The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Knoell']Its not semantics if you have people saying the only reason we have a deficit is because of tax cuts.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily directed at Knoell, but more at the statement in general.

If we're to put the war effort on the books as part of the budget, to maintain a "balanced budget" should we cut other programs or increase revenue?

If someone were to create a handy graph that showed the reduced defecit spending that would have been achieved in the absence of the 2001 & 2003 tax bracket changes, would that be enough to show that reduced taxes have been nothing but a disaster?
 
[quote name='nasum']If someone were to create a handy graph that showed the reduced defecit spending that would have been achieved in the absence of the 2001 & 2003 tax bracket changes, would that be enough to show that reduced taxes have been nothing but a disaster?[/QUOTE]

Not unless that handy graph would also include a window into another universe that shows the health of the economy in face of these higher tax brackets.
 
So we havent nailed the details down yet, but I'm working on a bet with my friend who is an ardent Ron Paul supporter, to put it nicely.

Right now it looks like this:
I offer him 7 to 1 odds that Ron Paul will win LESS THAN 10 state primary/caucuses. States that have split caucus AND primaries count as half a win each. Withdrawing from the race prior to 10 wins (or death) still counts as a loss. He does not have to compete in every state.

Strangely enough, I think Nate Silver is picking Ron Paul as the favorite to win the Iowa Caucus.
 
Nobody believes Ron Paul has a chance. The hope is that through these debates and media exposure (when they are forced to stop ignoring him) is having a chipping away effect on what's just always been accepted as issues and subjects that aren't up for question.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Nobody believes Ron Paul has a chance. The hope is that through these debates and media exposure (when they are forced to stop ignoring him) is having a chipping away effect on what's just always been accepted as issues and subjects that aren't up for question.[/QUOTE]
Which is why the media is "ignoring" him.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not unless that handy graph would also include a window into another universe that shows the health of the economy in face of these higher tax brackets.[/QUOTE]

Wait, what?
It's algebra.
Take the revenue received since tax brackets changed and add the difference from previous brackets. It should look like a consistent 8-10% on top of what is there now. Apply that to defecit spending since 2001. See evidence of debt ceiling not being a huge issue because of less debt due to higher revenues.

"High taxes kill economic growth and hurt employees since companies won't hire"
Unemployment was lower in the 90's?

That's what I've never understood about the talk radio echo chamber. When confronted with solid evidence of things working, they fall back on the Milton Friedman notion that money does fall from the sky and doesn't grow from the ground.
It hasn't worked for the last decade! Try something new? NO! We need more of what's not working for things to work again!
 
So many things...

A) The economy now is much different than it was in 2000 or 1990. Again, I could point to the income tax rate when the national debt was Zero., but that doesn't mean we should go back to that rate.
B) You're taking one aspect of the economy (employment) and attempting to directly tie it to one thing and one thing alone (taxes). You're ignoring every other part of the economy (and there are several, by the way) that influences employment levels.
C) You're assuming that, with the higher tax rates, government spending would have been left at the levels they were. As history has shown, the more money the government takes in, the more money it spends. Let's take your same graph, but show the level of debt we'd have if we had both kept tax rates at the previous levels and continued the same level of spending as a percentage of tax income.
 
No. I'm talking about a very small window of time in which one significant change was made. If we assume that all other things remain the same, the chart is valid.

I'm not playing with funny numbers or anythiing to that extent. Revenue = X under this model and Y under the previous model. Y is greater than X. Unless you're using the "high taxes kill employment" line which is BS.

IRT your point C.
Bush II reduced revenue and GREATLY increased spending.
 
[quote name='nasum']No. I'm talking about a very small window of time in which one significant change was made. If we assume that all other things remain the same, the chart is valid.[/quote]

Sure. It would be a very out-of-this-world assumption. I could make a chart that shows the tax cuts and assume that we also were invaded by aliens that turned us all into slaves on March 13th, 2004. If you ignore the facts and make assumptions, I'm sure you could make the chart say anything you want.

Unless you're using the "high taxes kill employment" line which is BS.
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

IRT your point C.
Bush II reduced revenue and GREATLY increased spending.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
But had he not reduced revenue, can we prove that spending wouldn't have increased even more than it did?

Basically, let's say under the lower tax rates, we took in $1 of taxes and spent $1.25 - or 25% more than we took in.

Let's say we remove those tax cuts and we take in $1.50 of taxes. Your assumption is that we would still only spend $1.25. My assumption is that we would have still spent 25% more than we took in - or $1.88, giving us a 38 cent deficit. Who's right?
 
[quote name='nasum']No. I'm talking about a very small window of time in which one significant change was made. If we assume that all other things remain the same, the chart is valid.

I'm not playing with funny numbers or anythiing to that extent. Revenue = X under this model and Y under the previous model. Y is greater than X. Unless you're using the "high taxes kill employment" line which is BS.

IRT your point C.
Bush II reduced revenue and GREATLY increased spending.[/QUOTE]

No,no,no,NO.

We must give the rich people all the monies.

Or else they won't give the rest of us jobs.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No,no,no,NO.

We must give the rich people all the monies.

Or else they won't give the rest of us jobs.[/QUOTE]

More like - if you take the money away from rich people then they can't give us the jobs that they so desparately want to.
 
Wow. Someone's been taking the Professor's class on how to take someone's post, extrapolate something that's not there, then make comments based on what's not there.
 
http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.
Click to expand...

A few of the vs forum regulars postured this mildly popular idea (drug test welfare recipients) a few weeks/months back. I said it was invasive and a waste of money then. Here's evidence that it's a proven money loser. Do y'all still support this ridiculous idea?

It belongs in the 'stay classy' thread since this is a very Republican idea. Heightened criminal punishments and a naive belief that such policies would have a positive financial impact. Herp derp.
 
If we're only looking at the financials of this, we have to consider the long term effects - how long are the two applicants denied benefits? A year? At $240/month, that means the state is saving $2,880 - $1,780 out of one month's worth of drug tests.
 
If you're going to extrapolate the time frame of savings, you would need to do so for the costs as well.

People enroll for TANF every month. So it's disingenuous mathematics to look at the one thing you want to over the infinite long run and ignore that the deficits accrue each month.

i.e., drug testing happens in all 12 months.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you're going to extrapolate the time frame of savings, you would need to do so for the costs as well.

People enroll for TANF every month. So it's disingenuous mathematics to look at the one thing you want to over the infinite long run and ignore that the deficits accrue each month.

i.e., drug testing happens in all 12 months.[/QUOTE]

True... but if we extrapolate based on all the data provided, every month, 2 people would test positive and 38 tests would be reimbursed.

Every month, you'd have a fixed cost of $1,140. So by the end of one year, you would have spent $13,680. However, every month, your savings would increase as you remove more people from the program. At the end of one year, you would have saved a total of $18,720 (not including future months that these same people would be out their checks).

*edit* - using my "one year" guess for loss of benefits. I freely admit I don't know that, and thus why I asked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html



A few of the vs forum regulars postured this mildly popular idea (drug test welfare recipients) a few weeks/months back. I said it was invasive and a waste of money then. Here's evidence that it's a proven money loser. Do y'all still support this ridiculous idea?

It belongs in the 'stay classy' thread since this is a very Republican idea. Heightened criminal punishments and a naive belief that such policies would have a positive financial impact. Herp derp.[/QUOTE]

Supposedly Rick Scott makes money off all the extra testing.

Anyway, there has got be some kind of appeals process due to false positives etc. How much does that add to the cost?
 
One of the two positive tests is, in fact, in the middle of an appeal. So a number greater than $0.

EDIT: On top of that, add in the costs of ACLU challenges (their claim is that this project is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; a claim I'd love to hear someone refute.)
 
[quote name='Msut77']Supposedly Rick Scott makes money off all the extra testing.?[/QUOTE]
This is correct. He has a substantial share in either the company that makes the tests or the company contracted to administer and test the kits. It honestly doesn't even matter which because it's such a blatant conflict of interest.

If testing people getting government assistance becomes a requirement to receive assistance, then we should be testing those that get the most assistance first. 1000 people getting $15k a year doesn't mean shit when you have more than a handful of people getting that $15m EACH. Are we testing executives from KBR, Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, Ratheon, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Blackwater, Bank of America, Exxon, corporatae ad nauseum? Of course not. Cause those goddamn welfare queens living in impoverished areas are the ones destroying our country!:roll:

Not to mention that ever $1 spent on "welfare queens" returns $1.7 into the economy and that welfare fraud is commited by less than 3% of its recipients.

So fuck Rick Scott and everyone that supports this measure for being short-sighted ingrates that would rather suck the dicks of the wealthy elite than feed and house some people that need it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: On top of that, add in the costs of ACLU challenges (their claim is that this project is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; a claim I'd love to hear someone refute.)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure it's really fair to put the cost of legal challenges all on the bill. I mean, do we get to add the multitude of legal challenges against the Health Care Reform bill into the cost of it?

Also, no one is being forced to any kind of search. This is far less intrusive than, say, TSA at the Airport.

[quote name='dohdough']So fuck Rick Scott and everyone that supports this measure for being short-sighted ingrates that would rather suck the dicks of the wealthy elite than feed and house some people that need it.[/QUOTE]

Drug testing does not prevent anyone who *needs* welfare from getting welfare.

40 people in Myke's story took the drug test and 38 of them are still receiving benefits. There's something different about those last two people.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not sure it's really fair to put the cost of legal challenges all on the bill. I mean, do we get to add the multitude of legal challenges against the Health Care Reform bill into the cost of it?[/QUOTE]

That's because you know jack-shit about policy making

Also comment on Rick Perry getting a cut. Because suppposedly you're against govt corruption and all that. ;)
 
So if we've decided that only people who 'need' welfare should receive it, should we do it for more big ticket items? Like oil subsidies, ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, etc.
 
[quote name='IRHari']So if we've decided that only people who 'need' welfare should receive it, should we do it for more big ticket items? Like oil subsidies, ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, etc.[/QUOTE]

I am all for that. We should treat all subidies equally. However in reality you will never hear me bring up subsidies to corporations as an issue, I will only ever attack govt programs for education, culture, and the poor.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Drug testing does not prevent anyone who *needs* welfare from getting welfare.[/QUOTE]
Are you really going to play stupid again? This is exactly why people hardly engage you in a reasonable manner because you post shit like this.

40 people in Myke's story took the drug test and 38 of them are still receiving benefits. There's something different about those last two people.
Click to expand...
Since it sounds like you support these types of programs, I guess you're part of that group that I said should get fucked. I suppose that I should pity you for enjoying to be on the receiving end of scat play, but after showing you time and time again that it ain't chocolate, I just give up.
 
dohdough - do you believe individuals receiving welfare should also be attempting to better themselves in a way that they can one day have a job that supports them so that they no longer need welfare?
 
[quote name='camoor'] I am all for that. We should treat all subidies equally. However in reality you will never hear me bring up subsidies to corporations as an issue, I will only ever attack govt programs for education, culture, and the poor.[/QUOTE]

Everything is just marketing to the conservatives disseminate all the BS.

They can get away with it because the average con drone only has a memory of two months max.

Anyone remember "repeal and replace"?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']dohdough - do you believe individuals receiving welfare should also be attempting to better themselves in a way that they can one day have a job that supports them so that they no longer need welfare?[/QUOTE]
Of course I do. But until there are:

- Enough jobs: with 9% of the population on unemployment benefits and an estimated 20% actual unemployment rate, making it virtually impossible, Which leads to...

- Living wages for the lowliest of the low jobs: minimum wage only pays marginally more than welfare with a few kids. Which leads to...

- Child care: who's going to be taking care of these kids while the parent(s) are working and making less than cost of living wages? Which is also accompanied by...

- Public transportation: if road infrastructure is falling apart, there's going to be even less money for mass-transit while raising its cost. Which makes...

- Education programs: impractical because there isn't reliable transportation, no day-care, not enough jobs, and most importantly, is at the top of the list when we have budget cuts, which in turn brings us back to NOT ENOUGH JOBS.

I haven't even addressed health, race, or gender and you want to strawman me with that bullshit? Putting people out on the streets has never been a solution and it's deplorable that any human being should be so devoid of basic empathy as to promote it. It doesn't matter if they have 10 kids or none, dropped out of high-school or got addicted to drugs, or did all the rigt things and got laid off because the fact of the matter is that they're already in an extremely shitty condition. Telling someone to pull up their bootstraps that doesn't have any straps or even boots is just plain stupid.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Of course I do.[/QUOTE]

Do you think using illegal drugs - when most decent jobs require drug testing - is helpful towards a goal of one bettering one's self?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you think using illegal drugs - when most decent jobs require drug testing - is helpful towards a goal of one bettering one's self?[/QUOTE]
Do you do drugs? Do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you fat? Are you skinny?What's your excuse for being pathetic?

The legality of a drug is arbitrary considering the list of what's legal/illegal and how they became that way. Even if the person was addicted to drugs, does that mean that they should be cut off any and all assistance? It doesn't matter if it's helpful or not because even without drug use, it still doesn't address the problems that I highlighted and you deliberately ignored! Stop acting like such a dumb fuck. Any draconian measures like this are purely retributive.

I'd also wager that most jobs actually don't require a drug test of any kind, decent or otherwise. Just because Walmart and a depressed area like yours does, doesn't mean that a vast majority of country does.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It doesn't matter if it's helpful or not because even without drug use, it still doesn't address the problems that I highlighted and you deliberately ignored![/QUOTE]

Do you believe the use of illegal drugs helps to address the problems that you highlighted above?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you believe the use of illegal drugs helps to address the problems that you highlighted above?[/QUOTE]
Oh jeebus...I already answered this 3 times and gave 8 reasons why drug use literally doesn't matter.

Does drug use help? No.

Does lack of drug use help? No.

What does this mean? It means that it doesn't matter on this tangent of discussion because the core problem of ADDICTION isn't being addressed. If anything drugs are used to escape the reality of one's shitty, in this case, condition. The problem is not fucking drugs. If it were, drug-related crimes wouldn't be so lucrative and one of the few avenues to make some money in an otherwise economically depressed area.


[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/BackgroundCheckDrugTesting.aspx

How much are you willing to wager?[/QUOTE]
You already lost this one. Give it up. It's almost as if you were lying when you said that you were so good at statistics that you tutored classmates. Tell me if you see any major issues in that study.

1988...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BASVCCLA3A
Click to expand...
The article was about cronyism and campaign financing while your video was on subsidies. Seriously, WTF?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Do you do drugs? Do you drink? Do you smoke? Are you fat? Are you skinny?What's your excuse for being pathetic?[/QUOTE]

He has a Nintendo addiction...like me!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']1988...[/QUOTE]

I'm asking for a libertarian response to the Texas Gov's corporate cronyism...and you give me a video of Ron Paul talking about subsidies?
 
[quote name='dohdough']If anything drugs are used to escape the reality of one's shitty, in this case, condition.[/quote]

Escaping reality isn't a determent to trying to better one's self?

You already lost this one. Give it up. It's almost as if you were lying when you said that you were so good at statistics that you tutored classmates. Tell me if you see any major issues in that study.
Click to expand...

One classmate. Man, you literally just cannot read what I post and go with it. You absolutely have to make my posts into something they're not, then attack me based on them. Amazing. Perhaps you can do a guest presentation and the Professor's class on the subject.

Find me a reputable study that shows that most decent jobs do not require drug testing.

http://www.amanet.org/training/whitepapers/2004-Medical-Testing-Survey-17.aspx
This study is a few years old and shows the number is declining - but is still over 50%.

The article was about cronyism and campaign financing while your video was on subsidies. Seriously, WTF?
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about government handouts - in particular, to the wealthy... Funny how when someone else is steering "off topic", no one complains.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I'm asking for a libertarian response to the Texas Gov's corporate cronyism...and you give me a video of Ron Paul talking about subsidies?[/QUOTE]

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMfw4OCYhE

My favorite thing is how some of you realize how much in bed the government is with those against our interest, and yet, you want to hand over more and more power to this same government...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you believe the use of illegal drugs helps to address the problems that you highlighted above?[/QUOTE]

Ironically the explosion in meth use is partially due to American working class folks trying to compete with the ridiculously low wages and hours of third-world countries. Folks just kept falling asleep in their increasingly long shifts so they turned to cheap methanphetamines to keep them awake.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My favorite thing is how some of you realize how much in bed the government is with those against our interest, and yet, you want to hand over more and more power to this same government...[/QUOTE]

You must have missed the fucking monster thread we had on the bullshit supreme court decision about what constitutes free speech when it comes to corporations and campaign donations.

Enlighten us - just what was your viewpoint on that decision?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Escaping reality isn't a determent to trying to better one's self?[/quote]
Nope.


One classmate. Man, you literally just cannot read what I post and go with it. You absolutely have to make my posts into something they're not, then attack me based on them. Amazing. Perhaps you can do a guest presentation and the Professor's class on the subject.
Click to expand...
You mean instead of stupid one-line questions that are devoid of any actual content like you? No thanks.

Find me a reputable study that shows that most decent jobs do not require drug testing.

http://www.amanet.org/training/whitepapers/2004-Medical-Testing-Survey-17.aspx
This study is a few years old and shows the number is declining - but is still over 50%.
Click to expand...
I don't think you know how to read the summary of the survey. It doesn't say that 63% of the companies in the US do drug screening; it says that 63% of the companies surveyed does drug screening. Funny how a little reading comprehension can completely change the meaning!


I thought we were talking about government handouts - in particular, to the wealthy... Funny how when someone else is steering "off topic", no one complains.
Click to expand...
If you posted the second video first, no one would say shit about it being so off-topic that it would warrant its own thread. Hell, or you could've bumped any number of old threads related to it.

I'll even give you some credit for inadvertently posting something that relates the problem on a systemic level! But it'll only end up being half-credit because you decided to shit something without context and it's more of an accident that you stumbled over.

[quote name='UncleBob']Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMfw4OCYhE

My favorite thing is how some of you realize how much in bed the government is with those against our interest, and yet, you want to hand over more and more power to this same government...[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that we should shrink government to the point of impotence and give corporations more power instead of empowering government to reign in corporations?

Just because Paul doesn't believe in subsidies doesn't mean that he believes in controlling corporations. He thinks they should be able to literally do whatever the fuck they want without any government intervention. How the fuck is THAT an answer?
 
[quote name='camoor']Ironically the explosion in meth use is partially due to American working class folks trying to compete with the ridiculously low wages and hours of third-world countries. Folks just kept falling asleep in their increasingly long shifts so they turned to cheap methanphetamines to keep them awake.[/QUOTE]

Links please.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html



A few of the vs forum regulars postured this mildly popular idea (drug test welfare recipients) a few weeks/months back. I said it was invasive and a waste of money then. Here's evidence that it's a proven money loser. Do y'all still support this ridiculous idea?

It belongs in the 'stay classy' thread since this is a very Republican idea. Heightened criminal punishments and a naive belief that such policies would have a positive financial impact. Herp derp.[/QUOTE]

I am a little late, and I recently stated this idea so I am going to throw my 2 cents in. I am not aware of how often these tests are required but let's say they don't give those two people benefits for a year. Whats $240 X 12? Anyone?

However is saving money in the short term the reason people support these tests?

But who am I to argue with a report that had 40 (lol) people tested. Solid proof, it doesn't work and costs more money (but really doesn't).

Despite what you all may think, sane individuals tend to side against addictions being helpful to your life. There is a reason you don't give a begger on the street cash.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']However is saving money in the short term the reason people support these tests?[/QUOTE]

HAHAHAHA, yes! Yes yes yes! Well, it was until this study came out. you guys wouldn't actually dare admit to being wrong on something, so you're pretending that going further into debt at the state level is pretty all right if you get to teach a handful of poor people who don't know how to cheat a drug test fail a drug test a lesson or two.

Now, let's meet a genuinely classy (no sarcasm) Republican: John Huntsman. He's apparently decided to go for broke in the GOP presidential primary, daring to talk about the elephant in the room: all his current opponents are fucking crazy.

“I think there's a serious problem. The minute the Republican Party becomes the party, the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people, who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012 when we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, we take a position that basically runs counter to what 100 to 900 climate scientists have said with what the national academy of science has said. What is causing climate change and man's contribution to it. We find ourselves on the wrong side of science and therefore in a losing position.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61792.html#ixzz1VlJsEjI9
 
[quote name='Knoell']Links please.[/QUOTE]

Why? If I provide links, will it move you in any way? Will it change your position in any way? Will it wrench an ounce of compassion out of you ala the Grinch and his two-sizes-too-small heart?

You're still going to vote for the same Republican douchebags and you're still going to hold the same back-ass political viewpoints, and frankly I'm quite bored with proving you wrong only to have you run away.
 
An evaluation and study of a 'drug test for welfare recipients' program did such a good job shifting the minds of these ideologues. Come on, camoor, do it.

:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top