The 24 Types of Libertarian
- Thread starter BuddhaDawg
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
translation: stop informing people of all the common sense measures in the american recovery and reinvestment act that i would be foolish to argue against, and let me get back to scaring the bijesus out of dumb shits and riling them dishonestly by calling this porkulus and speaking of scrubbing african wieners.
who needs facts about the long term benefits when you can make short-sighted emotional appeals, eh johnny?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Actions are the key.
Actions, not newspeak from a teleprompter, Buck.
Show me a fucking long-term benefit of the earmarkulus.
To Americans...
not the Chinese;
...or to Africans with dirty dongs.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
obama's pioneering of the teleprompter is the obvious harbinger that he is the antichrist set to destroy america, eh?
you never answered me....what do they put in the water down there in texas?
ha, nice try at trying to put me on defense. how about this instead...
tell me, how is expanding broadband access to rural areas not going to benefit us in the long term? do businesses become more efficient when it takes the page forever to load?
tell me, how is improving infrastructure not going to benefit us in the long term? do trucks become more productive when they sit in traffic?
tell me, how is bringing our medical records into the digital age not going to benefit us in the long term? does the medical system become more streamlined when doctors run redundant tests?
even your most salient example of pork, washing african cocks, is an investment of sorts by your own admission.
see what i did there? i put you back on defense. when you're defending, you're losing.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
That assclown pioneered nothing. It's a crutch. And he is a stammering idiot without it.
Fuck if I know.... LSD. Birth control pills. Anti-psychotics. A lot of shit besides feces is flushed into the waste-water stream.
If there was a demand for rural broadband access, the market would have seen to it already. The Federal government dictating who gets access rates a big fat fail.ha, nice try at trying to put me on defense. how about this instead...
tell me, how is expanding broadband access to rural areas not going to benefit us in the long term? do businesses become more efficient when it takes the page forever to load?
tell me, how is improving infrastructure not going to benefit us in the long term? do trucks become more productive when they sit in traffic?
tell me, how is bringing our medical records into the digital age not going to benefit us in the long term? does the medical system become more streamlined when doctors run redundant tests?
even your most salient example of pork, washing african cocks, is an investment of sorts by your own admission.
see what i did there? i put you back on defense. when you're defending, you're losing.
Infrastructure is a local concern. If local jurisdictions failed to meet their responsibilities, I see no reason why the Federal government should agree to go into debt to cover some local politician's ass.
Medical records. It's fine, but it should be an industry driven initiative.
And the coppers are licking their chops at the possibility of getting their grubby paws on medical databases.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/08/669723/lists-of-pain-pillpatients-sought.html
Democrats are not calling stimulus packages "stimulus" any longer. Why is that?
It is impossible to defend the indefensible. As such you are off the hook, Buck.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Didn't you get the memo?
Everyone is entitled to broadband internet access.
It's the new government cheese.
God I hope not, I want my broadband to actually work.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
oh no, you just mentioned the "e" word. didn't you know that entreprenurialism is just the conservative code word for greedy capitalism? go ahead, look it up in the liberal's dictionary. you can probably download a free copy of it from the democratic party's website.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so i can't operate all my power tools while my wife is asleep, so thought i'd come on down and take a stab at this...
[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2010/01/29/bts.obama.gop.lions.den.cnn.html[/video]
also, you never explained how more broadband access in rural areas would act as a detriment to long term growth of the american economy and american businesses. you simply went on a predictable tirade against government while exalting how business forever acts in everyone's best interest.
also, just like the previous question, you never showed me where improved infrastructure would be the least bit detrimental to the long term growth of the american economy and american businesses.
again, you in no way told me how bringing health records into the digital age would be detrimental to the long term growth of the american economy.
unfortunately for you, i am not one of those dolts. i actually look at what is in the bill, and judge it accordingly. hell, not even you had a bad thing to say about the three examples listed above, you simply objected that they should be market driven or under more local control.
that was, after all, your original request...
sarcasm, johnny! of course he did not pioneer the thing, i was pointing out the absurdity in your damning him for using it, despite the fact that it is nothing new. however, i take issue with your assessment of him as a 'stammering idiot' without it. when he went to the republican caucus during the healthcare debate, he pwned the repubs up and down (not hard to do) so badly that fox news stopped airing it halfway through so their precious narrative would not be ruined. want to take a looksie?
[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2010/01/29/bts.obama.gop.lions.den.cnn.html[/video]
bullshit. explain to me the numerous rural people attempting (unsuccessfully) to get broadband from satellite....and get throttled if they use too much bandwidth. i was just out touring vineyards the other day, dude was cursing the provider up and down for shitty service as i tried to buy a bottle of riesling. there is demand, but you might not see it if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'nanananananananana'.
also, you never explained how more broadband access in rural areas would act as a detriment to long term growth of the american economy and american businesses. you simply went on a predictable tirade against government while exalting how business forever acts in everyone's best interest.
i do a lot of motoring around our nation's interstates. it comforts me to see certain uniform standards wherever i go. i do not want to see a patchwork of roads all under separate local jurisdictions, and i do not think that bell, california should be responsible for adding a 7th lane to interstate 5. you yourself would acknowledge that interste highways are a federal concern, and that's where i see the overwhelming majority of 'american recovery and reinvestment act' signs.
also, just like the previous question, you never showed me where improved infrastructure would be the least bit detrimental to the long term growth of the american economy and american businesses.
why would they care? they just pass on the cost to the consumer. we pay more than any other industrialized country for administrative costs in our healthcare system, and it is a huge part of what we NEED to reform to be on par with all these other nations that care for ALL their citizens at a lower cost than we do. we stand no chance at being competitive otherwise.
again, you in no way told me how bringing health records into the digital age would be detrimental to the long term growth of the american economy.
saw that. but misdeeds by leo's are going happen no matter what, we should not keep an archaic system of medical records because of the possibility of mischief from the coppers.
please roll out every example you can find of a foolish earmark in the ARRA. please do. total the amounts, and divide by $787 billion. tell me what number you get. i bet the house and farm that it is an exceedingly small percentage.The African joint washing project is no where near the only example of foolish earmarks. It's just the funniest.
possibly because people like you are great at getting idiotic americans to ignore all the good components in this bill, and instead focus on shouting 'porkulus' over and over.
unfortunately for you, i am not one of those dolts. i actually look at what is in the bill, and judge it accordingly. hell, not even you had a bad thing to say about the three examples listed above, you simply objected that they should be market driven or under more local control.
want to go round two? i have several more examples which, while you may object to them being implemented by the big bad fed gov, are unable to be condemned as detrimental to the long term growth of the american economy.
that was, after all, your original request...
i showed you 3. want 3 more? 10 more? 20 more? i got them, just let me know, friend
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Buck, you can show me 100 if you wanted, I am sure. But my answer would be the same in answer to your point.
Loading up on long-term debt to pay for projects, no matter how noble their intent, nullifies any benefit.
I have not even mentioned the Constitutional problem with many, if not most of the earmarks.
There is nothing in the Constitution stating that the Federal government is responsible to fund rural broadband access; or to wash African cocks.
Loading up on long-term debt to pay for projects, no matter how noble their intent, nullifies any benefit.
I have not even mentioned the Constitutional problem with many, if not most of the earmarks.
There is nothing in the Constitution stating that the Federal government is responsible to fund rural broadband access; or to wash African cocks.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
They pay more taxes. They are just as entitled to a reduction as anyone else.
If we extend them we should extend them for everyone.
But they won't be the Bush tax cuts after December 31st. Bush is gone. If an extension passes on his watch, and he signs it; Obama will own those tax cuts.
And he'll have my respect.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"desire for progressive taxation is more due to the fact that he sees society as having a big role in creating the conditions for the rich to obtain their wealth, and that it is their duty and moral responsibility to give some of that wealth back to the system to ensure that the same conditions exist for others."
so you favor adding $700 billion of long term debt in order to give millionaires an extra $100,000 each every year?
it is blatantly apparent that they will sit on the money and save it, rather than use it to hire more workers, as supply siders would argue.
kinda seems to contradict what you just said in post 111.
and before you try to make the distinction between paying for projects and paying for (supposed and hypothetical) job creation through tax breaks to millionaires, think again.
those projects reduce the deficit and create at least some jobs, not to mention their long term benefit to the economy and businesses.
the extra $100 G's they get add to the deficit and are not certain to create any jobs.
america wasn't doing too bad back when the rate on millionaires was more than twice what it is currently.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
It only contradicts it if one accepts your first point. Which I do not.
If ending the Tax cut will further harm the economy, the opposite is true as well.
Moreover, it only contradicts if one considers a tax cut as spending; which I do not. Allowing one to keep more of his own earnings is not spending.
Cut the actual spending if you are so concerned over the deficit.
Why are you so worried about the reduction in tax revenues resulting from including the affluent in the tax cut when the size of the Middle Class tax cut eclipses $700 billion? When I say eclipses, I mean with a capitol E. The middle tax class tax cut is fucking huge by comparison. Gargantuan.
But it ain't about the money. Because Democrats obviously don't give a shit about the deficit.
It's about class warfare.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i assume the first point you are referring to is the quote from abe's thread. you stated your disagreement, from which it follows that you feel that the rich have no duty or moral responsibility to give back to the society from which they begat their wealth. in other words, you feel it is ok that the rich take, take take....and never give. seems pretty dickish to me, but whatever....
it may harm the bank accounts of a few millionaires who wish to pocket the extra 100 G's, but they ain't hiring anyway. take a look around...
i consider anything that adds $700 billion dollars to the deficit that is not a proven investment as spending. and since supply side economics has shown itself to be anything but an investment, it is spending.
i'll grant you that without even looking for the numbers. the main difference you ignore is that the middle class is struggling. struggling with a capitol S. hand to mouth struggling, often. the money they get goes straight back into the economy, further stimulating it. non-partisan economists concur here. it is the most common sense form of a stimulus you can do in times like these.
that's how you would like to frame it to make it politically expedient. but it ain't the truth, not by a long shot. it is about reducing the ever widening income inequality gap.
you still never explained to me why america was doing so well when the tax rates on the top brackets was more than double what it currently is. for someone who i assume to be white, you sure do dance well. especially around tough questions.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_federal_income_tax
as of 30 years ago, the rate on the top was 70%. that is twice what it is now. we ae quibbling about raising it from 35% to 38.5%, if i am remembering correctly.
are you arguing that millionaires can't afford 3.5% to save the deficit $700 billion dollars at a time when the middle class is often living hand to mouth?
i wish all democrats had the balls to put it like this.
fdr was my hero. he welcomed their hatred.
obama is a pussy. but perhaps he will surprise us, grow some balls, and get his second term.
after that, 8 years of hillary. god willing.
as of 30 years ago, the rate on the top was 70%. that is twice what it is now. we ae quibbling about raising it from 35% to 38.5%, if i am remembering correctly.
are you arguing that millionaires can't afford 3.5% to save the deficit $700 billion dollars at a time when the middle class is often living hand to mouth?
i wish all democrats had the balls to put it like this.
fdr was my hero. he welcomed their hatred.
obama is a pussy. but perhaps he will surprise us, grow some balls, and get his second term.
after that, 8 years of hillary. god willing.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Once more: Decreasing tax revenues is not increasing spending. Too separate concepts. I realize muddling up those two completely different issues keeps Democratic dullards stirred up, but it's dishonest.
If Democrats were serious about the deficit they would go after the spending.
Um yeah... I remember 30 years ago.
The year - 1980. The President - Jimmy Carter.
You remember Jimmy Carter. The first Teabagger. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9IBN1L80&show_article=1
The economy was pretty shitty is 1980. We were introduced to a fresh economic Concept: stagflation.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Actually I was addressing your first point, not the unattributed quote. As such, no dickishness was intended.
The Heritage Foundation writes:
http://heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-the-economic-and-fiscal-effects
Tax increases add to the uncertainty we are experiencing now in the wake of Democratic insistence on passing an unpopular Progressive Agenda and the mountain of regulations which will ultimately accompany it.
Uncertainty is bad for business. Which means it is bad for people.
But it must be good for government because the Democrats are enabling a shitload of it.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Nobody wants to really see taxes raised, but the problem is there are three ways really at this point,
1. Go with obamas plan, which keeps the taxes at the same low rate for most of The public and 98% of small businesses.
2. Fight doing anything at which point the taxes increase a large amount for all the tax base in a recession.
3. Put taxes at the same rate for the next 2 years at which point Obama is faced with this right at his election, and going to be forced at that point to increase the taxes because we will be out of this mess and in the process of paying for it.
It's win win for republicans, and pretty much all lose for Obama.
Btw not that this matters to anyone, but thank you. You guys are having a great back and forth, much more interesting than any network news channel.
1. Go with obamas plan, which keeps the taxes at the same low rate for most of The public and 98% of small businesses.
2. Fight doing anything at which point the taxes increase a large amount for all the tax base in a recession.
3. Put taxes at the same rate for the next 2 years at which point Obama is faced with this right at his election, and going to be forced at that point to increase the taxes because we will be out of this mess and in the process of paying for it.
It's win win for republicans, and pretty much all lose for Obama.
Rural areas have many small businesses and independent workers. Today we really rely heavily on tech and communication, with a shitty broadband setup it stagnates the opportunities for those people. It's hard to run business today without good Internet service.
Btw not that this matters to anyone, but thank you. You guys are having a great back and forth, much more interesting than any network news channel.