|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 13, 2011 10:28:43 GMT -8
Assist people in paying their debt? You have to be kidding. We as a nation got into debt because we were living beyond our means, what you propose is a typical enabling lefty response. No, no fricken way, we have to do it ourselves and it is working. We are learning the hard lesson now and by doing it ourselves, patiently, we are learning to not do it again. Bail out people's debt and we'll be right back in it. We have to be patient, let the fundamentals right themselves and perhaps get an economic policy in place that reinforces that. We have nothing now, the hidden recovery is coming from the individual, frankly, I can wait, it is the best way. Come on, it's not a direct bailout of people's debt. It is a tax cut that is targeted at people who have debt. Presumably they will use it to pay down debt as that they are trying to do anyway. It is no different than targeting a tax cut at people who will use the savings to invest. (What? Subsidizing rich people's investments? What you propose is a typical subsidizing the rich righty response!!!) Seriously, either way, it is done with the goal of improving the economy. It is just a question of whether you are taking a supply side or a demand side approach. The right is all about the supply side. I'm merely arguing that, at this point in time, we should be targeting the demand side. The problem isn't too little supply; today it's too little demand. Yoda out... . Now you are being argumentative, as the lawyers say. The poor don't pay income taxes so you can't really cut them and spur savings. Funny how you characterize tax cuts though. Subsidizing? Seriously? It's our money in the first place. The government takes it to subsidize them. I am all for taxes for common good but your odd way of looking at taxes belies your skewed leftward bias. It is our money, not the government's. We fund the government, not the other way around. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 12:51:46 GMT -8
Explain what? He was never a viable candidate. The two leading candidates as of now are Pawlenty and Romney, two former Republican governors of blue states. I guess that shoots both Mr "Moderate" and the Silly Old Hippie's nonsensical political analyses right out of the water. Assuming one gets the nomination, they're going to have some splanin' ta do when the general election comes around. Like why Romney opposes Obamacare yet signed into law a very similar program in Massachusetts and why Pawlenty is all of a sudden in denial about global warming although he was an environmentalist as governor of Minnesota. Does make me feel good to hear about Newt. Either Pawlenty or Romney would at least make a passable president. Newt is simply a pompous loose cannon phony. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 13:53:45 GMT -8
Explain what? He was never a viable candidate. The two leading candidates as of now are Pawlenty and Romney, two former Republican governors of blue states. I guess that shoots both Mr "Moderate" and the Silly Old Hippie's nonsensical political analyses right out of the water. Assuming one gets the nomination, they're going to have some splanin' ta do when the general election comes around. Like why Romney opposes Obamacare yet signed into law a very similar program in Massachusetts and why Pawlenty is all of a sudden in denial about global warming although he was an environmentalist as governor of Minnesota. Does make me feel good to hear about Newt. Either Pawlenty or Romney would at least make a passable president. Newt is simply a pompous loose cannon phony. I can live Pawlenty's flip flop. I can't vote for Romney in the primary because of his Masscare debacle. He needs to own up to it one way or the other; defend it or admit it was a mistake that he's learned from. Rumblings are that Perry is jumping in. That will make things interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 14, 2011 2:06:02 GMT -8
Come on, it's not a direct bailout of people's debt. It is a tax cut that is targeted at people who have debt. Presumably they will use it to pay down debt as that is what they are trying to do anyway. It is no different than targeting a tax cut at people who will use the savings to invest. (What? Subsidizing rich people's investments? What you propose is a typical subsidizing the rich righty response!!!) Seriously, either way, it is done with the goal of improving the economy. It is just a question of whether you are taking a supply side or a demand side approach. The right is all about the supply side. I'm merely arguing that, at this point in time, we should be targeting the demand side. The problem isn't too little supply; today it's too little demand. Yoda out... . Now you are being argumentative, as the lawyers say. The poor don't pay income taxes so you can't really cut them and spur savings. Funny how you characterize tax cuts though. Subsidizing? Seriously? It's our money in the first place. The government takes it to subsidize them. I am all for taxes for common good but your odd way of looking at taxes belies your skewed leftward bias. It is our money, not the government's. We fund the government, not the other way around. Actually, I wasn't arguing that a tax cut was subsidizing investment. I was ridiculing your comment about "a typical enabling lefty response" with a lefty equivalent accusation about subsidizing the rich. I wasn't serious; both are wrong and subject to ridicule. For the record, low income people pay taxes too. Maybe not much, but a $750 reduction in taxes for a couple who is making $15,000 a year is meaningful. You seem offended that we would be "subsidizing" their debt reduction with such a tax cut but a tax cut for those folks is just as much a return of "their money" as it is with a tax cut for the well to do. It is their money -- not the governments. The argument cuts both ways. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 14, 2011 10:54:38 GMT -8
Now you are being argumentative, as the lawyers say. The poor don't pay income taxes so you can't really cut them and spur savings. Funny how you characterize tax cuts though. Subsidizing? Seriously? It's our money in the first place. The government takes it to subsidize them. I am all for taxes for common good but your odd way of looking at taxes belies your skewed leftward bias. It is our money, not the government's. We fund the government, not the other way around. Actually, I wasn't arguing that a tax cut was subsidizing investment. I was ridiculing your comment about "a typical enabling lefty response" with a lefty equivalent accusation about subsidizing the rich. I wasn't serious; both are wrong and subject to ridicule. For the record, low income people pay taxes too. Maybe not much, but a $750 reduction in taxes for a couple who is making $15,000 a year is meaningful. You seem offended that we would be "subsidizing" their debt reduction with such a tax cut but a tax cut for those folks is just as much a return of "their money" as it is with a tax cut for the well to do. It is their money -- not the governments. The argument cuts both ways. Yoda out... . Couples who make $15,000 don't pay income taxes after they itemize. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 14, 2011 12:00:42 GMT -8
To set the record straight, a married couple with $15,000.00 of ordinary income would pay no income tax. Their standard deduction for 2010 was 11,400, if over 65 years old add 1,100 per person, their personal exemption was 3,650 each. Thus if the couple was under 65 years old they would need to make 18,700 to have taxable income. If their ordinary income was earned income they would owe Social Security and Medicare tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 15, 2011 18:36:36 GMT -8
Assist people in paying their debt? You have to be kidding. We as a nation got into debt because we were living beyond our means, what you propose is a typical enabling lefty response. No, no fricken way, we have to do it ourselves and it is working. We are learning the hard lesson now and by doing it ourselves, patiently, we are learning to not do it again. Bail out people's debt and we'll be right back in it. We have to be patient, let the fundamentals right themselves and perhaps get an economic policy in place that reinforces that. We have nothing now, the hidden recovery is coming from the individual, frankly, I can wait, it is the best way. We were not living beyond our means. Our means were reduced in the case of the average working person and Bush eviscerated the government's solvency with his tax cuts and grudge against Hussein. Enabling? nope. The logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is that only financially successful people are responsible, because only they are not in excessive debt. I say fie on that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2011 11:41:03 GMT -8
Assist people in paying their debt? You have to be kidding. We as a nation got into debt because we were living beyond our means, what you propose is a typical enabling lefty response. No, no fricken way, we have to do it ourselves and it is working. We are learning the hard lesson now and by doing it ourselves, patiently, we are learning to not do it again. Bail out people's debt and we'll be right back in it. We have to be patient, let the fundamentals right themselves and perhaps get an economic policy in place that reinforces that. We have nothing now, the hidden recovery is coming from the individual, frankly, I can wait, it is the best way. We were not living beyond our means. Our means were reduced in the case of the average working person and Bush eviscerated the government's solvency with his tax cuts and grudge against Hussein. Enabling? nope. The logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is that only financially successful people are responsible, because only they are not in excessive debt. I say fie on that. That lame theme is getting a little stale. We are living beyond our means and revenue is not the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 16, 2011 16:25:14 GMT -8
We were not living beyond our means. Our means were reduced in the case of the average working person and Bush eviscerated the government's solvency with his tax cuts and grudge against Hussein. Enabling? nope. The logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is that only financially successful people are responsible, because only they are not in excessive debt. I say fie on that. That lame theme is getting a little stale. We are living beyond our means and revenue is not the problem. Lame? Am I bothering you with the truth? Please show me how the economic condition of the average American has improved, or even stayed the same since 1970 and particularly since 2000. Prove it and I will accept your accusation that my argument is lame. Without the Bush tax cuts and the war, our deficit would be little more than the loss of revenue caused by the recession. If that is also not true, prove it isn't. That is all I ask. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2011 18:42:05 GMT -8
That lame theme is getting a little stale. We are living beyond our means and revenue is not the problem. Lame? Am I bothering you with the truth? Please show me how the economic condition of the average American has improved, or even stayed the same since 1970 and particularly since 2000. Prove it and I will accept your accusation that my argument is lame. Without the Bush tax cuts and the war, our deficit would be little more than the loss of revenue caused by the recession. If that is also not true, prove it isn't. That is all I ask. How many times have I heard that same stale theme? Just once, show some real evidence complete with real causes. It's the never-ending conundrum of a Leftie. A Leftie who proclaims himself to know the remedy to the very misery his fellow travelers have created. Whether its attempting to multiply prosperity by redistributing it; heralding the individual while endorsing government dependence; or, undermining the very tools that prevent poverty. I pity you and your appearance of taking comfort in victim-hood while blaming the very people trying to help you. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 17, 2011 21:00:52 GMT -8
Lame? Am I bothering you with the truth? Please show me how the economic condition of the average American has improved, or even stayed the same since 1970 and particularly since 2000. Prove it and I will accept your accusation that my argument is lame. Without the Bush tax cuts and the war, our deficit would be little more than the loss of revenue caused by the recession. If that is also not true, prove it isn't. That is all I ask. How many times have I heard that same stale theme? Just once, show some real evidence complete with real causes. It's the never-ending conundrum of a Leftie. A Leftie who proclaims himself to know the remedy to the very misery his fellow travelers have created. Whether its attempting to multiply prosperity by redistributing it; heralding the individual while endorsing government dependence; or, undermining the very tools that prevent poverty. I pity you and your appearance of taking comfort in victim-hood while blaming the very people trying to help you. You have not shown that the budget is not a product, by and large, of the wars and tax cuts. You have not bothered to show that Americans have improved economically. As to: ". . .blaming the very people trying to help you." If you think anyone in corporate America, or in private industry has, as a purpose, to help any American, you are smoking something illegal. Business and private industry function to make a profit for their investors. To ascribe any kind of helping to their activity is foolish. Our life spans are reversing and they are lower than government assisted Europeans. Our health care sucks in quality (34th in quality according to WHO) when you measure the cost benefit (#1 in cost on earth). Too many of us are in poverty. Our educational level has begun to decline and Americans are poorer. If you choose to ignore that, I really don't care. I don't care if you think my arguments are stale. I am not trying to convince you. You cannot be moved. I write these responses for other reasons. Real income information: www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=REAL+WAGES++1947-2000www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.htmlwww.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/history-us-real-wages-1964Deficit cause chart. katalusis.blogspot.com/2011/05/breaking-budget-deficit-caused-by-bush.html |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2011 6:36:51 GMT -8
How many times have I heard that same stale theme? Just once, show some real evidence complete with real causes. It's the never-ending conundrum of a Leftie. A Leftie who proclaims himself to know the remedy to the very misery his fellow travelers have created. Whether its attempting to multiply prosperity by redistributing it; heralding the individual while endorsing government dependence; or, undermining the very tools that prevent poverty. I pity you and your appearance of taking comfort in victim-hood while blaming the very people trying to help you. You have not shown that the budget is not a product, by and large, of the wars and tax cuts. You have not bothered to show that Americans have improved economically. As to: ". . .blaming the very people trying to help you." If you think anyone in corporate America, or in private industry has, as a purpose, to help any American, you are smoking something illegal. Business and private industry function to make a profit for their investors. To ascribe any kind of helping to their activity is foolish. Our life spans are reversing and they are lower than government assisted Europeans. Our health care sucks in quality (34th in quality according to WHO) when you measure the cost benefit (#1 in cost on earth). Too many of us are in poverty. Our educational level has begun to decline and Americans are poorer. If you choose to ignore that, I really don't care. I don't care if you think my arguments are stale. I am not trying to convince you. You cannot be moved. I write these responses for other reasons. Real income information: www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=REAL+WAGES++1947-2000www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.htmlwww.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/history-us-real-wages-1964Deficit cause chart. katalusis.blogspot.com/2011/05/breaking-budget-deficit-caused-by-bush.htmlI read your response and looked at all your links in detail and remain completely unconvinced. You may have even strengthened my dim view of what Progressives are led to believe. I continue to see the connection between liberal policy and liberal thought (if you can classify anything a liberal thinks as real thought) in trying to redistribute what earners make and give it to non-earners. I keep seeing an attempt to hide behind some sense of being a victim to blame rather than looking at excessive regulation and such as the real reason we may be in decline. I have difficulty really getting a sense of what you talk about since my own circumstances get better as time goes by. There has to come a time when you see that trying to place the blame on anyone other than liberals for our woes is a fools task. If that time never comes then you will spend your life being bitter at your own circumstances and pointing the fingers at others. Blame poor education. Blame insane tax policy. Blame the declining moral fiber due to liberalism. Just don't blame those trying to give you the environment that will allow you to have a normal happy productive life and the ability to pass on your values and resources to your heirs. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 18, 2011 6:52:18 GMT -8
I read your response and looked at all your links in detail and remain completely unconvinced. You may have even strengthened my dim view of what Progressives are led to believe. I continue to see the connection between liberal policy and liberal thought (if you can classify anything a liberal thinks as real thought) in trying to redistribute what earners make and give it to non-earners. I keep seeing an attempt to hide behind some sense of being a victim to blame rather than looking at excessive regulation and such as the real reason we may be in decline. I have difficulty really getting a sense of what you talk about since my own circumstances get better as time goes by. There has to come a time when you see that trying to place the blame on anyone other than liberals for our woes is a fools task. If that time never comes then you will spend your life being bitter at your own circumstances and pointing the fingers at others. Blame poor education. Blame insane tax policy. Blame the declining moral fiber due to liberalism. Just don't blame those trying to give you the environment that will allow you to have a normal happy productive life and the ability to pass on your values and resources to your heirs. "Just don't blame those trying to give you the environment that will allow you to have a normal happy productive life . . ." Just who are "those"? "(if you can classify anything a liberal thinks as real thought)" All I can say to your wholly vacuous comment is that the person who best articulated your philosophy had Alzheimer's disease. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2011 7:16:08 GMT -8
I read your response and looked at all your links in detail and remain completely unconvinced. You may have even strengthened my dim view of what Progressives are led to believe. I continue to see the connection between liberal policy and liberal thought (if you can classify anything a liberal thinks as real thought) in trying to redistribute what earners make and give it to non-earners. I keep seeing an attempt to hide behind some sense of being a victim to blame rather than looking at excessive regulation and such as the real reason we may be in decline. I have difficulty really getting a sense of what you talk about since my own circumstances get better as time goes by. There has to come a time when you see that trying to place the blame on anyone other than liberals for our woes is a fools task. If that time never comes then you will spend your life being bitter at your own circumstances and pointing the fingers at others. Blame poor education. Blame insane tax policy. Blame the declining moral fiber due to liberalism. Just don't blame those trying to give you the environment that will allow you to have a normal happy productive life and the ability to pass on your values and resources to your heirs. "Just don't blame those trying to give you the environment that will allow you to have a normal happy productive life . . ." Just who are "those"? "(if you can classify anything a liberal thinks as real thought)" All I can say to your wholly vacuous comment is that the person who best articulated your philosophy had Alzheimer's disease. "Those" are Conservatives! Even though I found your reference to Reagan funny on one level but insensitive and typically predicable from the uninformed liberal. Oh! Did I mention you are completely wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 18, 2011 7:32:44 GMT -8
"Just don't blame those trying to give you the environment that will allow you to have a normal happy productive life . . ." Just who are "those"? "(if you can classify anything a liberal thinks as real thought)" All I can say to your wholly vacuous comment is that the person who best articulated your philosophy had Alzheimer's disease. "Those" are Conservatives! Even though I found your reference to Reagan funny on one level but insensitive and typically predicable from the uninformed liberal. Oh! Did I mention you are completely wrong? Reagan was my governor. I come by my dislike honestly. He was awful. I have never met a conservative who was interested in my well being. Quite the opposite, I would say. I think conservatives view my beliefs as un-American. I think that conservatives would like to see people of my political outlook gone. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 18, 2011 10:46:35 GMT -8
"Those" are Conservatives! Even though I found your reference to Reagan funny on one level but insensitive and typically predicable from the uninformed liberal. Oh! Did I mention you are completely wrong? Reagan was my governor. I come by my dislike honestly. He was awful. I have never met a conservative who was interested in my well being. Quite the opposite, I would say. I think conservatives view my beliefs as un-American. I think that conservatives would like to see people of my political outlook gone. Wow, pretty bold statement. I guess you don't know many conservatives. I guess the implication you make is that I don't like many of my own friends, family or wife's family, or don't care about any of their welfare or to have them here. Bold. Ignorant, sorry to say, but bold. Funny, it is actually the exact opposite, I find many real liberals are spiteful about people like me, accusing us of being racist, uncaring, etc, well, as you just described. Funny, my family and in-laws, as do many of my liberal friends are pretty interested in what I have to say, how I say it, and that I actually make sense. I don't have time for so-called 'friends' that are willing to judge me harshly because of my political leanings. Some people can actually respect others views and not cast stones. One's personal political philosophy has no real bearing on ones true character, what you are actually describing, IMO, which is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2011 12:21:26 GMT -8
"Those" are Conservatives! Even though I found your reference to Reagan funny on one level but insensitive and typically predicable from the uninformed liberal. Oh! Did I mention you are completely wrong? Reagan was my governor. I come by my dislike honestly. He was awful. I have never met a conservative who was interested in my well being. Quite the opposite, I would say. I think conservatives view my beliefs as un-American. I think that conservatives would like to see people of my political outlook gone. I do not know if I have met you personally or not. If we had met, you would have met one Conservative who had not only your welfare as a concern, but the welfare of everyone of your neighbors. You are right about most of us not liking your political outlook, but we have put our lives on the line for your right to believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 18, 2011 13:14:31 GMT -8
I have never met a conservative who was interested in my well being. Quite the opposite, I would say. I think conservatives view my beliefs as un-American. I think that conservatives would like to see people of my political outlook gone. I think that conservatives are as interested in the common good as liberals are. They just define it very, very differently. Honestly but differently. They don't want you gone either. They just want you to be part of an easily manageable minority. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 18, 2011 13:54:00 GMT -8
Reagan was my governor. I come by my dislike honestly. He was awful. I have never met a conservative who was interested in my well being. Quite the opposite, I would say. I think conservatives view my beliefs as un-American. I think that conservatives would like to see people of my political outlook gone. Wow, pretty bold statement. I guess you don't know many conservatives. I guess the implication you make is that I don't like many of my own friends, family or wife's family, or don't care about any of their welfare or to have them here. Bold. Ignorant, sorry to say, but bold. Funny, it is actually the exact opposite, I find many real liberals are spiteful about people like me, accusing us of being racist, uncaring, etc, well, as you just described. Funny, my family and in-laws, as do many of my liberal friends are pretty interested in what I have to say, how I say it, and that I actually make sense. I don't have time for so-called 'friends' that are willing to judge me harshly because of my political leanings. Some people can actually respect others views and not cast stones. One's personal political philosophy has no real bearing on ones true character, what you are actually describing, IMO, which is my point. Conservatives have different views, but they have a right to them. I was put off during the Iraq build up (particularly) when the implication was that those who disagreed with the invasion (usually liberals) were somehow not patriots. You know what I think of you. I said so quite recently as I remember. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 18, 2011 13:56:14 GMT -8
I have never met a conservative who was interested in my well being. Quite the opposite, I would say. I think conservatives view my beliefs as un-American. I think that conservatives would like to see people of my political outlook gone. I think that conservatives are as interested in the common good as liberals are. They just define it very, very differently. Honestly but differently. They don't want you gone either. They just want you to be part of an easily manageable minority. Yoda out... . Well, I have a better outlook for becoming the majority than conservatives. The demographic winds, they are a blowin. . . . |
|
