Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on January 31, 2012, 06:50:20 PM
-
Republicans have only themselves to blame
By Richard Cohen,
On Saturday night, at precisely 9:19 and 30 seconds, my iPhone, my iPad, my computer and, for all I know, my toaster were informed that Herman Cain had endorsed Newt Gingrich. The ping-ping of the devices suggested that something momentous had happened — alerts from both The Post and the New York Times — but in fact it was just additional evidence that the Republican Party has become a circus: One clown endorsed another.
It’s hard to know who is the more ridiculous figure — the grandiloquent, bombastic and compulsively dishonest Gingrich, or the beguilingly ignorant Cain, a man who has never held elective office and who was reduced to speechlessness when asked a question about Libya. Nonetheless, Gingrich, his Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face, accepted the endorsement and then went on with his nihilistic campaign for the White House. This has been an exceedingly silly political season.
But it has also been a sad one. The Republican establishment acts as if this season’s goon squad of presidential candidates has come out of nowhere, an act of God — a tsunami that hit the party and receded, leaving nothing but nitwits standing. In column after column, conservative commentators lament the present condition, but not their past acquiescence as their party turned hostile to thought, reason and the two most important words in the English language: It depends.
If you ask me what I think of abortion, I’d say, “It depends.” It depends on whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill. But in the Republican contest, the answer to the question is always the same: no, no and no again. Thanks for giving the matter such careful thought.
It is the same with taxes. Should they be raised? It depends. It depends on economic and fiscal conditions — and on whose taxes will be raised and by how much. The answer cannot be “No, never.” That’s not an economic position; it is an ideological one and exhibits a closed mind.
Similarly with global warming, GOP candidates are not certain it is exacerbated by industry, auto emissions and such. They take this position not because they have studied the science but because they are opposed to government regulations. They fear the solution more than they do the problem. Some also take a skeptical position regarding the theory of evolution — proof right there that there is something wrong with this theory.
This rampant anti-intellectualism is worrisome. The world is a complex place, but to deal with it, the GOP presented a parade of hopefuls who proposed nostrums or, in the case of Michele Bachmann, peddled false rumors about vaccinations. When this started I cannot say — the late Richard Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for his “Anti-intellectualism in American Life” in 1964 — but the embrace of Sarah Palin by the GOP establishment has got to be noted. The lady has the gift of demagoguery and the required anti-elitism, but she knows next to nothing about almost anything — and revels in her ignorance.
Should the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear installations? It depends. Should America enable Israel to do it? It depends. How should China be handled? What about Russia and Turkey, not to mention Pakistan — our ally and a mosh pit of madmen? From the GOP candidates, the answers are simple: Bomb Iran if it goes nuclear, confront China, stare down Russia and — from the unfathomably shallow Rick Perry — kiss off Pakistan. Subtlety is banished. Yahoos stride the stage.
It is entirely appropriate that last week’s GOP debates fell between “Pawn Stars” and “American Pickers” in the 10 most-watched cable television shows. They are sheer entertainment having little to do with us and our problems. The Republican Party has veered so far from reality that Gingrich is lambasting Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate” — moderation being, as it was with the clueless Barry Goldwater, an epithet. Romney, who has all but collapsed his rib cage to conform to conservative dogma, must be perplexed. Others have prudently stayed out of the race.
The Republican establishment that has now risen up to smite the bratty Gingrich has only itself to blame. For too long it has been mute in the face of a belligerent anti-intellectualism, pretending that knowledge and experience do not matter and that Washington is a condition and not a mere city. The endorsement of Gingrich by Cain was not a bulletin. It was a feeble blip on a scope. The GOP is brain-dead.
-
As if Obama , the piece of Kenyan shit who blames ATM machines for job losses is any better?
-
someone find some rope and a tree so we can shut this guy up
-
someone find some rope and a tree so we can shut this guy up
good post!
-
someone find some rope and a tree so we can shut this guy up
Leave Benny alone. I enjoy his posts. Every time he makes a thread he seems to own himself without even realizing it..LOL.
-
someone find some rope and a tree so we can shut this guy up
Bahaha!
Poor Benny cant think for himself, so he has to run with whatever the media feeds him.
And since Obama is black, its a no brainer for Benny, the moronic race obsessed individual that he is.
Its cool though, he single handedly does more for the GOP by posting the things he does, after all, his posts drive people right into their arms.
So the jokes on him, after all. hahaha
-
As if Obama , the piece of Kenyan shit who blames ATM machines for job losses is any better?
this crisis has been brewing since reagan, so go ahead and admit you hate hes blacks
-
Republicans have only themselves to blame
By Richard Cohen,
On Saturday night, at precisely 9:19 and 30 seconds, my iPhone, my iPad, my computer and, for all I know, my toaster were informed that Herman Cain had endorsed Newt Gingrich. The ping-ping of the devices suggested that something momentous had happened — alerts from both The Post and the New York Times — but in fact it was just additional evidence that the Republican Party has become a circus: One clown endorsed another.
It’s hard to know who is the more ridiculous figure — the grandiloquent, bombastic and compulsively dishonest Gingrich, or the beguilingly ignorant Cain, a man who has never held elective office and who was reduced to speechlessness when asked a question about Libya. Nonetheless, Gingrich, his Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face, accepted the endorsement and then went on with his nihilistic campaign for the White House. This has been an exceedingly silly political season.
But it has also been a sad one. The Republican establishment acts as if this season’s goon squad of presidential candidates has come out of nowhere, an act of God — a tsunami that hit the party and receded, leaving nothing but nitwits standing. In column after column, conservative commentators lament the present condition, but not their past acquiescence as their party turned hostile to thought, reason and the two most important words in the English language: It depends.
If you ask me what I think of abortion, I’d say, “It depends.” It depends on whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill. But in the Republican contest, the answer to the question is always the same: no, no and no again. Thanks for giving the matter such careful thought.
It is the same with taxes. Should they be raised? It depends. It depends on economic and fiscal conditions — and on whose taxes will be raised and by how much. The answer cannot be “No, never.” That’s not an economic position; it is an ideological one and exhibits a closed mind.
Similarly with global warming, GOP candidates are not certain it is exacerbated by industry, auto emissions and such. They take this position not because they have studied the science but because they are opposed to government regulations. They fear the solution more than they do the problem. Some also take a skeptical position regarding the theory of evolution — proof right there that there is something wrong with this theory.
This rampant anti-intellectualism is worrisome. The world is a complex place, but to deal with it, the GOP presented a parade of hopefuls who proposed nostrums or, in the case of Michele Bachmann, peddled false rumors about vaccinations. When this started I cannot say — the late Richard Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for his “Anti-intellectualism in American Life” in 1964 — but the embrace of Sarah Palin by the GOP establishment has got to be noted. The lady has the gift of demagoguery and the required anti-elitism, but she knows next to nothing about almost anything — and revels in her ignorance.
Should the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear installations? It depends. Should America enable Israel to do it? It depends. How should China be handled? What about Russia and Turkey, not to mention Pakistan — our ally and a mosh pit of madmen? From the GOP candidates, the answers are simple: Bomb Iran if it goes nuclear, confront China, stare down Russia and — from the unfathomably shallow Rick Perry — kiss off Pakistan. Subtlety is banished. Yahoos stride the stage.
It is entirely appropriate that last week’s GOP debates fell between “Pawn Stars” and “American Pickers” in the 10 most-watched cable television shows. They are sheer entertainment having little to do with us and our problems. The Republican Party has veered so far from reality that Gingrich is lambasting Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate” — moderation being, as it was with the clueless Barry Goldwater, an epithet. Romney, who has all but collapsed his rib cage to conform to conservative dogma, must be perplexed. Others have prudently stayed out of the race.
The Republican establishment that has now risen up to smite the bratty Gingrich has only itself to blame. For too long it has been mute in the face of a belligerent anti-intellectualism, pretending that knowledge and experience do not matter and that Washington is a condition and not a mere city. The endorsement of Gingrich by Cain was not a bulletin. It was a feeble blip on a scope. The GOP is brain-dead.
why do you hate gay people?
-
why do you hate gay people?
BTW, I see what youre doing with the whole "gay" thing, and the whole "you cant use that word thats our word" thing,
Bravo, sir.
-
this crisis has been brewing since reagan, so go ahead and admit you hate hes blacks
Yeah those 70's were real bang up years.
-
this crisis has been brewing since reagan, so go ahead and admit you hate hes blacks
LOL. And I suppose you think what Obama is doing is making it better? Yeah, it really sucked when 20mil jobs were created under Reagan as opposed to the ones that were lost under Obama. Gimme a break dude.
-
BTW, I see what youre doing with the whole "gay" thing, and the whole "you cant use that word thats our word" thing,
Bravo, sir.
dude, it's a hatecrime
I'm a gay man
there have been several laws in legislation against hate crimes especially against us homosexuals
I just find that this benny b is a huge hypocrite when he preachers his left wing, democratic, liberal agenda when he hates gay people and uses the "F-word"
-
As if Obama , the piece of Kenyan shit who blames ATM machines for job losses is any better?
Citation(s) please. :)
-
btw- I LOVE the Mall
-
Citation(s) please. :)
It's all over YouTube in his own words. He blamed the ATM machines, kiosks at airports, Internet etc. The man is Luddite and an economic illiterate.
-
It's all over YouTube in his own words. He blamed the ATM machines, kiosks at airports, Internet etc. The man is Luddite and an economic illiterate.
What do you expect from a lazy communist?
-
someone find some rope and a tree so we can shut this guy up
lol...another one of my victims that had to resort to a racist gimmick account do to countless humiliations :D
Why do you need a rope and a tree? I'll just end up tying you to the tree with that rope and shitting on your head before gutting you.
-
As if Obama , the piece of Kenyan shit who blames ATM machines for job losses is any better?
"Vinnie The Guinea" POUNCES on my thread with his usual pablum! Maybe you should pass this message on to Willard for the general election. It sounds like a sure-fire winner! lol ::)
-
Leave Benny alone. I enjoy his posts. Every time he makes a thread he seems to own himself without even realizing it..LOL.
Your entire life is one big self-owning, MexiMelt. lol
Get the fuck outta here ya' high school dropout. You have a long day of counting reps tomorrow and you need your sleep.
D'oh!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L9OX7CnUEQw/TogKqSv7MyI/AAAAAAAAA6c/whkVF2FECq8/s320/Idiot.JPG)
-
Bahaha!
Poor Benny cant think for himself, so he has to run with whatever the media feeds him.
And since Obama is black, its a no brainer for Benny, the moronic race obsessed individual that he is.
Its cool though, he single handedly does more for the GOP by posting the things he does, after all, his posts drive people right into their arms.
So the jokes on him, after all. hahaha
I didn't read all that drivel. ::) Once I see "Shockwave" I know I'm about to read a post devoid of any semblance of intelligence or deductive reasoning. lol Complete moron.
Here's a guy who's mad at Blacks and the government because they wouldn't let him and his wife collect food stamps while going to college full time. ::) What, you couldn't get a job or two to do what you had to do to buy groceries, or go to school part time? ::) Lazy piece of shit.
-
Haha, Benny countering with the liberal name calling because like his loser president he has nothing. Haha
-
Haha, Benny countering with the liberal name calling because like his loser president he has nothing. Haha
Haha, "The Coach" countering with absolutely NOTHING, because even with his feeble mind he knows the repube primary is nothing but a clown show. Four more years of Obama is going to sting quite badly, my taco-eating racist "esse".
I'll be thinking of you while settling into my office with a view overlooking Lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty tomorrow morning, "The Coach"!
-
Yeah those 70's were real bang up years.
Yep...Nixon and Ford fucked things up big time, didn't they?
On point as always, PEA BRAIN!
-
What do you expect, I'm a lazy communist?
fixed for what was clearly a Tuesday night drunken misstatement
-
They have a mc Donalds looking over manhatten? Benny. Out of all seriousness I don't think you have a job. at least I can prove what I do.
-
Your entire life is one big self-owning, MexiMelt. lol
Get the fuck outta here ya' high school dropout. You have a long day of counting reps tomorrow and you need your sleep.
D'oh!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L9OX7CnUEQw/TogKqSv7MyI/AAAAAAAAA6c/whkVF2FECq8/s320/Idiot.JPG)
HAHAHAHAH this is epic stuff, these morons coming out of the wood works. The tea parties economic position was no never raise taxes under any circumstance, it is demonstrably true that it is wise to raise taxes during certian periods. Thus, the position to never raise taxes is in fact counter to fact and logic and therefore is illogical by deduction. However, we also glean insight into the type of people who would take a clearly inferior position, the motives per se. Either they are delusional, they are purposely lying or they are stupid. These are the only avialible options that are based on sound axiomatic basis. Therefore my friends no matter what way you slice it by simple juxtaposition you have to admit that people in the tea party who signed the no tax hike bullshit are either crazy, stupid ,deceitful or any one of the number of possible combinations. However, again knowing anything about probability and statistics (luckily i do, who woulda thunk it huh?) the combination in more likely the a purely polarized personality. Regardless, the logical appraisal hurts less the the emtional and gut feeling you get when you realize that people are voitng in people who are clearly a combination of these things, yet see nothing wrong with it.
When presented these facts they can either become enlightened , willfully ignorant or lack comprehension. Therefore by logical roundabout my OCD ridden genius mind (its a real treat) we have stupid, ignorant fucks voting in obvious liars, morons and zealots.
Enjoy my post there 33 it probably contains more thought in 1 min then you've put into your entire life. Please step aside son and let the smart people take care of you. Seriously, you want to see the smartest doctor right? well why the fuck dont you let the smartest people into congress and they can take care of silly bigots like you. People who cite youtube videos as evidence despite knowing origin or process and have absurd amounts of posts about politics on a bodybuilding board. I can offer you help if you like, i can take time out of my day and tutor you on basic science and logic, all the while informing you that the government but namely your party is batshit fucking crazy and i can prove it.
Peace son.
-
Bahaha!
Poor Benny cant think for himself, so he has to run with whatever the media feeds him.And since Obama is black, its a no brainer for Benny, the moronic race obsessed individual that he is.
Its cool though, he single handedly does more for the GOP by posting the things he does, after all, his posts drive people right into their arms.
So the jokes on him, after all. hahaha
Careful now. You're insulting 33386's entier way of life.
-
Who is the brain-dead one here?
It is the same with taxes. Should they be raised? It depends. It depends on economic and fiscal conditions — and on whose taxes will be raised and by how much. The answer cannot be “No, never.” That’s not an economic position; it is an ideological one and exhibits a closed mind.
Wrong. It very much is an economic position. Having government take a bigger slice of the pie via spending, borrowing, taxing, and regulating diverts resources from the private sector and thus necessarily slows economic growth.
Similarly with global warming, GOP candidates are not certain it is exacerbated by industry, auto emissions and such. They take this position not because they have studied the science but because they are opposed to government regulations. They fear the solution more than they do the problem.
The fact of the matter is that government trying to reduce carbon emissions would cause more harm than good.
-
The tea parties economic position was no never raise taxes under any circumstance, it is demonstrably true that it is wise to raise taxes during certian periods.
No, it is not.
Therefore my friends no matter what way you slice it by simple juxtaposition you have to admit that people in the tea party who signed the no tax hike bullshit are either crazy, stupid ,deceitful or any one of the number of possible combinations.
Or they are economists who know what they're talking about, unlike you.
-
No, it is not.
Or they are economists who know what they're talking about, unlike you.
uh ya it is, lets see what are the tax rates of the richest people right now, what is the state of the economy? What points in history correlate with economic prosperity, perhaps there is a clear correlation to be found, inverse or positive, wait there is why am i debating such a clear fact?
what you are suggesting is that the stance to never raise taxes has any factual backing, it is absurd. There are clearly circumstances were some people should pay more tax, some people should pay less, raising or declining income tax has clear economical reprocussions. The staunch stance without consideration is the position of a closed minded zealot. Saying no never any abortions is again a insane positions, there are a multitude of factors which dictate the context and thus the outcome required.
You seem to be missing the point of the article, perhaps you didn't even read it.
you see your problem and that of other republicans is that you do not understand this article. It is from a skeptical approach, something you guys lack. For example, things are never black and white, saying no tax raises effectively takes persausion, reason and argument out of the equation because despite attempts to sway you one way or the other (you may be right even) you already have the answer. Open mindedness is all about delaying conclusion and accounting for extraneous variables. Coming to firm conclusions after intense debate, eliminating factors and when those cannot be fully elucidated you make you best choice from the best evidence you have. Saying no to all abortions is also absurd. I think there are circumstances when you should be able to and others when you should not, that is the stance of an open minded reasonable person, saying NO ABORTIONS is akin to religious people and the bible.
i could destroy you so intensely that it scares me the power i wield, please help me and save yourself from the misery of humiliation.
your starting position is not based on axioms, thus i can defeat your position and anything you say based on your false axioms.
its obvious that obtaining the most information increases the likelihood of making the correct decision, however, the republican party are become anti-intellectual and basing beliefs off of clearly false premises.
you can believe what you like and have your own thoughts but your not entitled to your own facts, mmmmmmmmmkay...
-
Why are you rabid leftists so consumed and dedicated on stealing everyones' money?
Everyone pays too much taxes. The issue is not that the rich pay too little, if that EVERYONE pays too much.
What a man labors for is his own family and well being, not the greeedy disgusting leeches in govt who want to run everyones' lives.
-
the issue is that the govt SPENDS too much.
however, newt, romney, and obama - NONE of them offer anything in terms of what spending they'll cut.
It's always vauge talk about cutting pork, then they never slash a damn thing. That huge congress mess that nearly shut down the govt - they saved a shopping 385 milion. Really?
Nobody wlil stop spending. Doesn't matter who you vote for.
-
Why are you rabid leftists so consumed and dedicated on stealing everyones' money?
Everyone pays too much taxes. The issue is not that the rich pay too little, if that EVERYONE pays too much.
What a man labors for is his own family and well being, not the greeedy disgusting leeches in govt who want to run everyones' lives.
again another fact that is lost on you. Your countries tax rate is complete shit, the rich get so much socialist benefits it's absurd, yet you morons keep shooting yourself in the feet. the presidency requires lots of money to get there, hence rich people often help for their self interest, thus rich people have their own interests in mind, its rare to find a truly altruistic human.
so you have the shit your country is in with its low tax rate, yet countries like canada with higher tax rates rate higher in almost all areas of quality and societal measures of life.
The truth and solution is clearly obvious to me, it appears you cannot comprehend these same facts or you are trolling. bravo if you are trolling, i couldn't even pull that off and i troll constantly.
im not attacking your party only, the democrats are on the opposite side of the same coin, both working in what appears to be harmony to achieve one desired goal. Clearly its the will of the rich who influence politics to much, thus you have this current situation. The trickle down economic model is laughable and completely negates human and group psychology. In fact whoever proposed it must have been of low intellect. Clearly humans have a propensity for dominance and a lust for power, look at nature. However, whether people realize it or not evolution is beginning to take hold at a more neuronal level, its still survival of the fittest, its just that now they are taking from you but making you cooperate by having you believe its in your best interest. You have been tricked, you will stay a sheep until you either come to these conclusions or can disprove what i've said.
Its clear corruption has ruined your country, it's sad that you blame those not who perpetrated this but those who look to fight this shitty system. stop voting for these idiots and liars. Vote someone who will at least have transperancy and character. The one ideal that should be even bigger then issues in politics is character, because without it you give way to pressure and group think.
I would suggest ron paul despite disagreeing with him intensely about some things. I like others in this thread have appraised and concluded that moral fiber counts for more then any plan, what you see is a lack of moral fiber ruining your country as well. You have religious hypocrites who live in direct contradiction with there choosen moral barometer. Thus they are comfortable with cognitive dissonance and as such they have no trouble making it me first when the comforts of others are not a concern as is seen in these sociopathic hypocrites.
once hypocriticism is displayed enough a candidate should be removed, they stand for nothing and will fall for anything, welcome to america.
-
again another fact that is lost on you. Your countries tax rate is complete shit, the rich get so much socialist benefits it's absurd, yet you morons keep shooting yourself in the feet. the presidency requires lots of money to get there, hence rich people often help for their self interest, thus rich people have their own interests in mind, its rare to find a truly altruistic human.
so you have the shit your country is in with its low tax rate, yet countries like canada with higher tax rates rate higher in almost all areas of quality and societal measures of life.
The truth and solution is clearly obvious to me, it appears you cannot comprehend these same facts or you are trolling. bravo if you are trolling, i couldn't even pull that off and i troll constantly.
im not attacking your party only, the democrats are on the opposite side of the same coin, both working in what appears to be harmony to achieve one desired goal. Clearly its the will of the rich who influence politics to much, thus you have this current situation. The trickle down economic model is laughable and completely negates human and group psychology. In fact whoever proposed it must have been of low intellect. Clearly humans have a propensity for dominance and a lust for power, look at nature. However, whether people realize it or not evolution is beginning to take hold at a more neuronal level, its still survival of the fittest, its just that now they are taking from you but making you cooperate by having you believe its in your best interest. You have been tricked, you will stay a sheep until you either come to these conclusions or can disprove what i've said.
Its clear corruption has ruined your country, it's sad that you blame those not who perpetrated this but those who look to fight this shitty system. stop voting for these idiots and liars. Vote someone who will at least have transperancy and character. The one ideal that should be even bigger then issues in politics is character, because without it you give way to pressure and group think.
I would suggest ron paul despite disagreeing with him intensely about some things. I like others in this thread have appraised and concluded that moral fiber counts for more then any plan, what you see is a lack of moral fiber ruining your country as well. You have religious hypocrites who live in direct contradiction with there choosen moral barometer. Thus they are comfortable with cognitive dissonance and as such they have no trouble making it me first when the comforts of others are not a concern as is seen in these sociopathic hypocrites.
once hypocriticism is displayed enough a candidate should be removed, they stand for nothing and will fall for anything, welcome to america.
No, I dont accept your premise in the first place. I dont want the govt doing anything for me. I want to be left alone. I dont want to be forced to participate in socialism and big govt bullshit programs.
If other countries want to be big govt slave plantations, goo for them, but that is not what we are supposed to be.
-
You have been tricked, you will stay a sheep until you either come to these conclusions or can disprove what i've said.
______________
right, unless we buy into the socialist uptopia we are sheep. Got it.
-
uh ya it is, lets see what are the tax rates of the richest people right now, what is the state of the economy? What points in history correlate with economic prosperity, perhaps there is a clear correlation to be found, inverse or positive, wait there is why am i debating such a clear fact?
Correlation does not equal causation, my friend. There are often too many uncontrollable variables to make such direct comparison.
If you're referring to the post-WWII boom, then let's not forget that most of the world was on the Bretton-Woods gold standard which, though imperfect, slowed the rate of inflation and forced governments to be at least somewhat fiscally responsible. Lower inflation, of course, promotes saving, which in turn promotes economic growth by providing funds for investment. Also, government deficits dip into investment funds, thereby crowding out private investment and economic growth - so the fiscal responsibility during the post-WWII boom could be partially attributed for the boom itself.
If you're referring to higher tax rates under Clinton, then let's not forget that Clinton actually cut the capital gains tax (which increased tax revenue) while it was Bush Sr. who initially raised taxes causing the economy to remain weak. Under Clinton and the Congressional Republicans, government spending as a share of GDP as well as government deficits shrunk, which could partially explain the strong 1990's economy. Also, let's not forget that the USA was riding the wave of a tech boom, which drove the strong economic growth of the late 90's.
And how about a counter-example? Calvin Coolidge cut the top income tax rate from 65% to 20%; by the end of his term 98% of Americans paid no income tax. Economic growth averaged 7% per year, inflation 0.4%, and unemployment 3.3%. He also cut the national debt by 25% (1) (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=410575.msg5876124#msg5876124). Now it is entirely possible that the economy would have boomed regardless of Coolidge's economic policies, but it seems rather self-evident that his hardline fiscal conservatism at least contributed to the strong economic performance of the 1920s.
what you are suggesting is that the stance to never raise taxes has any factual backing, it is absurd.
Well, I meant that tax-rates NOW should not be raised, not *necessarily* that tax rates (or government revenues) should never be increased.
I believe that given an agreed-upon proper role and correct size of government, that tax revenues should equal if not exceed government spending. Obviously, perpetual deficits are not good for the economy and they are not any way to fund a government.
That said, the main problem NOW is not insufficient revenue, but out-of-control government spending. Under George W. Bush, government spending as a share of the economy increased from around 18% of GDP to almost 21% of GDP. So RINO Bush Jr. was a bigger spender than Blue Dog Democrat Bill Clinton - but even these numbers don't tell the whole story! After all, GDP growth averaged 2-3% per year - so government spending corrected for inflation can GROW while government spending as a share of GDP falls. And when you look at the raw numbers, Bush Jr. increased real discretionary spending by 104% compared to Clinton's 11% (2) (http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush). Obama, of course, has taken Bush's Big Government policies and put them on steroids. Government spending as a percent of GDP has increased to 25% during his Presidency. Had Bush taken Clinton's budget and grew it only to keep up with inflation - and had Obama then taken Bush's budget and grown it only to keep up with inflation - government spending as a percent of GDP would be historically low, we'd have large budget surpluses, and we could easily afford to cut taxes in order to stimulate further economic growth.
There are clearly circumstances were some people should pay more tax, some people should pay less, raising or declining income tax has clear economical reprocussions.
The only thing that raising income taxes accomplishes is slower economic growth. You cannot expect individuals to fund more economic growth after you take away more of their resources.
The staunch stance without consideration is the position of a closed minded zealot.
Trust me, there is a lot of consideration that has led me to my stance on political and economic issues.
Saying no never any abortions is again a insane positions, there are a multitude of factors which dictate the context and thus the outcome required.
Your point?
I am pro-choice, BTW.
You seem to be missing the point of the article, perhaps you didn't even read it.
you see your problem and that of other republicans is that you do not understand this article. It is from a skeptical approach, something you guys lack. For example, things are never black and white, saying no tax raises effectively takes persausion, reason and argument out of the equation because despite attempts to sway you one way or the other (you may be right even) you already have the answer. Open mindedness is all about delaying conclusion and accounting for extraneous variables. Coming to firm conclusions after intense debate, eliminating factors and when those cannot be fully elucidated you make you best choice from the best evidence you have. Saying no to all abortions is also absurd. I think there are circumstances when you should be able to and others when you should not, that is the stance of an open minded reasonable person, saying NO ABORTIONS is akin to religious people and the bible.
Perhaps you should use your own skeptical approach on your own belief that all Republicans believe certain ideas without any serious consideration.
Believe me - I have not gotten to the positions I support now without a lot of kicking and screaming along the way. I used to be a leftist myself.
i could destroy you so intensely that it scares me the power i wield, please help me and save yourself from the misery of humiliation.
You're so wrong that your unyielding high opinion of yourself is downright laughable. I literally LOL'd reading this line.
your starting position is not based on axioms, thus i can defeat your position and anything you say based on your false axioms.
If it is not based on axioms, you cannot defeat anything based on false axioms. ::)
You sound like you just started taking a logic course your freshman year in college and have gotten drunk on the ability to spew philosophy terms regardless of their application to the discussion at hand.
its obvious that obtaining the most information increases the likelihood of making the correct decision, however, the republican party are become anti-intellectual and basing beliefs off of clearly false premises.
you can believe what you like and have your own thoughts but your not entitled to your own facts, mmmmmmmmmkay...
The Ron Paul wing of the GOP is quite intellectual, certainly more-so on economic issues than you.
-
Federal government spending as a percent of GDP in the 90's:
(http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Federal_Spending_1993-2000.jpg)
Bill "The Era of Big Government is over" Clinton:
Federal government spending as a percent of GDP during George W. Bush's term:
(http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Federal_Spending_2001-2008.jpg)
Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k2bHfdritc8/TbzXDVEhBnI/AAAAAAAAEn8/PP1QjUCNhn4/s1600/129200732277806195.jpg)
The above information seems to be a pretty good explanation of why we have this problem:
(http://abriefhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Budget-Deficits-1992-20171.jpg)
Cut spending and grow what's left only to adjust for inflation - then sit back and watch deficits disappear and the economy boom.
-
We have a spending problem....Increasing taxes will not solve the spending problem.
-
Lower corporate taxes fuel greater economic growth: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272704001343#SECX11 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272704001343#SECX11)
Spending cuts are a better way to balance the budget while tax cuts are a better way to stimulate economic growth: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438)
Increased government debt slows economic growth: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10174.pdf (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10174.pdf)
Higher inflation harms economic growth: http://www.nber.org/digest/dec97/w6062.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/dec97/w6062.html)
Hmmmm... Seems like economic science supports fiscal conservatism?
-
BTW, I see what youre doing with the whole "gay" thing, and the whole "you cant use that word thats our word" thing,
Bravo, sir.
Johnny has truly upped his game around here...
-
No, I dont accept your premise in the first place. I dont want the govt doing anything for me. I want to be left alone. I dont want to be forced to participate in socialism and big govt bullshit programs.
If other countries want to be big govt slave plantations, goo for them, but that is not what we are supposed to be.
ok then you are for the legalization of drugs, prostitution and allowing abortions etc..
if so, so am i.
-
ok then you are for the legalization of drugs, prostitution and allowing abortions etc..
if so, so am i.
Ever hear of this little thing called FREEDOM and LIBERTY?
-
ok then you are for the legalization of drugs, prostitution and allowing abortions etc..
if so, so am i.
Yes.
-
Correlation does not equal causation, my friend. There are often too many uncontrollable variables to make such direct comparison.
If you're referring to the post-WWII boom, then let's not forget that most of the world was on the Bretton-Woods gold standard which, though imperfect, slowed the rate of inflation and forced governments to be at least somewhat fiscally responsible. Lower inflation, of course, promotes saving, which in turn promotes economic growth by providing funds for investment. Also, government deficits dip into investment funds, thereby crowding out private investment and economic growth - so the fiscal responsibility during the post-WWII boom could be partially attributed for the boom itself.
If you're referring to higher tax rates under Clinton, then let's not forget that Clinton actually cut the capital gains tax (which increased tax revenue) while it was Bush Sr. who initially raised taxes causing the economy to remain weak. Under Clinton and the Congressional Republicans, government spending as a share of GDP as well as government deficits shrunk, which could partially explain the strong 1990's economy. Also, let's not forget that the USA was riding the wave of a tech boom, which drove the strong economic growth of the late 90's.
And how about a counter-example? Calvin Coolidge cut the top income tax rate from 65% to 20%; by the end of his term 98% of Americans paid no income tax. Economic growth averaged 7% per year, inflation 0.4%, and unemployment 3.3%. He also cut the national debt by 25% (1) (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=410575.msg5876124#msg5876124). Now it is entirely possible that the economy would have boomed regardless of Coolidge's economic policies, but it seems rather self-evident that his hardline fiscal conservatism at least contributed to the strong economic performance of the 1920s.
Well, I meant that tax-rates NOW should not be raised, not *necessarily* that tax rates (or government revenues) should never be increased.
I believe that given an agreed-upon proper role and correct size of government, that tax revenues should equal if not exceed government spending. Obviously, perpetual deficits are not good for the economy and they are not any way to fund a government.
That said, the main problem NOW is not insufficient revenue, but out-of-control government spending. Under George W. Bush, government spending as a share of the economy increased from around 18% of GDP to almost 21% of GDP. So RINO Bush Jr. was a bigger spender than Blue Dog Democrat Bill Clinton - but even these numbers don't tell the whole story! After all, GDP growth averaged 2-3% per year - so government spending corrected for inflation can GROW while government spending as a share of GDP falls. And when you look at the raw numbers, Bush Jr. increased real discretionary spending by 104% compared to Clinton's 11% (2) (http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush). Obama, of course, has taken Bush's Big Government policies and put them on steroids. Government spending as a percent of GDP has increased to 25% during his Presidency. Had Bush taken Clinton's budget and grew it only to keep up with inflation - and had Obama then taken Bush's budget and grown it only to keep up with inflation - government spending as a percent of GDP would be historically low, we'd have large budget surpluses, and we could easily afford to cut taxes in order to stimulate further economic growth.
The only thing that raising income taxes accomplishes is slower economic growth. You cannot expect individuals to fund more economic growth after you take away more of their resources.
Trust me, there is a lot of consideration that has led me to my stance on political and economic issues.
Your point?
I am pro-choice, BTW.
Perhaps you should use your own skeptical approach on your own belief that all Republicans believe certain ideas without any serious consideration.
Believe me - I have not gotten to the positions I support now without a lot of kicking and screaming along the way. I used to be a leftist myself.
You're so wrong that your unyielding high opinion of yourself is downright laughable. I literally LOL'd reading this line.
If it is not based on axioms, you cannot defeat anything based on false axioms. ::)
You sound like you just started taking a logic course your freshman year in college and have gotten drunk on the ability to spew philosophy terms regardless of their application to the discussion at hand.
The Ron Paul wing of the GOP is quite intellectual, certainly more-so on economic issues than you.
perhaps they are but you see the best fucking pres would be a scientists, why all these lawyers and business people, science is the future, get on board son.
Im kidding about the insanely smart blah blah, im trolling, it worked you took it seriously and thus are a failure at using teh getbig, i win.
also, false axioms are to be thought of as axioms of delusion, self evident truths that someone holds that is not as previously thought, hence, your whole argument can be defeated if based on false premises.
you see meatpie:you highlighted the fact that i said raising taxes is demonstrably effective at times, you stated it was not. Hence your position becomes because of the inferences one can make based on your sentence that you believe that tax raises are never effective. This is clearly wrong, hence you are basing your position on a self evident truth that is stewing in fucking irrationality and stupidity.
So you can redeem your incredibly retarded positions one of two ways. Admit the logical position of sometimes it may be required to raise taxes (this is a thought out position). Or carry on in your delusion. Saying no to raising taxes no matter what is an ideology that is based on idiotic underpinnings, it is the definition of closed minded ness.
black and white thinking is for stupid people, the grey is hard to navigate because logic is solution to understanding it and people who are stupid cannot venture very far into the grey. Only smart people who have a larger light can see through all the gray or see it all, stupids have to stay in the black or white not grey. Only intellects and liam neeson can venture into the grey.
so fuck off.
-
perhaps they are but you see the best fucking pres would be a scientists, why all these lawyers and business people, science is the future, get on board son.
Im kidding about the insanely smart blah blah, im trolling, it worked you took it seriously and thus are a failure at using teh getbig, i win.
also, false axioms are to be thought of as axioms of delusion, self evident truths that someone holds that is not as previously thought, hence, your whole argument can be defeated if based on false premises.
you see meatpie:you highlighted the fact that i said raising taxes is demonstrably effective at times, you stated it was not. Hence your position becomes because of the inferences one can make based on your sentence that you believe that tax raises are never effective. This is clearly wrong, hence you are basing your position on a self evident truth that is stewing in fucking irrationality and stupidity.
So you can redeem your incredibly retarded positions one of two ways. Admit the logical position of sometimes it may be required to raise taxes (this is a thought out position). Or carry on in your delusion. Saying no to raising taxes no matter what is an ideology that is based on idiotic underpinnings, it is the definition of closed minded ness.
black and white thinking is for stupid people, the grey is hard to navigate because logic is solution to understanding it and people who are stupid cannot venture very far into the grey. Only smart people who have a larger light can see through all the gray or see it all, stupids have to stay in the black or white not grey. Only intellects and liam neeson can venture into the grey.
so fuck off.
Why would the best President be a scientist? For proof of how awful they are at handling anything outside of their specialized field, look to Nobel Prize winner Secretary Chu.
-
Figures this Canadian retard would have the reading comprehension skills of a 6 year old.
So you can redeem your incredibly retarded positions one of two ways. Admit the logical position of sometimes it may be required to raise taxes (this is a thought out position). Or carry on in your delusion. Saying no to raising taxes no matter what is an ideology that is based on idiotic underpinnings, it is the definition of closed minded ness.
::)
Well, I meant that tax-rates NOW should not be raised, not *necessarily* that tax rates (or government revenues) should never be increased.
I believe that given an agreed-upon proper role and correct size of government, that tax revenues should equal if not exceed government spending. Obviously, perpetual deficits are not good for the economy and they are not any way to fund a government.
-
Hahaha, thank you Skip for saving me the 20 seconds it would have taken to put that response together.