Politics

[Buster Bluth]

I think you missed my point entirely, Buster.

I assume your point was that we cannot judge how other people live as being anything other than different, which doesn't mean superior/inferior. People are free to live how they want and we shouldn't judge.

Is that the gist of it?

 

[Irish#1]

Unfortunately you cannot run the government like a private enterprise, nor you your really want to. However, the governments accounting systems (and budgets) do not reflect the its current financial condition. For example, let's say the five years ago the budget included $1 billion dollars to buy X number of tanks. That doesn't mean that these funds will be spent and the tanks delivered that year. They might be paid for and delivered next year for all we know. So you could in theory cut the defense budget this year and next year still get new tanks. This is just an example but basically the government spending bills appropriate funds for current and future use. It is really a very bad system that is easily manipulated.

I disagree. Those government contracts that call for X number of weapons to be produced and delivered over a term of specific years can usually be cancelled by the government at any time. Even if they couldn't be canclled you can plan and budget for the future and decide not to buy in upcoming years.

 

[chicago51]

Unlike Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, who were running on an insurance mandate as part of their plans, Obama ran saying that he opposed a mandate to buy health insurance. He then beat them in the primaries, won the election, and then "passed" Obamacare that mandated insurance coverage.

So I'll go ahead and put your last post on top of the "Chicago51's Generalizations That Aren't Actually True But It Fits The Narrative" pile.

Of course specific details may change.

For example Obama promised to raise taxes on the rich. The number ended up being 400k instead of 250k. Sometimes the politics of the situation forces altercations of the specific. Without the mandate the plan could not work.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Of course specific details may change.

For example Obama promised to raise taxes on the rich. The number ended up being 400k instead of 250k. Sometimes the politics of the situation forces altercations of the specific. Without the mandate the plan could not work.

hahahahahahahhaha "specific details may change?!"

It's the most crucial part of the biggest "achievement" of his administration. And he lied about it to get through the primaries.

Welcome to politics, where the stories are made up and the election policies don't matter.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

unless you happen to be gay, or want to exercise the right to make your own reproductive choices. Her version of Christianity is one of intollerance.

Sorry, but you're either an idiot or you completely misinterpret every political post I throw in here. My point is that these are her personal views, nothing else. She might disagree with abortion and homosexuality, but she has no intent (or more importantly, legal authority) to make gay marriage or abortion illegal.

 

[pkt77242]

Unlike Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, who were running on an insurance mandate as part of their plans, Obama ran saying that he opposed a mandate to buy health insurance. He then beat them in the primaries, won the election, and then "passed" Obamacare that mandated insurance coverage.

So I'll go ahead and put your last post on top of the "Chicago51's Generalizations That Aren't Actually True But It Fits The Narrative" pile.

Bullshit. Yes he ran against it, but that is the difference between governing and campaigning. He had to compromise to pass something that while wasn't his preference he saw as better than what we currently had. That isn't faking that is called reality. Now I believe that he all along supported gay marriage but wasn't willing to come out in favor of it before the first election because he was afraid it would damage him. That is fakery.

 

[Downinthebend]

Bullshit. Yes he ran against it, but that is the difference between governing and campaigning. He had to compromise to pass something that while wasn't his preference he saw as better than what we currently had. That isn't faking that is called reality. Now I believe that he all along supported gay marriage but wasn't willing to come out in favor of it before the first election because he was afraid it would damage him. That is fakery.

All of that is fakery. As long as we allow our politicians to lie to us while we elect them, we will continue to head on the trajectory we are heading toward.

 

[Black Irish]

My whole point was that the Bible should not be used to justify political policies.

Who wants to elect a faker? Governor echascetch as I called would change his talking points depending on the audience.

So what, exactly, is an acceptable point of moral origin for politicians make their decisions?

 

[chicago51]

So what, exactly, is an acceptable point of moral origin for politicians make their decisions?

You can use whatever basis you like. If you want to use the Bible fine. Just don't be a hypocrite. If you are using the Bible to justify being anti abortion and being anti gay marriage then I suggest you support national health care gun control and any type of social welfare program. After all the Bible says we should care for the sick, help the poor, and put away our arms.

 

[Black Irish]

Fiscally and economically speaking we are way more to the right today than in previous generations. Most of LBJs anti-poverty programs were completely wiped out during the Reagan presidency. Bill Clinton of all people made huge cuts to Welfare and minor cuts to Medicare.

President Reagan a very conservative politician actually raised the FICA tax to strengthen Social Security while today's right wing wants big cuts in it. Despite the fact SS to this point has not contributed to the deficit.

Back back in the 1900s Teddy Roosevelt actual took action against big banks and other monopolies to keep prices down for the middle class.

For better or worse the government does less in terms of taking care of people than it ever has. The gap between the rich and poor is as big as it ever has been. You may agree with that society is better off today with less social programs. Don't act like people today are suddenly more selfish. People outside of health care cost reform are not asking for more people are trying to protect what programs they have left.

You can only believe that SS hasn't contributed to the debt if you buy the government's phony accounting system. Sure, we pay separate SS taxes, but all that money goes into the general fund to be spent like any other tax revenue. The SS tax designation is meaningless, because once that money hits the government vault, it just becomes general funds, no different than income taxes. In that respect, SS is just another line item expenditure. To put it another way, a war doesn't become revenue positive because the government sells a dollar amount of war bonds that is greater than the cost of the war. All of that money still needs to be repaid, with interest.

 

[chicago51]

You can only believe that SS hasn't contributed to the debt if you buy the government's phony accounting system. Sure, we pay separate SS taxes, but all that money goes into the general fund to be spent like any other tax revenue. The SS tax designation is meaningless, because once that money hits the government vault, it just becomes general funds, no different than income taxes. In that respect, SS is just another line item expenditure. To put it another way, a war doesn't become revenue positive because the government sells a dollar amount of war bonds that is greater than the cost of the war. All of that money still needs to be repaid, with interest.

I get your point. Our debt though was just fine in 2000. Then we had the Busch tax cuts with no way to pay for them. Two wars including a BS war with Iraq with no way to pay for them. We add a Medicare part D with no way to pay for it.

Now because these Busch era policies the GOP is asking that my parents who did a great job to give an honest chance in life will have to take a cut in SS benefits when my dad retires 10 to 12 years from now.

 

[Black Irish]

You can use whatever basis you like. If you want to use the Bible fine. Just don't be a hypocrite. If you are using the Bible to justify abortion and being anti gay marriage then I suggest you support national health care gun control and any type of social welfare program. After all the Bible says we should care for the sick, help the poor, and put away our arms.

First of all, I don't think that most religious conservatives are opposed to caring for the sick, poor, and would like to get a handle on violence. Their proposed methods are just different then yours. Secondly, by your logic, if someone derives any sort of inspiration from source material, they have to accept the whole thing lock, stock, and barrel? Does that mean you have to completely reject a source text if there is anything remotely objectionable about it or else you are a hypocrite? How far should that logic be extrapolated? Can you continue to live in and support a municipal government with your tax dollars as long as there is corruption and mismanagement? Would that make you a hypocrite, too? If a friend of yours gets drunk and verbally abuses someone, do you need to reject him as a friend so that you won't be a hypocrite?

 

[chicago51]

First of all, I don't think that most religious conservatives are opposed to caring for the sick, poor, and would like to get a handle on violence. Their proposed methods are just different then yours. Secondly, by your logic, if someone derives any sort of inspiration from source material, they have to accept the whole thing lock, stock, and barrel? Does that mean you have to completely reject a source text if there is anything remotely objectionable about it or else you are a hypocrite? How far should that logic be extrapolated? Can you continue to live in and support a municipal government with your tax dollars as long as there is corruption and mismanagement? Would that make you a hypocrite, too? If a friend of yours gets drunk and verbally abuses someone, do you need to reject him as a friend so that you won't be a hypocrite?

I get your latter point. Ultimately people have the choice use what material they want to base their decisions just wish they wouldn't claim they are doing God's work.

Secondly Reaganomics does not work. It has never worked for the poor. The money does not trickle down. Things are better when middle class can actually buy stuff. Supply and demand. Middle class purchasing power creates demand which creates jobs to supply that demand.

 

[Black Irish]

I get your point. Our debt though was just fine in 2000. Then we had the Busch tax cuts with no way to pay for them. Two wars including a BS war with Iraq with no way to pay for them. We add a Medicare part D with no way to pay for it.

Now because these Busch era policies the GOP is asking that my parents who did a great job to give an honest chance in life will have to take a cut in SS benefits when my dad retires 10 to 12 years from now.

Our debt was not "fine" in 2000 or any other year in recent memory. The federal debt has increased almost every year for the past few decades. Refer to the Treasury Department's website for more on that.

So you say Bush committed the country to a bunch of new debt without a clear way to pay for all of it? All right, fine. So politicians should never spend any money unless there is a revenue-matching plan to go along with it? Then how are we paying for the Hurricane Sandy relief bill?

And I don't think that the Bush era policies have much to do with the GOP wanting to cut SS benefits. Social Security was a ticking time bomb that needed to be addressed before Bush ever got elected.

Your objection to Medicare Part D is confusing. You are upset that the GOP wants to make cuts in entitlement spending, but you are also angry that a Republican president made an expansion to an existing entitlement program.

 

[Black Irish]

I get your latter point. Ultimately people have the choice use what material they want to base their decisions just wish they wouldn't claim they are doing God's work.

Secondly Reaganomics does not work. It has never worked for the poor. The money does not trickle down. Things are better when middle class can actually buy stuff. Supply and demand. Middle class purchasing power creates demand which creates jobs to supply that demand.

When you say that middle class purchasing power creates demand and jobs, it sounds like you are talking about trickle down economics. Cutting taxes leads to more purchasing power which leads to economic expansion which leads to jobs. By the way, rich people buy stuff too, and they buy more when their taxes are lower. And even if they don't buy more, their savings and investments pump liquidity into financial institutions, which is not an insignificant thing.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Bullshit. Yes he ran against it, but that is the difference between governing and campaigning. He had to compromise to pass something that while wasn't his preference he saw as better than what we currently had. That isn't faking that is called reality. Now I believe that he all along supported gay marriage but wasn't willing to come out in favor of it before the first election because he was afraid it would damage him. That is fakery.

haha keep dreaming. He was always in favor of a mandate. There was no compromise to get it passed, which is why they had to use shameful political tactics to get it done. He is ultimately in favor of a single-payer program, all of this is just leading up to that.

You can use whatever basis you like. If you want to use the Bible fine. Just don't be a hypocrite. If you are using the Bible to justify being anti abortion and being anti gay marriage then I suggest you support national health care gun control and any type of social welfare program. After all the Bible says we should care for the sick, help the poor, and put away our arms.

Huh? Can you point out in the Bible where it states that the only way to care for the poor is through a (n inefficient) government program? I'll wait.

 

[DSully1995]

So what, exactly, is an acceptable point of moral origin for politicians make their decisions?

Lets start banning shellfish and calling the earth flat again. stoning any women who isnt a virgin at marriage. Not discrediting the entire religion (the new testament has great morality) , but the old testament is full of crap....

 

[Buster Bluth]

Secondly Reaganomics does not work. It has never worked for the poor. The money does not trickle down. Things are better when middle class can actually buy stuff. Supply and demand. Middle class purchasing power creates demand which creates jobs to supply that demand.

"Real wages" may not increase, but what you can buy with your dollar increases exponentially. That's is the textbook advantage/disadvantage with capitalism.

I have a lot of critiques for Reagan, but yours are a bit off.

When you say that middle class purchasing power creates demand and jobs, it sounds like you are talking about trickle down economics. Cutting taxes leads to more purchasing power which leads to economic expansion which leads to jobs. By the way, rich people buy stuff too, and they buy more when their taxes are lower. And even if they don't buy more, their savings and investments pump liquidity into financial institutions, which is not an insignificant thing.

I don't think that is necessarily true either. That purchasing power goes to buy goods from China.

Bottom of the line, this isn't a good thing:

The Walton family (Walmart) has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans. Isn't that a bit ****ed up?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Sorry, but you're either an idiot or you completely misinterpret every political post I throw in here. My point is that these are her personal views, nothing else. She might disagree with abortion and homosexuality, but she has no intent (or more importantly, legal authority) to make gay marriage or abortion illegal.

You're kidding, right? Gay marriage is illegal in Minnesota, as it is in many states. MN voted down a constitutional amendment to ban it, but it's still illegal. She's cool with it. She's in favor of making sure that gay people can't get legally married in the United States. She believes that because of her faith. That's fine. But she's also full in favor of legislating it.

Michele Bachmann: Gay People Can Get Married -- But Only To Members Of The Opposite Sex (VIDEO)

Michele Bachmann wants gay marriage overturned in Iowa  - NY Daily News

Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same-sex marriage constitutional amendment

Bachmann supports both a federal and state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and any legal equivalents.[183][184][185] In August 2006, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that in March 2006, Bachmann was on a Minneapolis radio show advocating for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. A caller asked her to explain how he, a heterosexual, would be harmed if his gay neighbors were allowed to marry. Bachmann replied saying, "Public schools would have to teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal, natural and that maybe children should try them." The Star Tribune also reported that Bachmann has publicly referred to homosexuality as "sexual dysfunction," "sexual identity disorders," and "personal enslavement" that leads to "sexual anarchy."[186]

Pardon me if I'm confused as to your point here. Explain to me how she has "no intent on making gay marriage...illegal."

 

[chicago51]

When you say that middle class purchasing power creates demand and jobs, it sounds like you are talking about trickle down economics. Cutting taxes leads to more purchasing power which leads to economic expansion which leads to jobs. By the way, rich people buy stuff too, and they buy more when their taxes are lower. And even if they don't buy more, their savings and investments pump liquidity into financial institutions, which is not an insignificant thing.

The demand of the wealthy particularly the 1 percent is inelastic. The rich is always have money to buy stuff.

I do agree with Buster about our purchasing power is often about buying stuff from China. I got my beliefs on VAT taxes and tariffs but I am tired and want to go to bead. I got get up in 6 hours.

 

[Downinthebend]

Why should we care where middle class purchasing power is directed to? Its literally a creation of wealth (I can do more with my dollar).

 

[Buster Bluth]

The rich is always have money to buy stuff.

Once again you're assuming a lot.

What the government sees sees as "rich" isn't always the case. Sure, folks making $1,000,000 annually will probably never have financial pain. There are A TON of people on the books as making $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, etc who own small businesses and certainly aren't rich.

I know a women who is a part owner of an industrial park and teachers and according to the government she makes $330,000 annually when in reality her take home pay was roughly $50,000.

My father owned a road construction company and "made" ~$300,000 but "brought home" ~$80,000.

What you think as rich isn't always so. The CEOs of the world will always buy stuff, the small business owners are certainly pinching pennies.

 

[Brirish]

You do understand that jesus came to do away with the old testament right...?

 

[Buster Bluth]

You do understand that jesus came to do away with the old testament right...?

Why would God send his son/himself to change the doctrine he put in place for the last few thousand years? He knows everything, why not say it right the first time?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You're kidding, right? Gay marriage is illegal in Minnesota, as it is in many states. MN voted down a constitutional amendment to ban it, but it's still illegal. She's cool with it. She's in favor of making sure that gay people can't get legally married in the United States. She believes that because of her faith. That's fine. But she's also full in favor of legislating it.

Michele Bachmann: Gay People Can Get Married -- But Only To Members Of The Opposite Sex (VIDEO)

Michele Bachmann wants gay marriage overturned in IowaÂ* - NY Daily News

Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Pardon me if I'm confused as to your point here. Explain to me how she has "no intent on making gay marriage...illegal."

Yes, you reiterated everything I said and that she stands behind her beliefs. My point was that she does not have the power or authority to do this, especially on her own.

Those who hate her politics like to paint the picture of this: if Bachmann stays in office, gays will be stoned in the streets, women who get an abortion will be hanged in public, and women will not be allowed to have jobs outside the home. Similar to...if we don't have obamacare people will be dying in the streets.

Annnnnnnyway, if you despise her that much, vote her out. If you don't live in MN, go pound sand like the rest of us do when we don't like politicians outside the state we live in.

 

[GoIrish41]

Sorry, but you're either an idiot or you completely misinterpret every political post I throw in here. My point is that these are her personal views, nothing else. She might disagree with abortion and homosexuality, but she has no intent (or more importantly, legal authority) to make gay marriage or abortion illegal.

You know, its a little tiresome having you call people an idiot every time they don't agree with your point of view -- especially when you are so often proven wrong and don't have the character to admit as much.

Bachmann is a politician who gives political speeches in which she advocates her bigotted, backwards, redneck points of view. If these were simply her personal views, she should not include them in her appearances as a political figure. She isn't a preacher giving her slant on the bible, she is a politician. Of course she alone doesn't have the legal authority to do anything, but she is certainly trying to sway people to her side. And if you don't think if she was successful in swaying enough lawmakers to her point of view that she would push to legislate her beliefs, you are naive.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You know, its a little tiresome having you call people an idiot every time they don't agree with your point of view -- especially when you are so often proven wrong and don't have the character to admit as much.

Bachmann is a politician who gives political speeches in which she advocates her bigotted, backwards, redneck points of view. If these were simply her personal views, she should not include them in her appearances as a political figure. She isn't a preacher giving her slant on the bible, she is a politician. Of course she alone doesn't have the legal authority to do anything, but she is certainly trying to sway people to her side. And if you don't think if she was successful in swaying enough lawmakers to her point of view that she would push to legislate her beliefs, you are naive.

It's just as tiresome when I have to explain a point of view multiple times and multiple ways so they aren't misinterpreted and distorted to fit others' narratives. You're not an idiot beacuse you disagree with me. I like that you disagree with me. Makes for good debate. You're an idiot because you don't understand 90% of what I say.

Bigotted, backwards, and redneck? Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with her religious beliefs, but what happened to the left being so tolerant and accepting?

Glad you finally realized that she alone can't swoop in and make gay marriage and abortion illegal just by being a senator from MN. Michelle Bachmann didn't come in with a gavel and strike down gay marriage and she sure as hell can't do that with abortion. As for the point in her trying to sway others, who gives a rip? That's a senator's job! I despise several democratic senators from other states, but I just shrug my shoulders and say, "glad they don't represent me in PA."

Again, if enough people in MN think of her like you do (backwards redneck), they will vote her out. If not and it burns you up inside, go pound sand.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You know, its a little tiresome having you call people an idiot every time they don't agree with your point of view -- especially when you are so often proven wrong and don't have the character to admit as much.

Bachmann is a politician who gives political speeches in which she advocates her bigotted, backwards, redneck points of view. If these were simply her personal views, she should not include them in her appearances as a political figure. She isn't a preacher giving her slant on the bible, she is a politician. Of course she alone doesn't have the legal authority to do anything, but she is certainly trying to sway people to her side. And if you don't think if she was successful in swaying enough lawmakers to her point of view that she would push to legislate her beliefs, you are naive.

To PL's point, what if those thoughts are what gets her elected?

I know plenty of people that behave a certain way in the workforce, at home, with friends and others because of how they are rewarded. It doesn't matter if the action stands the test of reason, it is accepted, almost in a group think kind of way.

Sadly, this happens frequently in politics where people vote along party lines or go with a name that they can recognize not really understanding who or what they are voting for. They system is far from perfect, but only the people of MN can shut her up.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's just as tiresome when I have to explain a point of view multiple times and multiple ways so they aren't misinterpreted and distorted to fit others' narratives. You're not an idiot beacuse you disagree with me. I like that you disagree with me. Makes for good debate. You're an idiot because you don't understand 90% of what I say.

Bigotted, backwards, and redneck? Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with her religious beliefs, but what happened to the left being so tolerant and accepting?

Glad you finally realized that she alone can't swoop in and make gay marriage and abortion illegal just by being a senator from MN. Michelle Bachmann didn't come in with a gavel and strike down gay marriage and she sure as hell can't do that with abortion. As for the point in her trying to sway others, who gives a rip? That's a senator's job! I despise several democratic senators from other states, but I just shrug my shoulders and say, "glad they don't represent me in PA."

Again, if enough people in MN think of her like you do (backwards redneck), they will vote her out. If not and it burns you up inside, go pound sand.

In your originial post you "she believes in freedom to the individual" and I replied "unless you happen to be gay or wish to make your own reproductive choices." How exactly was I misrepresenting anything you said? You were talking about what she believes and I elaborated on it.

Now, since you added in that original post that she isn't trying to go on some Christian Crusade, and then contradicted that in the above post by claiming that it is a Senator's job to try to sway others to political point of view, it is little wonder that you have to explain yourself 90% of the time. Don't be angry with me because you are a poor communicator who can't make a cohesive point.

You attack people because when you make your silly points and people disagree it is all you've got left.

 

[GoIrish41]

To PL's point, what if those thoughts are what gets her elected?

I know plenty of people that behave a certain way in the workforce, at home, with friends and others because of how they are rewarded. It doesn't matter if the action stands the test of reason, it is accepted, almost in a group think kind of way.

Sadly, this happens frequently in politics where people vote along party lines or go with a name that they can recognize not really understanding who or what they are voting for. They system is far from perfect, but only the people of MN can shut her up.

I'm not disagreeing with this, but that is actually opposite of the point Leppy was making. He was claiming that her personal beliefs are not her political beliefs and the two should not be confused. You are saying that her personal beliefs are her political beliefs (or at least she wants them to be perceived that way). It appears you are closer to my thoughts on this than you are to his.