13,971 Forum Posts by "gumOnShoe"
The government has the power to tax the people. The mandate essentially says that you will be taxed to provide a service (health care) if you don't already have a plan to help cover the costs of healthcare. It is essentially a tax. All arguments against it would also have to be applied to taxes and those arguments would fall apart in a court of law.
Lets change the wording of the law:
There will be a $4,000 dollar tax on each individual. You and the rest of society will be provided healthcare in return. If you already have healthcare insurance you can opt out of the tax upon proving you have it and you won't receive the service.
American Diplomat, in charge of diplomacy with Afghanistan & Pakistan died last night.
His last words were:
Yeah, but there's been other federal judges that have ruled it constitutional. And there are more of them that have ruled that way. The whole thing is destined for the supreme court, which will likely uphold the whole thing. Anything up till that point is all whining....
Please see or contact him with further questions. I'm sure he'll make a post about it.
Evolutionists don't need to justify being gay because evolution doesn't need "justification"
But how do christians justify eating pork & hating gays. The old testament says don't eat pork & don't be gay. I never got how you could pick one and not the other.
At 12/11/10 11:27 PM, Korriken wrote:- The Astro Turfed Tea Party people have been successfully eliminating "RINO"'sheh. astro turf eh? i sense bitterness that someone isn't getting their liberal way.
No, not really. The Koch Brothers "own" most of the Tea Party groups. They fund them, set policy, negotiate and bribe their leaders. It really isn't a secret. Sure there are still a very few libertarians still involved that were there from the beginning, but its mostly been abandoned by anyone who ever had an original idea of their own. And most libertarians that were in on the inception do denounce the group now.
At 12/11/10 11:30 AM, KemCab wrote: Well, that's true. It's not like corn doesn't have its uses.
Aye, but the corn husker kickback is for corn to be used as Ethanol. So it literally makes no sense.
(This is a compilation topic, feel free to add, I'm only going to name 2 at present, but I'm sure some of us know of different corruptions than others)
The Corn Husker Kickbacks
Essentially, these are additional subsidies on Corn, created to spur the use of Ethanol as a fuel. Republicans and Democrats of the midwest, alike, support these subsidies, and they are horrible for America.
First, using food as fuel raises the prices of actual food. Second, the extra incentive to grow corn, has made other people not grow other kinds of food, thereby reducing again the amount of available food in variety. Third, Corn as a plant is horrible on the soil. It literally kills the soil if you don't over treat it with chemicals, leave the land to fallow, and grow beans every now and then. And of course, corn is a horrible food. It is one of the least nutritious vegetables on the planet, but its easy to grow.
That's just the environmental and health reasons corn sucks. But, as a fuel its even worse, which is one of the reasons the subsidies make no sense economically. When you burn gasoline, you're actually burning a mixture of chemicals that have different burn rates and points where they combust. This creates a smoother explosion that actually amplifies the power of the engine. If you start of pushing gentle, its easier to get something going than slamming your fist into it. Its also better on the machine. Ethanol doesn't work like that. Its all one substance and when it burns it burns evenly. Its a staccato explosion with one note. Its been compared to pushing a brick with a tooth pick instead of a 2 by 4.
But farmers really like & so do Agricorps. So, there's a lot of push for congress to renue the subsidies which end this year. Not all of the people in congress were happy with the tax cuts, but these subsidies were added to the senate bill (an additional cost on the government with no benefit) to try and get more people to vote yes. The subsidies are expensive, bad for america, and signal some of the worst corruption in this country.
These subsidies should not be confused with the ones that artificially increase the price food so that farmers aren't bankrupt and destitute. Even though some people disagree with those subsidies, there are demonstratable GOOD effects. The corn husker kickback is only there for reelection campaigns and fueling a dying industry that's no good for us.
Harry Reid
There aren't many people in the senate more vile than this man. He's a Democrat who dances on corporate strings, and while he's not alone, with his position at the lead of the senate he may be the worst of the bunch.
While this country is dealing with unemployment Harry Reid's top two priorities are making sure gambling on the internet can only be provided by already existing casinos (he's from las vegas, big surprise) and making sure his Chinese benefactors get some stimulus money to build wind farms in America. Yay windfarms! Boo using our tax dollars to pay for more Chinese products.
I don't have much more to add to this, but I'm sure there is more. If it hadn't been for crazy Nazi Angle I would have supported jailing the man in a glass tube 10 miles under the sea with nothing but squeezy cheese to eat and no latrine.
So, there's two horrible instances of government corruption. And while we continue to expand on these, we should also consider some of the good things government has done so as not to become to disillusioned. The point of this topic is to point out the waste and excesses, so that as informed citizens we can better understand what & who doesn't work so that we may find that which does work.
At 12/10/10 09:51 PM, Memorize wrote:At 12/10/10 07:03 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: He just finished. 8.5 hours. No one picked up after him. Dissapointing.Yes, because it's so horrible that anyone would have a right to their own money/property.
I take it you didn't listen to the guy, and so you had no clue that he was very much against the tax RAISES on the poorest of Americans while everyone else got a break.
For those of you that missed it Sanders was upset that taxes were going to go up on those making $20,000 or less (single) and $40,000 or less (couple) a year (and they are with Obama's Republican plan), while the rich got a huge break and everyone else suffered cuts.
At 12/10/10 06:59 PM, Malachy wrote: Wow, so, yesterday, when they gave up on DADT, they could have just let a republican read train schedules for 8 hours or so and then they could have gotten it all done and over with and repealed DADT...or the full on Obama care with single payer system.... or pretty much anything else they were cowed from being able to pass because the republicans threatened to talk for a few hours?
START & DADT are different. They require a 2/3 majority vote to pass because of the kind of bills they are. DREAM probably only needed a simple majority, but they didn't have the votes.
Also, there's a big difference between 1 independent trying to filibuster all of the Senate and 40 republicans taking turns filibustering the senate. This was 100% Mr. Smith goes to Washington. A republican filibuster could have lasted "indefinitely," but you're right that public opinion would likely turn against them in the end. Especially if it meant shutting down government to keep the filibuster going.
Its really one of the big reasons why movement liberals don't believe Obama or many of the democrats actually want to pass some of this legislation.
He just finished. 8.5 hours. No one picked up after him. Dissapointing.
At 12/10/10 06:43 PM, poxpower wrote: that's funny, I just got in to watch 5 minutes and even there he was just repeating democratic talking points haha.
Its been 8 hours. He's been doing that and more. But it goes back and forth. He's winging it & getting material from his aides.
Not all of it is going to be original.
But he's right of course.
The entire conservative point of view is that we should all give money to rich people and then hope they pump it back into the economy and into charities. That's ultra moronic quite frankly. That's like every employee at a company taking a pay cut so the CEO can get an extra million dollars and they hope he'll give it back in the form of Christmas bonuses.
Yeah.
President Sanders?
Politics, yeah, but also "general" in nature.
Sanders is sticking up for the common man. He's spent 8 hours fillibustering tax cuts for the wealthy here in the U.S.
This is a stand up man with morals.
Watch him live: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx
What do you think? 8 hour speech sound difficult. Can you imagine having that as a school assignment?
He's specifically filibustering because of the cuts for the wealthy.
He's been talking for almost 8 hours now. Telling stories about his constituents. Railing against the rich, the republicans, the democrats. Everyone.
But he's getting tired, and there were only 2 senators that have supported him.
If you support this you should call your senator instantly.
At 12/10/10 07:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/10/10 07:40 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: If the U.S. army was a true defense force. You'd be against DADT?In principle I'm entirely against it.
Then you and I don't have much of an issue.
If a majority of soldiers were uncomfortable with gay soldiers to the extent they believed it would affect their performance, then I'd support it (though the soldiers would be morons). If you want to claim that people should "have a right to fight, regardless of their sexuality", or whatever, then fine, but just a moment ago you were talking about the effectiveness of a military ie the consequences, not the principle (of discrimination).
Eh, just like you are anti-aggressive war. I'm anti-discrimination. One takes more priority for me over the other. You'd argue any point if it meant reducing the cost of War on this country. I'd argue any point to make sure people weren't discriminated against, especially on matters between 2 consenting adults or over uncontrollable conditions that do not adversely affect or impede the rights of others.
At 12/10/10 07:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/10/10 06:52 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Last year 400 soldiers were sent home because they were gay. During the span of the Afghanistan war it was 14,000 soldiers. Try and tell me that doesn't affect military readiness when we are fighting 2 wars.I'm assuming these individuals were discharged, which means less debt and less civilians killed. What's not to like?
Unless, less forces overseas means certain people don't have their backs covered at the planned level and there are more deaths... Its all assumption between me and you at this point. We clearly disagree. But if they are going to be over there, Gay people clearly should have the right to be over there too. And DADT doesn't really let them. Whether armed forces should be sent somewhere is a different issue.
If the U.S. army was a true defense force. You'd be against DADT?
Michelle Bachman is being interviewed on an NBC morning show.
She just tried to claim that $250,000 in sales translates to $250,000 in income for 3 employees. She tried to claim cutting taxes without a plan for cutting spending wasn't adding to the deficit and claimed instead that spending was just too high. When pressed for an answer on what needed cut she had no response.
This is your representative conservatives. An outright liar.
At 12/10/10 06:45 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.They are...they just can't be open about their homosexuality. Big difference.
Anyway, this is clearly an issue of GRAVE IMPORTANCE. Never mind a crumbling economy or you know, actual military decisions, soldiers being open about their sexuality is a priority and should be dealt with immediately!
Last year 400 soldiers were sent home because they were gay. During the span of the Afghanistan war it was 14,000 soldiers. Try and tell me that doesn't affect military readiness when we are fighting 2 wars.
At 12/9/10 05:06 PM, CaptinChu wrote: Yellow journalism is still journalism. Who needs the truth of one news network when you can have name-brand political truths from all networks and piece together the real story?
The Lost Art of Argument By Christopher Lasch.
As much as I hate Fox News, and as skewed as it is, their misinformation opens up healthy public debate. If the other side were as biased, maybe there would be more debate open. (I haven't seen much MSNBC.)
Is it healthy when it is ultimately dishonest? Fox has been caught how many times outright lying? The people who fund and back them are clearly supporting specific political messages. The entire network is an attempt at entertaining propaganda.
The result has been an extremely polarized political base in this country. One which has deadlocked congress and at times prevented things from happening that a clear majority of people support. 75% of the U.S. populace believe DADT should be repealed, and yet only 57 members of congress could attempt to pass it, and they were rebuffed. And that's just that issue. The health care debate was dramatically affected by Fox News and its commentators, and mainly under he pay of the health care industry.
Fox News does not serve as a catalyst for GOOD public debate. Misinformation used as fact is, in my opinion, the very antithesis of a good debate.
At 12/10/10 02:49 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 12/10/10 02:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I agree. A shame Congress and the President don't seem to.Pres is pushing hard for it, even launched a facebook email yer congressman campaign about it, but congress is being dicks about the whole tax deal thing.
Is he pushing hard for it?
How hard is it to have a staff member make a facebook post?
I know he wants to do this legislatively, but the courts had ruled DADT unconstitutional and he appealed it and asked for a stay. He had the opportunity, he clearly doesn't view this as an act of inhumanity, but as an inconvenience. And he's will to risk trying to pass it through the most hostile (see quantity of votes for cloture) congress in the history of the USA rather than take the free win he'd been handed by the courts.
Both Bloomburg & Trump appear to be considering runs for President because they aren't happy with the state of our country and constantly hear bad things about America from abroad. Mostly, they aren't happy with gridlock & they don't believe the polarized Left and Right is helping the country.
So, they are testing the waters right now.
How do you feel about the business elite running the presidency? Do you see that as a plus or a continuation of what's going on now, just without pretending? Do you think someone who who'd made billions of dollars could relate to your "main street" concerns? Do you think someone like that could move the country in the right direction? Are you worried they might try to use their position to help their business and be far more corrupt than the current system?
There are a lot of questions to be asked right now. There are very strong currents moving in the political system right now, and a lot of unpredictable things could happen.
- Liberals are considering primarying Obama or sitting out.
- The Astro Turfed Tea Party people have been successfully eliminating "RINO"'s
- Libertarians are gaining a larger political voice.
- The center is growing and becoming more unwilling to commit left or right
- In the last 10 years most votes have been to get rid of who is in office, not put someone in.
- The economy is bad and voters are willing to do anything to see change
Is this a blessing, a curse, or something else? Plutocracy?
At 12/8/10 01:33 PM, tony606 wrote: Well what would you advise for someone who wants to go into the field of politics? What could they do right now without changing the system that you would agree with?
Be like Anthony Weiner, Russ Feingold, or Al Franken.
Don't sell yourself out. Do what you said you were going to do when you were voted into office. Don't hold conflicting views that create paradoxes and make it look like you're trying to take advantage of the american public for self gain.
At 12/8/10 06:36 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 12/8/10 05:47 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Plus, if what the OP says is true, NOBODY is cutting spending. Democrats are spending like crazy!True, but they don't run on platforms of cutting spending, which is kinda the point.
Which is the entire point.
The Republicans have said that of their three #1 priorities (lol), keeping the deficit from going up is of tantamount importance. But by only being willing to legislate tax cuts (they've made an ultimatum about it) and choosing the most expensive option available, without introducing spending cuts, they've actually ensured that the deficit will rise as much as is possible.
They are hypocrites. And while the democrats are no apple pie (see my other thread). The Republicans are outright liars. They've asked for you to elect them and they're fucking you over. The sad thing is, you can't even admit it without pulling the whole well they do it too!
I've already admitted the Democrats suck ass on a lot of their policy commitments. Why can't you admit that the Republicans are fucking horrible at doing anything you want?
At 12/7/10 09:55 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/7/10 07:56 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: How do you feel...voting for people who clearly do not implement what they say they will?Says the Obama voter.
It feels like shit, but it was still better than voting for McCain and there were no other options on the table. So, as much as it sucks, it could have been worse. Am I happy? No. Am I vomiting at the horrible direction our country is going in? No.
At 12/7/10 08:00 PM, Ravariel wrote: Well, they already do that with Staff, and I think good watchdog groups could curb favor-granting with the power of the No Confidence vote, limiting special interest's abilities to influence them (any more than they already do).
Yeah, but if the politician has to take a term off every other term, they are automatically going to transition. The no confidence vote won't matter to them as long as they can make one thing happen for a potential employer.
Perhaps we should also limit the amount one is able to spend on an election?
We tried to limit the number of donations by corporations and the Supreme Court ruled we were violating corporation's free speech rights. I don't see that flying, and I disagree with the Supreme Court.
Is there a way to do that that is fair and keeps the power in the people, and not the Special Interest groups? Or do we just let SI groups have free reign and battle it out, hoping they'll cancel each other out in the long run?
It seems right now we're hoping we just don't get fucked over too much while taking it up the ass. I'm not sure if there's a solution we could pass with Republican opposition and an obstinate supreme court that doesn't value fair elections.
I think the forced transparency of contributions might help curb this... also, how is that different from now?
Right now reelection keeps people a little clean because there's a chance their record might come up, but when there's no reelection, they won't care.
Perhaps, but large union-like organizations like the NRA and others vote with votes as well as dollars. Their public endorsements may be more valuable than their monetary ones. I mean, look at the bill that was lampooned in the Daily Show clip I linked; Special Interests were only slightly behind that vote, specifically the Democrat's usage of procedural shenanigans to block amendments. Offshore accounts were likely important in the Republican's votes of nay, but it wouldn't have been enough if the Dems hadn't been afraid to vote down other stuff.
Union-like organizations have a set insular following. A corporation represents a small moneyed interest where a board or CEO speaks for every person who buys their product or works for them without a vote on what that message actually is.
But as far as the benefits, I believe it was voted against just because the Republicans didn't want Democrats to have victories. That's been the pattern for the last 2 years. Go look up Colbert's "Unrequited Gov" from last night.
Also, if citizens groups actually participate in the election process and keep tabs on their politicians, the ability to oust elected officials before their term is up might also curb a lot of that. It's one of the logistical issues that I think is important, but extremely sticky... and was hoping someone might be able to improve.
The no confidence vote could be good or bad. I mean, lets say the economy takes a dive and the entire country does a no confidence vote every two years for two years on all elected officials? Nothing gets done, etc. Also, how are no confidence votes called? Whose in charge of determining when they happen & counting them? Sure there are easy visible upsides, but it doesn't seam like it would be easy to implement.
The biggest criticism of the one term limit government, and this has been exampled in places that have tried it out, is that when people know they need to find a new job in X years, they tend to abuse their position of power to create a stepping stone into the private sector, generally by granting favors they otherwise wouldn't have granted and bringing staff and other party members along...
That said, they seem to grant plenty of favors when corporations and rich people can donate as much as they want.
So, it seems we're being fucked by Vaginas either way.
I am not convinced most of their reelection fears come from us, the populace, so much as the money that funds their campaigns.
To Memorize: blue is the ratio going down & red is the ratio going up. Blue & red doesn't always mean democrat & republican. But regardless, the "tax cut" mantra began with Reagan, so all those Republicans before him had a different ideology.
At 12/7/10 05:32 PM, adrshepard wrote: I think a better chart would cover budget deficits, tax rates, and spending by sector. The US has a huge, complex economy, and looking at the final result alone and attributing it to one factor is probably misleading.
Possibly, but I couldn't find that graph & I haven't done any graphing of my own in some time, nor do I have the datasets on my computer. I'll keep looking, but if anyone else finds it feel free to post it.
Regardless, Reagan spearheaded massive tax cuts at the beginning of his terms and that kicked off the rise of the deficit in comparison to GDP. So, its not entirely unrelated or hard to see why that would have happened (even in the mix of everything else).
Also, keep in mind that a lot of conservatives didn't like Bush precisely because government spending increased so much.
That's fine, but a lot of Republicans like Reagan and he started the policies that Bush created, though he had the mindset to realize it wasn't working and tried to raise taxes belatedly, something that was finished by Bush & Clinton and then undone by Bush II.
Also also, I've never understood why so many people look at a government surplus as a positive thing. In those cases the government taxed too much. Ideally, the fiscal deficit should stay at about the same level relative to tax revenues. It can be financed without spirialing interest costs.
I'm of a mind that if a surplus does exist, paying it off puts the country in a better place. Then if it has to borrow later, it is less likely to fuck things up. Financing is great and all, but its not necessarily enough...
Plus, since the economies strength impacts the amount of money taken in by the government, I wouldn't argue for lowering taxes until a Surplus had existed for 10 years or so and it had been proved the money really was beyond what was needed through a recession.
A familiar chart - you'll notice this is in relation to GDP, in real dollars the debt has gone up under republican rule and leveled off or fallen under democratic, just that when Republicans are in control spending increases in relation to GDP go up way up and when Democrats are in control you can see the curve clearly falling in relation to GDP.
It turns out that Republicans have never actually cut spending while reducing taxes. They just cut taxes and drive the country further into debt while expanding the debt with more spending.
How do you feel, if you consider yourself a conservative, voting for people who clearly do not implement what they say they will?
How do you feel knowing the "Tax & Spend" democrat is also a myth?
