Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 99
Thanks Tree125Thanks

Thread: The sadism of the modern Republican Party

  1. #71
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,768
    Thanks
    2921

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    "noise"???? You mean people exercising their Constitutional rights???
    I don't recall anyone speaking about owning weapons???

  2. #72
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,768
    Thanks
    2921

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by DemoWhip View Post
    The Daily Kos, the Right-Winger's greatest FEAR! Because this news source has integrity and speaks well for itself with its resourceful links. Don't be afraid of the truth. Embrace it. Confront it. Then work to change things for the better for those involved!
    Integrity...Oh my. Thanx I needed that!
    Thanks from DanTexas

  3. #73
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    2684

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    You can return your tax savings since it's so much on your conscience.
    It's not a question of conscience. It's a question of whether people are gullible enough to fall for this two-step swindle. Step one: push through a tax cut that gives huge benefits to the rich, with crumbs for everyone else. Step two: react to the resulting deficit by demanding tax hikes or spending cuts that will hit everyone about equally.

    Thus, the rich get a huge up-front tax benefit in exchange for a moderately sized sacrifice down the road, while everyone else gets a tiny up-front tax benefit in exchange for a moderately sized sacrifice down the road. It's a raw deal for anyone who isn't rich, but the Republicans are counting on most people being too dumb to see what they did.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and BigLeRoy

  4. #74
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,395
    Thanks
    7409

    From
    10 years later
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    What did your son get a degree in? University of Wisconsin?
    UW-La Crosse, western side of the state, with with a degree in economics.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  5. #75
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,395
    Thanks
    7409

    From
    10 years later
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    Arkady remains the best poster I've ever seen, but you're not bad yourself.
    You're not too bad yourself.

  6. #76
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,768
    Thanks
    2921

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    It's not a question of conscience. It's a question of whether people are gullible enough to fall for this two-step swindle. Step one: push through a tax cut that gives huge benefits to the rich, with crumbs for everyone else. Step two: react to the resulting deficit by demanding tax hikes or spending cuts that will hit everyone about equally.

    Thus, the rich get a huge up-front tax benefit in exchange for a moderately sized sacrifice down the road, while everyone else gets a tiny up-front tax benefit in exchange for a moderately sized sacrifice down the road. It's a raw deal for anyone who isn't rich, but the Republicans are counting on most people being too dumb to see what they did.
    For swindle see -

    US Reps receive vast amounts of US revenue and then squander this money - Then they cry because of short falls and demand more money to squander. The problem is it is WAY too easy to spend other peoples money.

    Our responsibility as citizens is not to send them more money, it is to make damn sure they spend the peoples resources wisely...until they do, they do not receive more, they receive less and make it work.

    Two lying refrains from the rabid left -

    If we don't send them enough, the first place we will see losses is essential services.

    The rich receive larger tax break. Funny how the left expects that the rich pay more...but when any breaks are provided the same idiots that declare the rich should pay more, react as if they shouldn't get more back after they have and do spend more in the first place. Typical liberal one way street thinking.
    Last edited by carpe diem; 15th May 2018 at 09:43 AM.

  7. #77
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,132
    Thanks
    30559

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by steezer View Post
    UW-La Crosse, western side of the state, with with a degree in economics.
    I'm very familiar with La Crosse, since it is close to McGregor, Iowa, where my father was born and grew up. Went there often as a boy. And economics means he is a young lad after my own heart, since that is my field. Is he going to pursue a Master's, or does he have a job lined up?

  8. #78
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks
    2684

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    For swindle see -

    US Reps receive vast amounts of US revenue and then squander this money - Then they cry because of short falls and demand more money to squander.
    Yes. With any large budget you'll find large amounts being squandered. It's just the nature of things. In the case of the US, this mostly takes the form of military over-spend. Although US government spending is bone-thin, relative to other wealthy nations, in most areas, it's wildly extravagant when it comes to the cut handed to the Pentagon. I certainly wouldn't want what I'm saying to be used as an excuse for not taking a good hard look at areas of budgetary waste, especially military spending. But even if the deficits the Republicans are creating are eventually used to force spending cuts (rather than just being used to push through more regressive taxation), that doesn't necessarily benefit the people. Waste or not, people can wind up a lot better off with more robust government spending.

    Picture it in simplified form. Imagine you could pay someone $100 in exchange for $150 in value, but this involved $20 worth of waste, such that you should really be getting $170 in value. In theory, you could stubbornly refuse to give them a dime more until they eliminate all the waste -- but since eliminating all waste is an impossible task, all this will result in is you giving up a net value of $50 for yourself. It's not a good deal. In the same sense, if we fixate on inevitable government waste in order to short-change ourselves by underfunding government programs, we're doing ourselves no favors. Yes, that will decrease waste, but it'll also mean we're worse off overall.

    If we don't send them enough, the first place we will see losses is essential services.
    I'd love to think that forcing government budgeters to look for spending cuts would result in such cuts disproportionately hitting wasteful areas. But, historically that isn't how it has tended to work out. For example, the military budget, which is not only the biggest area of discretionary spending, but also the most obscenely bloated, isn't being cut. Instead, in FY 2018 it rose 10% relative to the prior year. Even as we cut ever closer to the bone in other areas, the Pentagon gets flabbier and flabbier. Similarly, the administration isn't looking to save money by ending the absurd war on recreational drug users, which contributes to us having to pay to incarcerate a vastly larger share of our population than any other nation does. Instead, under the "leadership" of Jeff Sessions, we're pushing the other way -- trying to ramp up the cost of that war in the coming years. The Republicans look for cuts in areas where saving on the ounce of prevention today means having to pay for the pound of cure tomorrow -- for example, cutting welfare benefits for poor children, which will mean those kids are a lot more likely to grow up to be unproductive and socially expensive adults.

    The rich receive larger tax break. Funny how the left expects that the rich pay more...but when any breaks are provided the same idiots that declare the rich should pay more, react as if they shouldn't get more back after they have and do spend more in the first place. Typical liberal one way street thinking.
    I can see you don't like to have it pointed out what a vastly disproportionate share of the tax cut went to the rich, but your discomfort doesn't erase that reality. And what it means is that if the tax cut isn't counter-balanced either by future tax hikes that hit the rich at least as disproportionately, or by future spending cuts that do so, the poor and middle class will have been hurt by the two-step swindle. If we lived in a society where the rich were getting poorer, and the population was getting so economically flattened that maybe soon the incentives of capitalism wouldn't be working efficiently, that kind of plutocrat-favoring two-step might actually be a good thing. I'm a good capitalist and acknowledge there's value in having some wealth differentiation within a society, to give people something to strive for. If that wealth differentiation had been rapidly dwindling towards nothing, then trading off an upper-class-favoring tax cut for more regressive tax hikes or spending cuts could be a good thing, to restore greater wealth differentiation. But that's not the society we live in. The wealthy have been pulling away from the rest of society rapidly since the end of the 1960s. The economic distribution has gotten dangerously top heavy. What we should be doing is figuring out how to HIKE the portion of the tax burden shared by the rich, to help reduce wealth differentiation towards our own historical norms (and those of other wealthy nations). We should be raising taxes disproportionately on the rich, while boosting the kinds of spending that disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class. As in nearly all public policy areas, the Republicans want to push in the exact opposite direction as we should be heading.
    Last edited by Arkady; 16th May 2018 at 03:52 AM.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  9. #79
    Shiny Purple Member namvet69's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,709
    Thanks
    4920

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Yes. With any large budget you'll find large amounts being squandered. It's just the nature of things. In the case of the US, this mostly takes the form of military over-spend. Although US government spending is bone-thin, relative to other wealthy nations, in most areas, it's wildly extravagant when it comes to the cut handed to the Pentagon. I certainly wouldn't want what I'm saying to be used as an excuse for not taking a good hard look at areas of budgetary waste, especially military spending. But even if the deficits the Republicans are creating are eventually used to force spending cuts (rather than just being used to push through more regressive taxation), that doesn't necessarily benefit the people. Waste or not, people can wind up a lot better off with more robust government spending.

    Picture it in simplified form. Imagine you could pay someone $100 in exchange for $150 in value, but this involved $20 worth of waste, such that you should really be getting $170 in value. In theory, you could stubbornly refuse to give them a dime more until they eliminate all the waste -- but since eliminating all waste is an impossible task, all this will result in is you giving up a net value of $50 for yourself. It's not a good deal. In the same sense, if we fixate on inevitable government waste in order to short-change ourselves by underfunding government programs, we're doing ourselves no favors. Yes, that will decrease waste, but it'll also mean we're worse off overall.



    I'd love to think that forcing government budgeters to look for spending cuts would result in such cuts disproportionately hitting wasteful areas. But, historically that isn't how it has tended to work out. For example, the military budget, which is not only the biggest area of discretionary spending, but also the most obscenely bloated, isn't being cut. Instead, in FY 2018 it rose 10% relative to the prior year. Even as we cut ever closer to the bone in other areas, the Pentagon gets flabbier and flabbier. Similarly, the administration isn't looking to save money by ending the absurd war on recreational drug users, which contributes to us having to pay to incarcerate a vastly larger share of our population than any other nation does. Instead, under the "leadership" of Jeff Sessions, we're pushing the other way -- trying to ramp up the cost of that war in the coming years. The Republicans look for cuts in areas where saving on the ounce of prevention today means having to pay for the pound of cure tomorrow -- for example, cutting welfare benefits for poor children, which will mean those kids are a lot more likely to grow up to be unproductive and socially expensive adults.



    I can see you don't like to have it pointed out what a vastly disproportionate share of the tax cut went to the rich, but your discomfort doesn't erase that reality. And what it means is that if the tax cut isn't counter-balanced either by future tax hikes that hit the rich at least as disproportionately, or by future spending cuts that do so, the poor and middle class will have been hurt by the two-step swindle. If we lived in a society where the rich were getting poorer, and the population was getting so economically flattened that maybe soon the incentives of capitalism wouldn't be working efficiently, that kind of plutocrat-favoring two-step might actually be a good thing. I'm a good capitalist and acknowledge there's value in having some wealth differentiation within a society, to give people something to strive for. If that wealth differentiation had been rapidly dwindling towards nothing, then trading off an upper-class-favoring tax cut for more regressive tax hikes or spending cuts could be a good thing, to restore greater wealth differentiation. But that's not the society we live in. The wealthy have been pulling away from the rest of society rapidly since the end of the 1960s. The economic distribution has gotten dangerously top heavy. What we should be doing is figuring out how to HIKE the portion of the tax burden shared by the rich, to help reduce wealth differentiation towards our own historical norms (and those of other wealthy nations). We should be raising taxes disproportionately on the rich, while boosting the kinds of spending that disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class. As in nearly all public policy areas, the Republicans want to push in the exact opposite direction as we should be heading.
    Well laid out and very well said. Reminds me of the right's response to what Bernie Sanders was proposing during his campaign. It was the end of civilization as we know it to even think about free education, healthcare etc. But quite the reverse when it came to massive giveaways to themselves that would inevitably result in giant revenue shortfalls. Same was true with the out of control and unneeded boost in defense spending. The level of hypocrisy is amazing.
    Thanks from Arkady

  10. #80
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,132
    Thanks
    30559

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Yes. With any large budget you'll find large amounts being squandered. It's just the nature of things. In the case of the US, this mostly takes the form of military over-spend. Although US government spending is bone-thin, relative to other wealthy nations, in most areas, it's wildly extravagant when it comes to the cut handed to the Pentagon. I certainly wouldn't want what I'm saying to be used as an excuse for not taking a good hard look at areas of budgetary waste, especially military spending. But even if the deficits the Republicans are creating are eventually used to force spending cuts (rather than just being used to push through more regressive taxation), that doesn't necessarily benefit the people. Waste or not, people can wind up a lot better off with more robust government spending.

    Picture it in simplified form. Imagine you could pay someone $100 in exchange for $150 in value, but this involved $20 worth of waste, such that you should really be getting $170 in value. In theory, you could stubbornly refuse to give them a dime more until they eliminate all the waste -- but since eliminating all waste is an impossible task, all this will result in is you giving up a net value of $50 for yourself. It's not a good deal. In the same sense, if we fixate on inevitable government waste in order to short-change ourselves by underfunding government programs, we're doing ourselves no favors. Yes, that will decrease waste, but it'll also mean we're worse off overall.



    I'd love to think that forcing government budgeters to look for spending cuts would result in such cuts disproportionately hitting wasteful areas. But, historically that isn't how it has tended to work out. For example, the military budget, which is not only the biggest area of discretionary spending, but also the most obscenely bloated, isn't being cut. Instead, in FY 2018 it rose 10% relative to the prior year. Even as we cut ever closer to the bone in other areas, the Pentagon gets flabbier and flabbier. Similarly, the administration isn't looking to save money by ending the absurd war on recreational drug users, which contributes to us having to pay to incarcerate a vastly larger share of our population than any other nation does. Instead, under the "leadership" of Jeff Sessions, we're pushing the other way -- trying to ramp up the cost of that war in the coming years. The Republicans look for cuts in areas where saving on the ounce of prevention today means having to pay for the pound of cure tomorrow -- for example, cutting welfare benefits for poor children, which will mean those kids are a lot more likely to grow up to be unproductive and socially expensive adults.



    I can see you don't like to have it pointed out what a vastly disproportionate share of the tax cut went to the rich, but your discomfort doesn't erase that reality. And what it means is that if the tax cut isn't counter-balanced either by future tax hikes that hit the rich at least as disproportionately, or by future spending cuts that do so, the poor and middle class will have been hurt by the two-step swindle. If we lived in a society where the rich were getting poorer, and the population was getting so economically flattened that maybe soon the incentives of capitalism wouldn't be working efficiently, that kind of plutocrat-favoring two-step might actually be a good thing. I'm a good capitalist and acknowledge there's value in having some wealth differentiation within a society, to give people something to strive for. If that wealth differentiation had been rapidly dwindling towards nothing, then trading off an upper-class-favoring tax cut for more regressive tax hikes or spending cuts could be a good thing, to restore greater wealth differentiation. But that's not the society we live in. The wealthy have been pulling away from the rest of society rapidly since the end of the 1960s. The economic distribution has gotten dangerously top heavy. What we should be doing is figuring out how to HIKE the portion of the tax burden shared by the rich, to help reduce wealth differentiation towards our own historical norms (and those of other wealthy nations). We should be raising taxes disproportionately on the rich, while boosting the kinds of spending that disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class. As in nearly all public policy areas, the Republicans want to push in the exact opposite direction as we should be heading.
    I want to comment on your last paragraph in particular. Plutarch understood all this almost two thousand years ago. He wrote that "an imbalance between the rich and the poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." He knew that a healthy republic needed a dynamic and thriving middle class, if only to serve as a buffer between the rich and the poor. He understood that if that middle class were to vanish, perhaps due to very poor policy choices, the rich and the poor would then be at each other's throats, and the end result would be either a brutally repressive oligarchy backed by military force, or a wildly irrational populist revolution, neither of them remotely desirable. America's Gini coefficient, one measure by which economists measure the degree of income (or wealth) inequality, has been rising (as you suggested) since the late 1960's or early 1970's----the year 1973 is often cited as a major dividing line between two different economic eras-----and is headed in the direction of Brazil, a nation rather infamous for not having much of a middle class to speak of at all.

    This is NOT a healthy direction for America to be going in, and yet, when you ask Republicans WHY they want to be pushing America in that direction, they REFUSE to answer.
    Thanks from Arkady

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 120
    Last Post: 2nd May 2018, 07:12 AM
  2. enjoy your modern republican party
    By yuri zhivago in forum Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 21st June 2013, 01:45 AM
  3. What more can you say about Modern Republican thinking?
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 21st September 2012, 08:19 AM
  4. Modern Whig Party Updates
    By Morgan in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28th October 2009, 08:14 PM
  5. Modern Whig Party
    By Morgan in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 21st September 2009, 06:28 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed