Who Do you guys like Better and for what reasons?

[cjr72]

Like I said, the rich didn't get rich by spending, how is giving them MORE money going to convince them to spend more?
.
.
.
How do I know that the rich are more frugal? Well one doesn't get rich by buying a lot of consumer products. The best economies in the world are the best because they have a thriving middle class, not a thriving upper class.

You would have us believe the rich live in dirt hovels. Many of them do spend once they are rich as their toys attest to. Regardless, even the money they don't spend is contributing to the economy when it's parked in investments.

Anyhow your argument seems to hinge on the tax cuts only benefiting the rich and not the middle class. I benefited from the tax cuts, even the cuts in capital gains that make liberal's heads spin and spit green pea soup. And guess what? I'm not rich.

I'd wager that the wars waged had more to do with lower unemployment rates than the tax cuts.

I'm sure you would after your initial claim that we didn't "recover all those jobs shortly after Bush signed his tax cuts" was refuted by your own chart that's now conveniently missing.

What I find curious about the GOP's base is that many talk about going back to the "way things were" back in the 50s and 60s (I won't get into whether or not I believe they also want minorities to be more subservient, via no civil rights, but it does make one wonder).

That's neither here nor there when it comes to this discussion but I guess if your flailing why not throw out the race card?

[In the 50s and 60s] The tax rates were MUCH higher, the wealth gap wasn't nearly what it is now, and unions were more prevalent. I always figured the GOP played a sinister brand of Jedi mind tricks, but damn.....

You know contrary to what some believe Reagan wasn't the first president to cut taxes. He learned it by watching Kennedy cut taxes, in the 60s.

 

[TxGoat]

You would have us believe the rich live in dirt hovels. Many of them do spend once they are rich as their toys attest to. Regardless, even the money they don't spend is contributing to the economy when it's parked in investments.

Anyhow your argument seems to hinge on the tax cuts only benefiting the rich and not the middle class. I benefited from the tax cuts, even the cuts in capital gains that make liberal's heads spin and spit green pea soup. And guess what? I'm not rich.



I'm sure you would after your initial claim that we didn't "recover all those jobs shortly after Bush signed his tax cuts" was refuted by your own chart that's now conveniently missing.



That's neither here nor there when it comes to this discussion but I guess if your flailing why not throw out the race card?



You know contrary to what some believe Reagan wasn't the first president to cut taxes. He learned it by watching Kennedy cut taxes, in the 60s.

I didn't know anyone was still in love with trickle-down economics. I'll post a link so you don't accuse me of pulling images.. Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

 

[cjr72]

I didn't know anyone was still in love with trickle-down economics. I'll post a link so you don't accuse me of pulling images.. Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

A website that is called faireconomy.org containing articles with loaded Democratic Party talking point phrases like 'tax cut for the rich

 

[TxGoat]

As far as not knowing anyone who still loved "trickle-down economics" apparently Obama does considering that he has extended the Bush cuts. But I guess it's not trickle-down or for the rich when a Democrat does it.

I guess GOP lapdogs are going to hope that everyone forgets about how the GOP held unemployment extensions hostage until Obama signed an extension of the tax cuts. Only fitting since some of the GOP are already trying to pin the bank bailouts on Obama.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) why he believes the Obama administration is

 

[ylexot]

I guess GOP lapdogs are going to hope that everyone forgets about how the GOP held unemployment extensions hostage until Obama signed an extension of the tax cuts. Only fitting since some of the GOP are already trying to pin the bank bailouts on Obama.

Already? That quote must be from 2009 since it says that the bailouts were "last fall". Also, (then Senator) Obama voted for the bailouts. He's complicit even if it wasn't "his administration". He can't support it and then blame Bush for it.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I think Romney all but clinched it last night (The one exception would be if Gingrich dropped out, but the man is so egotistical, I don't see it happening). I think we will see the Dems and Obama see it this way too, and the attack ads will begin soon.

Believe all that's left is the deals made for Romney's opponents to drop out and endorse. Who gets certain cabinet positions, etc. Some of Romney's opponents backers have large investments in their candidates, so they are looking for a return on their investment.

 

[9to5cynic]

In regards to the debt issue that keeps popping up with political discussion, I think it's important to note that the GDP of the United States is the highest in the world, at over 15 trillion dollars. I'm not an economists, but I felt that it was important to point that out.

 

[AndyLL]

There's no reason for married couples to get special tax treatment. Somehow children get cared for in the case of unmarried couples. Death issues can be handled by simple contracts...again, with no government approval needed.

Next argument please.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

You do understand that the Judicial system is government don't you?

There are millions of issues were 2 parties might disagree and contracts cannot be created to cover every situation.

Laws ( created by government ) which are interpreted by the courts ( government ) rule for one party or another.

To remove government involvement ( which is what you want ) precedents, ruled on over time, turn many of those conflicts into black and white decisions.

One of the most common ones is the implicit power of attorney spouses have... both financial and medical.

After that comes parents, immediate family, distant family... then interested 3rd parties.

Even if you are in a decades long gay relationship... guess where you stand in that pecking order?

Even if your gay partner has a written medical power of attorney there have been plenty of cases where parents have gotten a court to override it because parental rights trump the rights of 3rd parties which is what the courts are required to consider gay relationships.

Marriage is not just a religulous contract... its a recognized contract by the legal system. You can be legally married outside of a church

The legal contract created by marriage grants 1000s of rights to the 2 partners.

You could never create enought 'simple' contracts to replace those rights.

 

[TxGoat]

Already? That quote must be from 2009 since it says that the bailouts were "last fall". Also, (then Senator) Obama voted for the bailouts. He's complicit even if it wasn't "his administration". He can't support it and then blame Bush for it.

He really hasn't blamed Bush for it as much as his backers have, but many GOPers claim it as a sign that Obama is a socialist and that he's completely responsible for the debt. I have no problem with him taking some responsibility for the debt, I mean we're in his 4th year and it's not getting any smaller. Where I have the problem is with the GOP that wants to act as if the entire debt is his fault when it was the previous administration that cut taxes while going to war on 2 fronts. That's like me taking a pay cut and deciding to buy 2 cars. Eventually my loss of income and my extra expenditures are going to catch up to me. I don't see why the GOP thinks anyone is fooled into believing that our debt is what it is exclusively because of the Democrats.

You do understand that the Judicial system is government don't you?

There are millions of issues were 2 parties might disagree and contracts cannot be created to cover every situation.

Laws ( created by government ) which are interpreted by the courts ( government ) rule for one party or another.

To remove government involvement ( which is what you want ) precedents, ruled on over time, turn many of those conflicts into black and white decisions.

One of the most common ones is the implicit power of attorney spouses have... both financial and medical.

After that comes parents, immediate family, distant family... then interested 3rd parties.

Even if you are in a decades long gay relationship... guess where you stand in that pecking order?

Even if your gay partner has a written medical power of attorney there have been plenty of cases where parents have gotten a court to override it because parental rights trump the rights of 3rd parties which is what the courts are required to consider gay relationships.

Marriage is not just a religulous contract... its a recognized contract by the legal system. You can be legally married outside of a church

The legal contract created by marriage grants 1000s of rights to the 2 partners.

You could never create enought 'simple' contracts to replace those rights.

One of the more curious and amusing situations is that of Dick Cheney's. Under normal circumstances I'm betting he would be against gays having any civil rights at all. But because his daughter is a lesbian, he finds himself on the "liberal" side of this issue. It demonstrates to me the most flawed aspect of being a Christian but also belonging to the GOP. I don't think someone can call themselves Christian and show no empathy to their fellow man/woman. And if you think of some of the core values of the GOP, it just seems to contradict what it means to be a Christian with "Family Values". Like I said, the GOP's brand of Jedi Mind tricks is unreal....

 

[breadnatty08]

One of the more curious and amusing situations is that of Dick Cheney's. Under normal circumstances I'm betting he would be against gays having any civil rights at all. But because his daughter is a lesbian, he finds himself on the "liberal" side of this issue. It demonstrates to me the most flawed aspect of being a Christian but also belonging to the GOP. I don't think someone can call themselves Christian and show no empathy to their fellow man/woman. And if you think of some of the core values of the GOP, it just seems to contradict what it means to be a Christian with "Family Values". Like I said, the GOP's brand of Jedi Mind tricks is unreal....

And herein lies one of those most difficult to swallow aspects of the religious right (Santorum, Gingrich). They use religion (Christian) when it pleases them, then shun certain tenants when it doesn't. Why Santorum still believes that God has dictated the laws of man over mans' ability to think is beyond me.

 

[cjr72]

One of the more curious and amusing situations is that of Dick Cheney's. Under normal circumstances I'm betting he would be against gays having any civil rights at all. But because his daughter is a lesbian, he finds himself on the "liberal" side of this issue. It demonstrates to me the most flawed aspect of being a Christian but also belonging to the GOP. I don't think someone can call themselves Christian and show no empathy to their fellow man/woman. And if you think of some of the core values of the GOP, it just seems to contradict what it means to be a Christian with "Family Values". Like I said, the GOP's brand of Jedi Mind tricks is unreal....

Dick Cheney never struck me as a social warrior in the first place so I'm not sure how contradictory his support of his daughter would be from that aspect. He may very well prescribe to the more libertarian faction of the GOP of live and let live when it comes to social issues.

 

[cjr72]

In regards to the debt issue that keeps popping up with political discussion, I think it's important to note that the GDP of the United States is the highest in the world, at over 15 trillion dollars. I'm not an economists, but I felt that it was important to point that out.

I agree and I think it would be instrumental to compare revenues as a percentage of GDP and spending as a percentage of GDP through history to help determine the reasons for our current debt issues. Have revenues decreased significantly compared to the past or has spending increased significantly compared to the past?

 

[TxGoat]

Dick Cheney never struck me as a social warrior in the first place so I'm not sure how contradictory his support of his daughter would be from that aspect. He may very well prescribe to the more libertarian faction of the GOP of live and let live when it comes to social issues.

I know the religious right were somewhat suspicious of his stance on these types of social issues because of his daughter, but you're right, he never really had any social platforms that he ran on. Although, he did try to play up the good ole boy/oil man angle, which I would say that it's hard to try to project that image if you appear liberal on the same sex issues.

 

[ylexot]

You do understand that the Judicial system is government don't you?

There are millions of issues were 2 parties might disagree and contracts cannot be created to cover every situation.

Laws ( created by government ) which are interpreted by the courts ( government ) rule for one party or another.

To remove government involvement ( which is what you want ) precedents, ruled on over time, turn many of those conflicts into black and white decisions.

I guess you don't understand what I'm saying then. People enter into contracts with one another all the time with zero government involvement/approval/licensing. That doesn't mean that the judicial system isn't involved when there is a dispute with regards to that contract. That's how marriage should be.

One of the most common ones is the implicit power of attorney spouses have... both financial and medical.

After that comes parents, immediate family, distant family... then interested 3rd parties.

Even if you are in a decades long gay relationship... guess where you stand in that pecking order?

Even if your gay partner has a written medical power of attorney there have been plenty of cases where parents have gotten a court to override it because parental rights trump the rights of 3rd parties which is what the courts are required to consider gay relationships.

Give me an example because I don't believe you.

Marriage is not just a religulous contract... its a recognized contract by the legal system. You can be legally married outside of a church

The legal contract created by marriage grants 1000s of rights to the 2 partners.

You could never create enought 'simple' contracts to replace those rights.

Give me 10 rights beyond those in a medical poa and financial poa because I can't think of anywhere near 1000s of rights that marriage grants. Keep in mind that medical poa and financial poa are each about 5 pages long and grant just about every right imaginable. It doesn't get much simpler than that.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[cjr72]

Although, he did try to play up the good ole boy/oil man angle, which I would say that it's hard to try to project that image if you appear liberal on the same sex issues.

Maybe throwing F-bombs and shooting people in the face was a way to compensate

 

[breadnatty08]

Anyone with thoughts on today's primaries? If Romney sweeps, do you think he has a lock? Since they're both open primaries, I wonder how many Dems (though there's not a ton down there) will vote for Santorum or Gingrich to keep the fight rolling.

 

[TxGoat]

Anyone with thoughts on today's primaries? If Romney sweeps, do you think he has a lock? Since they're both open primaries, I wonder how many Dems (though there's not a ton down there) will vote for Santorum or Gingrich to keep the fight rolling.

I was going to post earlier about how I don't see Romney getting a foothold on the south, not with Santorum right behind him (wait did I say that?) and Newt snatching up what's left by Santorum (wait eww again!).

The rural south has a deep rooted belief that Democrats and liberals are going to help usher in a dominion by the Antichrist and the GOP has no problem pandering to that belief.

'We did it again': Santorum wins Alabama, Mississippi - CNN.com


Below is a clip that pretty much sums it up (NSW BTW)

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuI2LEKHGiQ

 

[breadnatty08]

I thought that was a great video when I watched the show on Saturday. Don't know if this clip explains it, but Maher was very explicit when he said nothing was doctored about it, and no one was cherry picked.

 

[TxGoat]

I thought that was a great video when I watched the show on Saturday. Don't know if this clip explains it, but Maher was very explicit when he said nothing was doctored about it, and no one was cherry picked.

I'd hate to see the whole footage shot. And before anyone says anything, I know there are clueless people on BOTH sides of the aisle. The video clearly demonstrates that these people are perfectly fine with voting against their best financial district because they believe the leaders on the GOP side are righteous. The sad thing is the GOP leaders are just as slimy as ever, but somehow their base doesn't care. It's worse to vote for someone that believes in affording women their own responsibility when it comes to their reproductive health and providing rights to someone regardless of their sexual orientation.

I don't see how it's hard to be on the right side of these issues. You think about civil rights in the 60s, do the same people that would deny someone their civil rights based on their sexual orientation the same people that wish we could roll back civil rights to pre-60s conditions?

 

[breadnatty08]

Anybody catch Kermit the Frog's take?
March 14, 2012 - Pt. 3 - The Colbert Report - 2012-14-03 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[TxGoat]

Anybody catch Kermit the Frog's take?
March 14, 2012 - Pt. 3 - The Colbert Report - 2012-14-03 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Silliness aside, "Kermit" makes a valid point, if Santorum and Newt decide to create a super-ticket (I'm not sure if they're allowed to transfer delegates between each other like Go Fish, but then again we're talking about Newts) and this goes to Florida. How would Florida decide this, and can they be trusted? I'm just glad that they would be deciding the GOP primaries and not a national election.

 

[Steven58]

I'm going to recommend a different thread for the marriage v. gay marriage partnership issue. This thread is about who do you like better and for what reason.

Me? Since I've elected to moderate this, I'll stay out of it.

 

[Vihzel]

Mitt Romney.

The GOP would be crazy to nominate Santorum to go against Obama. Santorum can't win independent votes because he's so extreme right. There's a very good reason why Democrats think he's one of the funniest candidates to have run in the past few elections.

I <3 Reddit

 

[AntimonyER]

I think Google wants Romney, because Santorum is not in the dictionary on my phone. Romney is.

 

[TxGoat]

I just watched Game Change (HBO docudrama on Sarah Palin) and I can't help ask myself if she's going to make it into the fray at some point. I'm actually surprised that she is nowhere to be seen this far into the primaries. I figured she'd put herself out there as another possible VP candidate after having 4 years to be primed and sculpted into VP material by the GOP handlers.

Oh and if anyone is interested in the movie, I thought it was done rather well. It doesn't hurt that I have a slight crush on Julianne Moore, but she really acted it out well. I found myself actually feeling somewhat sorry for Sarah near the end of the movie.