I hope Bachmann gets the nomination so then the republicans have no chance of winning. In all seriousness, I like Ron Paul the best by far. As a liberal, I'd be interested in seeing what he would do.
MOOMBAHTON
Senorcuidado United States. August 17 2011 07:58. Posts 644
It's exhausting to rehash all this mess every day, but I'll try to be quick. Mainstream Republicans are completely disingenuous when they're talking about the debt. Neo-conservatism isn't conservatism, they aren't conservatives at all. They want to keep spending trillions on war, they actually like the status quo of our economic system, and they want to impose their Christian values on the population while claiming that Obama threatens civil liberties (after they passed the Patriot Act!). Our system is broken the way it is, but they want to keep the big government and put the burden on the middle and lower classes. Democrats are big spenders, but so are Republicans. That won't change. It is important to understand this graph correctly, it is NEW spending. Obama is still complicit because he continues waging war and hasn't let the tax cuts expire. The point is that both parties represent big government, and anyone who says otherwise is lying to your face. Democrats aren't the anti-war party anymore, and Republicans aren't the fiscally responsible party.
We are stuck with big government with either party. The burden of that government falls on the poor and middle class while the banks take the money and run. Enter Warren Buffet:
Congress is bought. Citizens United is accelerating the reality but it's been true for decades. The government doesn't work for the people, it works for the banks and corporations. The system is cyclical and the Federal Reserve facilitates the highway robbery. Dylan Ratigan explains it eloquently and loudly:
President Obama turned out to be Bush 2.0 in a lot of ways. Soaring rhetoric about change without real ideas didn't solve our problems. That's EXACTLY what Bahmann, Perry, and Romney are offering us now. They will be Bush 3.0 and nothing will ever change. I'm not scared of Perry or Romney really, things will probably be no better or worse than if Obama wins. Bachmann is scary because she's out of her mind but I won't bother rehashing all her lunacy - it's easy to find. All of them are a little frightening because of their rhetoric about imposing their morals on the people but I don't think much will come out of it. Seriously though, you cannot talk about small government while insisting on a Federal Marriage Amendment and a gigantic military industrial complex that makes us LESS SAFE.
Anyway, it is a false choice. Nothing will change unless Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination. The country needs to have this fundamental debate about the government's role and sound money. We will not have it unless Ron Paul is part of that debate. Mr. Paul, I disagree that Democrats are afraid of you. Most of them that I know actually like you a lot because you're the only "Republican" that actually makes sense. You are the only real conservative that offers a conservative approach to government.
I could go on and on and on but I really don't have time
edit: I do disagree with Ron Paul about abortion and gay marriage, but that's the beauty of his vision of the role of government. I have read his book, "The Revolution: a Manifesto", and he talks about the terrible late term abortions he has seen in the '60s(which I think influences his opinion), but he goes on to say that it isn't the federal government's job to regulate such a thing. That's the states' job. And marriage is obviously a personal choice and government shouldn't have a role either. Actually, he never really talks about gay marriage. He believes that marriage is between a man and woman but has no interest on imposing that belief on anybody whatsoever. This is true small government conservatism! I can disagree with my president without fearing that he will force his values on my everyday life.
Last edit: 2011-08-17 08:09:39
Kaitlin United States. August 17 2011 08:03. Posts 2201
On August 17 2011 07:32 Romantic wrote: Also, something rich people don't pay; FICA.
100% wrong. Having high wages means you pay the most FICA tax. Btw, FICA taxes are capped because in theory, they are supposed to be funding Social Security, which is essentially capped at a fairly low level of income.
Romantic United States. August 17 2011 08:07. Posts 1830
On August 17 2011 07:32 Romantic wrote: Also, something rich people don't pay; FICA.
100% wrong. Having high wages means you pay the most FICA tax. Btw, FICA taxes are capped because in theory, they are supposed to be funding Social Security, which is essentially capped at a fairly low level of income.
I mean as a percentage of their income. FICA is a regressive tax.
On August 17 2011 01:41 Ben... wrote: Is this line up a joke? If Bachmann actually won presidency the US would go back into the dark ages. Any American scientific research that is at all at odds with Bachmann's religion would probably be shut down because she's insane.
I agree with a few of Ron Paul's ideas (a rarity considering I find most conservative ideologies to be garbage), but he seems kinda crazy, but almost crazy enough that he would actually do some of the stuff he says, unlike most other candidates.
We'll just have to see how well Fox News advertises the Republican candidate this time around.
The amount of hypocrisy in this post astounds me. If you truly like Ron Paul that much, then your best bet at having his policies implemented is to have Bachmann win. She agrees with him economically on almost every front - tax cuts for the rich, no minimum wage, etc.
People just like Paul because it's the 'hip' thing to do. The truth is all his libertarian economic policies reflect core Republican ideology. The only difference is that most Republicans are more moderate in their advocacy, e.g. They don't want to have a flat tax system because they know they'll lose too many votes. But in terms of pandering to the rich and giving them tax breaks, then you should have no issue between voting for either Paul or Bachmann.
On August 17 2011 07:56 LambtrOn wrote: I hope Bachmann gets the nomination so then the republicans have no chance of winning. In all seriousness, I like Ron Paul the best by far. As a liberal, I'd be interested in seeing what he would do.
The exact same things Bachmann would do - tax cuts for the rich. Jesus Christ. People like Paul because he's old and feisty, but the economic policies he'd like to see are only a slight variation to people like Bachmann's.
Spicy Pepper United States. August 17 2011 09:27. Posts 632
This idea of winning to win is pointless if you believe in liberty. lol, wtf? Paul is not "hip". He's old, scrawny, has a squeeky voice. Discussing his philosophy in depth isn't good TV, and he doesn't go out saying cool, hip stuff, because if he did, that would drive up television ratings, giving mainstream media an exra incentive to have him on.
0neder United States. August 17 2011 09:33. Posts 3732
I wish Romney would win, but he won't because there are too many liberal bigots who dislike Mormons and too many conservative bigots who are afraid of Mormons.
Stratos_speAr United States. August 17 2011 09:39. Posts 3735
I seriously expect the Republican party to collapse within a decade or two. Every single presidential election comes up and I am yet again amazed at the absolutely ridiculous candidates they have - candidates that have no clue how to handle the US fiscal policy, candidates that grossly overstep the line between church and state, and candidates that are generally clueless about historical and scientific facts. It simply blows my fucking mind that so many Americans are so clueless and vote for these people. If this crap continues I might consider leaving this country. It can't be this bad in Europe.
Last edit: 2011-08-17 09:40:14
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Introvert United States. August 17 2011 09:43. Posts 324
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
Ill point out a few ordeals,
The stimulus ended up being largely tax cuts to they so called job creators, in fact I believe it was near half of the funds. So yea, most of those funds were wasted then since tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. I don't feel like beating the supply side economics bit again, lets just say who cares if businesses can hire more people if there wasn't any demand to be met by bring on more workers.
It's also important to note that small business owners are terrible for hiring. Much of the wealth/jobs comes from small businesses rhetoric comes with how badly those numbers are gathered. Basically anyone who reports any sort of hobby income are reclassified as small business because they filled out the same schedule on their income tax sheet that an actual small business owner would (say your wife sold a bunch of arts and crafts for 200$ last year and youre the ceo for haliburton, you and your wife are now considered small business owners according to how those numbers are generated)
The health care act in all its failings is expected to actually reduce the deficit so theres that.
I work in the insurance business and yes selling across state lines would help, tort reform would not however, as I said earlier in thread I'm from Texas we passed tort reform and rates went up, go figure. ( Ok well since some one will ask, it basically boils down to if the punishment for being detrimental to the health of a person gets lessened theres less incentive not to malpractice and therefore quality of care goes down increasing return visits and ultimately driving the cost of healthcare back up)
In many cases a rather sickening portion of your premiums do not go towards your actual healthcare, they pay for me selling it to you and to the actual company, one of the big problems is that since companies all derive the actual cost of servicing you from similar actuarial tables it's really easy to peg what everyone in your market class is charging in a sort of informal collusion sort of way, in such that the easiest way to drive your profitability up is going out of your way to deny coverage and beat what the actuaries said the expense would be.
Single payer is cheaper because less people need to get paid in this equation, thats before we even get into the concept of risk pooling.
Rich people pay most of the INCOME TAX its a little more like the top 2-3% pay about 90% of it IIRC. However, comparative to other nation they get off really freakign easy, you know its bad when such a dirty socialist commie like Warren Buffett publicly tells congress its time to stop coddling billionaires like his friends and himself. Furthermore, you're forgetting that payroll taxes are payed for even those in the lowest of income brackets as well as all the various other taxes being poor won't let you escape, the total tax burden tends to lean more on the middle class especially in a consideration of % of income.
This thread is dying, but i'll admit it too. TORT was a joke. Every "stimulus" program passed is a joke. They aren't helping, and are costing us money. I'm not saying healthcare as it is is fine, or even "good". It's screwed up. VERY. but single payer is NOT the answer, nor is technically authorized (this commerce clause BS is ridiculous). Also, the administration thought the healthcare bill would save money. But first, common sense says spending more (by getting into a market they should stay out of) says that's bull. Second, there was debate, but I believe (and I could be wrong, it's been over a year) that the CBO said it would NOT help. Third, it's the federal government. Tell me the last time they did something on budget. barely any of the members of Congress even READ the mammoth bill before passing it, they don't know jack. And my point about the income tax is that the rich ALREADY pay a lot. The government needs to SPEND LESS so then it doesn't feel like it needs to take more money from people. I'm sure much of the wealth was acquired by less than wonderful means, but we can't decide to take it from them. And I never mentioned small business, so i'm not going to address a retort to an argument I didn't make. Summary: the system is screwed up, but the bill that most congressmen didn't even read is not the right idea. Never mind the individual mandate crap.
Last edit: 2011-08-17 09:58:59
“I refuse to fight a war of intellect with someone who is unarmed”
This idea of winning to win is pointless if you believe in liberty. lol, wtf? Paul is not "hip". He's old, scrawny, has a squeeky voice. Discussing his philosophy in depth isn't good TV, and he doesn't go out saying cool, hip stuff, because if he did, that would drive up television ratings, giving mainstream media an exra incentive to have him on.
Just goes to show how big of liears the establishment candidates are and why even if you don't agree with everything Ron Paul is saying, he is the only honest man out there.
All the rest are carbon tax supporters, one world government, supporting the patriot act, bailouts.
The only honest men overall in congress are Paul and Dennis. All the rest work for the same banks and corporation that Bush and now Obama work.
arbitrageur Australia. August 17 2011 09:56. Posts 1199
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
Romney has said things to the effect, if I recall correctly now, that he believes in some parts of global warming and evolution. This does put him at odds with, at the very least, the most vocal parts of the Republican party.
Wow. The republican party is deeply concerning to me if this is true. How can they make good leadership decisions if they can't accept the scientific process. What are they, brain dead?
Introvert United States. August 17 2011 09:57. Posts 324
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
This cannot be accurate.
Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare.
Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class.
Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class.
Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit.
At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy.
I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life.
I'm about to leave unfortunately, but I can say this, if you are Canadian, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this... nothing against you, but I can't imagine you are as in tune with what happens and our budget as we are But if you would like, you can even google for comparisons. And the Stimulus ended up being almost a trillion dollars, if I recall, and the one that Bush signed was supported by Obama. The government can't say "the tax cuts will LOSE us money" because, guess what? The money isn't THEIRS until we pay it. it belongs to the people, FIRST. So that argument has been BS since the beginning. And healthcare is going to cost us a truckload, social security as well, AND Medicare and Medicaid. It's absurd. And the stimulus was crap, it didn't help (look at the numbers, and some of the places the money went. Like a project to find out the effect of Cocaine on monkeys, though I'm sure that's justified by the fact that it will "help them help people")
Healthcare here would so much better if it could be sold privately in a competitive market ACROSS STATE LINES. that is one of the biggest problems. I can't believe that a "human right" includes something that other people have to participate in.... there is a right to life, speech, etc, but those don't relay on others. that's a fundamental difference. And what good is providing healthcare if you destroy the county it's in later? Also, I don't trust the government to do better than private firms and companies. Ever heard the phrase "it's good enough for government work?"
Also, the top 1% (in terms of wealth)... If i recall correctly, contribute at least 90% of all dollars collected from income taxes. Yes, tax them some more. Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax.
I wish I had the time for the cites, if you REALLY want, you can research it, or I can get back to you later. btw, I'm not rich, my family actually fits into the lowest tax bracket.
What world do you live in that completely free-market health care is successful for anyone but the greedy amoral corporations selling it? Ditto for the lie about 50% of americans not paying taxes....
Obama has been in office for two and a half years, quite a difference from four.
Um, approx. 47% don't pay federal income tax, which is what I was referring to. And yes, the companies are in it for profit, if you let them sell more places, competition increases the quality. They make more money by getting more customers by finding the best balance of price and quality. The government does everything badly, and has no reason to do it well. Besides the fact that I would argue that it (especially the individual mandate in the bill) is unconstitutional. Obama's spending is worse than Bush's. I am now walking out the door, but do some research, on all sides.
Well FYI they pay no income tax because THEY'RE TOO POOR. A large percentage of americans don't pay capital gains tax either, does that make them deadbeats? I'm really not sure what the point is that you're getting at here.
Re: healthcare. What would really happen is a race to the bottom, as corporations do not care about the quality of care they provide or anything other than their bottom line. It is a little bit disingenuous to argue that the government does everything badly when it are responsible for building all the roads, schools, bridges, power grid, etc. that allow you to even come onto this board and make these dimwitted assertions.
The reality is that the solution to the healthcare cost problem is a single payer system, or at least allowing the government to negotiate lower prices for its medicare services. No free market system will cover everyone while keeping costs as low or lower than a single-payer system. Unless you don't think that everyone has the right to healthcare, in which case you're so ridiculously extreme and misguided that it's not worth discussing.
Some services the government has to provide, at this rate. If these things were done privately, it would have taken longer, but been of better quality and lasted longer.
Also, no HOW can you say everyone has the right to healthcare. How can I HAVE the right to make everyone else help me and help each other? Rights belong to individuals, not groups. This "right to healthcare" is a new thing recently, and makes no sense. It's nice, but has no grounding.
“I refuse to fight a war of intellect with someone who is unarmed”
FallDownMarigold United States. August 17 2011 10:00. Posts 3222
The USA is just so fucked, and at this point I don't think they have anything to lose by going with a candidate who will bring drastic change - and I'm not talking about the phony bullshit use of the word "change" to manipulate a country that's been fucked over by a tyrannical Bush administration - I'm talking real change. RON PAUL 2012!
"Starcraft...It just echos brilliance and manliness." - Tasteless
Cloud9157 United States. August 17 2011 10:23. Posts 1734
On August 17 2011 09:33 0neder wrote: I wish Romney would win, but he won't because there are too many liberal bigots who dislike Mormons and too many conservative bigots who are afraid of Mormons.
First off, Republicans won't vote for him because he is too liberal for a Republican.
Democrats won't vote for him because Obama>Romney, in their eyes. Not because all of both parties are bigots (granted I'm sure both parties have them) but because they disagree with his views.
"Are you absolutely sure that armor only affects the health portion of a protoss army??? That doesn't sound right to me. source?" -Some idiot
Romantic United States. August 17 2011 10:30. Posts 1830
A word on across state line healthcare plans, it is a power grab by the federal government. Not that it is bad, but that is exactly what Republicans wanted to avoid. They don't mention what they are doing is preventing states from setting their own requirements\regulations on healthcare insurance, but that is what it is.
Edit: Also, uh, insurance companies still have to reimburse for your costs... that is the expensive part. Insurance competition doesn't mean anything unless it is trimming profits, advertising, and administrative costs, but that does nothing to reduce the higher-than-inflation healthcare cost increases.
You can't even really use the argument they could compete as to who can negotiate the best deals with healthcare providers because the Feds would be the best at that.
Last edit: 2011-08-17 10:33:59
RacerX United States. August 17 2011 10:34. Posts 155
Store
Barack Obama August 17 2011 09:21. Posts 27
