The Republican Party

Originally posted by menokokoro
Ok, I just read the first like 5 or 6 posts here. And I cannot believe that people blindly believe that republicans are just idiots, or racists, or whatever.

The reason republicans, (and remember, not all republicans are the same, just as not every democrat, or person in general is the same) is that they actually provide plans, they don't always work, but they are at least thinking, rather than just taxing everyone, and throwing money at the problem until something happens.

Now the reason the Democratic party is still around is they are more sly about things, rather than actually trying to fix the problem, they try and make themselves sound like saints, and their opponents like the devil.

You pay attention, listen to a republican's plan, they tell you where they need to cut back, or whatever so it will work. And you listen to a democrats respons, it is almost always "What he wants is to kill elderly, sick, and homeless people" instead of actually pointing out what they don't like about their plan, because they know that they don't have a better plan, so the only thing they can do is demonize whoever they are arguing against.

Saying this, I should let you know, I don't believe that most "republicans" are actually republican, they are just "conservative democrats". Also, it is unfair to lump everyone into one category just because they claim the name Republican, or Democrat, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone who doesn't look at things the way I just said, I know it doesn't apply to everyone.

edit- Worded that wrong. Meant to say the hypocrisy between your ending point and the rest of your post is astounding.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The hypocrisy between your initial point and the rest of your post is astounding.

edit- Worded that wrong. Meant to say the hypocrisy between your ending point and the rest of your post is astounding.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The hypocrisy between your initial point and the rest of your post is astounding.

edit- Worded that wrong. Meant to say the hypocrisy between your ending point and the rest of your post is astounding.

Thank you, really!

I wasn't aware there was a rule in the GDF that says that I can't comment on people's posts unless I intend to debate with them. haermm

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I wasn't aware there was a rule in the GDF that says that I can't comment on people's posts unless I intend to debate with them. haermm

Originally posted by menokokoro
The reason republicans, (and remember, not all republicans are the same, just as not every democrat, or person in general is the same) is that they actually provide plans, they don't always work, but they are at least thinking, rather than just taxing everyone, and throwing money at the problem until something happens.

So you say "they just want to throw money at everything" instead of actually pointing out what you don't like about their plan, because you know that you don't have a better plan, so the only thing you can do is demonize whoever you are arguing against.

This is too easy.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Now the reason the Democratic party is still around is they are more sly about things, rather than actually trying to fix the problem, they try and make themselves sound like saints, and their opponents like the devil.

Oh that's hilarious. You should do stand up.

Originally posted by menokokoro
You pay attention, listen to a republican's plan, they tell you where they need to cut back, or whatever so it will work. And you listen to a democrats respons, it is almost always "What he wants is to kill elderly, sick, and homeless people" instead of actually pointing out what they don't like about their plan, because they know that they don't have a better plan, so the only thing they can do is demonize whoever they are arguing against.

Actually the democratic argument are that you can't possibly cut enough stuff to make the republican plans work without having the government completely ignore those groups. Which is true. Their plans involve zero increases in revenue. Over the years Republicans become progressively more dogmatic. In fact many of the tea party candidates signed oaths not to compromise.

Originally posted by menokokoro
HAHA, there you go again! I love it. I never said that you can't post, you are just reinforcing my point by trying to make me look stupid rather than actually arguing with me.

Many conservatives and Republicans, especially the ones running for the office of president, have been outspoken about how they are not at all opposed to raising taxes. Raising taxes on the lowest 50%, that is, which I find tremendously hypocritical.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you say "they just want to throw money at everything" instead of actually pointing out what you don't like about their plan, because you know that you don't have a better plan, so the only thing you can do is demonize whoever you are arguing against.

This is too easy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually the democratic argument are that you can't possibly cut enough stuff to make the republican plans work without having the government completely ignore those groups. Which is true. Their plans involve zero increases in revenue. Over the years Republicans become progressively more dogmatic. In fact many of the tea party candidates signed oaths not to compromise.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Many conservatives and Republicans, especially the ones running for the office of president, have been outspoken about how they are not at all opposed to raising taxes. Raising taxes on the lowest 50%, that is, which I find tremendously hypocritical.

What it should be is a flat percentile tax on your income. That would make the "rich" have more money, letting them hire more people, and pay those people more money, and so they will be able to buy more products, and cause corporations to..again, make more money, so they can continue to pay their employees...etc, etc...

Or, we can just have another stimulus package (throwing money at it).

Originally posted by menokokoro
How so? How is it fair to charge the rich more (proportionately) by massive amounts, than the poor? Don't the rich earn their money, just like the poor do? Don't the rich hire the poor? What are taxes charging you for, living in the USA?

What it should be is a flat percentile tax on your income. That would make the "rich" have more money, letting them hire more people, and pay those people more money, and so they will be able to buy more products, and cause corporations to..again, make more money, so they can continue to pay their employees...etc, etc...

Or, we can just have another stimulus package (throwing money at it).

Sure a flat tax without loopholes and payable on all money a person makes, regardless of the source, with at least some sort of minimum, could be perfectly fine. The problem is that many rich people in the US, pay much, much less than their middle class counterparts (percentage wise), which is obviously something that should be fixed, and is what Warren Buffet has been referring to.

The minimum I think is necessary for actually poor people with almost no income, that can hardly make ends meet, I don't think it is the governments job to make the lifes of people who already have it the hardest even worse. But besides that, a flat tax could be alright.

Though the logic of your second paragraph doesn't seem to be in line with reality at all, as tax cuts hardly lead to new job creation (similarly to repatriation of money), but there's other arguments to be made for a flat tax so I guess it doesn't matter how we arrive at an agreement.

Originally posted by menokokoro
...that was kinda my point. There aren't really plans...they just throw...I feel I've said this already.

See now I was pointing out actual hypocrisy.

You complain that Democrats deliberately distort Republican positions and your basis for this is a deliberate distortion of a Democratic position (or maybe you're just incredibly ignorant).

Say one thing, do the other. Textbook hypocrisy. Learn it, love it, live it (maybe not those last two).

Originally posted by menokokoro
Oh really? wow, MANY, not all, and everyone in the democratic party compromises like mad eh?

Were you around for the debt ceiling thing? The final democratic plans were as far right as the early republican ones. The republican still didn't accept them. This isn't a thing you can call into question, the thing that's been killing democrats for years is that they constant give in to the republicans whenever a major issue is pressed. The republican response is to move further and further to the extreme so they can keep characterizing democrats as socialists.

Originally posted by menokokoro
As for the plan, I understand that, but how is more debt, causing everyone else to eventually not do business with us, so we wont be able to do anything...at all

Because that's not the plan. That's the Republican demonization of it.

Kenyesian economics is fairly straightforward on this subject. When the economy is doing badly the government spends money to build consumer confidence sustain the people who get hurt until it pick back up again. Once that happens you cut back spending on the programs and use the income produced to pay off debts.

But if you want to play the demonization game: How is the Republican plan of letting the country go crashing into the ground going to save the country? Also I'm sure that killing our public school system will do wonders to produce those intelligent new generations we need.

Originally posted by menokokoro
so that we can be self sustaining, and getting rid of out debt, so that we, both as a country, and individuals can have room to prosper.

If you really believe the country can get out of debt in the next hundred years without increasing its revenue at all I really just don't know what to tell you. We're incredibly deep in debt. Debt is paid off with money. Governments get money from taxes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
See now I was pointing out actual hypocrisy.

You complain that Democrats deliberately distort Republican positions and your basis for this is a deliberate distortion of a Democratic position (or maybe you're just incredibly ignorant).

Say one thing, do the other. Textbook hypocrisy. Learn it, love it, live it (maybe not those last two).

Hey man, keep your ad hominem to yourself, and address his actual arguments like a real man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure a flat tax without loopholes and payable on all money a person makes, regardless of the source, with at least some sort of minimum, could be perfectly fine. The problem is that many rich people in the US, pay much, much less than their middle class counterparts (percentage wise), which is obviously something that should be fixed, and is what Warren Buffet has been referring to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The minimum I think is necessary for actually poor people with almost no income, that can hardly make ends meet, I don't think it is the governments job to make the lifes of people who already have it the hardest even worse. But besides that, a flat tax could be alright.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though the logic of your second paragraph doesn't seem to be in line with reality at all, as tax cuts hardly lead to new job creation (similarly to repatriation of money), but there's other arguments to be made for a flat tax so I guess it doesn't matter how we arrive at an agreement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The minimum I think is necessary for actually poor people with almost no income, that can hardly make ends meet, I don't think it is the governments job to make the lifes of people who already have it the hardest even worse. But besides that, a flat tax could be alright

And in practical terms raising income taxes on those people is pointless. Yeah, it's half the country but it's less than 3% of its wealth. You make a limited amount of progress while causing very clear damage in the process.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really believe the country can get out of debt in the next hundred years without increasing its revenue at all I really just don't know what to tell you. We're incredibly deep in debt. Debt is paid off with money. Governments get money from taxes.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I never said that we shouldn't increase revenue, I'm just saying that lowering costs is much more important. If you were making 50k a year, but you were spending 70k a year, and you are in debt 50k, what would be the first thing you would do? I would get rid of what ever is causing me to spend 20k more per year than I am making.

Originally posted by inimalist
suicide is illegal where you live?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The States used to have laws against it but those were revoked and there is a sparsely enforced federal law. Regardless, they often find other things to charge an attempted suicide with in order to compel mental health services and occasionally fines and jail time.

weird

health facilities can hold people for a night or two here, but it never really becomes a legal thing. not that we have awesome mental health institutions or anything, I'm just surprised to see it treated in a criminal way

Originally posted by menokokoro
How is it fair to charge the rich more (proportionately) by massive amounts, than the poor?

people need $15 a day to live

a poor person makes $20, and a rich person, $25000.

if we tax 25% of the poor person, we only net $5, but their ability to live has been impacted to a major degree. In fact, their tax burden nearly takes away all the money they have to live, prevents them from saving, prevents them from investing, and in general, prevents them from any long term financial planning.

if you tax the rich at 99%, you net $24750, and the rich person still has $250, over 16 times the cost of living.

I'm not advocating we use 5% and 99% as tax rates, but it is unfair, because each dollar you take from a poor person is incredibly more damaging to their personal economic survival than it is for a rich person.

Aside from the sheer pragmatic aspect (the poor don't control enough of the wealth, etc), the idea that fairness is measured in the percentage paid, rather than the real economic impact on people is absurd. like, laughably absurd. Like, I'm going to pay ~2000 in tax this year, making around $17000. 2 grand in my pocket would make a huge difference in my life. You can multiply that rate several times for someone making over $100000, and it wouldn't have even a fraction of an impact on their budget. I can't fathom what kind of calculus you would be doing to say it is more fair to have a flat tax, unless your definition of fair is naively superficial.