Pages

7/22/11

Interested to know your thoughts on Obama's press conference. What do you guys think will happen, both politically and with the markets?

I'm very proud of the House Republicans for holding to their beliefs and trying to force substantive cuts and save us from bankruptcy. My guess is they shove the cut, cap, and balance down the Dems throats (or try to), and the markets take a hit on Monday (how big, I don't know, depends what happens tomorrow and Sunday).

Comments (306)

Best Response
7/22/11

I'm not a huge Obama fan by any means but in broad strokes, I like the way he's handled the debt ceiling issue, as I think he's approached it as a centrist.

Most reasonable people would agree that spending cuts alone are not a realistic way to get out of the debt crisis; we need a mix of both revenue increases and spending cuts. The compromise package that the White House agreed to was 75% spending cuts and 25% revenue increases - not by raising taxes, but just by closing certain loopholes.

If a party is so ideologically closed that it can't take a 75-25 compromise in its favor, then I think its very dangerous for a democracy.

The R party is too far right and too beholden to the crazies at its base. Even poeple like Colin Powell, David Brooks, have been unable to find a place in the R tent nowadays.

The WSO Advantage - Hedge Funds

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Hedge Fund Interview Questions

10+ webinars & actual pitches.

Resume Help from HF Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your HF Mentor

Realistic HF Mock Interviews.

7/22/11

He is way to divisive. Every comment was blaming the Republicans, bringing up closed door discussions, basically shitting on them in every way. You don't work together and build relationships that way. When he had a majority in the House and Senate he treated Republicans like shit and forced legislation down their throat and now that he has to compromise and act like an adult he is failing miserably.

7/22/11

I'm not proud. I'm disgusted. It is pathetic that we have gotten to this point in political rhetoric. Often you have to see through all the bullshit in politics, but this is like trying to see through a pool of bullshit 12ft deep.

Both sides have been needing to drop the bullshit for so long. I think the Dems finally dropped most of it and the GOP is still lingering on.

All these Republican politicians will make you believe that a small tax increase on the upper class will drive our economy down. This isn't correct. 1) Our taxes are lower now than they have been for awhile. Actually during the Clinton boom, our tax rate was higher 2) There isn't any CLEAR evidence that raising taxes on the rich drives GDP or markets down. It is a theory that has yet to be met with any real evidence.

As a moderate republican myself, I'm embarrassed. I think that speech just won Obama the next presidency. If the GOP doesn't come to a deal, Obama wins. Even if GOP comes to a deal now, Obama still wins. People are pissed and Obama looked more pissed than anyone. The American people are going to eat it up, as they should. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

7/22/11

The Republicans won the House because they were anti tax and smaller government. By allowing taxes to increase they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Taxes should go down, not up.

In reply to rothyman
7/22/11
rothyman:

I'm not proud. I'm disgusted. It is pathetic that we have gotten to this point in political rhetoric. Often you have to see through all the bullshit in politics, but this is like trying to see through a pool of bullshit 12ft deep.

Both sides have been needing to drop the bullshit for so long. I think the Dems finally dropped most of it and the GOP is still lingering on.

All these Republican politicians will make you believe that a small tax increase on the upper class will drive our economy down. This isn't correct. 1) Our taxes are lower now than they have been for awhile. Actually during the Clinton boom, our tax rate was higher 2) There isn't any CLEAR evidence that raising taxes on the rich drives GDP or markets down. It is a theory that has yet to be met with any real evidence.

As a moderate republican myself, I'm embarrassed. I think that speech just won Obama the next presidency. If the GOP doesn't come to a deal, Obama wins. Even if GOP comes to a deal now, Obama still wins. People are pissed and Obama looked more pissed than anyone. The American people are going to eat it up, as they should. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

If you really look at the data, the Dems haven't offered real spending cuts. Offering ~150B a year in spending cuts a year coupled with 100B a year in revenue increases is not a realistic solution when you're running $1+T deficits. Keep in mind that all these figures tossed around by the media are total numbers, which will be amortized over a long period of time. Also keep in mind that the entitlment spending is only going to go up. Anyone who really understands the numbers can draw no other conclusion than that the Dems are not serious about fixing this. We should cut at least $500B a YEAR, all from spending. That would still only bring us back to $600B or so a year in annual deficits. Amortized over 10 years, that's $5T. Keep in mind that even with this figure, our debt/GDP keeps going up. We should be cutting even more, maybe something like $800B. We need to make drastic cuts just to SMOOTH our way into lower spending/living within our means. Otherwise, one day, we'll wake up and see Treasury rates have skyrocketed, and can't afford to spend even on very basic things, nevermind a $500K quadruple heart bypass for an 80 year old terminally ill cancer patient (like we currently do). Look at how quickly interest rates skyrocketed on Greece, our debt/GDP ratio is already there, if you adjust for all the shenanigans in the reporting of the numbers.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/22/11

@alex

I don't disagree with you about the need for more cuts. I am 100% in favor of deeper, non bs cuts that aren't just smoke in mirrors. However this isn't the reason the GOP has backed out. They backed out because they will NOT touch taxes. Even if Obama promised the cuts you listed above, the GOP would not vote for any tax increase. In my eyes, the Dems are still compromising more for their constituents than the Republicans are. Like I said before, tax rates for the upper-class are relatively low. It's not like they are relatively high at the moment.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

7/22/11

Why would the GOP vote for anything that involves tax increases? The rich are simply a policy scapegoat for Obama. Why would you increase taxes during a recession (or at least lack luster recovery)?

Why are the Democrats always the party of more taxes. The government is too big, wastes too much and needs to cut back. The last thing we need is to take more money out of the private market.

In reply to TNA
7/22/11
ANT:

He is way to divisive. Every comment was blaming the Republicans, bringing up closed door discussions, basically shitting on them in every way. You don't work together and build relationships that way. When he had a majority in the House and Senate he treated Republicans like shit and forced legislation down their throat and now that he has to compromise and act like an adult he is failing miserably.

I got the impression that O was a huge pussy when he had the house and senate.

7/22/11

Yeah, he really has been all hype. I think Colin Powell would have been a much more appropriate first black president. The guy is a decorated veteran and had the stones and integrity to step down because he disagreed with Bush.

A cereal box could have run against Bush and won. In fact, one did.

7/22/11

My plan to restore america:

1. 15% flat tax.
2. pull our troops from 110 countries across the world.
3. let people under 35 opt out of social security and medicare.
4. abolish the fed and restore a constitutional, commodity-backed currency.
5. abolish the TSA, HUD, Education Department, HHS.
6. abolish affirmative action.
7. dismantle all of our torture chambers and secret prisons.
8. no foreign aid to any country.
9. seal the southern border and fund an e-verify mandate.
10. no more executive wars.

boom, america's right as rain again.

In reply to ivoteforthatguy
7/22/11
ivoteforthatguy:

My plan to restore america:

1. 15% flat tax.
2. pull our troops from 110 countries across the world.
3. let people under 35 opt out of social security and medicare.
4. abolish the fed and restore a constitutional, commodity-backed currency.
5. abolish the TSA, HUD, Education Department, HHS.
6. abolish affirmative action.
7. dismantle all of our torture chambers and secret prisons.
8. no foreign aid to any country.
9. seal the southern border and fund an e-verify mandate.
10. no more executive wars.

boom, america's right as rain again.

I like everything you said except I'm more for a flat/fair tax mix. Well done my friend!

In reply to TNA
7/22/11
ANT:

Yeah, he really has been all hype. I think Colin Powell would have been a much more appropriate first black president. The guy is a decorated veteran and had the stones and integrity to step down because he disagreed with Bush.

A cereal box could have run against Bush and won. In fact, one did.

Colin Powell said he was only in for one term before he was even nominated actually though I do agree with your point.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to TNA
7/22/11
ANT:

He is way to divisive. Every comment was blaming the Republicans, bringing up closed door discussions, basically shitting on them in every way. You don't work together and build relationships that way. When he had a majority in the House and Senate he treated Republicans like shit and forced legislation down their throat and now that he has to compromise and act like an adult he is failing miserably.

Ant, your last sentence is a very good point I hadn't even thought of. Thanks for bringing that up.

7/23/11

There was a great article today either on BBG or in the journal, don't remember which, but it brought up a really good point. Obama is starting to look childish. He's too forward. I haven't seen this conference everyone was talking about late in the day, but before that the general sentiment was that every time he appeared in front of the camera, he hurt his poll numbers.

My personal belief is that the Gang of Six proposal is the only real, substantive idea going forward. Serious Dems, Serious Republicans sitting together to thrash out what needs to get done. Ironically enough, it essentially mirrors the Bowles-Simpson plan from last year; sad that that kinda got discarded, pushed off to the side with a "Hey thanks, great work, but no thanks."

Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:
ivoteforthatguy:

My plan to restore america:

1. 15% flat tax.
2. pull our troops from 110 countries across the world.
3. let people under 35 opt out of social security and medicare.
4. abolish the fed and restore a constitutional, commodity-backed currency.
5. abolish the TSA, HUD, Education Department, HHS.
6. abolish affirmative action.
7. dismantle all of our torture chambers and secret prisons.
8. no foreign aid to any country.
9. seal the southern border and fund an e-verify mandate.
10. no more executive wars.

boom, america's right as rain again.

I like everything you said except I'm more for a flat/fair tax mix. Well done my friend!

Love it. Although the "no foreign aid" would destroy countries like Saudi Arabia/our other "allies" in OPEC.

As for the tax thing...

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."- Calvin Coolidge

In 2001 Russia adopted a 13% flat tax. Russia's economy has expanded by about 10 percent by 2005. That may not be spectacular, but it's better than the United States, and it's very impressive compared to the anemic growth rates we see elsewhere in Europe.

I am still the most favorable to the Fair Tax. I repeat myself on so many threads its becoming ridiculous.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/23/11

At the end of the day this has all been about politics and its disgusting and embarrassing. The world is watching and america looks petty and childish - not bravo of the world leader.

Whether the republicans like it or not we are in this position and it has nothing to do with obama. If anything bush is the one the squandered the clinton surplus and the republican polices have put us in this position. Although that too is irrelevant - because we are hear regardless of the reason.

Taxes need to go up. Spending needs to go down. Period.

Personally, if I was obama, I'd just use the 14th amendment and call it a day.

This is the worst case every of cut your nose to spit your face.

7/23/11

Why do taxes need to increase? The deficit is huge because of an ever growing government, wars and entitlement programs. End the wars, cut spending and shrink the government. Done.

I see zero reason to give the morons in Washington one more red cent.

What I do support is cutting tax credits. The government has ZERO business encouraging or discouraging home ownership, marriage, children, etc.

Cut mortgage interest deductions, cut bullshit child credits, etc. I am so sick of the government trying to influence behavior.

7/23/11

I also think our government is just as retarded as the rest of the world.

In reply to TNA
7/23/11
ANT:

The Republicans won the House because they were anti tax and smaller government. By allowing taxes to increase they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Taxes should go down, not up.

Repubs won the house because of this thing called unemployment...conjecture, but if the stimulus worked - and it could've if it were implemented correctly - and unemployment was lower highly doubt they would've won the house.

7/23/11

The problem with comments like end the war end entitlement programs etc. is that its far more complicated than that.

Its unintelligible to offer such solutions...as if they were that easy to solve. There are an unlimited amount of unintended consequences for major sweeping changes and all need to be considered.

This isn't black and white, and its easy for people to sit on the sidelines and postulate about totally improbably and unrealistic solutions.

* I would consider eliminating tax loop holes/credits/cuts to be tax increases.

7/23/11

Also, just because there is still unemployment doesn't mean the stimulus didn't work. We could be in a much worse situation without it.

7/23/11

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

In reply to restructure-this
7/23/11
restructure-this:
ANT:

The Republicans won the House because they were anti tax and smaller government. By allowing taxes to increase they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Taxes should go down, not up.

Repubs won the house because of this thing called unemployment...conjecture, but if the stimulus worked - and it could've if it were implemented correctly - and unemployment was lower highly doubt they would've won the house.

Republicans won the House for many reasons, unemployment being just one of them. Obama was a drunken mistake and the Republicans winning the House was the wake up from the night before. Hope and Change can get you elected, but they don't mean shit when it comes to actually doing anything.

7/23/11

I think the issue comes from the fact that the austerity measures need to be shared equally among the population. The government needs to cut back, the poor and middle class need to stop relying on entitlement programmes as much, and the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes. The republicans are constantly saying a big "**** you" to 95% of the country when they want to cut medicare, medicaid, and SS and then refuse to consider any kind of tax increases (or to even close loopholes). Who is this party serving? Seriously? I honestly think they have tricked their base into thinking they are somehow working in their best interest when in reality almost everything they do is counter to it.

In reply to TNA
7/23/11
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

7/23/11

+1 awm55

This isn't your fathers republican party. Its one that has been dominated by single issue voters and christian extremists...abortion and gay marriage ring a bell?

Long gone are the days of intellectualism, small government and fiscal responsibility. Instead its a lot of christian conservatives trying to impose their religious beliefs. Palin, Bachman, Huckabee...its mind blowing that they aren't just relevant but titans of their base. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney get torn apart eventually for being a Mormon.

Small government so long as it doesn't go against my religious views...because if thats the case bring on regulations and tell people how the can and can not live their lives.

The republican party is the party of hypocrites. Whether or not the democrats are ideologically right at least the stick to their principles.

In reply to ke18sb
7/23/11
ke18sb:

+1 awm55

This isn't your fathers republican party. Its one that has been dominated by single issue voters and christian extremists...abortion and gay marriage ring a bell?

Long gone are the days of intellectualism, small government and fiscal responsibility. Instead its a lot of christian conservatives trying to impose their religious beliefs. Palin, Bachman, Huckabee...its mind blowing that they aren't just relevant but titans of their base. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney get torn apart eventually for being a Mormon.

Small government so long as it doesn't go against my religious views...because if thats the case bring on regulations and tell people how the can and can not live their lives.

The republican party is the party of hypocrites. Whether or not the democrats are ideologically right at least the stick to their principles.

We need someone like Bloomberg. Moderate Republican who does not pander to their nauseating base. Would vote for him in a heart beat. The fact that Michelle Bachmann is currently second for the Republican Presidential Nomination is absolutely terrifing. The rest of the world is laughing at us.

7/23/11

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

In reply to ke18sb
7/23/11
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

In reply to awm55
7/23/11
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

In reply to awm55
7/23/11
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Can you elaborate please?

In reply to awm55
7/23/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

The base believe in small government and minimal government intervention. If they don't believe in cuts in entitlements programs, then they're hypocrites and are no different than RINO's.

In reply to awm55
7/23/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Can you elaborate please?

Obama has had several chances to cut spending. Now that it is the 11th hour he is forced to. The only reason he is trying to act in a bipartisan manner is because he has to. When the Dems had the Sen, House and Presidency he shoved everythign down the GOP's throats.

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Can you elaborate please?

Obama has had several chances to cut spending. Now that it is the 11th hour he is forced to. The only reason he is trying to act in a bipartisan manner is because he has to. When the Dems had the Sen, House and Presidency he shoved everythign down the GOP's throats.

Cuts are needed, I wouldn't deny that. Obama was asking a 75% cut 25% tax rise deal, that is more than fair. The GOP is coming off looking childish and stubborn when they categorically refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy or even to cut loopholes. That is stunning considering the number of concessions Obama has made. How do you think this makes them look?

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

The base believe in small government and minimal government intervention. If they don't believe in cuts in entitlements programs, then they're hypocrites and are no different than RINO's.

I think you might not be aware of the views many of these tea partiers have. They are the ones protesting against the government healthcare option while at the same time wanting the government to keep their hands off their Medicare. They are the ones protesting the fact that Obama is a Socialist who wants to redistribute wealth when tax rates are in reality at historic lows. They honestly come across as hypocritical and undereducated, whether they are is up for debate.

In reply to TNA
7/23/11
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

7/23/11

The liberal insanity on this thread is hilarious. If I wasn't typing this on a BB I'd take you to task on this idocy.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

In reply to rothyman
7/23/11
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

In reply to awm55
7/23/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

The base believe in small government and minimal government intervention. If they don't believe in cuts in entitlements programs, then they're hypocrites and are no different than RINO's.

I think you might not be aware of the views many of these tea partiers have. They are the ones protesting against the government healthcare option while at the same time wanting the government to keep their hands off their Medicare. They are the ones protesting the fact that Obama is a Socialist who wants to redistribute wealth when tax rates are in reality at historic lows. They honestly come across as hypocritical and undereducated, whether they are is up for debate.

I really think you are describing the outliers. I can't say for fact, I am not affiliated with the Tea Party. I do know their core beliefs though as I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter.

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

7/23/11

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

7/23/11

Half this country pay nothing. I think the issue is we have 150MM free riders.

The poor in Camden are kings in Somalia. Our poor are pretty well off.

7/23/11

what are the arguments against raising taxes when the United States is 15 trillion in debt?

In reply to txjustin
7/23/11
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

Wow my man, you obviously haven't ventured out to any areas of the country that are slums and have been slums. These people are born into this, it's not totally in their control to shape their destiny. Just because you grew up in a middle-class (or even lower middle class family) and made your own life doesn't make you the end all be all on people in poverty. Congrats bro, A LOT of us grew up in families who weren't well to do and made it.

You really show your ignorance when you say 'fuckem letem die' and honestly tells me you probably haven't seen a lot of the shit that I have seen being around the country/the world. Once you start leaving your own people out on the street, there is no turning back. It's what separates our country from the others. Believe it or not I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate conservative, but when it comes to leaving people out on the street over a cloud of shit-fulled politics, that is unforgivable.

It's like taking Oxycontin away from a opiate addict; the government has been giving these entitlements for so long that people rely on them. Shit, yes it is bad. We need to end the entitlements, I am all for that. But it needs to be done gradually. These politicians throw around the idea of defaulting on our debts like they're trading baseball cards.

In reply to blastoise
7/23/11
blastoise:

what are the arguments against raising taxes when the United States is 15 trillion in debt?

My reasoning is pretty simple:

Whatever we give the government is going to be completely shitted down the drain. Does anyone who advocates more taxes actually believe that ANY of this money will be used to pay down the debt and not just thrown at more pet projects to get these guys reelected? Or maybe another Nancy Pelosi $150K open bar happy hour on her taxpayer owned private jet?

7/23/11

People are born into poverty all over the world. People are born poor and come to the US and do very well. US poor have free education K-12, plenty of assistance programs, charities, etc. Not saying it is easy, but it is entirely possible.

The real thing that screws poor kids is bad parenting and that is something that cannot be controlled.

Tax increases cannot solve this problem. Only half the country shoulder the burden. We spend too damn much. What we need to do is cut tax credits. Why should people be rewarded for having kids? Why should people deduct mortgage interest?

Government needs to get out of the business of trying to reward social behavior.

7/24/11

there's a basic level of decency that we should guarantee one another. I agree that the welfare system is as we have it is poorly developed, but that doesn't mean that the alternative is no support at all for people who need it.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
7/24/11
Nobama88:
blastoise:

what are the arguments against raising taxes when the United States is 15 trillion in debt?

My reasoning is pretty simple:

Whatever we give the government is going to be completely shitted down the drain. Does anyone who advocates more taxes actually believe that ANY of this money will be used to pay down the debt and not just thrown at more pet projects to get these guys reelected? Or maybe another Nancy Pelosi $150K open bar happy hour on her taxpayer owned private jet?

This is what I am talking about, the utter lies that you guys are spoon fed. I know the Dems are guilty of it as well but I swear the republican party has absolutely no shame. The shit you guys come up with is like reading a bad tabloid.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

If you go on Politifact and skim through it without fail most of the completely batshit crazy made up slander is said by Republican's.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

People are born into poverty all over the world. People are born poor and come to the US and do very well. US poor have free education K-12, plenty of assistance programs, charities, etc. Not saying it is easy, but it is entirely possible.

The real thing that screws poor kids is bad parenting and that is something that cannot be controlled.

Tax increases cannot solve this problem. Only half the country shoulder the burden. We spend too damn much. What we need to do is cut tax credits. Why should people be rewarded for having kids? Why should people deduct mortgage interest?

Government needs to get out of the business of trying to reward social behavior.

What are you talking about?

We are discussing SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programmes need to be revamped gradually, not restructured with a shotgun budget bill for political purposes. Its not like we are talking about giving some sponger family cash to buy a new tv, its support so the poor and elderly can get acces to healthcare and live comfortably in their older years.

You guys are really showing your true colors and its not pretty.

In reply to txjustin
7/24/11
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

7/24/11

Actually awm, I think we need a "shotgun blast" bill that changes Medicare/Medicaid/SS over ten years, just like Obama was going to implement universal health care over ten years.

Rothyman, just because people rely on entitlements is terrible reasoning for why we should give them to them. You're telling me that I should keep paying for people's welfare checks because they've grown happy collecting them. And I know plenty of people that are and it's bullshit. Another "shotgun blast" bill winding down entitlement spending is needed.

Defense spending cuts need to be made as well, of course.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

7/24/11

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

7/24/11

Parenting is the issue. Dirt poor people come from aroun the world and succeed. You know why schools in bad areas suck? Because the kids are violent, disruptive and unruly. No one wants to teach in the hood because it is a living hell. If parents taught these kids to respect teachers and that an education was the way out the schools would be a lot better.

Government cannot stop bad parenting. There will always be poor, there will always be bad areas, that is life.

The government is not intended to be a parent. It needs to shrink and spend less. If you feel so compelled to help the poor go donate your time and money. It will be more effective than a government program.

Besides, we are talking about the federal budget. Schools are largely a state issue and money isn't solving the problem anyway. If you want to fix schools you bring back year long schooling, school uniforms and you have a zero tolerance for disruptions and violence. Schools in bad areas need to be run like bootcamps and teachers need to have authority to teach discipline, something the parents completely fail to do so.

Friggin animals instinctually know how to raise their children, but humans so utterly fail all the time. What a joke.

I'll donate to a program that buys free condoms and birth control so morons who can't raise a kid don't have them.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

Parenting is the issue. Dirt poor people come from aroun the world and succeed. You know why schools in bad areas suck? Because the kids are violent, disruptive and unruly. No one wants to teach in the hood because it is a living hell. If parents taught these kids to respect teachers and that an education was the way out the schools would be a lot better.

Government cannot stop bad parenting. There will always be poor, there will always be bad areas, that is life.

The government is not intended to be a parent. It needs to shrink and spend less. If you feel so compelled to help the poor go donate your time and money. It will be more effective than a government program.

Besides, we are talking about the federal budget. Schools are largely a state issue and money isn't solving the problem anyway. If you want to fix schools you bring back year long schooling, school uniforms and you have a zero tolerance for disruptions and violence. Schools in bad areas need to be run like bootcamps and teachers need to have authority to teach discipline, something the parents completely fail to do so.

Friggin animals instinctually know how to raise their children, but humans so utterly fail all the time. What a joke.

I'll donate to a program that buys free condoms and birth control so morons who can't raise a kid don't have them.

To add on to your last sentence: we fucking reward people for having kids! Unbelievable!! I'll definitely donate!

In reply to ke18sb
7/24/11
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

How are they set up to fail? Hell, here in Texas you can't even fail your kids anymore. What a joke. No accountability anymore. NO pride. Liberals think everyone should and will succeed. Guess what, that's not realistic. Give them the opportunity, which is being done, then let their parents do the rest. It sounds to me like you want the .gov to be mommy and daddy. If that's what you want, move to Europe.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

In reply to rothyman
7/24/11
rothyman:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

Wow my man, you obviously haven't ventured out to any areas of the country that are slums and have been slums. These people are born into this, it's not totally in their control to shape their destiny. Just because you grew up in a middle-class (or even lower middle class family) and made your own life doesn't make you the end all be all on people in poverty. Congrats bro, A LOT of us grew up in families who weren't well to do and made it.

You really show your ignorance when you say 'fuckem letem die' and honestly tells me you probably haven't seen a lot of the shit that I have seen being around the country/the world. Once you start leaving your own people out on the street, there is no turning back. It's what separates our country from the others. Believe it or not I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate conservative, but when it comes to leaving people out on the street over a cloud of shit-fulled politics, that is unforgivable.

It's like taking Oxycontin away from a opiate addict; the government has been giving these entitlements for so long that people rely on them. Shit, yes it is bad. We need to end the entitlements, I am all for that. But it needs to be done gradually. These politicians throw around the idea of defaulting on our debts like they're trading baseball cards.

I agree with you on the fact that it needs to be done gradually. But it needs to be implemented now!

Obviously you have never been to Houston if you say I've never seen poverty. Also, I grew up in a town where I was a minority. Another thing, there are so many programs out there for the poor to succeed, no excuses. It's up to the parents.

And I wasn't being serious about let'em die, but they need to know this welfare shit is about to go through major changes and cuts so get out there and get a job and start paying for your shit.

The WSO Advantage - Hedge Funds

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Hedge Fund Interview Questions

10+ webinars & actual pitches.

Resume Help from HF Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your HF Mentor

Realistic HF Mock Interviews.

7/24/11

While I agree that parenting is a huge issue, you guys are over simplifying a much larger societal issue that its worth getting into. Its not black and white nor easy nor cheap to fix.

In reply to ke18sb
7/24/11
ke18sb:

While I agree that parenting is a huge issue, you guys are over simplifying a much larger societal issue that its worth getting into. Its not black and white nor easy nor cheap to fix.

I agree somewhat. Problem is, we have not been trying to fix it. It needs to be addressed now. We can't continue to subsidize the lives of the poor permanently.

In reply to txjustin
7/24/11
txjustin:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

How are they set up to fail? Hell, here in Texas you can't even fail your kids anymore. What a joke. No accountability anymore. NO pride. Liberals think everyone should and will succeed. Guess what, that's not realistic. Give them the opportunity, which is being done, then let their parents do the rest. It sounds to me like you want the .gov to be mommy and daddy. If that's what you want, move to Europe.

Well in Texas they change textbooks and science classes to teach creationism and intelligent design.

7/24/11

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

In reply to txjustin
7/24/11
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

7/24/11

Yah because knowing about evolution is absolutely essential when it comes to having work force skills. Religious people can't hold jobs because evolution makes them unemployable.

I love how we are discussing fiscal issues and anti religion spills out. Once again, everyone is ready to throw more money at something that time and time again has proven that money is not the solution. Maybe if all the tax and spend liberals volunteered 10 hours a week something real could get done. Naaaaa.

7/24/11

You are the very reason my kids will go to private schools. Indoctrination of liberal propaganda has no place in schools. You are too stuck on liberal/conservative to see the point I was making.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

Yah because knowing about evolution is absolutely essential when it comes to having work force skills. Religious people can't hold jobs because evolution makes them unemployable.

I love how we are discussing fiscal issues and anti religion spills out. Once again, everyone is ready to throw more money at something that time and time again has proven that money is not the solution. Maybe if all the tax and spend liberals volunteered 10 hours a week something real could get done. Naaaaa.

Or if those same liberals would lead by example and donate instead of tax...naaaaaa. Theft is always the best option.

In reply to txjustin
7/24/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11

Haha, great points Bravo! I hadn't thought of those and they are very true! Those streets would be filled with people sitting at small tables playing domino's and drinking 40s.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

In reply to cphbravo96
7/24/11
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
7/24/11
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

7/24/11

I've been to Camden and all over Philly. I see kids out at all times at night, talking shit and flash mobbing. These kids are not starving and wearing rags. The violence in Philly schools is horrible. Please tell me how it is not a parenting issue? If I was disruptive in school my parents would have fucked me up. I guess that is why I turned out fine.

Good parenting is the key. Money does not make up for basic manners and knowing right from wrong. Ghetto schools suck because no one wants to teach dangerous kids. How can kids who want to learn gain anything from school when they are surrounded by violent and disruptive kids.

I've volunteered in bad schools extensively and it is flat out a bad parenting issue.

Oh, I also worked with a Camden charity that taught real world skills to inner city adults. It was a religious group also. Too bad stupid religious people can never hold a job. I'm still looking for an athiest charity.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
7/24/11
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

I've been to Camden and all over Philly. I see kids out at all times at night, talking shit and flash mobbing. These kids are not starving and wearing rags. The violence in Philly schools is horrible. Please tell me how it is not a parenting issue? If I was disruptive in school my parents would have fucked me up. I guess that is why I turned out fine.

Good parenting is the key. Money does not make up for basic manners and knowing right from wrong. Ghetto schools suck because no one wants to teach dangerous kids. How can kids who want to learn gain anything from school when they are surrounded by violent and disruptive kids.

I've volunteered in bad schools extensively and it is flat out a bad parenting issue.

Oh, I also worked with a Camden charity that taught real world skills to inner city adults. It was a religious group also. Too bad stupid religious people can never hold a job. I'm still looking for an athiest charity.

I worked at a church in Camden New Jersey, nice try.

In reply to happypantsmcgee
7/24/11
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

7/24/11

PS Alexander the Great was not American obviously. He was just the first example that came to my head of someone I learned about early in grade school who may or may not have been gay. Point being, I dont understand the difference between hetero and gay history and how you could teach it to young kids as such. I never learned about someones contributions in school and was told "this guy is a heterosexual".

7/24/11

Any one who held a weekend long position are you shitting in your pants atm? Going to be interesting to see where Asia opens!

7/24/11

Wow, you volunteered at a church in Camden. That disqualifies my experience because there is only one charity in the whole city.

I wish the government would just take 100% of our wages so we could finally live in Eutopia.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. We all hear the bitching and moaning all the time that [insert group] are people too and should be treated as equals so why not do that? Just teach history and if someone happens to like weiners in their various holes then talk about it if it comes up. This is the same reason a lot of educated African Americans hate Black History month.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to txjustin
7/24/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Obama and all politicians...lets be fair here. Politics doesn't do shit, its just a large circle jerk.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

7/24/11

We are falling behind in basic education, but gay history is where we are focusing on. Makes sense. Who needs math as long as you can identify prominent gays throughout history.

Talk about a group of people pushing a political agenda. Thanks, but I'll teach morality and right and wrong in my own house. I don't need the nanny state teaching ethics and beliefs.

In reply to bfin
7/24/11
blackfinancier:
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Obama and all politicians...lets be fair here. Politics doesn't do shit, its just a large circle jerk.

agreed

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

We are falling behind in basic education, but gay history is where we are focusing on. Makes sense. Who needs math as long as you can identify prominent gays throughout history.

Talk about a group of people pushing a political agenda. Thanks, but I'll teach morality and right and wrong in my own house. I don't need the nanny state teaching ethics and beliefs.

what ya thinking about nation wide in high school students must take at least 8 semesters of math, 2 of chemistry, 2 of bio, 1 typing class, 1 econ, 4 English, rest are electives free of choosing(yes even gym)

at my high school would be like this

so out of 40 credits there would be a minimum
8 in math
2 in chem
2 in bio
1 in typing
1 in econ
4 in English

leaving 40 - 18 - 22 classes they can freely chose from for minimum diploma

let's be honest do hsers really need to learn about arcane words no one uses any more that are forgotten by end of year?

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods.

No, I've never been to either...thankfully. I'm sick of hearing about disadvantaged blah blah blah. My father came from a very disadvantaged background, where he literally ate potatoes, and only potatoes, for dinner so often that it actually took several decades before he would voluntarily eat them again. He's doing pretty well now despite going to a rural school where several grades were taught in a single classroom for many years. It's utterly amazing he was able to do well for himself when you consider he grew up without a TV, microwave, air conditioning, a car and that he went to a school that didn't have top notch teachers or new books or new facilities, etc, etc, etc.

With that said, I've been to ghettos and projects and in some cases they do look similar to that, but why is that? Is it because the government built the projects like that, or is it because the occupants don't maintain any sense of ownership and/or pride in their residences because they are handed to them...for free?

Also note I never said places similar to the one shown in the picture don't exist. I merely said you are being intellectually dishonest by posting that picture and saying people live there...when it's pretty clear they don't.

awm55:

Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

This part of your response must have inadvertently migrated to my post because I wasn't the one who referenced poverty abroad...

rothyman:

You really show your ignorance when you say 'fuckem letem die' and honestly tells me you probably haven't seen a lot of the shit that I have seen being around the country/the world.

...so please, don't lecture me.

Regards

edit: Oh, and feel free to ask ANT about the picture I recently sent him that was taken by a buddy of mine that works as a law enforcement officer in the projects...it's fucking absurd.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11

Don't even know where I came in on that response I was talking to txjustin.. and yes I still stand by my statement. Anyone who is going to say 'fuckem letem die' doesn't really deserve to be in the conversation in the first place. He responded anyways saying that he didn't really mean it, so it's a null issue.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

We are falling behind in basic education, but gay history is where we are focusing on. Makes sense. Who needs math as long as you can identify prominent gays throughout history.

Talk about a group of people pushing a political agenda. Thanks, but I'll teach morality and right and wrong in my own house. I don't need the nanny state teaching ethics and beliefs.

I think its more the fact that some states are mandating intelligent design which would negatively effect the US's education system, not the fact that some curriculums make a point of stating that certain famous historical figures happen to be gay.

In reply to txjustin
7/24/11
txjustin:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

i think that is the point...

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

i think that is the point...

quoted for length!

In reply to blastoise
7/24/11
blastoise:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

i think that is the point...

quoted for length!

I'm pretty sure girth is far more important.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11

Man, I used to get so worked up over this shit on here. Just not worth it. But, let's be clear about something. The position held by the House Republicans is supported by ~5 - 10% of Americans. Basically, the House Republicans are holding the economic health of the country hostage to do the bidding of 8% of the country. Polls show that the majority of Americans want a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. And the plans being put forth are mainly talking about tax increases in the form of closing tax loopholes and cleaning up the tax code.

In reply to rothyman
7/24/11
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking LIE!!!!!! Dude I spent the day in Camden today! Went to a baseball game at a really nice minor league stadium and everything. You have obviously never been to the 3rd world, never mind a war torn country. I've lived in places where the doormen to apartment buildings had pump action riot shotguns. I don't think the doormen in Camden carry those...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to 09grad
7/24/11
09grad:

there's a basic level of decency that we should guarantee one another. I agree that the welfare system is as we have it is poorly developed, but that doesn't mean that the alternative is no support at all for people who need it.

Agree, but support should be ultra minimal and provided in as capitalist a way as possible. We are very, very far from that. Arguments that if we don't raise the debt ceiling that "people will starve" are ridiculous. More likely than not, Moesha won't be getting the latest iPhone. I can live with that...

My point is, the poor in America live so well, and have so many things that would be considered luxuries anywhere else, that to suggest that we bankrupt the country so that they can keep these living standards is ridiculous.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Showing abandoned property in a city that has decreased in size because of governmental mismanagement is not really what you should be striving for here buddy...

Your example is just stupid, it doesn't say anything. I could just as easily post a picture of a decayed Detroit neighborhood and say, "see, this is what Democrats do to your economy!" Would that make logical sense to you? Your post/argument is equally ridiculous.

Looking at just about any objective measure, America's poor live very, very well. In fact, if their quality of life is poor, it is their own doing (drugs, violence, and other social things that government will never be able to control).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to ke18sb
7/24/11
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking LIE!!!!!! Dude I spent the day in Camden today! Went to a baseball game at a really nice minor league stadium and everything. You have obviously never been to the 3rd world, never mind a war torn country. I've lived in places where the doormen to apartment buildings had pump action riot shotguns. I don't think the doormen in Camden carry those...

are you joking? you obviously did not go into the residential neighborhoods, its a complete hole. its the most dangerous city in north america.

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

7/24/11
In reply to TheKing
7/24/11
TheKing:

Man, I used to get so worked up over this shit on here. Just not worth it. But, let's be clear about something. The position held by the House Republicans is supported by ~5 - 10% of Americans. Basically, the House Republicans are holding the economic health of the country hostage to do the bidding of 8% of the country. Polls show that the majority of Americans want a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. And the plans being put forth are mainly talking about tax increases in the form of closing tax loopholes and cleaning up the tax code.

First off, if you look at polls, you can see that the response to of "No" to the question of "Would you raise the debt ceiling and allow the government to borrow more?" was substantially higher than 5 to 10%. And, even if it were that low, did it ever occur to you how retarded 90+% of the American population is? What if the 10% who support something happen to be the smartest individuals on the topic? Thank god we have a Republic and not Referendum Democracy (look how well that's worked for California, LOL).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking LIE!!!!!! Dude I spent the day in Camden today! Went to a baseball game at a really nice minor league stadium and everything. You have obviously never been to the 3rd world, never mind a war torn country. I've lived in places where the doormen to apartment buildings had pump action riot shotguns. I don't think the doormen in Camden carry those...

are you joking? you obviously did not go into the residential neighborhoods, its a complete hole. its the most dangerous city in north america.

Yeah ummm...I'm not going to go looking for trouble. Camden's not as bad as you imply, although there are some bad parts, no denying that. Nevertheless, what's your point? So some really shitty/useless people live in a shithole and do nothing to make their lives better. Am I supposed to give them money? Will my money make their lives better? Please explain to me how it will. My guess is they'll take my money and buy another handgun, or get some more gold in their teeth, or buy another bullshit item. They're obviously not starving. I've seen what TRUE poverty is, and Camden isn't it. I've seen places that made Camden look like the Ritz.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

7/24/11

God bless. If you read this damn thread start to finish you'd want to run out into the street stark naked and pray a bus hits you to end the misery...

Americans need to suck shit up. That means EVERYONE not just the *rich*.

To the point of the original post: Politics is killing this country, our jobs, and our economy. If Obama thinks that passing a debt ceiling increase to maintain the status quo and then espousing cuts that don't even take effect until after his first term just so he can get re-elected... FUCK THAT!!!

This is serious shit. Fucking be a man. Anyone who calls his terms and conditions on any budget proposal "centrist" doesn't have a fucking clue.

Dems haven't put one bill together. Obama said anything that doesn't get him through till after the 2012 election he'll veto. Repubs asked that the cuts be now not in the future. Doesn't seem all that ridiculous.

The cuts need to start now. End all duplicate spending. Cut congresses salary and benefits. End subsidies. Deregulate everything and end the federal departments that regulate them.

I'm going to post on the new CFPB in the next few days by drawing analogies between it and other "well intended" programs that end up as drains on the American tax payer and a burden to business/the economy, as part of a research report.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

I'm going to clusterfuck your liberal mind so hardcore that tiger blood will be leaking out of your ears...so brace yourself...

The US is NOT the wealthiest country on Earth, nowhere close, especially on a per capita basis. If we don't cut our spending and instead honor our current entitlement liabilities, as well as state, local, and personal liabilities, we're bankrupt. The only way to restore any semblance of financial health is to reduce our entitlement liabilities. So yes, not only is the comparison appropriate, but enlightening. We are not wealthy, and our poor are already well off, so why spend more?

When Donald Trump was in the midst of his bankruptcy proceedings, he walked by a homeless guy with his daughter. He told her, "that guy asking me for money is wealthier than me". She looked at him incredulous and he said, "because if you take into account my liabilities, my net worth is negative, his is zero". America is like Donald Trump back then, it CAN be exorbitantly wealthy and certainly appears so, but it needs to get from A to B and do the right things. Right now though, that remains to be seen and arguments that "oh we are so wealthy so let's give more to the poor" are plain wrong. It's that type of thinking that will bankrupt us as a nation. It's as if Donald Trump said back then, "oh my assets are $2B, so let me give $1B to the poor" without paying attention to the fact that his liabilities are already $3B.

And btw, there's tons of evidence out there that suggests that the worst thing you can do to a poor person, is entitlements. When you remove someone's need for personal responsibility, it's not surprising that they lose their personal responsibility. The sons and daughters of welfare families that have gone on to succeed usually say that welfare was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

And? Please explain to me why this is wrong? If teachers' skills are better used elsewhere, then surely they can quit their job and do something else that will pay them more. I'm sure that if we offered to pay teachers $1K a year, that they would all quit. The fact that teachers are not quitting en masse suggests to me that they are content with their compensation/profession.

Your point has no basis in logic, it's an oft-cited, retarded platitude. You want to run the economy on that? Go right ahead. Hell, let's pay all the teachers MD salary. Let's see how that one works out.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

I'm going to clusterfuck your liberal mind so hardcore that tiger blood will be leaking out of your ears...so brace yourself...

The US is NOT the wealthiest country on Earth, nowhere close, especially on a per capita basis. If we don't cut our spending and instead honor our current entitlement liabilities, as well as state, local, and personal liabilities, we're bankrupt. The only way to restore any semblance of financial health is to reduce our entitlement liabilities. So yes, not only is the comparison appropriate, but enlightening. We are not wealthy, and our poor are already well off, so why spend more?

When Donald Trump was in the midst of his bankruptcy proceedings, he walked by a homeless guy with his daughter. He told her, "that guy asking me for money is wealthier than me". She looked at him incredulous and he said, "because if you take into account my liabilities, my net worth is negative, his is zero". America is like Donald Trump back then, it CAN be exorbitantly wealthy and certainly appears so, but it needs to get from A to B and do the right things. Right now though, that remains to be seen and arguments that "oh we are so wealthy so let's give more to the poor" are plain wrong. It's that type of thinking that will bankrupt us as a nation. It's as if Donald Trump said back then, "oh my assets are $2B, so let me give $1B to the poor" without paying attention to the fact that his liabilities are already $3B.

And btw, there's tons of evidence out there that suggests that the worst thing you can do to a poor person, is entitlements. When you remove someone's need for personal responsibility, it's not surprising that they lose their personal responsibility. The sons and daughters of welfare families that have gone on to succeed usually say that welfare was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Dude, I am for entitlement reform. Its just that I think everyone needs to contribute to the reform in one way or another. The poor and middle class via cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and the rich via a small rise in taxes. This is not mind blowing or socialist, its FAIR.

And for all intents and purposes the US is the wealthiest country in the world, small European/Middle Eastern countries with the population less than that of one US city aside.

In reply to rothyman
7/24/11
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11

30% of my income goes to taxes. I think 1/3 is plenty. I honestly cannot believe people think paying a third of your income to the government is not enough.

People fail to realize that the government might raise taxes, but that doesn't mean the extra income will go to paying down the debt. It will get siphoned off to another pork barrel program or entitlement. In 10 years they will be back with their hand out asking for more. I am sorry, but asking a man to pay 1/3rd of their money is far enough. Maybe if we made everyone pay into the system instead of only 50% of this country things would get better.

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

And? Please explain to me why this is wrong? If teachers' skills are better used elsewhere, then surely they can quit their job and do something else that will pay them more. I'm sure that if we offered to pay teachers $1K a year, that they would all quit. The fact that teachers are not quitting en masse suggests to me that they are content with their compensation/profession.

Your point has no basis in logic, it's an oft-cited, retarded platitude. You want to run the economy on that? Go right ahead. Hell, let's pay all the teachers MD salary. Let's see how that one works out.

The vast majority of revenue needed to fund education is for pensions I believe, it has far less to do with salaries. You cannot cut the pensions of teachers that have been contractually bound, which is what Christie in NJ was trying to do. You can cut pensions for new incoming teachers, but not for teachers who have been working for an entire career.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

I'm going to clusterfuck your liberal mind so hardcore that tiger blood will be leaking out of your ears...so brace yourself...

The US is NOT the wealthiest country on Earth, nowhere close, especially on a per capita basis. If we don't cut our spending and instead honor our current entitlement liabilities, as well as state, local, and personal liabilities, we're bankrupt. The only way to restore any semblance of financial health is to reduce our entitlement liabilities. So yes, not only is the comparison appropriate, but enlightening. We are not wealthy, and our poor are already well off, so why spend more?

When Donald Trump was in the midst of his bankruptcy proceedings, he walked by a homeless guy with his daughter. He told her, "that guy asking me for money is wealthier than me". She looked at him incredulous and he said, "because if you take into account my liabilities, my net worth is negative, his is zero". America is like Donald Trump back then, it CAN be exorbitantly wealthy and certainly appears so, but it needs to get from A to B and do the right things. Right now though, that remains to be seen and arguments that "oh we are so wealthy so let's give more to the poor" are plain wrong. It's that type of thinking that will bankrupt us as a nation. It's as if Donald Trump said back then, "oh my assets are $2B, so let me give $1B to the poor" without paying attention to the fact that his liabilities are already $3B.

And btw, there's tons of evidence out there that suggests that the worst thing you can do to a poor person, is entitlements. When you remove someone's need for personal responsibility, it's not surprising that they lose their personal responsibility. The sons and daughters of welfare families that have gone on to succeed usually say that welfare was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Dude, I am for entitlement reform. Its just that I think everyone needs to contribute to the reform in one way or another. The poor and middle class via cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and the rich via a small rise in taxes. This is not mind blowing or socialist, its FAIR.

And for all intents and purposes the US is the wealthiest country in the world, small European/Middle Eastern countries with the population less than that of one US city aside.

By and large, the Republicans have been willing to raise tax revenues by making the tax code more efficient. That would hit the rich more than anyone else. I don't see why you think the rich are not contributing...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

7/24/11

Any increase in taxes will fail unless it is written in the bill that money from the increase will only be spent on debt reduction or whatever.

The general fund is the Bermuda triangle of tax dollars.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

Any increase in taxes will fail unless it is written in the bill that money from the increase will only be spent on debt reduction or whatever.

The general fund is the Bermuda triangle of tax dollars.

i agree

7/24/11

How are the Republicans looking horrible to anyone but Democrats?

You know who hates the Republicans and think that they are retarded? Democrats. Republican voters are loving this. Why would they try and make people who will never vote for them like them?

I think the Democrats look like fools. The economy sucks and you want to increase taxes on an ever decreasing tax base?

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

And? Please explain to me why this is wrong? If teachers' skills are better used elsewhere, then surely they can quit their job and do something else that will pay them more. I'm sure that if we offered to pay teachers $1K a year, that they would all quit. The fact that teachers are not quitting en masse suggests to me that they are content with their compensation/profession.

Your point has no basis in logic, it's an oft-cited, retarded platitude. You want to run the economy on that? Go right ahead. Hell, let's pay all the teachers MD salary. Let's see how that one works out.

The vast majority of revenue needed to fund education is for pensions I believe, it has far less to do with salaries. You cannot cut the pensions of teachers that have been contractually bound, which is what Christie in NJ was trying to do. You can cut pensions for new incoming teachers, but not for teachers who have been working for an entire career.

When Enron went bankrupt, people lost their pensions. When/if NJ goes bankrupt, these teachers will lose their pension. Now, do you think they should lose it all at once, suddenly, or maybe make concessions now that will allow for a smoother transition and allow the state to stay solvent? They're actually far worse off in the former scenario, because let's face it, teachers are not smart and act like the pension is going to be there forever. And the teachers never deserved those ridiculous pensions in the first place. Total malfeasance on the part of government.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11

Well then we agree. I would happily support an increase in taxes if it ONLY went to pay down debt and once things we well within hand, the tax cuts would end.

Unfortunately that is not what is being proposed and you know as well as I do that the government is less than honest, both parties included.

It is like a crack head with a mortgage. You know they need the money to pay for their house, but the second they get your check it is right into the pipe.

In reply to TNA
7/24/11
ANT:

How are the Republicans looking horrible to anyone but Democrats?

You know who hates the Republicans and think that they are retarded? Democrats. Republican voters are loving this. Why would they try and make people who will never vote for them like them?

I think the Democrats look like fools. The economy sucks and you want to increase taxes on an ever decreasing tax base?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

7/24/11

30% man. One third. Only 50% pay anything.

If you want to raise taxes by eliminating tax credits I will support you, but increasing income taxes is dead on arrival.

I also looked at that poll. The PDF with the raw data wouldn't open for me, but I don't think 810 Americans is enough of a sample size. Also, they ran with the negative headline on the Republicans for a reason. 58% think the Dems are sucking and 50% think Obama sucks. This isn't completely the Republicans fault, unlike what the headline tries to convey.

In reply to awm55
7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11

I don't think anyone is saying Camden is nice. Let's face it, the ghettos in America are horrendous. But the welfare system is making the problem worse, not better. I used to work during the school year at a company in downtown Durham. Didn't pay "work-study" but they paid me under the table so all was well. But the people I met there told me how they gamed the system to get Medicaid, SSI, SSDI, etc. by getting paid mostly in cash and underreporting income. They would have children that they couldn't support, and rather than set them up for adoption/abortion, they kept them because they would get more money from the state. The money that they earned didn't go tho Jr.s education, their house, moving to a nicer neighborhood or anything. It went to liquor, drugs, TVs, game systems, hair and clothes. Rather than treat the welfare money as income, it was disposable. The fact is that the system as it s now, is too big, too wasteful, and to easy to be gamed/tricked. And when the people get the money they don't spend it wisely.

The school thing could easily be fixed by vouchers. Simple as that. But the teacher's unions don't want layoffs, competition, or the children to succeed at all. They want job security, a pension, and money. I believe most teachers deserve LESS than thy make now. Hell, most people would kill for a job they can't get fired from, gets 3+ months of vacation, and has a massive, guaranteed pension. The "kids not showing up" thing is bullshit. All kids have to go to school under the age of 16 (or so). That's what truant officers and fines are for. Parenting is a huge problem as they don't care if their child drops out, has a child, or bangs everyday. The single working mothers try hard, but it is not possible to work multiple jobs and have a great family life at the same time. While this is sad, it is not fixed by throwing money at the women. As I said, they spend it horrendously. It is a community based problem and culture based. I don't need to go out and spend 2 weeks pay on 22" rims, why do they while their kids eat the free lunch?

You BS survey about how the Republicans suck is terrible. I dont put too much credence into the Washington Examiner poll that was double the sample size of the one you're talking about and guess what? Had a far different result. I think the shit thrown at Obama is far more telling since Congress generally has a low approval rating. Hey, compared to the approval rating of the last Congress (what like 2%?) 29% is mad good.

No one wants our taxes raised except students (since they don't pay), liberals (generally ones who make a lot of $$$ through capital gains), and the people too wealthy to care. Most of America wants spending to be cut. DoD, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc. Hell, I've seen people come to me when I was a cashier at Harris Teeter and put down their new Escalade keys and give me an EBT card. BULLSHIT. F.A. Hayek believed in a safety net, but not a fucking Tempurpedic mattress.

If you want to raise my taxes (although I have like no income) for the good of the poor...why don't you fucking liberals go and donate to charity. I donate to my church, even when I was little. But the liberals can't donate to anything religious or religious sounding? Therefore they'd rather the government just take it and waste 1/2. I call that just being FUCKING LAZY.

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

In reply to alexpasch
7/24/11
alechpasch:
awm:

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Aww but that's a CONSERVATIVE page, how could anything they say be true? But CNN, ABC, Media Matters are all factual...even if they poll 100 people who live on Haight and Ashbury.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to alexpasch
7/25/11
alexpasch:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Did you even look a that? During Obama's presidency tax revenue was reduced by approx 400 billion per year, and spending has increased by approx 550 billion from the Bush years. This makes the dems compromise more than fair. From 2013 the projections are that revenue and expenditure will grow at a similair rate.

How on earth did you get from that data that this is totally an expenditure problem?

In reply to MMBinNC
7/25/11
MMBinNC:

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? And may I suggest, if you do not understand evolution, that you read up on it? You are obviously very ignorant when it comes to this topic. If you have a degree in biology with an emphasis on evolutionary biology and wish to provide intelligent refutations, instead of some moronic platitudes, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, please STFU.

Whether it be evolution, global warming, economics, or whatever, it amazes me how often people disregard logic/reason and form strong opinions when they know absolutely nothing on the topic at hand. People just believe whatever they want to believe. I don't fucking voice an opinion on topics on which I'm ill informed. If I voice a strong opinion on something, it's because I've done my fucking homework and know the facts. Does this mean I'm always right? Of course not, but goddamnit, I've at least done my best to be well informed. Why are people telling me what the tax/spending ratio should be when they have never seen the numbers? Why are people who don't understand evolution preaching to me about how ID merits anywhere near the same level of respect? Why are some of you so fucking stupid? I don't care if you disagree with me on any topic, no matter how inane, but for fuck's sake, give me facts and reason, not emotionally charged hearsay.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

In reply to happypantsmcgee
7/25/11
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

In reply to alexpasch
7/25/11
alexpasch:
MMBinNC:

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? And may I suggest, if you do not understand evolution, that you read up on it? You are obviously very ignorant when it comes to this topic. If you have a degree in biology with an emphasis on evolutionary biology and wish to provide intelligent refutations, instead of some moronic platitudes, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, please STFU.

Whether it be evolution, global warming, economics, or whatever, it amazes me how often people disregard logic/reason and form strong opinions when they know absolutely nothing on the topic at hand. People just believe whatever they want to believe. I don't fucking voice an opinion on topics on which I'm ill informed. If I voice a strong opinion on something, it's because I've done my fucking homework and know the facts. Does this mean I'm always right? Of course not, but goddamnit, I've at least done my best to be well informed. Why are people telling me what the tax/spending ratio should be when they have never seen the numbers? Why are people who don't understand evolution preaching to me about how ID merits anywhere near the same level of respect? Why are some of you so fucking stupid? I don't care if you disagree with me on any topic, no matter how inane, but for fuck's sake, give me facts and reason, not emotionally charged hearsay.

I didn't say that I didn't understand or believe in evolution. While I am not a bio major I have taken classes in genetics and evolution. (For what reason, I don't know lol- certainly not my degree) I honestly hadn't read the third page of comments when I wrote this and one of the last ones on that page was awm saying how we are making America's kids stupider by mentioning ID. I don't see how anyone can believe that everything in the universe arose from nothing and became as it is from randomness. Even so the mention of ID by a teacher doesn't lend anywhere near as much weight as evolution. Hell courses in college, semesters in college are spent on evolution and genetics. I am pretty much in the boat that if you believe in God you believe in some kind of ID. If you can't accept that I really don't care.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11

Also if you feel like it...
http://www.drtimdallas.com/files/Arguments_for_ID.pdf

I realize that he is not a biologist, but still raises some well formed arguments

Reality hits you hard, bro...

In reply to awm55
7/25/11
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

I think that it is because of who is in office. I like many constituents, see this as the best bargaining chip for the Republicans with Obama in office. The Democrats see it as the difference between a deal and an economic downturn/blaming Obama/loss of the Presidency. I have no qualms that in the opposite situation (Republican President/Democrat congress) Democrats would be pushing for high taxes and minimal spending cuts and screwing the President in every way possible on the way. the reason the debt ceiling is a problem is because of the debt and the Republicans who were elected on the basis of cutting spending. The Democrats only care about spending when Republicans are in office. These Tea Party republicans will hopefully care beyond the Democrat President, or we'll be back here in a few years- but much worse off.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

In reply to awm55
7/25/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Did you even look a that? During Obama's presidency tax revenue was reduced by approx 400 billion per year, and spending has increased by approx 550 billion from the Bush years. This makes the dems compromise more than fair. From 2013 the projections are that revenue and expenditure will grow at a similair rate.

How on earth did you get from that data that this is totally an expenditure problem?

Omg, are you really this retarded?

Look at the growth rates. Since 2000, revenues grew at a less than 1% CAGR (about the same as the S&P 500 index), but expenditures grew at 7% CAGR. You have to look at growth rates in the context of what the economy has done. If we were booming, then you could make the argument that the revenue growth rate should be higher, but that's obviously not the case. Let's look at what drove the spending growth. Two wars, and skyrocketing healthcare spending account for the overwhelming bulk of it. Given that the two wars we are involved in do not pose real national security threats, we can cut all that spending immediately. Also, given that most developed nations spend half the per capita amount on healthcare than we do yet achieve similar outcomes, we can conclude that we can also cut a ton on healthcare spending and maintain similar outcomes to what we have today. Then, finally, spending as a percentage of GDP is at astronomically high levels, and it's not like we're in the midst of WW2 here buddy. So, placing the numbers in context, it's easy to see that spending is 100% the problem, and taxes are not the issue.

Revenues are inherently tied to the size of the economy, so it's to be expected for revenues to be roughly flat given the weak economy. Meanwhile, because of the delusion that is Keynesianism (as well as just outright waste in defense and healthcare spending), spending has gone up astronomically, because we can borrow the remainder. Thus, revenues are sticky but spending doesn't have to be (and as such, spending is out of line, taxes are not). Lastly, the return on our spending is negative (it's not like we're borrowing $1+T to build high speed rail, or some other infrastructure projects that might provide a positive IRR even after interest expense).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11

Hahahahaha...one of these things is NOT like the other...

awm55:

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

awm55:

Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to MMBinNC
7/25/11
MMBinNC:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

I think that it is because of who is in office. I like many constituents, see this as the best bargaining chip for the Republicans with Obama in office. The Democrats see it as the difference between a deal and an economic downturn/blaming Obama/loss of the Presidency. I have no qualms that in the opposite situation (Republican President/Democrat congress) Democrats would be pushing for high taxes and minimal spending cuts and screwing the President in every way possible on the way. the reason the debt ceiling is a problem is because of the debt and the Republicans who were elected on the basis of cutting spending. The Democrats only care about spending when Republicans are in office. These Tea Party republicans will hopefully care beyond the Democrat President, or we'll be back here in a few years- but much worse off.

Republicans only care about spending when a democrat is in office.

In reply to awm55
7/25/11