*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Apr 23, 2014, 09:32:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
657250 Posts in 9253 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 90 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22
Print
Author Topic: Generation Null: LOL(some)conservatives Thread  (Read 13774 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #375 on: Jan 23, 2012, 11:26:17 PM »

There are plenty of people saying the correct things Ron Paul says minus his racism and sexism, and as Blucas pointed out, his inconsistency.

And who out of those people have a chance of becoming president? Not that I think Ron Paul is sexist, racist and most definitely not inconsistent but you can have that opinion. What matters are the big issues and except for RP, all the candidates including Obama have pretty much the same policy about how things should go about in the USA. RP wants to stop unconstitutional wars, stop violating civil liberties in the name of 'security', bring the troops home, end the Federal Reserve, end the war on drugs and move much of the legislation authority out of DC and to the states. All of these issues wouldn't even be talked about if Ron Paul wasn't running because Obama/Romney have pretty much the exact same position on all of them. If you like their position better, then vote Obama/Romney. I know Obama uses the word 'change' a lot in speeches but saying it won't do anything, Ron Paul promotes real change with his issues and that's what counts.

The answer, as always, is "vote for the person who'd make the least-disgusting Supreme Court nominations." I'd trust Obama a lot more in that regard than Romney, Gingrich, or Ron fucking Paul.
Logged

triple paisley minimum
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #376 on: Jan 24, 2012, 12:40:23 AM »

To me, the most important thing is fixing this:



The best way to do that is not by printing more money (devaluing the currency), borrowing more money (increasing the debt) or raising taxes (burdening civilians and businesses). The best way to do that is by cutting? Cutting what, you ask? Cutting the military budget.
Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #377 on: Jan 24, 2012, 12:57:53 AM »

The best way to do that is not by printing more money (devaluing the currency), borrowing more money (increasing the debt) or raising taxes (burdening civilians and businesses). The best way to do that is by cutting? Cutting what, you ask? Cutting the military budget.

1. Well, according to that infographic, the US could cut defense entirely and not eliminate the deficit. 2. God forbid we "burden" wealthy people and large corporations with tax hikes. 3. Yeah let's take debt advice from the dude from fucking Iceland.
Logged

triple paisley minimum
Chet
Registered user

Posts: 3629


« Reply #378 on: Jan 24, 2012, 01:05:02 AM »

The best way to do that is not by printing more money (devaluing the currency), borrowing more money (increasing the debt) or raising taxes (burdening civilians and businesses). The best way to do that is by cutting? Cutting what, you ask? Cutting the military budget.

1. Well, according to that infographic, the US could cut defense entirely and not eliminate the deficit. 2. God forbid we "burden" wealthy people and large corporations with tax hikes. 3. Yeah let's take debt advice from the dude from fucking Iceland.
well you half it and then with those savings over however many years you buy iceland off ebay and then trade in iceland to buy some pogs with one of those blackmarket metal slammers that were banned in school
Logged

"You need to put some clothes on and eat some food."
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #379 on: Jan 24, 2012, 01:11:04 AM »

I'll give you Iceland for a complete set of Power 9 MtG cards
Logged

triple paisley minimum
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #380 on: Jan 24, 2012, 01:21:05 AM »

1. Things like the embassy in Afghanistan that's bigger than the Vatican is not included in the 'Defense' category but should most definitely be cut. This is not a good argument anyway, saying if a single cut won't eliminate the deficit then let there be no cut at all.
2. Yes, God forbid. To be consistent with your first argument I'm guessing you would want to tax corporations to completely eliminate the deficit. If that would happen business in America would come to a complete halt along with massive lay-offs and this would hugely stifle any progression regarding technical innovation among other things.
3. This is just clinging on to something irrelevant when you can't make a solid argument. Plus, I'm from Celesteville.
« Last Edit: Jan 24, 2012, 01:22:59 AM by Babar » Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #381 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:05:49 AM »

1. Things like the embassy in Afghanistan that's bigger than the Vatican is not included in the 'Defense' category but should most definitely be cut. This is not a good argument anyway, saying if a single cut won't eliminate the deficit then let there be no cut at all.

That's not my argument. My point is that eliminating military spending entirely wouldn't solve the problem demonstrated by the graphic you posted. You said, quote, it's the "best way to do that." I'm saying it's more complicated than that. I'm definitely pro-cutting the military budget, but it's not a silver bullet.

2. Yes, God forbid. To be consistent with your first argument I'm guessing you would want to tax corporations to completely eliminate the deficit. If that would happen business in America would come to a complete halt along with massive lay-offs and this would hugely stifle any progression regarding technical innovation among other things.

Personal income tax burdens for the top bracket at historically low levels already. As for corporations, the big ones have the advantage of offshore subsidiaries, government credits, overseas labor forces and entire teams of tax attorneys. So nope I'm not too concerned about the horrors of General Electric actually paying taxes.

Quote
3. This is just clinging on to something irrelevant when you can't make a solid argument. Plus, I'm from Celesteville.

Hey man, just demonstrating a point. Can you start an Iceland politics thread so I can stick my head in from time to time to tell you how to solve your country's problems and otherwise demonstrate my ignorance?
Logged

triple paisley minimum
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #382 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:12:46 AM »

That thread would be in Icelandic, probably.
Logged
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #383 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:18:21 AM »

First things first: we gotta do something about the Björk problem. It's a global issue, transcending barriers of language and culture.
Logged

triple paisley minimum
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #384 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:25:31 AM »

Hey Thermo, lets squash this beef before it turns ugly. We obviously disagree on some things and agree on some (like cutting military budget yay!) but I'd rather keep you as an internet-bro than feeling some kind of righteousness after myriads of inane argument. I stand by what I say and I don't expect you to change your opinions and let's leave it at that.
Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #385 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:29:01 AM »

Compromise? Not on my fucking internet.
Logged
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #386 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:35:23 AM »

I'm Internet-Gandhi
Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
Thermofusion
Registered user

Posts: 10000


« Reply #387 on: Jan 24, 2012, 02:38:55 AM »

Hey Thermo, lets squash this beef before it turns ugly. We obviously disagree on some things and agree on some (like cutting military budget yay!) but I'd rather keep you as an internet-bro than feeling some kind of righteousness after myriads of inane argument. I stand by what I say and I don't expect you to change your opinions and let's leave it at that.

That's fine with me, Bro-bar. I'll even throw your boy Ron Paul a bone, since he gave one of the few sensible answers in tonight's debate. When everyone was asked about relations with Cuba, Paul said that we should eliminate sanctions, open up diplomatic channels and reminded everyone else on stage that the Cold War is, in fact, over.

Meanwhile, Romney made some kind of dark joke about Castro going to Hell when he dies, Gingrich talked about using covert ops operations to take out Castro and Santorum went into some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory about Iran using Cuba as a staging ground for attacks on the US.
Logged

triple paisley minimum
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #388 on: Jan 24, 2012, 03:46:11 AM »

I didn't even point out the irony of an American complaining about a foreigner intervening in his political affairs. Sorry, couldn't resist  Razz
Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
Antero
Registered user

Posts: 7526


« Reply #389 on: Jan 24, 2012, 04:09:48 AM »

1. Things like the embassy in Afghanistan that's bigger than the Vatican is not included in the 'Defense' category but should most definitely be cut. This is not a good argument anyway, saying if a single cut won't eliminate the deficit then let there be no cut at all.
The defense budget needs to be cut.  The necessary-and-capable cuts come nowhere near to handling our deficit issues.
Quote
2. Yes, God forbid. To be consistent with your first argument I'm guessing you would want to tax corporations to completely eliminate the deficit. If that would happen business in America would come to a complete halt along with massive lay-offs and this would hugely stifle any progression regarding technical innovation among other things.
You have absolutely no knowledge of economics.
Quote
3. This is just clinging on to something irrelevant when you can't make a solid argument. Plus, I'm from Celesteville.
Math is universal.

Also, Iceland's model is actually awesome.  From my understanding, they've recovered remarkably quickly by shouting "FUCK YOU" and taking shit from bankers.
Logged

Quote from: nonotyet
this has been OPINIONS IN CAPSLOCK
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #390 on: Jan 24, 2012, 04:51:01 AM »

1. Things like the embassy in Afghanistan that's bigger than the Vatican is not included in the 'Defense' category but should most definitely be cut. This is not a good argument anyway, saying if a single cut won't eliminate the deficit then let there be no cut at all.
The defense budget needs to be cut.  The necessary-and-capable cuts come nowhere near to handling our deficit issues.

It comes pretty darn close if you cut all the military bases around the world. Cut the war on drugs too and you're almost there. And hey, cut the TSA while we're at it.

Quote
2. Yes, God forbid. To be consistent with your first argument I'm guessing you would want to tax corporations to completely eliminate the deficit. If that would happen business in America would come to a complete halt along with massive lay-offs and this would hugely stifle any progression regarding technical innovation among other things.
You have absolutely no knowledge of economics.

I don't like how you are condescending, just make your argument. Alright, the deficit is 1.27 trillions. If corporate income tax would be raised to completely erase the deficit you think everything would go on hunky dory? Note again that I said completely. I know nobody was directly proposing it, but that was the prerequisite.

I would like to know how exactly do you, Antero, propose the deficit should be eliminated? Print more money? Raise taxes across the board? Obama's deficit reduction plan?
« Last Edit: Jan 24, 2012, 05:45:14 AM by Babar » Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #391 on: Jan 24, 2012, 07:41:52 AM »

Combined total budgets of the DEA and TSA is about $10 billion. You cannot even begin to talk about reducing the deficit by the numbers you're talking without cutting entitlement programs.
Logged

think 'on the road.'
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #392 on: Jan 24, 2012, 07:44:57 AM »

But then Ron Paul is totally good with eliminating things like Medicaid and SCHIP
Logged

think 'on the road.'
Chet
Registered user

Posts: 3629


« Reply #393 on: Jan 24, 2012, 07:57:12 AM »

why you all talking like the deficit needs to be cut in like a year?

excuse me for being ignorant.

surely if you half the the defence budget you're going to be breaking even in a few years?

i'm stupid though so lol.
Logged

"You need to put some clothes on and eat some food."
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #394 on: Jan 24, 2012, 08:11:17 AM »

Look, the only way to start seriously dealing with the deficit is through deep and damaging cuts to defense, Social security and Medicare. But talking about reducing the deficit during a period of deep recession, when you should be courting recovery however you can, meaning *spending*, is just dumb.
Logged

think 'on the road.'
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #395 on: Jan 24, 2012, 08:14:46 AM »

Cutting the DoD entirely results in a budget that's still "in the red," the arguments regarding substitution of labor by multinational corporations if we increased the corporate tax rates are a bit specious, because many of those MNCs already operate in such a manner that they pay the most favorable tax rates possible under the law, and US tax loopholes allow them to pay an almost 0 marginal tax rate. If we cut those loopholes I don't know that they'd relocate to an EU economy, where the taxation benefits are predominantly agreed upon by consortium between EU states, so that leaves what, China (LOL?) India? The claim that increasing corporate spending would have an impact on R&D also leaves something to be desired when the institutions that have excess capital in the current economy are still using it to make financial investments (that is, investments in markets) and not R&D investments.

Also, Ron Paul thinks that non-white non-cisgender non-males should not be categorically guaranteed rights through the protection of the federal government. Which is great if you're Babar, but terrible if you're a human being that cares about those people.

Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #396 on: Jan 24, 2012, 08:16:01 AM »

Look, the only way to start seriously dealing with the deficit is through deep and damaging cuts to defense, Social security and Medicare. But talking about reducing the deficit during a period of deep recession, when you should be courting recovery however you can, meaning *spending*, is just dumb.

There's also this. Deficits only matter to the extent in which consumers of debt assume that you are going to default on loans in the future. US debt is still a moneymaker.
Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
Trousers and Pat
Registered user

Posts: 2044


« Reply #397 on: Jan 24, 2012, 08:26:07 AM »

If we cut military spending our whole fear-based model would be fucked too
Logged

I practice nonviolence, but I preach... ALRIGHT
Babar
Registered user

Posts: 3305


« Reply #398 on: Jan 24, 2012, 08:27:37 AM »

Combined total budgets of the DEA and TSA is about $10 billion. You cannot even begin to talk about reducing the deficit by the numbers you're talking without cutting entitlement programs.

There's a lot more to the war on drugs than just the DEA. Like all the people that are in prison for non-violent drug-related crimes that would be released. It costs about 50K$ keeping an inmate in prison for a year, there's roughly half a million people incarcerated for drug offenses so that adds up pretty quickly (25 billions). If drugs were legal they would be taxed and regulated so the government would actually get income from them so that would also add up. A 2008 study showed that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy. Not bad. Then there would be all kinds of indirect consequences like the court system wouldn't be clogged with drug-related crimes and the power of drug cartels and other criminal organizations would diminish.

The TSA was just a throw-in. Of course the big bucks are in the 700 military bases in 130 countries which should be the first thing to cut.
Logged

Oh man, I'm gonna have cause to regret this post. I know it.
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #399 on: Jan 24, 2012, 08:55:04 AM »

And you still don't eliminate the deficit if you cut all of those things and you actually increase the deficit because you let a lot of people out into the labor force who have trained skills and high wages and increase employment pressures by saying "Jobs for you don't exist anymore." Your argument isn't a policy solution to eliminating the deficit. It's a list of things that sounds good and don't get us to deficit neutrality and have immense consequences for not only the United States economy but also the overall global system.
Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22
Print
LPTJ | Last Plane Forums | Departure Lounge | Topic: Generation Null: LOL(some)conservatives Thread
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc