Massachusetts, Senate Seats, Private Insurance, Big Pharma and Health Care Reform

[quote name='elprincipe']I still don't see what is so much better about holding terrorists in Illinois instead of Guantanamo. It's a cosmetic difference.[/QUOTE]

I can have a protest in Illinois. I can't in Cuba.

I walk into the local diner and sit next to a prison guard on his lunch and read the Declaration of Independence.

I can ask people profiting by trampling on certain unalienable rights of pubescent Muslims why they've made that decision.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If we'd have paid off our debt by cutting spending when tax receipts were high, then we could have lowered taxes dramatically in future years and permanently reduced the size of government to where it should be.[/QUOTE]

As an ultraliberal, I always hold this point to be the case - we can't cut taxes until we begin to start paying off what we bought 30 years ago and still haven't paid for. You're absolutely correct, the surplus should have been used to pay down the debt.
 
People wanted a tax cut at the time, though. And I'm sure people would demand a tax cut if we ever got a surplus again.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']People wanted a tax cut at the time, though. And I'm sure people would demand a tax cut if we ever got a surplus again.[/QUOTE]

The debate was "Do you want your money back or not?" It wasn't "Do you want your money back or do you want us to pay a few hundred billion in preexisting debt?"
 
People always want tax cuts. We'll only ever pay off the debt if we don't have politicians exploiting surpluses to get elected. It's just absolutely insane. Now we'd need $500 billion surpluses for 20 years to pay off the debt. But I guess with the way the average person handles money it all makes sense.
 
The thing about cons in general and congressional Republicans in particular is they don't really know what fiscal responsibility means, sure they talk about it a lot but they don't object to hemorrhaging money (unless a dime goes to poor people) what they really hate is paying for anything.

They even admit this after they become too addled to remember to lie all the time.
 
[quote name='SpazX']People always want tax cuts. We'll only ever pay off the debt if we don't have politicians exploiting surpluses to get elected. It's just absolutely insane. Now we'd need $500 billion surpluses for 20 years to pay off the debt. But I guess with the way the average person handles money it all makes sense.[/QUOTE]

24.5 years, assuming our interest rate drops to zero.

;)
 
I don't exactly get what the end is supposed to be here. Yes, government spending going down would lead to less debt building up, but it seems that people think less government spending whilst lowering taxes so that there's not surplus money is somehow going to pay off that debt. It doesn't make any sense. If the government stopped right now and didn't spend a cent on anything there'd still be over $10 trillion in debt that would have to be paid with taxes.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't exactly get what the end is supposed to be here. Yes, government spending going down would lead to less debt building up, but it seems that people think less government spending whilst lowering taxes so that there's not surplus money is somehow going to pay off that debt. It doesn't make any sense. If the government stopped right now and didn't spend a cent on anything there'd still be over $10 trillion in debt that would have to be paid with taxes.[/QUOTE]

The end is massive inflation. We are piling up more than $1 trillion per year in deficits currently. Assuming we don't want to default, the only way out is to make the $20 trillion debt we are headed for (currently around $13 trillion) really only worth $2 trillion or something. Of course, this means devaluing people's savings if they are in cash/deposits. My view is that is why the price of gold is so high now, and could go higher. We've printed trillions more money and at some point we're going to have to pay for it via a large drop in the value of the dollar, and probably the loss of its status as the world reserve currency.

Of course, if you're a Ron Paul/conspiracy theorist kind of person you probably think all of this isn't just party politicians being party politicians, but a much larger game to replace the dollar with the "Amero" or a world currency or something.
 
First paragraph is cool; it was essentially Paul's (and economic advisor Schiff) 2007-08 presidential campaign. I'm still laughing at neo-cons attempting to co-opt some of this message after they mercilessly shredded Paul during the campaign, in part because he was willing to say the fundamentals of the economy were rotten. Well, his views on foreign policy were a complete flip from the one other perspective brought forth by all the other Republican candidates. That had a lot to do with it, too.

Second paragraph is Alex Jones territory. I really don't think Congress/Executive Branch is smart enough to pull off something so intricate and finely woven as a decades-long economic building and destruction so as to bring about a specific goal.

A wonderful start to cutting spending would be to implement a three year plan to cut down on our approximately $1 trillion yearly empire: 25% reduction in year one, 50% reduction by year two, 75% reduction by year three. It'd also help our standing around the world, help stop the spread of terrorism, and likely ease the upward strain on oil prices. There is very little good that comes from us participating in acts of war in myriad countries on the planet, be they bombs or blockades. Attempts to isolate countries via embargoes is also a bad idea.

To make my post fit the topic, Scott Brown sucks. He's another neo-con in ... well, he's not even bothering trying to wear a libertarian coat, like Beck/Hannity (I pissed myself laughing when he said he's libertarian)/O'Reilly (same)/etc.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']To make my post fit the topic, Scott Brown sucks. He's another neo-con in ... well, he's not even bothering trying to wear a libertarian coat, like Beck/Hannity (I pissed myself laughing when he said he's libertarian)/O'Reilly (same)/etc.[/QUOTE]

Hannity said he's a libertarian? BWAhaha! Only everything I've ever read, seen or heard about the guy says otherwise, of course. I guess he's aware that voters are just as anti-Republican as they are anti-Democrat right now, and in many places moreso. You don't forget 12-14 years overnight, or at least those of us who retain cranial capacity don't.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hannity said he's a libertarian? BWAhaha! Only everything I've ever read, seen or heard about the guy says otherwise, of course. I guess he's aware that voters are just as anti-Republican as they are anti-Democrat right now, and in many places moreso. You don't forget 12-14 years overnight, or at least those of us who retain cranial capacity don't.[/QUOTE]

I used to listen to Hannity on the way home from work a long time ago, and while he is a party man, I would say when put on the spot to describe his values they do actually come off as libertarian.
 
Libertarian fiscal philosophy overlaps with Republican/Conservative fiscal philosophy. The difference is that Republicans fail to live up to any of the standards of the fiscal philosophy they claim to espouse, save for tax cuts that enhance our debt.

In terms of social policy he is most certainly not Libertarian. He is anti-Islam, pro-Christian, anti-homosexual rights - just for starters. Libertarians are what they are - but they aren't, if they are genuinely Libertarian and not simply disaffected conservatives, in favor of legislative oppression.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In terms of social policy he is most certainly not Libertarian. He is anti-Islam, pro-Christian, anti-homosexual rights - just for starters. Libertarians are what they are - but they aren't, if they are genuinely Libertarian and not simply disaffected conservatives, in favor of legislative oppression.[/QUOTE]
Hannity is the poster child for libertarianism in America. Fiscally "conservative" and social policy doesn't matter at all because they vote Republican anyway.

When was the last time you saw a libertarian tied up in knots because of the Republican social platform? They don't give a damn about rights other than lip service.
 
[quote name='speedracer']When was the last time you saw a libertarian tied up in knots because of the Republican social platform? They don't give a damn about rights other than lip service.[/QUOTE]

Et tu, vololudi?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Et tu, vololudi?[/QUOTE]
When Hannity looks at you and likes what he sees enough to self-identify with you, you got youself a problem.
 
[quote name='speedracer']When Hannity looks at you and likes what he sees enough to self-identify with you, you got youself a problem.[/QUOTE]

How much is conservatives claiming to be libertarians until the heat dies down and how much is actual libertarianism?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How much is conservatives claiming to be libertarians until the heat dies down and how much is actual libertarianism?[/QUOTE]

Mostly the former. Republicans are just too beholden to social conservatives to become majority-libertarian. I can see libertarian-type Republicans winning in the West (their traditional base) and even New England, but not in the South, which is the Republican power base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top