StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) Yep Democrats give away other peoples money. There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket. I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Im pretty sure on this board I ran some numbers and showed that Democratic states pay a larger percentage of taxes than Republican states, and thus Democrats end up giving away their money to pay for Republicans. For example, in 2005 the Democratic state of Illinois paid more taxes to the Federal Govt than it received (99,776 >80,778). Other states that paid more than they received, California, NY. Now lets look at some Republican states, South Carolina received more than it paid, TN received more than it paid, VA received more than it paid, Mississippi received more than it paid. It seems to me that there is absolutely no facts to support the idea that Democrat's give other peoples money away, when the facts show that Republican's are the ones who receive more govt hand outs than they pay for. Kind of a peculiar fact. NV is the only "Republican" state who actually pays more to the govt than they receive, yet its the Democrats who are "getting a free ride". Gimme a break. I actually would find it hilarious if they got rid of most federal taxes, because half of those Republican states would lose tens of millions of dollars in funds that come from Democrat states. There's no room for rational dialog when you don't even know what the opposing viewpoints[/] (not just D vs. R) are. How many people who rant about communists and Marxism have ever read anything written by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or, hell, even guys like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, von Mises, etc?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) I've tried to think this out as a life long, social conservative Christian who has more liberal tendencies when it comes to government. Jesus taught "love your neighbor as yourself". He taught to help the poor and lame. He taught parables about the rich who hoard their money. The bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But all I hear from these so called evangelical neo-cons is that people with money (those who can afford health care worth having) deserve priority over those who have nothing. I hate the argument that Universal Healthcare will create long lines and people will die while waiting for care. What they are saying, without saying it, is that people WITH good insurance deserve the care MORE than those who don't have it. If you cant afford insurance, then screw you, you're not worthy. Well, there's prosperity theology, which I find pretty abhorrent. But, basically, you find people using religious doctrines (or treating things like the Constitution as religious doctrines) to justify their pre-existing biases and beliefs, not to form their beliefs and morals and ethics. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias to some degree, but some take it a wee bit farther than others.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 10:40 AM) What's hilarious about this is that everything I've read of yours on this board indicates that's exactly what you think. Oh I'm sorry, those two paragraphs weren't related.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) Forget remembering 1994, I thinking back to the 2001 to 2009 era. Do we need to post the charts showing the number of obstructionist actions from 2000 to 2010 again? There's a pretty big jump that mysteriously happens right at the start of 2007.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:52 PM) I understand they wanted the senate to cool down but i also understand they were giving a bunch of power to a largely illiterate and incredibly uneducated population. Even if i'm convinced that the bicameral legislature is fantastic, then i'd say that in itself is a huge check, and we don't need a gigantic supermajority in the second stage just to be a check on the first. If it's easier to create a bad idea, it's also easier to repeal it. Adams argued for the Senate to protect the aristocracy from democracy. Here's a letter from Jefferson to Adams debating that notion. The key portion: Also Jefferson hitting on the importance of public education to break the cycles of pseudo-aristocracy, as he calls it:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:58 PM) And why is it that with every thing that someone brings up on here to cut or fix to save money, the argument is always "Well, it's only XXX% of the problem, so that wont matter" It ALL matters. Drops add up. There is no magic bullet that will fix everything in one swoop. Take the changes where you can. Just doon't stop with only a few 'drops'. 1% here, 3% there, .5% in several other places, you start making dents that matter. The "Oh, it's only..." argument really is weak. Well, it's more to point out that cutting welfare or "pork" isn't actually going to fix the budget, even though it's presented as a panacea. They're relatively tiny parts of the budget, so focusing so heavily on them to get the thing balanced does not make sense. Here's the discretionary budget for 2009, which is roughly 1/3 of the total budget: And compared to the total budget for 2008:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:58 PM) No, Democrats give away other people's money. And then the ones in power do everythign they can to avoid paying their fair share, while trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not thanking the government for taking what they do. Conservatives are all racist white people who hate minorities and f**s! They want to keep as much money as possible and game the system however they can! They do everything in their power to find loop holes and tax shelters, and still b**** about taxes! They trick gullible middle and lower class whites into supporting their largess and voting for policies that actively hurt their own situation while benefiting the rich! See, we can all come up with ridiculous, stupid, unproductive stereotypes.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 04:06 PM) And when other people actually state that the outlandish number was an acceptable cost? Than what? Hmmmmm? Then that's a separate discussion to have, as I've said multiple times. That doesn't excuse the bulls***->rumor->fact transition and burden-shifting and how quickly it's picked up by conservative media and ingrained in their listeners, including sitting Congress members.

This story has single-handily restored my cynical view of American politics. Really, when a significant portion of the country falls for this sort of bulls***, and some of the biggest media outlets only reinforce it, what can you do?

Fox News running with the story. Shocking. The first half is dedicated to how lavish and expensive the trip is. The second, to everyone who would possibly have a clue refuting it. "Fair & Balanced" If you want your brain to hurt, read the comments. It is now a fact that Obama is spending $200M a day to go to India in the conservative world.

Welfare itself amounts to something like 1% of the total budget. Even if we assume a ridiculously high 10% fraud rate, that's still only 0.1% of the entire budget. 1) Two problems here. One, drug tests aren't free. Something like $75/pop. That's going to cost the government millions and millions of dollars. Second, and more importantly, it's been ruled unconstitutional. 2) This was tried in the 90's and early 2000's, at least with single parents, and the results weren't great. There's a whole host of issues this brings up, and little it actually solves. depository of studies: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/newws/ one conclusion: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/newws/synthesis02/chapt8.htm 3) Job training and education services are provided now to the unemployed. Is working some menial, low-wage job that's below a living wage more important than education or finding a new job?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:37 PM) No doubt about that. I personally think it may not have been even worth responding to, but since the blogosphere has a hold of it, I suppose they had no choice. Should have been obvious it was a ridiculous number. $4.5M sounds about right. Wasn't just the blagosphere, now it's in the cable news and conservative radio echo chamber, having accusations made by a sitting member of Congress. It is now Truth in those circles, and even when corrections come out, they are never noticed. The lie remains firmly in place.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) By and large in this country I believe if people make the right choices in life and work hard they can succeed. However, I do fully agree that luck to an extent plays some impact on things as well. I believe sometimes people just have too many unfortunate circumstances put in front of them that prevent that from happening. As a whole though, I truly believe you make with what you have and you work your way up. There are clearly certain major issues, specifically within the inner city where people have so many negative influences tugging and pulling at them. Right, I won't argue that being wealthy is only accomplished through birth or trickery or fraud. Many people do earn their wealth, even if they do come from advantaged or privileged backgrounds. But, conversely, being poor is usually the result of situations out of people's controls, like what their parents situation is. All too often it's portrayed almost as punishment for people, as if they're not worthy of living a decent life if it means the guys making more in a week than they do in a year pay a little more in taxes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) This has been, imo, an excellent of microcosm of how conservative talk radio/Fox News operates. Random, unconfirmed and/or fabricated rumors and speculation quickly turn to fact. Rumors and speculation are used to support other rumors. Claims are given credulity unless disproved. I think this comment is vindicated, given the Bachmann ranting and it appearing on Hannity and Beck.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Pardon if this has been posted already. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11...deo.php?ref=fpa bulls***->rumor->fact conversion completed. Now we will forever see references to Obama's $200M India trip on conservative blogs and in article comment sections (where brains go to die). A blog references a blog references a blog that referenced an anonymous low-level Indian official, but now we have a sitting Congresswoman criticizing the President on national TV over it as if it were 100% factual. It may as well be in right-wing land now. For those looking for a WH response:

Quick question: Do you believe, generally speaking, that if people are wealthy, it's because they have done something to deserve the wealth, and if people are poor, they must have done something to deserve to be poor?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) We both agree that taxes to a point are needed to pay for services rendered by the government. Where we disagree is what services and how much from whom to pay for those. I would be more inclined to ignore the taxes on the rich if there was a true minumum tax that everyone paid. Why? There are millions of Americans who can barely get by as it is and are at an instutionalized disadvantage because of their socioeconomic position. Why would we further burden them in some bizarre sense of "fairness" to the wealthy? Precisely because they can afford it, because they are in a position of privilege and luxury and because they wouldn't be there without functional government. If you're making enough to be "singled out" for a marginally higher tax rate, you're one of the wealthiest people alive and have been incredibly successful. Your life isn't going to be impacted by paying a few percentage points more on any marginal income above $XXX. Again, do you want the government that the poorest Americans can afford? What do you think would happen if we switched to that? We'd have a huge hole blown in the budget, so where do we start cutting?

Yes, as the foundation of progressive taxation. Why? Perhaps you should take it up with Adam Smith?

"When did you stop beating your wife?!?! Or are you saying you HAVEN'T stopped beating your wife!" They're "singled-out" for paying more taxes because they make significantly more money, can afford to pay those taxes, and aren't going to experience an adverse change in lifestyle from paying a few extra thousand a year. Have you seen the wealth and income gaps in this country lately? Do you want the government that only the poorest Americans can afford? Taxation isn't theft. The ability to generate that wealth relies heavily upon services provided by tax dollars. Without a strong, stable government, how prosperous do you think we'd be?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:26 PM) WHen I was 16 and making $5 per hour, having $45 of my $200 gone before I even got the check seemed like more than half. I didnt' pay too much attention to taxes and stuff back then, and I was quite unhappy about it at the time. I realize that taxes of some kind are a necessary evil, but it seems to be the level of taxes and what is done with the money that is the issue. What's insulting is the idea that I am not only my brothers keeper, but your brothers, and everyone elses brothers while you are at it. What's insulting is that you and people like you thik that because I make X amount of money, that I can afford to just give Y away to the government and should thank them for taking it from me. I made the money, not you. It is the fruits of MY labor. What's insulting is people like you who think that I don't care about government waste spending when my party is in power, or when it involves the military. Waste is waste. I hate $800 hammers as much as I hate Medicare fraud. What's insulting is when people who don't pay taxes tell me that I don't pay enough taxes. And everything in place to facilitate you making that money. You can't ignore the many, many external factors--a lot of which are taxpayer funded through infrastructure, subsidies, grants, tax credits, etc.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:03 PM) And in regards to the paycheck, I threw half out there because it sounds good. Don't take it so literaly. It still sucks when you realize that 24% to 31% of your check is gone for taxes and things like social security which most may never ever see a penny of. You may notcare about those things at 15, but when you start getting a paycheck, you do. I'm a working adult who realizes that, in order to have a functional society and things like infrastructure and education and non-starving-and-homeless-elderly, we have to pay some taxes. The conservative meme of the only people who don't care about taxes are people without real jobs or poor people is insulting. Fabricating numbers that are roughly double the real numbers makes your argument look weak and disingenuous.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) You seem to forget impeachment. Boehner hasn't been as upfront about obstructionism, but when he was asked on his legislative agenda, he deferred to Obama. Give the 94 GOP this, at least they had a legislative plan for the following year. Boehner means he has very little planned other than saying No, and possibly passing out lobbyist checks on the House floor again, I would wager. Didn't you read their Contract? It was full of platitudes and contradictory objectives! They're good to go!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:45 PM) There is no stonewalling Obama - its Obama that would do the stonewalling, as he is the last stop along the path. The House is now Republican. And I see no win in doing that. If the GOP takes that path - spending all their time posturing and not actually passing any legislation - then they are in trouble in 2012. The GOP can make themselves look good here by making changes to health care, but keeping all or virtually all of the Bush tax cuts, and by cutting spending where they can. They need Obama to do that. Obama can look good here by holding onto at least parts of the health care bill, and getting an energy bill done, etc., and he needs the GOP to do that. If nothing gets done, the party that just swept the election will be seen as a failure. I will guarantee that no energy bill that isn't ridiculously friendly to coal, oil and gas and does nothing to price or otherwise curb carbon emissions and lacks any real funding for alternative energy sources* gets passed. *They may push for nuclear funding, which I'm in favor of, but not at the expense of ignoring/denying the real problems we face.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:45 PM) Or, if employment doesn't improve, will the blame fall on the President? I'd bet it would. From Republicans, yeah of course. From the rest of the population, eh, I dunno. That depends on what actually happens policy wise and if the Dems remain generally weak and ineffective.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) You and Balta still with the short memories. Do you not remember 1994? I was 9. I've had several concussions since then. That's all I'll say. Was he painted as the literal Anti-Christ, as a non-American "other" bent on destroying the country by a significant portion of the Republican base? Honestly, I don't know. My first political memories are Clinton's impeachment, really. I think there's opportunity, I just think that the Republicans are going to have a hard time walking back from their life-and-death rhetoric regarding Obama and his policies. That's what riled up the base, and working with Obama on really anything is going to earn them backlash.