StrangeSox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) What do I get from the feds? Anything specific for ME? School money is money I paid to them just for the priviledge of having it go to Washington so some can get skimmed off before it gets sent back to the states. Road money? I already paid those in gas taxes just so the feds can hold my state hostage to do certain things just to get our money back. TSA? I'll pay a few bucks extra to fly for private security. How about I cut what part of my taxes pay for the county hospitals, or the local housing authority. I don't use those. I'll just stop payign those parts, and pay extra for airline screening. To go off on a tangent, every department can cut. But everytime you tell them that, they b**** and moan, then try and cut the person(s) that will generate the most bad pub so they can say 'see? We NEED the money1". That's why when faced with budget shortfalls, Dems always threaten to layoff teachers, firefighters and police first, instead of some of the streets and san workers, general mainenance or personal staff. FDA, CDC, DOD, DOE, FAA, billions in R&D, not having old and poor dying in the streets, etc.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) Read, please. I will say again, 25% ISN'T a majority but I wouldn't call it small. Who cares? This is irrelevant to your claims. The point was that I wouldn't claim that a call for $4T in revenues with no cuts is centrist. It makes no more sense than claiming that 'no revenue" is.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) 25% is small? It isn't a majority, but I wouldn't call it small. You're insisting that a minority position is really the majority position. Stop doing that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) And for years the top 5% of taxpayers have subsidized the lower 50%. You know, if you feel like you are not paying enough in taxes, you are free to pay more. Nobody is stopping you. Sweet, they also control a vast majority of wealth and income, so it's not surprising that they also pay a lot of taxes (even if their marginal rates are at historic lows!). This tangent still has nothing to do with raising taxes=not centrist.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) Dems have brought ONE plan up for vote, not sure what other 'plans' you speak of. They can TALK about anything, but until it comes up for a vote, it is just talk. Ok. This tangent still has nothing to do with raising taxes=not centrist since an overwhelming majority of people are for raising taxes. That'd be like me saying cutting spending=not centrist since a small minority of people want no cuts at all.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) By the time they get thru with refunds and tax credits, they pay nothing in federal income tax. and I know not of what graph you speak of, but I am sure you will point me in the right direction. Well that was the point of the graph (reposted one page back), the "no federal income tax" quickly and easily becomes "no taxes" with a slight-of-hand. It's also a little odd to focus on one single tax.

BTW the "Gang of Six" included Democrats, including your own Senator Durbin, which proposed plenty of actual spending cuts.

Criticizing the various Dem plans still doesn't mean they're not centrist plans, or that raising taxes is not centrist. But regarding "who pays taxes," that'd be everyone.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) Sure it does, because most of those inthe raise it at all camp were in the little to 50-50 camp, and only if there are also real spending cuts to go along with it What the Dems currently have are not real spending cuts, they are merely promises not to spend more. Cuts to a proposed budget increase are not spending cuts, just a smaller increase. Troop reductions were happening regardless of this debt ceiling stuff. Any savings realized because of it can't be counted as a spending cut, because you weren't gonna spend it anyway. Ryan's budget used the same gimmicks. Most of the deals presented thus far offered substantial cuts and restructuring of social programs, though Reid's does rely largely winding down the wars. This still doesn't explain your "wants to raise taxes=not centrist" objection.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) Point is, if you don't have enough money to pay all your obligations, you will fail to pay something. It may not be (probably wouldn't be) a BOND default, but it will be some sort of default on an obligation. Oh I agree, but that's where ck's quibble is going to be.

Think paying college athletes is a good idea? Think again.

We may or may not default on bonds. Hard to say since there's no mechanism in place for legally deciding who not to pay, because no other group of politicians has ever intentionally desired to destroy our economy in order to get policy changes and constitutional amendments.

jesus christ

That still doesn't justify your "raise taxes=not centrist" objection.

Another fun (read: sad, depressing) chart http://www.thenation.com/image/extreme-inequality-chart

out. I'm glad I got to catch a glimpse of that rare beast, the Adam Dunn Home Run, last night.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) Strange Sox: I'm trying to spark debate to get other people's view on this issue without divulging my political beliefs. I'm acting centrist, but I'm not really a centrist. I'm a political person, but I don't like to argue it because it is futile to argue with someone who is on the other side of the political spectrum than me. I'm not going to change their mind, and they are not going to change mine. What is the point. I have to be really comfortable with a person to discuss politics with them, an internet message board is not the place where I'd like to actually share them. There is one point in the article you posted that I agree with, is that there has to be a penalty for extremism in politics. However, it seems that extremism is what gets people elected. A few things I will share: I think our political and economic system is broken, and we have to fix things. How the people can do that, I don't know. Serving in public office was meant to be a service to your country, not a career. We need to make it that way again. Then maybe politicians will work for their people rather than their own agenda, or taking bribes from large corporations to promote the corporation's agendas. (which I believe every politician does) It seems that the powers that be in this country whether political or corporate are greedy, and don't care about anyone but themselves. Why do corporations/companies like to f*** their employees to make more money for the CEO? Why do politicians(both sides) when they go to the capitol leave their people in the dust so they can stay in office? This country operates in a f*** your neighbor mentality rather than a help your neighbor mentality. That needs to change. I also believe that the problems that our country faces were caused by the f*** your neighbor mentality. I respect this post. I posted that article because it had nearly the same title as your thread and was on-topic, though obviously partisan itself. One thing I don't necessarily agree with is discussing things with people on the other side of the spectrum. If you insulate yourself with like-minded people, you start to lose sight of what the rest of the country/world thinks. You see this particularly in the hyperpartisan blog world, and it cuts both ways. My political views have definitely been affected by the probably hundreds of internet conversations I've had on various topics in the last 10+ years, often with those who hold sharply different fundamental views from my own.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) Should we really go down the road of what a majority of Americans want? No, but you can't define centrist as ever-so-slightly-to-the-left-of-Tea-Party.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) And the link is.................... I was going off of whatever unnamed poll you were referencing there.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) Show me the poll. If it was the one I saw, you could also say a majority of Americans want spending cut. I think it was 12% in favor of nothing but cuts, 10% in favor of nothing but tax increases and the rest ranging from small increases and massive cuts to large increase and minimal cuts. I certainly do not want mine raised. You don't have to cut them, but the government takes more than enough from me. 100-12 is 88% favoring some sort of revenue increases.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) Whoever wrote that is a complete moron. A centrist President? On what bizzaro planet? He wants to RAISE TAXES!!!! And? "Centrist" doesn't mean "Grover Norquist"

The Cult That Is Destroying America

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) Well, that is 3 or 4 years old...most EVO's aren't even a year old and they start having problems. wasn't very clear, it was about a year old when it broke but that was 3-4 years ago.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 27, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) Yeah I'm starting to think HTC products are over-hyped with regards to quality. My wife bought an EVO about 4 months ago and it's having similar issues with the charging port. My old HTC (3 or 4 years old) just stopped making calls one day.