it in a different sense.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think you're being unfair to the Dems. Many of them do care about gay rights, but they realize that it's one of the least popular bits of their platform (see your post above about state amendments garnering 70% at the polls). So they're forced into a defensive battle, because taking the offensive would accomplish nothing except losing even more elections.
Interestingly, I think fiscal conservatives are in the same boat. People like Arlen Specter really do want to cut government, but they know that's not what the people want.
quote:So who do I vote for? The party that says they want to give me equal rights but instead wants to take all my money... or the party who says they want to let me keep most of my money (but not really) and so long as I'm in a relationship with One Man and One Woman, cuz them there dykes are icky and against god.
I imagine your views on the Middle East will break the tie in favor of Republicans.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Bao, since no American pary calls itself "Liberal" or is a member of Liberal International, I can not claim to see your point.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dest: actually, Syn's post broke the tie. No matter how holier-than-thou the republicans get the sense of entitlement to other people's money I see in the left will always scare me off.
As for the politicans really wanting to help but not being able to... regardless of what I think about that, the result is the same. Vote Republican, get shafted, Vote democrat, get shafted.
Pix
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:No matter how holier-than-thou the republicans get the sense of entitlement to other people's money I see in the left will always scare me off.
Suit yourself.
The way I see it, money is an idea my ancestors thought up to make things run smoothly. But I was born with sex organs. So the free use of the latter seems a bit more important to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, me too. I don't have enough money to worry about.
edit to add: Sex organs on the other hand...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Well, fortunately we've come far enough that the Republicans can't make it illegal to be gay. They can just continue to fight for special rights for heterosexuals.
When people take what I earn without my consent they're effectively making me their slave. I don't mind giving. I DO mind when giving is demanded.
On a side note, the republicans called me up to ask for money the other day. This year they start every call with "Do you think it's a good thing for the Democrats to gain more power in congress this year?"
I responded "Well, it might get the republicans off their butt and work toward cutting the size of government instead of wasting time on social issues."
She thanked me for my time and hung up.
Funny thing is though, this year I've given more in political contributions than I ever have in my life. To a Conservative Christian Republican who supports Civil Unions.
Pix
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I didn't say I agreed with them, although I do on many issues. I am a Liberal Democratic man, through and through, and thus a Capitalist. However, the Greens are largely post-materialist, and it is on non-materialist issues that I most agree with them, although I think that post-materialism is incredibly naïve, just as I think purely materialist schools are incomplete.
Pel-Your original post.
You said you were a Liberal Democratic man. Not that you belonged to a Liberal Democratic party. Would "I am a Democrat man" call to mind the United States' Democratic party if you lived in South Africa and were discussing South African politics?
If you fail to see how you could possibly have been misinterpreted, then you are either being deliberately obtuse or you're not as smart as you like to pretend to be.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Couldn't we settle on definitions on the terms and refer to a list from somewhere, instead of arguing about who really meant what?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Bao, I also said I do not belong to any party. Liberal Democrat is pretty international in it meaning, just as the term Liberal Democracy is internationali meanint. So, when I met a man from the Czech Repuplic on the Wikipedia page about U Tam'si and his user page said that he was a Liberal Democrat, I knew what it meant, even though neither of our countries has a party called the Liberal Democrats.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Syn, you should really look into your state's Medicaid program. Also, if you're as poor as you seem to be, you don't even pay taxes. Anything taken from your paychecks is refunded to you at the end of the year.
I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid). That's the kind of hogwash that just twists my nipples.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote:No matter how holier-than-thou the republicans get the sense of entitlement to other people's money I see in the left will always scare me off.
Funny, it's the sense of entitlement to my and my unborn children's money that scares me away from the right.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This is how I feel... Plus someone needs to be blamed for me having to go the ER and end up with a two thousand dollar bill I can't pay that ruins my credit... When they cut taxes for the wealthy it has to come from SOMEONE! So most likely, it's me and other folks who are struggling to hold on to something they earn.
This does smack of entitlement, and it makes all sorts of uncomfortable questions come to mind, like, why were you in the hospital in the first place? It's an unfortunate circumstance, and I do believe that we should do something about healthcare costs, and the adverse effect they have on a person's credit, but somehow, some hospital in this country saved you. It seems that you should be more gracious.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Not that I'm in any great suspense as to who you'll vote for, Pix, but I confess to curiosity on one point -- what will be your reasons when you vote Republican in the fall elections? Can you point to a single policy of theirs that's benefitted you? Do you have more money or freedom, or will you later thanks to Republican government? Do you believe the government's in better fiscal shape? Is less money being spent, or at least being focused into research in alternative fuels or better public science education? Is the country, or even the world, a better place now because of Republican government?
You complain that Democrats spend your money, but look back on the past thirty years and tell me that again. I see record deficits by Republicans, each succeeded only by the next Republican president. I see recession and inflation and extreme poverty. What do you see?
I'm more libertarian than anything else, and I still can't think of a single way to justify voting for such an impossibly incompetent and corrupt party. How will you do it?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Demonstrocity: Why is it the responsibility of the rich to help pay for you? This question is directed at anyone believing in a "liberal" economic policy.
I'm not sure that I believe in a liberal/leftist economic policy, but I'll take a stab.
I don't think anyone gets to be monetarily wealthy purely through their own abilities or effort. For a great many of them, it's possible to earn lots of money because the structure of our society enables them to do so by means of access to education and a skilled labor force. Were we living in a tribal society, would Bill Gates have the kind of economic power he does in this one? I'm sure he would still be able to distinguish himself somehow, I simply doubt he would be worth hundreds of thousands times more than the average citizen (in terms of holdings). It seems fair to me that those making more money - as they have had a more advantageous position conferred upon them - contribute a greater percentage.
If that last sentence sounds a bit too Marxist, I apologize. "Conferred" isn't the word I want but I can't think of a better one. Also, I can't ignore the argument that the wealthy work harder and are therefore entitled to their advantageous position. All I'll say is that, for their hard work - and even after taxes - they still make enough to live in luxury and provide for their children.
Other arguments, off the top of my head:
1. Redistributing wealth on a regular basis in an orderly way will prevent the social upheaval of revolution that can occur when wealth becomes too unevenly distributed. This increases stability for everyone.
2. Redistribution of wealth will increase competition by ensuring that as many people as possible are in a position to be meaningfully competetive.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
I've come to realize it was a bad, bad question to ask, since my counter-arguments are all basically devoid of morality, and this is just about the last place I'm going to venture those thoughts.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Syn, you should really look into your state's Medicaid program. Also, if you're as poor as you seem to be, you don't even pay taxes. Anything taken from your paychecks is refunded to you at the end of the year.
I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid). That's the kind of hogwash that just twists my nipples.
Currently I am improving things by working temp jobs, which means i make too much money for the state's free care. Without insurance or freecare, I can't even go to the clinic if I have trouble breathing or a stubborn cough that causes chest pain. So I end up in the emergency room, but probably shouldn't go and wouldn't have to if I have a primary physician I could visit. Then I end up with a huge bill. I have student loans to fret over and rent and also transportation to work, so even though I am trying to improve my situation, it is still and unhill battle. Now my goal is to try to find a job with insurance so I can have the illusion of security. I'm a good worker, so perhaps if I don't screw up (but I am already about to... eeep) maybe Blue Cross will keep me... I'll have to see... I have to build up experience. I am bitter towards both parties, but the Republican party frustrates me the most because I cannot understand the use of tax cuts for the wealthiest upper percentile. I really don't think that anyone but a handful of people can gan from these sort of tax cuts, especially during a war. I do believe a lot of pork has to be trimmed from the government's budget, but programs like Americorps help a lot of people, including college students, the eldery and children. Is there any reason to cut a program like that just so people who already have a ton of money can save more money? They are really interfering with the balance of things in my opinion, but my understanding of economics is limited I admit. Perhaps it does some good I cannot see clearly?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Demonstrocity, That's fine, play coy. You titillate me, sir.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid).
Can you cite this, especially the medicare/medicaid part?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, the Social Security part should be simple...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not if he's relying on the partial privatization plan, at least to back up a claim that they want to "get rid of Social Security."
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I can understand if you're upset at Republicans because they're interested in removing tax breaks that the poor receive. They're also interested in getting rid of Social Security (and, by consequence, Medicare/Medicaid).
Can you cite this, especially the medicare/medicaid part?
They "borrow" all the money from what's supposed to be a seperate Social Security fund.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: You complain that Democrats spend your money, but look back on the past thirty years and tell me that again. I see record deficits by Republicans, each succeeded only by the next Republican president. I see recession and inflation and extreme poverty. What do you see?
That's because they cut tax rates, and the Democrat's and the electorate won't let them cut spending by way of complaining (or, like now for instance, there's a deficit-justifying war on). However, if you'll unblock your ears for a moment, you'll notice that tax cuts, for both rich and poor, leads to actual revenue increases in the long term because people have more money for capital generation and consumption.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: However, if you'll unblock your ears for a moment, you'll notice that tax cuts, for both rich and poor, leads to actual revenue increases in the long term because people have more money for capital generation and consumption.
Revenue for who? The goverment/IRS? Is this a Laffer curve based argument?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Well I just found out what a Laffer Curve is, and yes, yes it is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The thing most people miss is that, even given the argument is without flaws (something not accepted by, among others, economists, since the changes in income tax distortionary effects may well prevent the Laffer curve from coming into play), there are lots of points along the Laffer curve where your statement is [b]not true[/i], and we don't know where along the Laffer curve we are.
In other words, your argument as formulated is what's commonly known as wishful thinking.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
True enough when you lower the taxes on rich individuals, but keep taxes on companies (which in actuality pass their tax costs onto consumers) and shareholders, which will simply motivate the rich to invest overseas.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, not all of tax costs are passed on to consumers, but they are in part, yes. It doesn't motivate the rich to invest overseas in and of itself, though, that's just silliness.
However, that's not the distortionary effect I was talking about, I'm talking about the distortion in real wage due to an income tax.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Oh the Laffer curve...
Ignoring for a moment the criticisms of the Laffer curve in general(both Keynesian and just plain old common sense critiques), it's doubtful that we're on the right side of the curve (the point Fugu alluded to). The CBO conducted an analysis of the effect of a 10% across the board income tax cut and ultimately found that you'd only be recouping less than 1/3 the cost of the tax cut over 10 years (and that is the nicest model-they also employ another one that is much more pessimistic in its outlook). If you have access to print articles there was also a decent article in Journal of Socio-Economics about a year ago about the Laffer curve in relation to the OECD countries today. Not surprisingly they found almost all of them (except Sweden) were well left of their optimal tax rate on the curve.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If cutting taxes always increases the amount of revenue in the IRS coffers, then the answer is simple. If everyone pays 0 taxes, then the government will have infinite amounts of revue.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Dan, maybe you should actually look at the Laffer Curve.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: Heck, since the laffer curve is wrong, why don't we all pay 100% of our income! Then the government would have ALL the money!
The flaw of the laffer curve, of course, is what is the GOAL of taxation? Is the goal to squeeze the most out of your victims as you can?
Of course that's not the goal.
The goal is to get enough to pay for vital services, whatever you think they are (and we could debate that all day and walk away with naught but pulled hair and scratch marks.) And NO MORE.
You're not looking for the "sweet spot" where government gets the most money possible. You're looking for a spot, to the left of the curve, where you're getting what the government needs to defend it's populace and opress them in whatever way the majority thinks is right. While leaving as much money in the pockets of the tax payers as possible.
Pix
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pix, I'm going to make the case for you to vote Democratic.
And its based on 100% pure cynicism.
What you are debating in your heart is to vote for Democratic politicians, who claim to believe in things that you abhor, or to vote for Republican politicians, who claim to believe in things that you agree with, but continually vote for things you abhor.
But we all know that most politicians are alike, regardless of party. They are self-serving. The more conservative their speech, the more liberal they vote in order to keep the moderates in their mix happy. Likewise the more liberal they sound, the more conservative they vote. So to get a truly economic conservative policy, you need to vote for a liberal.
Hey, it was liberal Clinton who left us with a surplus in taxes, and economically conservative Bush who is spending on anything that may buy him some votes. (Just as it was red-bating Nixon who could make peace with China without being called a Pinko and Cheney with a lesbian daughter who pushes for the Marriage ammendment.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: The problem is both sides say they support something I agree with, but concentrate their efforts on the things I disagree with.
Dems are better on the gay issue, but they concentrate more on Taxation and do things like sign the DOMA.
Republicans are better on taxation, but they still like to spend and they concentrate on things like making damn sure gay people have no legal protection.
I think I'm most likely, if I don't vote republican, to vote Constitutionalist or Libertarian and say to hell with both the major parties (which, of course, is the same as not voting at all.)
As for clinton's surplus... While the Dot Coms were booming and clinton was touting his "resession proof New Economy" he and the other dems were spending spending spending. Now as we all know, once the goverment spends a certain amount, that amount can never shrink. It can only grow slower (growing slower is called a "Cut")
So once the economy started to crash in 2000, before the Lord of Darkness was elected, we already had over the top government spending. As the economy fell so did revenues. But since government spending can't shrink, our deficit ballooned.
I'm not saying this to excuse Bush and the rest of the republicans. If they'd had chutzpah and some gumption, they COULD have gone on massive spending cuts (REAL cuts) and withered the arrows from the dems and the press and probably have been voted out of office after 1 term. But they would have made PROGRESS....
Anyway, my point was Clinton's spending during the surplus put Bush in the position he's in today. That's Clinton's fault. But it's Bush's fault that he spent more instead of cutting.
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pix, Your description of things doesn't match up with reality. The people who controlled the money during Clinton's presidency were, in large part, the Republican controlled Congress. Likewise, the problems with post 2000 spending hasn't so much been a maintenence of previous spending, but rather many, many increases and fiscally unsound decisions proposed by President Bush and the Congress, passed by an again Republican dominated Congress, and signed by the President.
Blaming the Democrats or President Clinton for the bulk of this is going to neccesitate postulating some sort of mind control device.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Squicky, I believe in my post I took Bush to task for spending instead of cutting.
I know you disagreed with the Wars, but IMHO they were necessary. I don't have a problem with that spending. You're not going to convence me there.
I agreed with the tax cuts. I was mad he didn't do MORE tax cutting. So if that's what you're talking about, you're not going to convence me there either.
Social spending, Yeah, He's done way too much of that. That's the spending I'm mad about.
Do you really think that Clinton would have spent less with a Democrat controlled congress? When he had congress he was working on Universal health care *shudder*
Pix
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I, personally, don't think the social revolutionaries among us need a socially revolutionary political party in government to represent us.
Instead, just whinge and whinge and whinge until you get whatever it is you want (and then you don't have people preoccupied with social revolution in charge of our economy).
Of course, it'd be nice if just any politician could put the good of the country before personal ambition completely. But that won't happen.