The EUCantina Forums :: View topic

The Politics Thread
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 38, 39, 40 Next

The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

View previous topic :: View next topic

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:47 pm

Message



	Dancelittleewok EUC Staff Joined: 15 Sep 2010 Posts: 1117 Location: Kansas

Autobon wrote:

It will reduce our deficit, yes, but defense spending is not whats killing us. We spend a little under 20% of our budget on defense, meanwhile entitlement spending is more then double! Not only that, but entitlement spending is continually increasing by 3-5 times, while defense spending has actually been decreasing. And considering the federal government's main focus is defense, that is a scary figure.

I really don't like the term "entitlement spending." The poor, children, students, and elderly aren't all lazy, entitled people. These programs provide assistance to people in need.

If the defense cuts under 20% of our budget, then why aren't more fiscally conservative Republicans for it? Don't they want to cut government spending no matter where it's from?

Quote:

Besides that point, Obama has not ended either war. Obama behaves much like Bush actually, keeping us engaged in Iraq and Afganistan and even taking part in other small wars such as Libya. Not only that, but he just signed an agreement with the Afghan government that commits the U.S. to a role in the nation for at least a dozen more years. While the troop numbers may go down (they are not specified) the cost is still estimated in the billions per year.

Oh, I wish we'd ended these wars yesterday. Obama hasn't ended either war yet, but the agreement he signed has a timetable for an exit strategy. Instead of crying, "Not our deficit!" the Right is spinning our President's trip as campaigning: http://fxn.ws/ITtq9Q

Quote:

Tax cuts are not the problem. The fact is, almost 50% of Americans do not pay income taxes to begin with, Bush tax cuts or no. For all Obama's divisive rhetoric about the rich, the top 10% actually pay about 70% of the total income taxes, top 5% paying almost 60%.

Without a source of revenue, the debt is going to increase. That, unfortunately, means a tax increase. I would rather tax the top 25% rather placing the burden on the poor, whom already have enough to deal with it since the Republicans want to take away governmental assistance.

Quote:

Obama wants to tax the rich even more and so he keeps trying to push the "Buffett Rule."

The Republicans do not want to tax the rich. At all. Think about about that.

Quote:

This is a tax that would target only the richest 1% of Americans, making them pay more in income taxes. The fact is though, it would only serve to cut 3% of the annual federal deficit! That isn't even a dent. So Obama's big plan is to create a class war against the rich as though this will solve our problems and let our dreams become realities, blah blah blah.... when it only amounts to 3%... wow.

Would you rather put a 3% dent in the deficit or increase our deficit by extending the Bush taxes? I know where the Republican party stands.

Quote:

It really is just about trying to get as many votes from lower income families as possible. Disgusting really.

Democrats are going to get the lower income vote based on policy alone. Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by portraying the poor as lazy, entitled people, removing needed government assistance programs - and on top of that, placing the tax burden on them instead of the people who can actually afford to pay more in taxes.

Republicans want the President to be more cooperative. But like you said, Republicans are standing their ground. It's unfair that Republicans expect the President to do the same behavior they're unwilling to do.
_________________
Observation: Life would be cooler if everyone spoke like HK-47.

Communications Coordinator at EUCantina.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:57 pm

Message



	Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington

Dancelittleewok wrote:

As I pointed out earlier, even if Obama had his way and was able to tax the rich at his chosen rate, it would not do anything to curb our debt. His plan amounts to about 3% of our annual deficit. That is hardly a dent, it wont solve anything. All your doing is scaring off job providers who will move overseas if possible, where it is cheaper, and for what? For 3% of our deficit annually..... is that really worth all the loss in jobs?

Republicans do not want to take away assistance from people who actually need it. For all lies about them being greedy and stingy, Republicans, as a whole, actually give far more to charity then Democrats do. Take a look at Obama and Romney. Obama gave less then 1% of their income to charity, Romney gave 15%. Yet somehow Obama thinks he has the moral superiority to paint Romney as an evil business man, and Republicans as hateful, poor hating monsters. It could not be farther from the truth. In fact, it appears to be quite the opposite.

Quote:

The Republicans do not want to tax the rich. At all. Think about about that.

That is completely false. According to the Paul Ryan plan, Republicans want to eliminate tax loopholes which are abused by many corporations and wealthier Americans. The current income tax structure would be replace with two rates of 10 and 25 percent. 25% applying to anyone making over 100k per year. There would also be standard deductions for families.

As you can see though, Obama and his dishonest rhetoric really does have an affect. He knows that people tend to rally against the "evil" rich, so he keeps spreading misinformation until people eventually just take him at his word. Obama knows he cannot run on his record, therefore he creates a fake enemy that everyone hates to distract from all of his failed policies.

Quote:

Would you rather put a 3% dent in the deficit or increase our deficit by extending the Bush taxes? I know where the Republican party stands.

An analogy would be that you had a giant bloody gash going across your stomach. Instead of getting a doctor to stitch you up, you wasted your time putting cute animal band-aids on yourself until you bled out and died. That is what creating a class war over 3% deficit reduction is like.

Quote:

Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by portraying the poor as lazy, entitled people, removing needed government assistance programs - and on top of that, placing the tax burden on them instead of the people who can actually afford to pay more in taxes.

No, Obama portrays Republicans as thinking that way. Republicans do far more to help out their poor through charity then Democrats do. Republicans just understand that there is NO money to support these programs through the government. Not only is there no money, we are 15 trillion dollars in debt and its going up by 4 billion per day. You cannot support these programs if you wanted to. There is no way. And it is a lie that the poor are supporting the tax burden, they are not. 50% of Americans don't even pay income tax.

Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 11:11 pm

Message



	Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA

Autobon wrote:

Salaris Vorn wrote:

I think this branding of socialism as invariably evil is just a left over of the Cold War. Granted the USSR wasn't a shining light of human rights ....

USSR (when it was around), China, many South American Countries, Cuba, etc. These are all absolute crap countries to live in as a standard citizen. The thing about socialism is that it looks great on paper, but has never in history worked out the way it was supposed to. It always ends up that the government connected hyper-elite get extremely rich and the rest of the country lives in poverty.

and in the Guilded Age with pretty much zero regulations the poor were pretty well screwed while the rich got very wealthy. Capitalism has an equal chance to totally screw the poor.

And again you missed my point: Canada is doing just fine, Western Europe is doing just fine (human rights etc., obviously they have their own economic troubles thanks to the Great Recession). My primary point being national healthcare will not make us into the USSR. However, I get the feeling that this fear of socialism and national healthcare etc. is motivated by a fear that anything government run will turn us into the USSR.

EDIT: and yes Life I know...Canada's socialism is not the USSR's communism. I'm still fuzzy on the differences but I'm working on understanding those differences better. Us Yanks are still catching up with you guys in knowing you can be a socialist without being one of Colonel Flagg's Commies Wink

(for those who don't know Colonel Flagg was a character in M*A*S*H).

Quote:

Obviously not. Context matters. In light of Obama's policies and rhetoric and their historical parallels, his slogan raises eyebrows. Do I think I am going to get imprisoned by Obama? No. Do I think he has a socialist worldview on many issues? Yes. The United States should not go down that path.

Obviously I disagree here. I think it would be just dandy if we had national healthcare like in Canada. But I think there is little point in debating this point further since it is highly unlikely that either of us will change our minds on these points

And just regarding context: you list a good number of communist sources, then you also note that the Nazis used a similar thing. Now unless I'm much mistaken the Nazis put communists in their concentration camps too. It is my understanding that the Nazis were fascists not communists. So to me it doesn't even sound like you're overly worried about context. The fact that you can associate Obama's slogan with something bad is sufficient. If you had stuck to only communist slogans I might buy your concern that Obama has a communist slogan. However, throwing Nazis in weakens the argument that Obama's slogan is communist. If anything bringing in the Nazis points out that Obama's slogan are words and nothing more.

Quote:

As far as Obama's "divisiveness" is concerned: the Republican Party (or the Party of No) has done their share in dividing the country.

The Republicans are the Party of No? Do you mean like when the House voted 414-0 to reject Obama's own budget plan? I didn't realize the House was composed of entirely Republicans....

So 1 example of the Democrats agreeing with the Republicans. But that isn't an example of the Republicans saying anything other than no therefore that hardly invalidates "the Party of No." My recollection is that the Republicans stonewalled Obama more than trying to compromise with Obama. I've no doubt you'll dig through stuff to find a case where they said yes (raising the deficit being a case, although I wouldn't really count that as the anyone would be nuts to prefer having the country grind to a halt over voting yes.).

You're also acting like the Democrats have no free will to disagree with Obama. This is still a democracy, being in a party doesn't mean you have to agree with the leader of your party on everything.

Quote:

We have a 15.6 trillion dollar debt....

A debt started by Bush who came in with a surplus, lowered taxes and started two wars. By all logic you don't start a war and lower your income. Wars generally suck up a lot of cash so decreasing the ability to get cash is just a recipe for an even faster increasing deficit. Republicans were perfectly happy to run up a massive tab for 8 years why are you concenred about the debt now?

I'm truly puzzled why the Republicans were happy to run a massive deficit for 8 years but when a Democrat comes in a deficit suddenly is no longer acceptable.

Quote:

Labeling virtually everything not supported by the right of center as socialism and to be feared

When you have no money and a debt that is 15 trillion and growing by over 4 billion per day.... you should be in fear.

See above. And also given our economy is still recovering I'd honestly be more afraid of what cutting spending will do. At least from what I understand the only way to create a recovery and keep it going is to spend. Sure we shouldn't spend recklessly and should streamline thing, close loopholes etc. But cut too much too fast and it could criple the recovery. Then we'd be really buggered.

Quote:

When your president, in light of this knowledge, decides to vilify businesses and conservative Americans,

and conservative Americans villify liberal Americans. Both sides give as good as they take. No side can claim being the victim here. And Obama is hardly alone if vilifying businesses. It isn't like anyone is overly fond of banks or gas companies these days for example.
_________________

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:17 am

Message



	Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington

-

Thanks for the response Salaris!

Salaris Vorn wrote:

And in the Guilded Age with pretty much zero regulations the poor were pretty well screwed.... And again you missed my point: Canada is doing just fine, Western Europe is doing just fine

I am not asking for zero regulation capitalism, and I think we are going to have to define what we mean here. I mean sure, USSR's brand of hardcore socialism turned out to be one of the greatest failures of all time, we can probably agree, but countries such as Canada are actually by and large capitalist. Capitalism has led to the greatest success story ever. Countries that embrace capitalistic ideas have better quality of life, better human rights, better quality services, the biggest middle class, many "rags-to-riches" success stories, and the biggest GDP.

But we can talk about other countries, or actually take a look at United States spending. The fact is, our entitlement programs are bankrupt. There is no money left in them, so we keep borrowing to pay back. Entitlement programs are not capitalistic ideas, at least not on the ridiculous size and scale of whats seen in the US. Go look at a debt chart.... you will be shocked to see what these programs are costing us. Do you suggest we just keep borrowing?

These problems are being felt in Europe as well, the entitlement capital of the world. If you're current with the news you will see they are in massive debt and some countries are even defaulting. Look at Greece, look at the crisis in France, Portugal, Germany, etc. They are not doing fine, they are doing horribly.

Quote:

I get the feeling that this fear of socialism and national healthcare etc. is motivated by a fear that anything government run will turn us into the USSR.

I am scared because we don't have any money to pay for programs, yet we keep borrowing and borrowing to continue to support them. We are 15 trillion dollars in debt right now, this is not some future that is being made up to scare people.

Quote:

If you had stuck to only communist slogans I might buy your concern that Obama has a communist slogan.

Let me try to clarify. This idea of going "forward" with change is always used by radical groups that want to fundamentally change a country. Socialists used the slogan and yes, so did groups like the Nazis. There seems to be this mentality among the far-left in this country, of which Obama is a part of, that change is progress, when it does not necessarily play out that way. Progress is moving forward with better results, Obama's policies have historically failed, yet he keeps trumpeting for us to continue "forward."

Quote:

But excuse me, why the double standard? Obama is not reaching across the aisle. The Republicans have passed a bunch of things through the House just to see them killed. We don't just say "no," we offered solutions, many of them, just to see them turned down by Democrats. Democrats could not even support the presidents own budget bill! How does that make them the party of "yes" and Republicans the party of "no?"

Quote:

You're also acting like the Democrats have no free will to disagree with Obama. This is still a democracy, being in a party doesn't mean you have to agree with the leader of your party on everything.

Democrats do have a free will, clearly, they don't even vote for Obama's budget bills.

Quote:

A debt started by Bush who came in with a surplus, lowered taxes and started two wars.

Regardless of who started what, Obama was elected on his promise to reduce the debt and end the wars. He has done neither. The debt has gone up about 4 trillion and he even had us participate in a third war. He failed, its time for a new president. Fair enough?

Quote:

Republicans were perfectly happy to run up a massive tab for 8 years why are you concenred about the debt now?

I am going to be honest with you, I am not fond of this type of argument. I mean, lets say Republicans woke up every morning and thanked God for every dollar added to our debt.... does this now mean Obama can do the same? The argument here is not about alleged Republican hypocrisy, its about the soaring debt and what we should do to stop it.

And furthermore, I was not happy running up the tab for 8 years. I thought George Bush made Bill Clinton look fiscally conservative.

Quote:

Sure we shouldn't spend recklessly and should streamline thing, close loopholes etc.

But we are spending recklessly. Taxpayers are forced to pay for these massive bills and the money ends up surfacing into failed companies like Solyndra. Obama "rescues" companies like GM, and then brags about how they posted a $1 billion profit, despite the real fact that they are getting 45 billion dollars in tax breaks.

The president hates talk about cuts and he keeps asking for more money. He cant even find any loopholes to close, instead choosing to vilify and tax the top 1% even more, in order to take 3% off of the annual deficit. Its almost like a really bad horror movie that never ends.

Quote:

And conservative Americans villify liberal Americans.

I agree that the political atmosphere has gotten to be quite hostile on both sides. But the president has a responsibility to keep it extra civil and I have honestly not seen that with Obama.

--

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 4:27 am

Message



	Life Is The Path Master Joined: 10 Sep 2010 Posts: 3405 Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Salaris Vorn wrote:

And again you missed my point: Canada is doing just fine, Western Europe is doing just fine (human rights etc., obviously they have their own economic troubles thanks to the Great Recession). My primary point being national healthcare will not make us into the USSR. However, I get the feeling that this fear of socialism and national healthcare etc. is motivated by a fear that anything government run will turn us into the USSR.

EDIT: and yes Life I know...Canada's socialism is not the USSR's communism. I'm still fuzzy on the differences but I'm working on understanding those differences better. Us Yanks are still catching up with you guys in knowing you can be a socialist without being one of Colonel Flagg's Commies Wink

(for those who don't know Colonel Flagg was a character in M*A*S*H).

This should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Social_democracy

Basically, socialism is 'down with capitalism! We want state and worker ownership!'

Democratic socialism and socialist democracy is 'Capitalism is groovy, but share the wealth, guys. Let's help the poor people with welfare programs, and only one or two things to be state run. We don't want ownership!'

Okay, that's a bit of a mouthful and not quite as catchy as 'down with capitalism', but it gets my point across. Basically, we like capitalism. That's great. But we also want there to be less class conflict, and better social care for those less fortunate, and we try to achieve that through democratic means.

However, I should point out that sometimes politicians use these labels, but their actions are not. Hugo Chavez says he is a democratic socialist, yet his actions clearly indicate otherwise.

Also, the economy of Greece didn't go under because of the welfare state. It went under because no one paid their taxes.

And, while I'm here, two other things: One - per head, you pay twice as much for your health service than we do. Changing to a free public health care system would actually save you money. Two - Back in the thirties, the US followed the principle of 'austerity cuts', yet we injected money into the economy, which saw us out of the recession. Granted, we did this to prepare for war, but that doesn't change the fact that it worked. Now, we're using austerity cuts, and we're back in a recession, yet the US (who are doing what we did in the 30s), according to the latest figures from the BBC, have an increasing economy.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that the Conservative Party used various forwardly phrased slogans when they campaigned for government election, a couple of years ago.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Last edited by Life Is The Path on Fri May 04, 2012 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 6:13 am

Message



	Dancelittleewok EUC Staff Joined: 15 Sep 2010 Posts: 1117 Location: Kansas

A bite sized reply for now. I'll reply more later.

Autobon wrote:

Based on that policy, is Paul Ryan against the rich? Is he against business? Is Paul Ryan going to take away American jobs - and send them overseas by taxing job creators? Is Paul Ryan engaging in class warfare? Is Paul Ryan secretly a socialist? Was Newt Gringrich right? Is the Paul Ryan plan right wing social engineering???

But if President Obama wants to the Buffet Tax (or really any economic policy), he's a radical socialist and so on. Yet Paul Ryan can implement similar measures - and he's the darling of the party.

Autobon wrote:

As you can see though, Obama and his dishonest rhetoric really does have an affect. He knows that people tend to rally against the "evil" rich, so he keeps spreading misinformation until people eventually just take him at his word. Obama knows he cannot run on his record, therefore he creates a fake enemy that everyone hates to distract from all of his failed policies.

Our President has been portrayed by Republicans as a dishonest, covert socialist Kenyan Muslim who creates conspiracies in order to secretly to take down America. (But his conspiracies are all broadcast on Fox News.) Lest you think I'm lying, go watch reruns of Glenn Beck and/or Sean Hannity.

Dancelittleewok wrote:

Autobon wrote:

No, Obama portrays Republicans as thinking that way.

No, this is the chosen Republican rhetoric. "Entitlement spending" is chosen term for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, etc. Frequently on Fox News, the unemployed are portrayed as lazy and entitled. The Paul Ryan plan guts most of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. There's no media bias. There's no spin here. This is what Republicans are choosing to do.
_________________
Observation: Life would be cooler if everyone spoke like HK-47.

Communications Coordinator at EUCantina.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 10:14 am

Message



	Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington

Dancelittleewok wrote:

But if President Obama wants to the Buffet Tax (or really any economic policy), he's a radical socialist and so on. Yet Paul Ryan can implement similar measures - and he's the darling of the party.

I gave a short description of the plan, but if you want to read more, then go to the website. The plans are not the same, and there is a fundamentally different view on income tax. Obama has focused on raising income taxes to solve our debt problem, by and large, and the fact is that it would only amount to 3%. It would never pay off the debt. On the other hand Paul Ryan's plan creates a more fair progressive tax, takes on loopholes and makes it far more simple then the craziness we have now. The income tax revenue is not the solution though in Paul Ryan's plan. No, instead it is focused on cutting programs that are getting us in to debt to begin with. We can't pay for entitlement programs, something has to be done.

Quote:

Obama is portrayed as dishonest, yes, but never a covert socialist Kenyan Muslim. In fact please go find me a broadcast segment on Fox News where the hosts refer to him as that. Sure there might be the one lunatic here or there you meet at school or job that believes he is a Muslim, but then again there are people who think Bush ordered 9/11... so I fail to see your point.

Quote:

No, this is the chosen Republican rhetoric. "Entitlement spending" is chosen term for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, etc.

Excuse me, "entitlement spending" is not a Republican term. That is what those programs are called. Obama himself refers to those programs as entitlements.

Quote:

Frequently... the unemployed are portrayed as lazy and entitled.

Republicans are hammering Obama's policies for the rise in unemployment, saying that there are hardworking people out there who simply can not find a job. Yes, there are some lazy and entitled Americans, you don't have to be a Republican to realize this, but its not true that they are all portrayed this way. Most Americans are hardworking and do want a job.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:13 pm

Message



	Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA

EDIT: thanks Life for the explination! That clears things up a lot!

Autobon wrote:

But we can talk about other countries, or actually take a look at United States spending. The fact is, our entitlement programs are bankrupt. There is no money left in them, so we keep borrowing to pay back. Entitlement programs are not capitalistic ideas, at least not on the ridiculous size and scale of whats seen in the US. Go look at a debt chart.... you will be shocked to see what these programs are costing us. Do you suggest we just keep borrowing?

Personally I wouldn't blame the benefits to the poor for this. If anything two wars really contributed significantly. At any rate I think we have a moral responsibility to have these programs. Streamline them yes. Get rid of redundencies yes. Axe them entirely or hamstring them no. I'm bloody lucky to be in a good position so paying higher taxes to help those out who are less fortunate and whose only fault was being born into a poor family.

So far as things like unemployment benefits go I've never been a fan of the current system. Personally I think we should reintroduce the CCC. You're unemployed fine. But if you are physically healthy and mentally competant you should have to enter into a CCC like program to collect your benefits. The CCC did a bunch of wonderful things in the 1930s so we could benefit incredibly by making unemployment benefits a package deal: we give you a reasonable income while you search for a new job, you work for the government on various building projects in exchange.

And I'm totally in support of medicare/medicade. My grandmother became very sick and without those programs we couldn't have afforded to put her up in a nursing home for the last 2 years of her life. To be clear this wasn't a case of she just urinates in the bed all the time. She had cancer which ultimately invaded her brain (or so the doctors thought). My family didn't have the skills to take care of her on our own. If those programs were axed or hamstrung she might have died sooner or just lingered on miserable because we couldn't give her proper care.

EDIT: I also agree with Life's comments about how much we pay in healthcare.

Quote:

These problems are being felt in Europe as well, the entitlement capital of the world. If you're current with the news you will see they are in massive debt and some countries are even defaulting. Look at Greece, look at the crisis in France, Portugal, Germany, etc. They are not doing fine, they are doing horribly.

When I said they are doing fine I ment human rights wise, not economically. That being said we are all coming out of a Recession so of course no one is doing fine economically. But prior to that their economy seemed equally strong to ours. If the system was truly flawed I'd expect their economy to be pretty poor regardless of whether it was bull or bear times.

Gilded Age captialism had a brutal boom and bust cycle. If we were debating at the time should we brand capitalism as an unstable and bad economic policy? Obviously not since it has worked out after the government started regulating things in the 20th century. But it took over 100 years before capitalism got its kinks worked out (if you have capitalism start with Adam Smith's publication). Socialist systems are barely 100 years old (if you have them start with the Russian Revolution) and the socialist systems in Europe/Canada are even younger (or so I gather). Let's give them the 100+ years we gave capitalism before we assume it is a complete failure without redeeming qualities.

EDIT: I defer to Life's comments on the EU. He pretty well sums up why I think being like Canada or the EU is a good thing.

Quote:

See above for my reasons to support these programs. They aren't flawless I grant and need streamlining. But I think giving them the axe is no different from Scrooges "if the poor would rather die then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." I don't mind streamlining to get rid of redundencies but talk about shrinking or axing them in my mind is no different from Scrooge. My view is that that position is without any human mercy, completely selfish and self serving.

Harsh I know and I'm not trying to personally insult you but really this is one case where I can't see any merit in the argument to shrink the benefits or axe the programs.

Quote:

Honestly I consider Obama middle of the road since he hasn't proposed anything uber radical (Obamacare being modeled on Romney's Massachusetts deal etc.). Tomato Tomahto.

Quote:

I never said the Democrats are the party of yes. I see the Republicans as the Party of No and the Democrats as the Party of I-will-not-fight-for-anything-please-don't-hurt-me. I think both parties are incompetant and unfit to rule the country. I'd honestly consider voting for a 3rd party if it wasn't for the fact that no 3rd party has an icecube's chance in hell of winning. I'm currently leaning towards Obama simply because I like Romney even less. However, if the presidential race turns them into two sides of the same coin I may vote for a 3rd party anyway.

Quote:

In this regard we pretty much both agree. I would go further and say it is time for new parties as I think both are corrupt and vote according to what their donors want and not what the people want.

Quote:

I'm inclined to agree here. But let's do it in this order: kill all the tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations give no bailouts (or corporation healthcare). If the corporation dies so be it. Then lets see how it is and streamline the benefits to the poor.

As it stands I have my doubts that either party would actually kill every benefit or perk to the corporations because those guys have lobyists and lots of them. The poor however do not so there is less difficulty in axing their benefits.

Maybe that makes me a conspiracy theorist. Personally I think I'm just cynical.

EDIT: As for why I'm against the austerity measures: Life's comments reflect my reasons perfectly. I think austerity measures will just put us back in a recession as the EU has experienced. I think the only reason we pulled out was because Obama spent spent spent.
_________________

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:36 pm

Message



	Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:

Personally I wouldn't blame the benefits to the poor for this. If anything two wars really contributed significantly.

Over the entire span of the past decade, both wars together amount to about 1.5 trillion dollars in money spent (rounding up). This is a lot of money, but it clearly does not even begin to compare to what entitlement programs are costing us.

Quote:

At any rate I think we have a moral responsibility to have these programs. Streamline them yes. Get rid of redundencies yes. Axe them entirely or hamstring them no.

But is it moral to lie to people and promise them benefits and security when you know that you cannot afford it? You see, I am not against helping out those in need, I agree that everyone, personally, has a moral obligation to do so. But what the federal government is doing is corrupt. It has created a giant Ponzi scheme that it can never pay back, yet it keeps pushing it more and promising more.

Quote:

I'm bloody lucky to be in a good position so paying higher taxes to help those out who are less fortunate and whose only fault was being born into a poor family.

Thank you for that, I appreciate people like you willing to help out. The thing is though, even if all of our tax rates went up to nosebleed levels it would not solve the debt crisis. There does need to be a change in the way we run entitlements.

Quote:

The CCC did a bunch of wonderful things in the 1930s so we could benefit incredibly by making unemployment benefits a package deal: we give you a reasonable income while you search for a new job, you work for the government on various building projects in exchange.

Yes, I think we both agree that we need to create as many jobs as possible. I think this is best done through the private sector, which has a far better track record of providing livable-wage jobs. And as far as the government is concerned, I agree that it needs to provide another package. A great place to start would be for Obama to stop blocking the Keystone pipeline which would reduce our foreign oil dependence and provide tens of thousands of jobs.

Quote:

And I'm totally in support of medicare/medicade. My grandmother became very sick and without those programs we couldn't have afforded to put her up in a nursing home for the last 2 years of her life.

And the sad thing is, many people like your grandmother wont receive the same benefits she did simply because the programs are bankrupt. There comes a point when the government simply cannot pay up anymore, and then what happens?

We need serious change in the way we run these programs, or many people who have been paying in to them all their lives will find there is no money left for them when they need it most. And that is is really unfair.

Quote:

I also agree with Life's comments about how much we pay in healthcare.

The US spends about $650 billion more then a country of its GDP size should, as compared to other countries. Roughly two-thirds of it pays for outpatient care, including visits to physicians, same-day hospital treatment, and emergency-room care. The overwhelming majority of US healthcare is also clearly world class. Cutting-edge drugs and treatments are available earlier here, and waiting times to see physicians are lower.

Its funny, we always hear from people like Micheal Moore who glorify state-run healthcare, using places like Cuba as a model. Yet when these same people have a problem they always go for the best care possible in the United States. Its just another item in the long list of "do as I say, not what I do" hypocrisy coming from the left. I would have a lot more respect if an Obama, Ted Kennedy, or Micheal Moore got cancer treatment, for example, in France or Cuba, or some other marvelous example of state-run healthcare.

Quote:

When I said they are doing fine I ment human rights wise, not economically.

Ok, but I don't except that to be true. I believe in personal liberty, not a bureaucratic monstrosity that dictates exactly what I do with my money; taking it from me to spend frivolously, then coming back and taking the rest of it to try to pay off the debt. Human rights does not just cover getting beat up by the gestapo.

Quote:

But I think giving them the axe is no different from Scrooges "if the poor would rather die then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." I don't mind streamlining to get rid of redundencies but talk about shrinking or axing them in my mind is no different from Scrooge. My view is that that position is without any human mercy, completely selfish and self serving.

We both care for mercy, I just think the governments way of doing it is dishonest and bankrupt. The story of Scrooge was about personal responsibility and charity, which I am all for. It had nothing to do with a bankrupt government lying to its citizens about benefits it knows it cannot provide. Mr. Scrooge did not have a debt exceeding his yearly income.

Quote:

I would go further and say it is time for new parties as I think both are corrupt and vote according to what their donors want and not what the people want.

Well yes, there is certainly a lot of corruption in both parties. While there is little I can do about that, I simply vote and live as a Christian. That includes personally helping out others in need and voting my conscience.

Quote:

I'm inclined to agree here. But let's do it in this order: kill all the tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations give no bailouts (or corporation healthcare). If the corporation dies so be it.

Hey I can agree with that. I was always against bailouts, even under Bush. If a company's management is rotten to the core, bailing it out is not going to help anyone in the long term.

Quote:

I think the only reason we pulled out was because Obama spent spent spent.

I think its going to get much worse. I slight uptick in the economy is normal, it doesn't go down in a straight line. Obama has added 4 trillion to the deficit, and the liabilities of entitlement programs are unfathomably high. So I would not celebrate just yet.

-

Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 12:58 am

Message



	Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA

Autobon wrote:

Salaris Vorn wrote:

Personally I wouldn't blame the benefits to the poor for this. If anything two wars really contributed significantly.

Maybe so, but I don't think that excuses it from discussion (not that I'm suggesting you personally don't want to talk about it). The way I see it is that the smaller expenses when put together can really add up too. Sure item X may have the biggest tab when viewed in isolation but the smaller stuff shouldn't be discounted.

In essence I don't believe targeting the items that have the biggest tab will actually help if we don't give the small items equal scrutiny.

Quote:

I suppose I'm just not quite cynical enough to see it as a Ponzi scheme. I still believe that it can work if we take the time to fix the problems. Personally I'm more cynical that without the government the poor would primarily be left to rot, I have no faith that the corporations would pick up the slack so the extra burden would fall on the existing non-profits which I don't believe are capable of taking the extra burdern.

Quote:

I don't expect raising taxes to nose bleed levels would be an instant fix but it would help. As Life noted Greece is in trouble because no one paid taxes so the government had little/no revenue. So based on that raising taxes (and closing loopholes at the same time) will help even if it is only a small fraction. Again just because it is small doesn't mean that, combined with other small adjustments in other non-tax areas, it wouldn't all add up to make a much larger contribution.

Quote:

Yes, I think we both agree that we need to create as many jobs as possible. I think this is best done through the private sector, which has a far better track record of providing livable-wage jobs.

I wouldn't dispute the private sector having a better track record but that misses my point on the CCC. What I was thinking was that a CCC program would completely replace welfare checks, unemployment checks etc. for those who are physically/mentally healthy. The way I see it currently we pay those bills but we don't get anything in return. So the solution is the CCC, people get some cash to hold them over while they look for a permanent job and we (the public) win by having extra manpower for maintaining parks, roads, and other public spaces. We'd solve several problems in one go. (Or think of it this way we wouldn't be paying welfare or entitlement, we'd be paying temporary workers to assist with maintaining our infrastucture).

Quote:

A great place to start would be for Obama to stop blocking the Keystone pipeline which would reduce our foreign oil dependence and provide tens of thousands of jobs.

While I understand your reasoning I'm against the pipeline for several reasons: 1) we'd still be dependent on oil so it is only a short term solution 2) we'd still be keeping ourselves at the mercy of the oil companies 3a) I think our money would be better invested in windfarms and solar power which are energy sources that will never run dry so is very good long term 3b) implementing massive windfarm/solar power projects would generate lots of construction jobs and long term maintence jobs too 4)investing in things like alternate fuel sources (from plants etc) would generate lots of R&D jobs

Overall I dislike the Keystone pipeline because I think we're just being duped by the oil companies to avoid actually freeing ourselves from oil dependency. Because we'd be devoting resources to maintaining our oil dependency we'd ultimately hurt ourselves in the long run by not keeping up with or (even better) leading the world in developing new energy technologies we could then export.

Quote:

We need serious change in the way we run these programs, or many people who have been paying in to them all their lives will find there is no money left for them when they need it most. And that is is really unfair.

Like I said I'm all for overhauling the programs to eliminate redudencies and streamline them to be more efficient. Again though my grandmother demonstrates (to me) why we need to fix the programs, not scrap them.

Quote:

Yet in every government you will have a government that takes a portion of your money, spends it on things you don't necessarily agree with and also use it to pay off the debt. I've never suggested (nor to my knowledge anyone) that the government should take all your money. The only way your personal liberties, as you outlined above, won't be violated is with the Greece model of little/no revenue and then the country falls apart. Whether you like it or not you have to live under a government of some sort that will take a portion of your money to spend as they see fit.

Quote:

Actually Scrooge sees several ghosts chained together which he attributes to being members of corrupt governments. All the ghosts were suffering for refusing to help others when they were alive. Presumably the ghosts of currupt officials were suffering for refusing to use their positions of power to help their fellow humans (as logically if they had used their power for good they wouldn't be in that mess).

In any event my point is that these prgrams are a form of charity. So how can one claim to be charitable and personally responsible if one would rather see a program with good intentions closed rather than fixing it? If these were private charities would we not implore them to fix their problems before we dismissed them as a lost cause and withheld our money thus forcing them to close?

Quote:

I think the only reason we pulled out was because Obama spent spent spent.

Believe me I'm any thing but celebrating. I personally think the whole thing that "our economy has recovered, time to celebrate with fireworks!" is a bunch of bull since the only people who truly recovered are the corporations who received bailouts. I'm worried too, although clearly for different reasons. I suppose the main difference between us is I'm still an optimist who believes that if we take the time to actually try we can fix the charitable programs without axing them.
_________________

Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:36 am

Message



	Life Is The Path Master Joined: 10 Sep 2010 Posts: 3405 Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

I have to question the US' foreign oil dependency. So I looked it up:

In 2009, 36% of your oil came from domestic sources, 11% of which came from Alaska. The other 64% was imported - however, the largest source of that, at 21%, was Canada. That's more than all the oil imported from the Persian gulf countries (at 13%) - most of which was from Saudi Arabia. The next being Venezuela.

As of Sept. 2011, the top 15 countries to provide crude oil are:
CANADA 2,324 (thousand barrels per day)
SAUDI ARABIA 1,465
MEXICO 1,099
VENEZUELA 759
NIGERIA 529
COLOMBIA 510
IRAQ 403
ECUADOR 299
ANGOLA 283
RUSSIA 275
BRAZIL 163
KUWAIT 145
ALGERIA 139
CHAD 74
OMAN 72

And petroleum imports being:

CANADA 2,829 (thousand barrels per day)
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479
MEXICO 1,192
VENEZUELA 806
RUSSIA 592
NIGERIA 580
COLOMBIA 529
IRAQ 404
ECUADOR 305
ANGOLA 304
ALGERIA 291
VIRGIN ISLANDS 189
BRAZIL 188
ARUBA 149
KUWAIT 145

So please make up your minds on how these numbers affect your discussion, if at all.

EDIT: Sources: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/america-gas-source.htm and http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html for the above numbers.

Also, WHO report compiling a list on who's got the best health care in the world http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:02 am

Message



	Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington

Sources at the bottom

Salaris Vorn wrote:

In essence I don't believe targeting the items that have the biggest tab will actually help if we don't give the small items equal scrutiny.

I agree, we need to look over all our expenses and make sure they are dealt with appropriately. And as you say, that includes small items, and yes, big items as well.

Quote:

I suppose I'm just not quite cynical enough to see it as a Ponzi scheme. I still believe that it can work if we take the time to fix the problems.

I do not believe it is possible to fix the problem while making no changes to benefits or expectations. Here is an article from Bloomberg by Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University, who echoes my worries. It's a very short article that I hope you have the time to read. It sums up why I am not as optimistic as you are about getting through this debt while keeping entitlements unscathed.

Quote:

Personally I'm more cynical that without the government the poor would primarily be left to rot

But studies indicate that welfare does not do the job it was meant to do. It does not serve as a quick and temporary means to get someone back on track with their life, instead it creates a heavy dependence on the government. If you were to look at the food stamps program for example, what is often seen as a short-term solution to help people, actually turns into a pattern of long-term dependence. Over 70% of recipients have been on the program for over five years, 40% for more then 10 years. What the government should be doing to help solve the problem, is pursuing programs that teach healthy life choices, like getting married and getting an education. As of 2010, about 71% of all unmarried families with children were poor, whereas 74% of married families with children were not considered poor. Just a coincidence? I don't think so. Similar stats apply to families without children as well.

This just goes to show that at the end of the day, it is personal responsibility and smart choices that end up having the biggest impact on one's life.

Quote:

So the solution is the CCC, people get some cash to hold them over while they look for a permanent job and we (the public) win by having extra manpower for maintaining parks, roads, and other public spaces. We'd solve several problems in one go. (Or think of it this way we wouldn't be paying welfare or entitlement, we'd be paying temporary workers to assist with maintaining our infrastucture).

This is already better then the unsustainable and failing system we have now. So lets go for it. The key here though, is that welfare be a temporary solution, not permanent as it seems to have become in this country.

Quote:

3a) I think our money would be better invested in windfarms and solar power which are energy sources that will never run dry so is very good long term 3b) implementing massive windfarm/solar power projects would generate lots of construction jobs and long term maintence jobs too 4)investing in things like alternate fuel sources (from plants etc) would generate lots of R&D jobs

This kind of goes into the topic of environmentalism, so I will only briefly address it. While I am all for investing in energy research, oil sources in America alone are estimated at lasting us 200 years or more, so I do not really buy the argument that we will run dry. Still, Obama likes to run around and praise alternative energy while demonizing oil and coal and one wonders why...

Interestingly enough, Peter Schweizer, a fellow of the Hoover Institution, points out that '4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department was “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”' Funny the way that works, especially after Obama made promises that he would not engage in such political maneuvering on the tax payer dollar. This is made worse by the fact that renewable energy endeavors such as solar power have not proven to be cost effective at all. They are giant money drains with little to show.

Quote:

I am not calling to scrap them, however there needs to be massive changes in the way these programs are run. We also need to be realistic and realize that it might hurt to do so, but not as much as it would if we were to continue down this path.

Quote:

I've never suggested (nor to my knowledge anyone) that the government should take all your money. The only way your personal liberties, as you outlined above, won't be violated is with the Greece model of little/no revenue and then the country falls apart. Whether you like it or not you have to live under a government of some sort that will take a portion of your money to spend as they see fit.

Take a look at France. Their new president, Hollande, has proposed a 75% Tax bracket on the rich. So imagine you worked your butt off, took risks, and became rich. Maybe you want to donate your money to philanthropic causes you believe in, maybe you want to start a business with your family, or who knows, maybe you just want to finally relax and travel the world... no sorry. Hollande is here to take nearly all of your money and use it to pay for his government's irresponsible schemes, which is extremely unfair.

Quote:

In any event my point is that these prgrams are a form of charity. So how can one claim to be charitable and personally responsible if one would rather see a program with good intentions closed rather than fixing it?

These programs are not supposed to be charity, they work nothing like one. However, If there was a charity that was so irresponsible to accrue percentage-wise the debt of entitlement programs and continued with their same policies, I would want that organization either shut down or a complete change in management and staff. They have proven to be completely ineffective, dishonest, and wasteful. It would make sense to have another organization take its place.

But again, its actually a very difficult comparison to make since the government run "charity" programs have different methods of collecting funds and spending funds.

----Sources and similar articles -------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/14/report-80-of-doe-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-backers/
http://energyforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Energy-InventoryFINAL.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204520204577251051439665674.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/[/quote]

Edit:Spelling Errors

Last edited by Autobon on Wed May 09, 2012 3:38 pm; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:49 am

Message



	Dancelittleewok EUC Staff Joined: 15 Sep 2010 Posts: 1117 Location: Kansas


I hope the Paycheck Fairness Act passes. _________________ Observation: Life would be cooler if everyone spoke like HK-47. Communications Coordinator at EUCantina.

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:56 pm

Message



	Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington


It just failed, 8 votes shy if I remember correctly.

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:33 pm

Message



	VileZero Master Joined: 21 Mar 2010 Posts: 813 Location: Maryland


I just read something not too long ago that men tend to make more than women because men are more likely to negotiate their salary, whereas women tend to accept what they are offered. If that's the case... what's the point of the Paycheck Fairness Act?

The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 20 of 40		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 38, 39, 40 Next

Display posts from previous:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum