Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

this is going beyond far and im calling out bullshit! Options · View
principessa
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 3:30:13 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,315
Location: Canada
Can someone please explain to me why these GOP politicians are running for office when they have such disdain for the needs of the people and contempt for government and its responsibilities?

They are there only to do the bidding of right wing nuts like Grover Norquist, millionaires wanting more tax cuts, and corporations and industries who want to write their own legislation. They believe in less government unless you are a woman, then they believe that they can interfere in your most personal decisions. The free market rules except for the millions reaped by the oil companies, the insurance companies and all of those in the health care business (which in every other industrialized country is not a for profit business, but a fundamental right). BTW I do not see GOP senators and congressmen opting out of the great government health care plan that comes with their job.

They told Todd Akin and his medieval opinions to stay away from their convention, but they cannot escape their blatant misogyny.

If you are an American and not a white male evangelical Christian in the top one percent of income, you have no reason to vote for them. And even then, if you are a thinking person you should not.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 4:12:39 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
principessa wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why these GOP politicians are running for office when they have such disdain for the needs of the people and contempt for government and its responsibilities?

They are there only to do the bidding of right wing nuts like Grover Norquist, millionaires wanting more tax cuts, and corporations and industries who want to write their own legislation. They believe in less government unless you are a woman, then they believe that they can interfere in your most personal decisions. The free market rules except for the millions reaped by the oil companies, the insurance companies and all of those in the health care business (which in every other industrialized country is not a for profit business, but a fundamental right). BTW I do not see GOP senators and congressmen opting out of the great government health care plan that comes with their job.

They told Todd Akin and his medieval opinions to stay away from their convention, but they cannot escape their blatant misogyny.

If you are an American and not a white male evangelical Christian in the top one percent of income, you have no reason to vote for them. And even then, if you are a thinking person you should not.


I agree with much of this. Regardless of all else, the stench of misogyny, even when it's ingrained and not intentionally bigoted, is unmistakable within the republican platform.

To paraphrase Keith Ellison referring to the certifiably crazy bigot Michelle Bachmann: since Republicans are so crazy about the private sector, maybe they could all do us a favor and join it.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 8:24:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
principessa wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why these GOP politicians are running for office when they have such disdain for the needs of the people and contempt for government and its responsibilities?


Because they can counter the other guys with a convincing enough position to get elected in the places they run.

Quote:
If you are an American and not a white male evangelical Christian in the top one percent of income, you have no reason to vote for them. And even then, if you are a thinking person you should not.


I can't agree with that. Voting for them is something we can effectively do to vote against the economic policies that have caused a debt that has decreased the value of living here to the point where investor confidence is evaporating. Not voting effectively against a government that is so economically naive is irresponsible. If I had my druthers, the Democratic Party would throw out the collectivists so that it would make sense to vote against Republicans, but until it does, I'd rather be called all the names in the book than vote for economic collapse.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 8:29:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Hautie wrote:
I just read this and it is beyond a piss off to see such things taking place. I agree with many of the above in thinking WTF!!! How does our women being on birth control make us like the Soviet Union??? I missed something there could someone please explain that to me. I would think that making this a law would make us more like the Soviet Union not less like them.


This law was a counterpunch attempt to weaken the adverse impacts of Obamacare, which makes us more like the USSR.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 8:29:37 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:

If I had my druthers, the Democratic Party would throw out the collectivists so that it would make sense to vote against Republicans


That's interesting.

What would you imagine a democratic party platform to center on, if not for the policies and priorities on that side that you deem collectivist?
principessa
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 8:31:17 PM

Rank: Sophisticate

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,315
Location: Canada
1ball wrote:


I can't agree with that. Voting for them is something we can effectively do to vote against the economic policies that have caused a debt that has decreased the value of living here to the point where investor confidence is evaporating. Not voting effectively against a government that is so economically naive is irresponsible. If I had my druthers, the Democratic Party would throw out the collectivists so that it would make sense to vote against Republicans, but until it does, I'd rather be called all the names in the book than vote for economic collapse.


You do not acknowledge that it was Shrub (Bush II) who produced the deficit with the tax cuts and subsidies for oil, etc. after the US's economic house was put in order by Bill Clinton who himself inherited the economic mess of the the other Bush and Reagan trickle down economics. Their trickle down just lifted all yachts. You can argue about economic policies, but you cannot shift the responsibility for the deficit to the Dems. It was your lot that did it.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 8:47:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


That's interesting.

What would you imagine a democratic party platform to center on, if not for the policies and priorities on that side that you deem collectivist?


It should center on removing barriers to equality of opportunity as opposed to trying to impose equality of outcome. It should strive for justice that is blind to physical and economic difference between us. It should recognize the sovereignity of the individual and protect property rights. It should deconstruct the institutions that create dependency on government. If it did those, I could vote against the right-collectivism in the Republican Party.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 9:22:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
principessa wrote:
You do not acknowledge that it was Shrub (Bush II) who produced the deficit with the tax cuts and subsidies for oil, etc. after the US's economic house was put in order by Bill Clinton who himself inherited the economic mess of the the other Bush and Reagan trickle down economics. Their trickle down just lifted all yachts. You can argue about economic policies, but you cannot shift the responsibility for the deficit to the Dems. It was your lot that did it.


Deficits are produced by spending in excess of revenues. Tax hikes can produce lower revenues and tax cuts can produce higher revenues. Subsidies to businesses can lower the cost of their products to consumers and boost revenues by decreasing the cost of doing business and increasing both consumer and producer confidence. The key in fiscal and monetary policy is to inspire economic growth and that usually won't happen when businesses are being blamed by the party in power for all the problems in society. At some point, the voters have to accept the blame for the spending they cause.

But I'm not talking about deficits as much as I'm talking about debt and unfunded liability that devalues the society and scares investment away. Clinton had a brief period of budget surplus as a result of the "peace dividend" that came from the end of the Cold War and the subsequent downsizing of the military. I can't address the current need for our military budget, because I'm not privileged enough to know the intel that is used to assess the threat to us. I doubt anyone who posts here can speak intelligently on the subject. But spending has been going up at rates in excess of the rate of growth of the GDP and that is unsustainable. It goes up with Republican congresses, but it really goes up with Democrat congresses.

So no, I don't accept that presidents get all the blame for spending, deficits, debt, the anemic growth rate of the economy, etc. Congresses deserve most of that. But one party is much worse than the other about feeding the voracious appetites of voters for federal spending and pandering for votes by demonizing business and the profit motive. We don't have a Fiscal Sanity Party, but the Republicans unfortunately come the closest to it. So I vote for them despite their relatively harmless pandering on social issues to the religious, because they are less dangerous than the Fiscal Insanity Party with the donkey logo.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:04:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 769
Location: Massachusetts, United States
principessa wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why these GOP politicians are running for office when they have such disdain for the needs of the people and contempt for government and its responsibilities?


Because they are pandering to the bitter clinging troglodytes who haven't yet come to terms with the end of Jim Crow and have substituted other types of bigotry for the race thing.

They have this model where the only people who have rights are employers. The rights of Mr 13.9% tax trump those of all the employees at a company they might buy with borrowed money they don't intend to pay back. Then the rest of us are expected to tell these parasites how important they all are and how they are the only people who work or who matter in the country.

The whole religion thing is just a business. They take money from people in this world in return for promises of riches to come in the next. Telling the rubes what to do in every aspect of their lives is just another way to exploit them for fun and pleasure.

The bishops and priests who make these demands just want to demonstrate how important they are. Ohh look, we can decide who gets health care and who does not, see we are a POWER TO BE RECOGNIZED! It has nothing to do with religious doctrine, it has everything to do with demonstrating who has power and who does not.

ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:17:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 769
Location: Massachusetts, United States
1ball wrote:


Deficits are produced by spending in excess of revenues. Tax hikes can produce lower revenues and tax cuts can produce higher revenues. Subsidies to businesses can lower the cost of their products to consumers and boost revenues by decreasing the cost of doing business and increasing both consumer and producer confidence. The key in fiscal and monetary policy is to inspire economic growth and that usually won't happen when businesses are being blamed by the party in power for all the problems in society. At some point, the voters have to accept the blame for the spending they cause.


Bullshit.

Unless tax rates are very very high (at least 50%) a reduction in the tax rate will reduce revenues and an increase will increase them. That is what all the evidence gathered from past tax cuts and rises indicate.

The JFK tax cut did stimulate growth and increase revenues because the tax rate was set at 95%. Today Mitt Romney pays 13.9% and he still thinks he needs a tax cut to be encouraged to work harder. How much harder would he work if his tax rate was 0%? I think the answer is rather obviously not at all because he has absolutely no need for any more money. In fact he retired in 2002 and recently decided to 'backdate' his retirement to 1999.

I retired at 39 when I had made enough money. Mitt Romney did the same. I didn't go back to work because of the tax situation and he didn't go back to work at all.

I helped build one of the most successful businesses of modern times. It is now in the S&P500 which is not bad for what was a startup less then ten years old. I have never once heard anyone make a decision based on whether the President likes businesses or not. In fact the political situation in the US is far less important to our domestic US business than the global market situation.

We don't hire people or lay them off because we like the President either. We hire people because we see sustained demand for product that we can't meet with existing staff. We have layoffs when we see a drop in demand and can't see another way to keep plant open.

At the moment the issue is a lack of demand. The way governments create demand is by either lowering interest rates (can't they are at zero) or they print money. Printing money increases demand because there are more people with money to buy. It also reduces the deficit. The only downside is that if you create too much demand you get inflation.

It is a bit like visiting a McDonalds. If you are starving then a Big Mac and fries is a good idea. But if you eat too many you are going to suffer inflation of a different time.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


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

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.