The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='dohdough']

FYI, we all know that for you, it's not about the number, but the concept. If numbers regarding sustainability were important to you, you'd understand why it makes sense for the high earners to pay more.[/QUOTE]

I haven't disputed that people with more should pay more than people with less. I've just been trying to combat your tax policy as social justice ideas.

I'm using the term fair because people are saying that the rich (undefined) need to pay their fair share (also undefined).

Sustainability is important. I think that taxes need to go up (but not just on the rich) and spending needs to be cut (but not just on the poor). You seem to think that the only way to ensure sustainability is to tax the rich so that we can keep giving handouts to people who can't or won't work.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']I haven't disputed that people with more should pay more than people with less. I've just been trying to combat your tax policy as social justice ideas.

I'm using the term fair because people are saying that the rich (undefined) need to pay their fair share (also undefined).

Sustainability is important. I think that taxes need to go up (but not just on the rich) and spending needs to be cut (but not just on the poor). You seem to think that the only way to ensure sustainability is to tax the rich so that we can keep giving handouts to people who can't or won't work.[/QUOTE]

These are all nice ideas but they all amount to a pile of bullshit.

I think it's telling that you don't see it as a social justice issue but you still think the rich pay too little in taxes. That shows how out-of-hand it has become, that someone who has no clue on how badly the poor and middle class are being fucked by the superrich, that someone so blind to social injustice, someone so callous and/or ignorant about modern affairs still understands that the rich need to pay more in taxes.

Damn.
 
[quote name='camoor']These are all nice ideas but they all amount to a pile of bullshit.

I think it's telling that you don't see it as a social justice issue but you still think the rich pay too little in taxes. That shows how out-of-hand it has become, that someone who has no clue on how badly the poor and middle class are being fucked by the superrich, that someone so blind to social injustice, someone so callous and/or ignorant about modern affairs still understands that the rich need to pay more in taxes.

Damn.[/QUOTE]

I think it's telling that you think you know so much about me.

Have a nice day, folks.
 
we have a tax system that is for all intents and purposes rather fair. You're taxed more as your income goes up because to achieve that higher income you rely more and more on provided services. You may argue that one does not because "welfare queens" make money for not doing anything. Of course you're missing the point that one must work to get welfare and EITC but that's beside the point as it's apparently difficult to understand.

What's unfair about our tax system is a bit more complicated.
1.) The rates in the brackets are out of whack and the income brackets are fishy as well.
2.) We have "special income" that is taxed in such a manner that it only benefits the wealthy. Simple construct: one needs a decent amount of wealth to invest to the point where the income from investment becomes enough that a regular wage based income is no longer necessary. One needs a VAST amount of wealth to get to the point where you're making an 8 figure income from investments.
3.) There are many write-offs/credits/deductions that benefit all but disproportionately benefit high income and wealthy people. Not to kick a living horse, but Romney can deduct $77k for a horse and you can only deduct $5k for a human child. The child credit makes sense because we want to perpetuate the US population. Smart people will wait until they have adequate means to have and support a kid and the credit benefits them. Dumb people pop out a unit every now and then and the credit barely covers the essentials for raising a kid. We also have write-offs and tax breaks and such for investing in clean energy for your home. So on and so forth. These parts of the tax code are meant to incent certain behaviours.
 
The low capital gains tax is supposed to incentivize people to invest, but a large portion of our population doesn't even have enough money to invest, to have to worry about capital gains taxes. Those who do have large sums to invest do so and the profits from those investments are taxed at a much lower percentage than they should be. It's how folks like mittens end up paying a lower percentage than most of us. To says that this is wrong is a order of magnitude lower than what we should say it is. And you know what, just to cover the folks who are just barely able to invest, I'd even say that below a certain amount we can keep it at the current rate. It's the people like Romney, who live off those investments making millions that I'm concerned about, not the low hanging fruit, so to speak.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']Man I just had a depressing night. I was at my local Republican meeting and for the past couple days the candidates and grass root supporters have been depressed and complaiing about not enough support. So that was bad enough.

But it wasn't just that. I'd like to run for office as a member of the Republican ticket. I believe I could win an election. But I just don't see how I could win a primary. I'm in a room with 30 Grass Roots supporters, and I don't think i could get a single vote, because they're the hard core of the hard core. The whole, Obama's a socialist/communist crowd. This is the crowd that voted for Christine O'Donnell. And the thing is, they probably don't represent even a fraction of registered republicans. But they're the ones that show up and do all the work you need to win.

And they promote candidates that just can't win.

Like, the biggest problem for me is abortion. I'm pro-choice in a pro-life party. That's fine, I get that. I don't want to change the party platform. i have great respect for my friends who are pro-life. I understand that have a clear moral compulsion to oppose abortion. But I don't agree with it. I've wrestled long and hard about this, but I just believe that women have the right to an abortion at least in the first trimester if not slightly further along. I don't believe a fetus is sufficiently developed to be considered a human being after 4, or 6, or 12 weeks. I beleive that's a moral decision, one which the government has no right to force upon individuals.

But because of that alone, I could probably never win a primary.

But like, you got to really think about it. If you're truly pro-life, then that means no invitro-fertalization. No exceptions in the case of rape. No allowance of contraception. Or the day after pill. That personhood begins at conception. That stem cell research kills babies, etc. That's where these people are, and I believe they're wrong.

The irony to me is, I see the pro-life movement as a failure. I would probably reduce abortions in my state by half if I was elected as a representative. I would get funding to run ads so that teens knew they had other options than abortion. I would improve sex education. Increase access to health care and pre-natal care. In addition, I align with a lot of the parties policy positions. I don't believe that stem cell research should be paid for with federal dollars. I support the partial birth abortion ban.

We've had a number of pro-life candidates, and I promise you, they wouldn't do shit to reduce abortions in this state. No greater sex-ed because it's abstinence only. No greater health care because that's socialism. No social programs to encourage motherhood because that's wasteful spending. But they stand up there, say "Life" five times in sixty seconds, and they win a primary.

The grass roots supports people who are the hard core of the hard core. That are walking mini Limbaughs. But probably don't know the difference between public and private debt. Couldn't tell you what CBO stood for. Yet they win the primary and then get their ass handed to them in the election. Then they all whine about how it's the parties fault that they get no support.

I know I'm whining myself here, I just need to blow off steam. it's not their fault, they're just misinformed and it's my problem. If I was a candidate it's my responsibility to find a way to communicate to them and convince them to give me their vote. I want to serve my state but I just don't see a path for me winning a primary. It's depressing.[/QUOTE]

It's not whining, it's a legitimate problem. Whatever you decide to do make sure you don't give up your principles or change your stance on issues in order to win a primary. Doesn't work out too well and you won't have a clean conscience.

If there's any kind of candidate that would be able to win easily in a general in a liberal area it would be a candidate that's socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
 
So long as fiscally conservative doesn't automatically mean "WELFARE BAD!!!!", like it seems to for many.
 
[quote name='nasum']we have a tax system that is for all intents and purposes rather fair. You're taxed more as your income goes up because to achieve that higher income you rely more and more on provided services. You may argue that one does not because "welfare queens" make money for not doing anything. Of course you're missing the point that one must work to get welfare and EITC but that's beside the point as it's apparently difficult to understand.

What's unfair about our tax system is a bit more complicated.
1.) The rates in the brackets are out of whack and the income brackets are fishy as well.
2.) We have "special income" that is taxed in such a manner that it only benefits the wealthy. Simple construct: one needs a decent amount of wealth to invest to the point where the income from investment becomes enough that a regular wage based income is no longer necessary. One needs a VAST amount of wealth to get to the point where you're making an 8 figure income from investments.
3.) There are many write-offs/credits/deductions that benefit all but disproportionately benefit high income and wealthy people. Not to kick a living horse, but Romney can deduct $77k for a horse and you can only deduct $5k for a human child. The child credit makes sense because we want to perpetuate the US population. Smart people will wait until they have adequate means to have and support a kid and the credit benefits them. Dumb people pop out a unit every now and then and the credit barely covers the essentials for raising a kid. We also have write-offs and tax breaks and such for investing in clean energy for your home. So on and so forth. These parts of the tax code are meant to incent certain behaviours.[/QUOTE]

Well, then, fuck children. I'm getting me a horse.
 
It seems to me that all that's needed to fix the tax code is:

1. Tax all income as regular income. Be it salary, capital gains, profit from selling something above what you paid for it, inheritance etc. Anything that's new income/profit to a person should get taxed at their bracket rate.

2. Close all loop holes and exemptions. Not just for the wealthy, also earned income credits, dependent credits etc. Just make the tax rates reasonable for each income bracket so exceptions aren't needed.

3. Have more income brackets. The highest is abover $300 some thousand. We need more brackets with higher rates for millionaires and multi-millionaires to both raise revenues and add some disincentive for pocketing multi-millions in bonuses versus reinvesting in the company, hiring new people, raising worker wages etc.

The only thing really to haggle over is what the rates should be in the various income brackets. And I'm not an economist so I won't pretend to have any remotely informed opinion on what the idea rates are across the spectrum.
 
I'm always a bit weary of simple solutions to complicated problems. A lot of things could happen with just one change of a tax code. A massive, quick overhaul, that would drastically simplify things would most likely have some unintended side effects.

At the most we need to take some baby steps with our tax system. Change some things slowly, others that have less of an effect more quickly, but the tax brackets definitely need changing.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm always a bit weary of simple solutions to complicated problems. A lot of things could happen with just one change of a tax code. A massive, quick overhaul, that would drastically simplify things would most likely have some unintended side effects.

At the most we need to take some baby steps with our tax system. Change some things slowly, others that have less of an effect more quickly, but the tax brackets definitely need changing.[/QUOTE]


I can get that. But what I listed really isn't a huge change. People in the lower and middle classes would see taxes go down to offset losing earned income and child credits. But it wouldn't affect their bottom line, and would make filing a tax return simpler as it would just be your income less any valid business related expense deductions.

Those in the upper classes would see taxes go up from new tax brackets, captial gains taxed as regular income etc. More change there, but they can afford it and afford paying an accountant etc. as they already do anyway. Maybe someone would go without now since they aren't trying to find any loophole they can to lower their tax burden anymore if all loopholes are closed.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']I'd probably be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you'd lay off the snide remarks.[/quote]

I hear this all the time and it is never true.

Since everyone on the left likes talking about taxes as percentages, they are affected in the EXACT SAME WAY! In real dollars, of course, people with more capital gains would be more affected by a rate hike, but real dollar amounts don't seem to matter to many people in this discussion. If we were talking about real dollars someone might admit that Mitt Romney just paid more in taxes last year than many people will gross in their lifetime. He made a lot more than most anyone will, so he should pay more taxes.
Click to expand...

Subjective or objective? Pick one. Does utility come into play at all?

Why should a new policy have to have been implemented somewhere else? Aren't we supposed to be leading the world? Many of you have made the claim that we need to tax the rich more. Why don't you provide the evidence that this will work as expected. Maybe you could start with stating what you think a reasonable top tax rate should be.
Click to expand...


Don't answer every single question with a question.

I consider it like the healthcare issue, show me a case study of a country that does it a certain way and succeeds.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Is there a cover of that song with the lyrics "another one gives up hope of having a rational conversation not filled with strawmen and deflections"? cause that one would actually fit what happened...[/QUOTE]
Why? Because that accurately describes what you're doing?
 
Pretty low brow - but I'm absolutely not sure who anyone thinks this is going to convince one way or another.

If anything, it might be seen as an attack directly from the Romney Campaign, would be seen as disgusting and would push a few voters away from Romney...
 
A4Oap-FCEAAO_55.jpg


"You want me in a photo with this cat? Hell no!"
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Hoping to have a reasonable discussion? Yes.[/QUOTE]

I haven't had time to read many of your posts, so I don't know if I agree with you at all but get used to the whole, "We are right because you are too stupid to understand that we are" theme they have going here.

The forum goers here have no real need for a reasonable discussion. They seem to think their views are right because one "it is sooo obvious man" and two they have a bunch of "yes men" commenting after them, stroking their ego.

All you can do is provide evidence, and watch their arguments deteriorate.
 
Poor baby, must be hard being you, no? People always telling you how wrong you are, or how stupid your opinions are, must suck. Then again, you could take that as hint to get a clue, but well...yeah.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I haven't had time to read many of your posts, so I don't know if I agree with you at all but get used to the whole, "We are right because you are too stupid to understand that we are" theme they have going here.

The forum goers here have no real need for a reasonable discussion. They seem to think their views are right because one "it is sooo obvious man" and two they have a bunch of "yes men" commenting after them, stroking their ego.

All you can do is provide evidence, and watch their arguments deteriorate.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ..."god did it" and "cuz god sez so" isn't evidence. Removing all context from a word isn't an argument either.
 
As if there aren't plenty of yes men to agree with knoell. Only difference is that we manage to run some of them off. Bring back Sgtdumbass if you'd like.
 
[quote name='Clak']As if there aren't plenty of yes men to agree with knoell. Only difference is that we manage to run some of them off. Bring back Sgtdumbass if you'd like.[/QUOTE]
Truth be told, they tend to get themselves banned. It's like they're so proud of their bigotry and can't help but try and show everyone how bigoted they are.:lol:

It's nice to see some long time vs contrarians pop in again though.
 
Not poor me, I enjoy the nonsense you guys post, it really enlightens me to how the left really thinks.

It also isn't about who wins or loses either, it is the ridiculousness you guys pull out of your ass in a vain attempt to discredit, demonize, and subjegate anyone who disagrees with you, while at the same time participating in a giant circle jerk with anyone who you think does agree with you.

It is especially funny when you agree with someone and we can tell you have no idea what they meant (Usually we can tell when you agree with someone who just stated something that directly contradicts your views). But they oppose the guy on the right so they must be on the right track!!

Fun times.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I haven't had time to read many of your posts, so I don't know if I agree with you at all but get used to the whole, "We are right because you are too stupid to understand that we are" theme they have going here.

The forum goers here have no real need for a reasonable discussion. They seem to think their views are right because one "it is sooo obvious man" and two they have a bunch of "yes men" commenting after them, stroking their ego.

All you can do is provide evidence, and watch their arguments deteriorate.[/QUOTE]
When did you become so apathetic?
 
Aww, I missed yourlefthand, and I always love when people argue for over ideas of distributive justice (especially when they use a nebulous terms such as social justice).
 
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...s-women-not-actually-151341887--election.html

I guess if it were up to him we'd have drones bombing abortion clinics as well.

"It is no big surprise that we fight the terrorists because they are fundamentally un-American, and yet we have terrorists in our own culture called abortionists," Akin said in the Jan. 22, 2008, speech. "One of the good pieces of news why we are winning this war is because there are not enough heartless doctors being graduated from medical schools. There is a real shortage of abortionists.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not poor me, I enjoy the nonsense you guys post, it really enlightens me to how the left really thinks.

It also isn't about who wins or loses either, it is the ridiculousness you guys pull out of your ass in a vain attempt to discredit, demonize, and subjegate anyone who disagrees with you, while at the same time participating in a giant circle jerk with anyone who you think does agree with you.

It is especially funny when you agree with someone and we can tell you have no idea what they meant (Usually we can tell when you agree with someone who just stated something that directly contradicts your views). But they oppose the guy on the right so they must be on the right track!!

Fun times.[/QUOTE]

lol u mad
 
Vain attempt to discredit? Hell, you all make it so easy that they could teach it on a episode of Sesame Street broadcast on a government defunded PBS.
 
[quote name='camoor']lol u mad[/QUOTE]

Sometimes you simply make zero sense. I just explained that I enjoy your nonsense and you retort with "you mad"?

You got me there, I mad. :roll:
 
[quote name='Clak']Vain attempt to discredit? Hell, you all make it so easy that they could teach it on a episode of Sesame Street broadcast on a government defunded PBS.[/QUOTE]

Ask for concrete examples.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sometimes you simply make zero sense. I just explained that I enjoy your nonsense and you retort with "you mad"?

You got me there, I mad. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Now you're just boring me. Why don't you answer Msut's question.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not poor me, I enjoy the nonsense you guys post, it really enlightens me to how the left really thinks.

It also isn't about who wins or loses either, it is the ridiculousness you guys pull out of your ass in a vain attempt to discredit, demonize, and subjegate anyone who disagrees with you, while at the same time participating in a giant circle jerk with anyone who you think does agree with you.

It is especially funny when you agree with someone and we can tell you have no idea what they meant (Usually we can tell when you agree with someone who just stated something that directly contradicts your views). But they oppose the guy on the right so they must be on the right track!!

Fun times.[/QUOTE]

23361945.jpg
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php?ref=fpb

Scientific data shows that all these theories are lies straight from the pit of hell. Amen.[/QUOTE]
According to Broun, the scientific plot was primarily concerned with hiding the true age of the Earth. Broun serves on the House Science Committee, which came under scrutiny recently after another one of its Republican members, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), suggested that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses against pregnancy.
Click to expand...

That is why science in this country is under attack. Dumb fucks like this actually serving on the damn science committee? Are you fucking shitting me? Damn America, damn.
 
You know how the other thread there was the "No Jesus = No Peace" thing, and how that refers primarily (under Christian mentality) internal peace? And that no matter how brazenly ridiculous that comment looks, Christians more or less abide by it and will absolutely not hear anything contrary?

Welcome to another: "God is science. God made science. Science is God."

All three of these have been said to me repeatedly. And yes, it opens up MASSIVE cognitive dissonance.

Understand I don't mean this said ironically by atheists or agnostics. These are church goers saying this.
 
Once you believe that, there's no room left to talk about anything, you'd might as well become a brick wall. If I have to completely relieve myself of any and all critical thought to attain inner peace, then I guess I'm going to be one unpeaceful motherfucker.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php?ref=fpb
[/QUOTE]

I'm a moderately conservative Christian, but I gotta say this guy and Rep. Akin are spewing ignorance. They certainly don't reflect the views of all Christians and conservatives. In ancient Hebrew texts time frames and numbers in general were most often figurative. So to adhere to the medieval 6,000 yrs theory is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top