Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . . . 22 NEXT
 

BOOM headshot65:
This statement doesent exactly suprise me (off-topic: was it a '60s Mustang? If so, lucky duck. >:( People have to remember that Romney is the 2nd richest man to run for president in this nations history, with a net worth of around $550 million. I am sure that the only reason people dont exactly trust him is because they are caught up in class warfare diolouge from Obama, thus they think the rich are "evil". But the richest man to run (and win) office was John F. Kennedy with $1 billion in personal wealth, and he was and still is one of the most popular presidents in American history.

Class warfare dialogue? Let's be perfectly clear here. When the man's primary income came from managing a private equity firm who became kinda famous for firing shitloads of workers, and he proposes a tax plan that slashes taxes on the upper brackets, is part of the party that wants to disassemble the social safety nets that helped make this country great, and he obviously doesn't understand what it's like to be poor... How is that not a pretty solid sign of class warfare? Would he have to raise the lowest tax bracket to be, higher than the upper tax brackets before you see the writing on the wall? Or are you just unwilling to accept that class warfare could ever come from above? How would you even define the term? Because right now, we have the rich eggheads on fox bawling about how raising their taxes is "class warfare" against the "job creators", and yet they're perfectly happy to have their taxes slashed while services drop and the government's debt goes up.

Kennedy was not popular because he was wealthy. He was popular because he was an immensely good politician, with popular policies, successful foreign affairs, and generally a respectable legacy. Romney has none of those, and adds an apparent failure to understand what "poor" means. And for the record? We don't trust the guy because he flip-flops more than a freshly-caught trout on the dock.

Stagnant:

Kennedy was not popular because he was wealthy. He was popular because he was an immensely good politician, with popular policies, successful foreign affairs, and generally a respectable legacy.

*koff*Vietnam*koff*

But other than that, I guess so.

Bymidew:

I didn't NEED any extra reasons not to vote for him, but one more never hurts. Thanks!

For the love off!... The whole point of me saying that was to point out that just because he is rich, doesnt mean that he is a bad guy. Anyone who says that being rich is a problem because he is going to follow "His rich buddies, not the people." I am going to throw them in the same catagory of people who said "Kennedy will listen to the Pope, not the people, because he is Catholic." ie, ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Dood, the Rich-are-evil talk isn't FROM Obama, he's at most riding the ongoing wave as people are finally starting to notice that for the last 30-odd years, money has only been trickling UP.

I don't think the rich are 'evil' any more than a man-eating tiger is 'evil'. It's just that, like the tiger and the human, the interests of the rich and the lower classes are inevitably opposed to each other.

No matter what anyone does, there will always be be a bottom rung of society. Persoanlly, A person could have $1 trillion dollars, and the only way I would care is if he made it by cheating the system, which less than 10% of rich people do.

And it's funny how it's only called 'class warfare' when the poor try fighting back. I haven't heard you guys calling Governor Walker's union-busting 'class warfare'.

Oh, boo hoo, Governor Walker managed to get elected on an anti-union platform in the most unionized state and then when he actually when thourgh with his promises, people got mad. Personally, I say more power too him. The unions have become the bullies they were formed to stop and I lost all sympathy for them around the 70's, 60's, heck maybe even the late 50's.

Stagnant:
Class warfare dialogue? Let's be perfectly clear here. When the man's primary income came from managing a private equity firm who became kinda famous for firing shitloads of workers, and he proposes a tax plan that slashes taxes on the upper brackets, is part of the party that wants to disassemble the social safety nets that helped make this country great, and he obviously doesn't understand what it's like to be poor... How is that not a pretty solid sign of class warfare? Would he have to raise the lowest tax bracket to be, higher than the upper tax brackets before you see the writing on the wall? Or are you just unwilling to accept that class warfare could ever come from above?

Maybe its because I have take too many business and economics classes at my high school, but to me, that doesnt sound like class warfare...that sounds like good business to me. If workers are unproductive, fire them. However, his other parts are being blow out of proportion. He has said he wants to repair the safety net, make it cheaper and close holes in it. The only thing that I dont like is his whole "lower taxes for the rich" but they dont need to be raised either. Close the loopholes, yeah, but not raised

How would you even define the term? Because right now, we have the rich eggheads on fox bawling about how raising their taxes is "class warfare" against the "job creators", and yet they're perfectly happy to have their taxes slashed while services drop and the government's debt goes up.

Personally, I believe it is the process of trying to tax the rich to death because "they have more money than me!" It is class envy taken to an extreme. But it can go the other way, like in the Gilded age in the 1800's, but we are nowhere CLOSE to that point.

Boom you are wasting your time on Bym.

Anyway poor poor Wyoming, I thought Ron Paul would win it by Romney actually won it on Feb 29th and nobody cares. Washington is coming up on Saturday (nobody cares) and then we have Super Tuesday.

Like Colbert said, come super tuesday, the republican base will collectively band together and vote for the person they hope doesn't get the nomination. Like it even matters, Obama has this thing in the bag with the way the economy is moving

BOOM headshot65:

Stagnant:
Class warfare dialogue? Let's be perfectly clear here. When the man's primary income came from managing a private equity firm who became kinda famous for firing shitloads of workers, and he proposes a tax plan that slashes taxes on the upper brackets, is part of the party that wants to disassemble the social safety nets that helped make this country great, and he obviously doesn't understand what it's like to be poor... How is that not a pretty solid sign of class warfare? Would he have to raise the lowest tax bracket to be, higher than the upper tax brackets before you see the writing on the wall? Or are you just unwilling to accept that class warfare could ever come from above?

Maybe its because I have take too many business and economics classes at my high school, but to me, that doesnt sound like class warfare...that sounds like good business to me. If workers are unproductive, fire them.

Yes, dismantling a company you just bought for scraps, then declaring it bankrupt can, in the short term, be a good business decision. It still turns you into "the guy we want to see lynched in the streets ASAP" for all the guys who used to work in that company, and it should not reflect positively on you as a person. Just because it's legal and profitable doesn't make it ethical.

However, his other parts are being blow out of proportion. He has said he wants to repair the safety net, make it cheaper and close holes in it.

Pretty sure he also wanted to get rid of Obamacare. Plus, republican "reform" of Greatest Generation projects tend to be "Get rid of it". I may be wrong on his positions here, but it's certainly the position of the party as a whole.

The only thing that I dont like is his whole "lower taxes for the rich"

Thank god for small favors.

but they dont need to be raised either. Close the loopholes, yeah, but not raised

...We're up to our armpits in red ink and income inequality is at essentially an all-time low. Do I need to bring out the chart?

Personally, I believe it is the process of trying to tax the rich to death because "they have more money than me!"

...I think I need to bring out the chart.

image

In no way is a high marginal tax rate "taxing the rich to death". And we don't want to do it because they have more money than us, we want to do it because we really fucking need the cash.

It is class envy taken to an extreme. But it can go the other way, like in the Gilded age in the 1800's, but we are nowhere CLOSE to that point.

While I feel that your definition is far too narrow and extreme, I also feel that a fair number of the complaints of "class warfare" are hyperbolic at best and insane at worst. However, there's no denying that something is wrong. Income inequality is ridiculously high in America; higher than most other civilized countries. Climbing the social ladder is also an incredibly daunting task at the moment. The more people look at the situation, the more it seems like the banks, big businesses, and others have basically figured out a way to game the system to their advantage. They see entire branches of banks in place, made to screw over the poor. They see how almost nobody is hiring unskilled labor, and even less are promoting people. They see how 1% of the people have 40% of the income, and 50% of the people have about 2%. You see, an interesting thing about warfare is that it's not called warfare if it's over. It looks a lot like it is happening right now.

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

I didn't NEED any extra reasons not to vote for him, but one more never hurts. Thanks!

For the love off!... The whole point of me saying that was to point out that just because he is rich, doesnt mean that he is a bad guy. Anyone who says that being rich is a problem because he is going to follow "His rich buddies, not the people." I am going to throw them in the same catagory of people who said "Kennedy will listen to the Pope, not the people, because he is Catholic." ie, ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Dood, the Rich-are-evil talk isn't FROM Obama, he's at most riding the ongoing wave as people are finally starting to notice that for the last 30-odd years, money has only been trickling UP.

I don't think the rich are 'evil' any more than a man-eating tiger is 'evil'. It's just that, like the tiger and the human, the interests of the rich and the lower classes are inevitably opposed to each other.

No matter what anyone does, there will always be be a bottom rung of society. Persoanlly, A person could have $1 trillion dollars, and the only way I would care is if he made it by cheating the system, which less than 10% of rich people do.

And it's funny how it's only called 'class warfare' when the poor try fighting back. I haven't heard you guys calling Governor Walker's union-busting 'class warfare'.

Oh, boo hoo, Governor Walker managed to get elected on an anti-union platform in the most unionized state and then when he actually when thourgh with his promises, people got mad. Personally, I say more power too him. The unions have become the bullies they were formed to stop and I lost all sympathy for them around the 70's, 60's, heck maybe even the late 50's.

Stagnant:
Class warfare dialogue? Let's be perfectly clear here. When the man's primary income came from managing a private equity firm who became kinda famous for firing shitloads of workers, and he proposes a tax plan that slashes taxes on the upper brackets, is part of the party that wants to disassemble the social safety nets that helped make this country great, and he obviously doesn't understand what it's like to be poor... How is that not a pretty solid sign of class warfare? Would he have to raise the lowest tax bracket to be, higher than the upper tax brackets before you see the writing on the wall? Or are you just unwilling to accept that class warfare could ever come from above?

Maybe its because I have take too many business and economics classes at my high school, but to me, that doesnt sound like class warfare...that sounds like good business to me. If workers are unproductive, fire them. However, his other parts are being blow out of proportion. He has said he wants to repair the safety net, make it cheaper and close holes in it. The only thing that I dont like is his whole "lower taxes for the rich" but they dont need to be raised either. Close the loopholes, yeah, but not raised

How would you even define the term? Because right now, we have the rich eggheads on fox bawling about how raising their taxes is "class warfare" against the "job creators", and yet they're perfectly happy to have their taxes slashed while services drop and the government's debt goes up.

Personally, I believe it is the process of trying to tax the rich to death because "they have more money than me!" It is class envy taken to an extreme. But it can go the other way, like in the Gilded age in the 1800's, but we are nowhere CLOSE to that point.

Wow nice stat. 10% of rich people gain their wealth through illegitimate means? That stat smells like ass because thats likely where it came from.

It doesn't bother you that 5 people, not corporations but 5 individual people have contributed a quarter of all super pac money?

This isnt about demonizing the rich, Warren Buffet is a rich guy that realizes in the long run, higher taxes for the top bracket now means a more stable country in the future, meaning more money to go around for ALL of us. He realizes that the working class are the real wealth creators, not the fancy old people in suits fellating themselves and their egos by playing golf and making back room deals and paying bribing the politicians to lower their taxes. Honestly, buying a politician is the best investment a rich man can make. Why pay your fair share when you can just take a 1/20th of that and throw it into the pockets of some rat scum politician and save billions?

Oh and Mitt Romneys income tax last year was 13.9%
Is that what you're paying? Because then I'd totally understand why youre for Mitt and against the well-being of the rest of the country.

SurfinTaxt:
Like Colbert said, come super tuesday, the republican base will collectively band together and vote for the person they hope doesn't get the nomination. Like it even matters, Obama has this thing in the bag with the way the economy is moving

I wouldnt be so certain, a lot can happen between now and November and probably will.

As for Mitt Romney's tax rate, he paid the required taxes so what is the problem? If you want to argue that he should be taxed more thats a fair discussion to have but that is hardly Mitt Romney's fault.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:
Like Colbert said, come super tuesday, the republican base will collectively band together and vote for the person they hope doesn't get the nomination. Like it even matters, Obama has this thing in the bag with the way the economy is moving

I wouldnt be so certain, a lot can happen between now and November and probably will.

As for Mitt Romney's tax rate, he paid the required taxes so what is the problem? If you want to argue that he should be taxed more thats a fair discussion to have but that is hardly Mitt Romney's fault.

Hes running for the damn presidency! His tax plan will save him tens if not hundreds of millions over the next 10 years, and absolutely destroy the budget with ANOTHER 6 1/2 trillion in taxcuts that will overwhelmingly go to the rich. And you're going to tell me theres no conflict of interest there?

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:
Like Colbert said, come super tuesday, the republican base will collectively band together and vote for the person they hope doesn't get the nomination. Like it even matters, Obama has this thing in the bag with the way the economy is moving

I wouldnt be so certain, a lot can happen between now and November and probably will.

As for Mitt Romney's tax rate, he paid the required taxes so what is the problem? If you want to argue that he should be taxed more thats a fair discussion to have but that is hardly Mitt Romney's fault.

Hes running for the damn presidency! His tax plan will save him tens if not hundreds of millions over the next 10 years, and absolutely destroy the budget with ANOTHER 6 1/2 trillion in taxcuts that will overwhelmingly go to the rich. And you're going to tell me theres no conflict of interest there?

...Not sure if you are serious...

image

6 1/2 trillion in tax cuts would be much more than our current tax revenue so I am curious as to where you got that number from?

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

I wouldnt be so certain, a lot can happen between now and November and probably will.

As for Mitt Romney's tax rate, he paid the required taxes so what is the problem? If you want to argue that he should be taxed more thats a fair discussion to have but that is hardly Mitt Romney's fault.

Hes running for the damn presidency! His tax plan will save him tens if not hundreds of millions over the next 10 years, and absolutely destroy the budget with ANOTHER 6 1/2 trillion in taxcuts that will overwhelmingly go to the rich. And you're going to tell me theres no conflict of interest there?

...Not sure if you are serious...

image

6 1/2 trillion in tax cuts would be much more than our current tax revenue so I am curious as to where you got that number from?

Its a 10-year plan... d'oh

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Hes running for the damn presidency! His tax plan will save him tens if not hundreds of millions over the next 10 years, and absolutely destroy the budget with ANOTHER 6 1/2 trillion in taxcuts that will overwhelmingly go to the rich. And you're going to tell me theres no conflict of interest there?

...Not sure if you are serious...

image

6 1/2 trillion in tax cuts would be much more than our current tax revenue so I am curious as to where you got that number from?

Its a 10-year plan... d'oh

Which if my math is right...

6,500,000,000,000/10 = 650,000,000,000

So $650 Billion annually.

$2.303 Trillion - $650 Billion = 1,653,000,000,000 so $1.653 Trillion So that takes us back to 1997 levels, thats pretty good.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

...Not sure if you are serious...

image

6 1/2 trillion in tax cuts would be much more than our current tax revenue so I am curious as to where you got that number from?

Its a 10-year plan... d'oh

Which if my math is right...

6,500,000,000,000/10 = 650,000,000,000

So $650 Billion annually.

$2.303 Trillion - $650 Billion = 1,653,000,000,000 so $1.653 Trillion So that takes us back to 1997 levels, thats pretty good.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

except '97 was 15 years ago, theres a little thing called inflation. And look at what hes cutting, all social programs, cops, teachers, fireman, all for the sake of a couple extra mill in the pockets of very few. Wed still be waging this retarded war in afghanistan which has no real objective except to keep the profits coming for lockheed martin and blackwater and the War industry in general, wed still be paying exxon mobil and the rest of oil and gas billions every year in subsidies while alternative energy is getting the shaft. It looks like romney has scaled back the further decimation of our economy in his plan to only 3 1/2 trillion in tax cuts, His plan is really fucking stupid, hes trying to add two negative numbers together to get a positive result, and it just makes no sense

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-usa-tax-romney-idUSTRE8202GQ20120301?feedType=RSS&sp=true

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Its a 10-year plan... d'oh

Which if my math is right...

6,500,000,000,000/10 = 650,000,000,000

So $650 Billion annually.

$2.303 Trillion - $650 Billion = 1,653,000,000,000 so $1.653 Trillion So that takes us back to 1997 levels, thats pretty good.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

except '97 was 15 years ago, theres a little thing called inflation. And look at what hes cutting, all social programs, cops, teachers, fireman, all for the sake of a couple extra mill in the pockets of very few. Wed still be waging this retarded war in afghanistan which has no real objective except to keep the profits coming for lockheed martin and blackwater and the War industry in general, wed still be paying exxon mobil and the rest of oil and gas billions every year in subsidies while alternative energy is getting the shaft. It looks like romney has scaled back the further decimation of our economy in his plan to only 3 1/2 trillion in tax cuts, His plan is really fucking stupid, hes trying to add two negative numbers together to get a positive result, and it just makes no sense

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-usa-tax-romney-idUSTRE8202GQ20120301?feedType=RSS&sp=true

Hmm the story never lists exactly what is considered "rich".

The site I posted accounted for inflation.

The article you posts mentions nothing about cutting cops, teachers, fireman and all that. Sure those things will need to be cut too but the simple fact of the matter is we have to live within our means. Better to do that now before waiting till we dont have a choice but to take even more drastic steps.

*rolls eyes* Yeah you see someday we will leave Afghanistan but the burden from something like Obamacare would last long into the future so don't even try to go there.

Not of what you are saying makes sense honestly. It all smells of alarmist misinformation if you ask me. I don't like everything in Romney's plan either but at least its serious about doing something about getting our financial house in order and forcing the government to live within its means. We simply cant keep going on our current path and expect no consequences. Hard choices are going to have to be made and we dont need more sacred cows in the budget. If people want a service bad enough they should be willing to pay more taxes specifically for that service, not to subsidize the government's spending addiction in general.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Which if my math is right...

6,500,000,000,000/10 = 650,000,000,000

So $650 Billion annually.

$2.303 Trillion - $650 Billion = 1,653,000,000,000 so $1.653 Trillion So that takes us back to 1997 levels, thats pretty good.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

except '97 was 15 years ago, theres a little thing called inflation. And look at what hes cutting, all social programs, cops, teachers, fireman, all for the sake of a couple extra mill in the pockets of very few. Wed still be waging this retarded war in afghanistan which has no real objective except to keep the profits coming for lockheed martin and blackwater and the War industry in general, wed still be paying exxon mobil and the rest of oil and gas billions every year in subsidies while alternative energy is getting the shaft. It looks like romney has scaled back the further decimation of our economy in his plan to only 3 1/2 trillion in tax cuts, His plan is really fucking stupid, hes trying to add two negative numbers together to get a positive result, and it just makes no sense

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-usa-tax-romney-idUSTRE8202GQ20120301?feedType=RSS&sp=true

Hmm the story never lists exactly what is considered "rich".

The site I posted accounted for inflation.

The article you posts mentions nothing about cutting cops, teachers, fireman and all that. Sure those things will need to be cut too but the simple fact of the matter is we have to live within our means. Better to do that now before waiting till we dont have a choice but to take even more drastic steps.

*rolls eyes* Yeah you see someday we will leave Afghanistan but the burden from something like Obamacare would last long into the future so don't even try to go there.

Not of what you are saying makes sense honestly. It all smells of alarmist misinformation if you ask me. I don't like everything in Romney's plan either but at least its serious about doing something about getting our financial house in order and forcing the government to live within its means. We simply cant keep going on our current path and expect no consequences. Hard choices are going to have to be made and we dont need more sacred cows in the budget. If people want a service bad enough they should be willing to pay more taxes specifically for that service, not to subsidize the government's spending addiction in general.

yes, it would be a shame for us to allow Obama to continue our current path toward lower unemployment and solvency. Where do you think these insane tax cuts are going to come from? All social programs... know why? Because your cops and teachers, firefighters and the poor in general dont have anyone defending their interests. If a legislator is faced with cutting either planned parenthood or an oil subsidy, hes going to cut the one that isnt paying his salary. Romney is a total corporate robot who will say anything, do anything including a song and dance to get elected. You're honestly going to tell me your going to trade the upswing in the economy for some clown of the earth? remember what happened last time a republican was in office?

We killed Bin laden, there is literally no reason to be there, every day we are there, we risk losing more american lives, killing more innocent civilians and creating even more hate for our country abroad. We need to leave TODAY. Most people there dont even know about 9/11, to them were just a bunch of imperialist thugs, and theyre not wrong.
You talk about living within your means, this only applies to the people who have LIMITED MEANS.... Bankers, speculators, war profiteers, tobacco sellers, etc etc etc have rigged the system so that they have unlimited means at the expense of the average persons means. This is the core issue, money buys power, and when you accrue enough money, it feeds back on itself so that you literally have to do zero work to rake in millions.

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

except '97 was 15 years ago, theres a little thing called inflation. And look at what hes cutting, all social programs, cops, teachers, fireman, all for the sake of a couple extra mill in the pockets of very few. Wed still be waging this retarded war in afghanistan which has no real objective except to keep the profits coming for lockheed martin and blackwater and the War industry in general, wed still be paying exxon mobil and the rest of oil and gas billions every year in subsidies while alternative energy is getting the shaft. It looks like romney has scaled back the further decimation of our economy in his plan to only 3 1/2 trillion in tax cuts, His plan is really fucking stupid, hes trying to add two negative numbers together to get a positive result, and it just makes no sense

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-usa-tax-romney-idUSTRE8202GQ20120301?feedType=RSS&sp=true

Hmm the story never lists exactly what is considered "rich".

The site I posted accounted for inflation.

The article you posts mentions nothing about cutting cops, teachers, fireman and all that. Sure those things will need to be cut too but the simple fact of the matter is we have to live within our means. Better to do that now before waiting till we dont have a choice but to take even more drastic steps.

*rolls eyes* Yeah you see someday we will leave Afghanistan but the burden from something like Obamacare would last long into the future so don't even try to go there.

Not of what you are saying makes sense honestly. It all smells of alarmist misinformation if you ask me. I don't like everything in Romney's plan either but at least its serious about doing something about getting our financial house in order and forcing the government to live within its means. We simply cant keep going on our current path and expect no consequences. Hard choices are going to have to be made and we dont need more sacred cows in the budget. If people want a service bad enough they should be willing to pay more taxes specifically for that service, not to subsidize the government's spending addiction in general.

yes, it would be a shame for us to allow Obama to continue our current path toward lower unemployment and solvency. Where do you think these insane tax cuts are going to come from? All social programs... know why? Because your cops and teachers, firefighters and the poor in general dont have anyone defending their interests. If a legislator is faced with cutting either planned parenthood or an oil subsidy, hes going to cut the one that isnt paying his salary. Romney is a total corporate robot who will say anything, do anything including a song and dance to get elected. You're honestly going to tell me your going to trade the upswing in the economy for some clown of the earth? remember what happened last time a republican was in office?

We killed Bin laden, there is literally no reason to be there, every day we are there, we risk losing more american lives, killing more innocent civilians and creating even more hate for our country abroad. We need to leave TODAY. Most people there dont even know about 9/11, to them were just a bunch of imperialist thugs, and theyre not wrong.
You talk about living within your means, this only applies to the people who have LIMITED MEANS.... Bankers, speculators, war profiteers, tobacco sellers, etc etc etc have rigged the system so that they have unlimited means at the expense of the average persons means. This is the core issue, money buys power, and when you accrue enough money, it feeds back on itself so that you literally have to do zero work to rake in millions.

Lower unemployment is what is to be expected no matter what. Obama has however made solvency even harder by driving spending levels to incredible new heights.

Ok if you are going to play the "corporations run the government" game then we are done here. I am not going to waste time talking to someone who buys into conspiracy theories. Oh sure corporations influence the government more than they probably should be able to but they do not RUN the government.

Last time a Republican was in office spending level were far lower than they are now.

We didnt go into Afghanistan to kill one guy. We didnt invade Yemen to kill that one guy we killed last year that everyone was up in arms about.

I am fairly certain everyone remembers 9/11 even if they dont see why Americans were and are pissed about it.

When you use words like "imperialists" "corporate robot" and "war profiteers" its hard to take you seriously. Sorry it just is.

Seekster:

Lower unemployment is what is to be expected no matter what. Obama has however made solvency even harder by driving spending levels to incredible new heights.

Ok if you are going to play the "corporations run the government" game then we are done here. I am not going to waste time talking to someone who buys into conspiracy theories. Oh sure corporations influence the government more than they probably should be able to but they do not RUN the government.

Last time a Republican was in office spending level were far lower than they are now.

We didnt go into Afghanistan to kill one guy. We didnt invade Yemen to kill that one guy we killed last year that everyone was up in arms about.

I am fairly certain everyone remembers 9/11 even if they dont see why Americans were and are pissed about it.

When you use words like "imperialists" "corporate robot" and "war profiteers" its hard to take you seriously. Sorry it just is.

Let me ask you, what happens when theres no war? Companies that make weapons and hire out mercenaries dry up because theres no demand for death. Why do you think the war lobby is pushing so hard for war with Iran? Theres absolutely zero evidence that theyre working on a nuclear arms program, generals have come out and said that Iran is a rational actor, so why all warmongering? Its not a conspiracy because its all out in the open, if you took the time to actually get some news from independent sources (and no, politico isnt independent) then youd be aware of these goings on.

You've been trained by Fox and Cnn to instantly dismiss anyone saying imperialism and war profiteer and corporate robot because the media is owned by people who interests have much to gain from the public not knowing or caring about these things. If you dont learn to follow the money, then you will never have true insight into what is really going on.

Theyve done polls in afghanistan, when asked about 9/11, the majority of people had no idea what it was.

The last time a republican was in office, we got into two decade long wars, one of which is still going on. We had surplus, were on our way to solvency when Gingrich decided to engage in a moral crusade against clinton over an insignificant issue that he didnt even have ground to stand on.

Now listen, Im no blind supporter of democrats, I was on the frontlines so to speak railing against obama over every human rights transgression he purported, I was there criticizing him for his weakness, caving into every single republican demand for 3 years (im baffled you guys dont love the man), finally now that its election time, Obama has "realized" that on the country is upwards of 70% progressive when you really look at each separate issue, disregarding partisan bias. The country says "tax the rich, make them pay their fair share", poll after poll after poll says America should tax the rich

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Lower unemployment is what is to be expected no matter what. Obama has however made solvency even harder by driving spending levels to incredible new heights.

Ok if you are going to play the "corporations run the government" game then we are done here. I am not going to waste time talking to someone who buys into conspiracy theories. Oh sure corporations influence the government more than they probably should be able to but they do not RUN the government.

Last time a Republican was in office spending level were far lower than they are now.

We didnt go into Afghanistan to kill one guy. We didnt invade Yemen to kill that one guy we killed last year that everyone was up in arms about.

I am fairly certain everyone remembers 9/11 even if they dont see why Americans were and are pissed about it.

When you use words like "imperialists" "corporate robot" and "war profiteers" its hard to take you seriously. Sorry it just is.

Let me ask you, what happens when theres no war? Companies that make weapons and hire out mercenaries dry up because theres no demand for death. Why do you think the war lobby is pushing so hard for war with Iran? Theres absolutely zero evidence that theyre working on a nuclear arms program, generals have come out and said that Iran is a rational actor, so why all warmongering? Its not a conspiracy because its all out in the open, if you took the time to actually get some news from independent sources (and no, politico isnt independent) then youd be aware of these goings on.

You've been trained by Fox and Cnn to instantly dismiss anyone saying imperialism and war profiteer and corporate robot because the media is owned by people who interests have much to gain from the public not knowing or caring about these things. If you dont learn to follow the money, then you will never have true insight into what is really going on.

Theyve done polls in afghanistan, when asked about 9/11, the majority of people had no idea what it was.

The last time a republican was in office, we got into two decade long wars, one of which is still going on. We had surplus, were on our way to solvency when Gingrich decided to engage in a moral crusade against clinton over an insignificant issue that he didnt even have ground to stand on.

Now listen, Im no blind supporter of democrats, I was on the frontlines so to speak railing against obama over every human rights transgression he purported, I was there criticizing him for his weakness, caving into every single republican demand for 3 years (im baffled you guys dont love the man), finally now that its election time, Obama has "realized" that on the country is upwards of 70% progressive when you really look at each separate issue, disregarding partisan bias. The country says "tax the rich, make them pay their fair share", poll after poll after poll says America should tax the rich

When there is no war? The same people make weapons and sell them to countries who want them. As for mercenaries, so long as there are humans there will be conflict and there will be plenty of opportunities for mercenaries whether America is at war or not.

Iran is best settled diplomatically if it is at all possible to do so. Thats largely up to Iran. If there is going to be a war with Iran it will be something Iran started. There is no widespread call for invading Iran in the United States. No they arent after a nuke now for the same reason we arent on our way to Neptune right now, we don't have the technology. When Iran does have the technology to build a nuke that is when they get to make a choice. The goal of sanctions and diplomatic pressure is to make them realize that its in their best interest to never make a nuke.

"You've been trained by Fox and Cnn to instantly dismiss anyone saying imperialism and war profiteer and corporate robot because the media is owned by people who interests have much to gain from the public not knowing or caring about these things. If you dont learn to follow the money, then you will never have true insight into what is really going on."

And hello elitism. I barely watch Fox News at all and CNN I may glance at from time to time but I get most of my news from the AP and BBC.

I would love to see that poll.

As I said, the wars will end, but if Obama has his way we will be paying for Obamacare forever (or as long as we can which may not be very long).

Americans agree that the rich could do to pay more taxes, however the polls also show that spending cuts are the only way to solve our spending problems long term.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120224/D9T3L7SG3.html

Raising taxes might help (though I would point out that closing tax loopholes makes more sense because you can raise taxes all you want, the rich can still hire a tax accountant to take advantage of every loophole they can (ie like Warren Buffet does).

What we need is complete reform of the tax system to simplify it and close the tax loopholes. The progressive tax system should be preserved on that we agree. However you have to realize that we cannot balance the budget at our current levels of spending by raising taxes within reasonable levels. Deep spending cuts will need to be made no matter what. Obama doesnt seem to realize that and we quite literally can't afford four more years of this level of spending. It has got to stop and it will stop if we do nothing but it will hurt far worse then than if we work to stop our spending problem now.

Seekster:
[quote="SurfinTaxt" post="528.336708.13991095"][quote="Seekster" post="528.336708.13991041"]

When there is no war? The same people make weapons and sell them to countries who want them. As for mercenaries, so long as there are humans there will be conflict and there will be plenty of opportunities for mercenaries whether America is at war or not.

Iran is best settled diplomatically if it is at all possible to do so. Thats largely up to Iran. If there is going to be a war with Iran it will be something Iran started. There is no widespread call for invading Iran in the United States. No they arent after a nuke now for the same reason we arent on our way to Neptune right now, we don't have the technology. When Iran does have the technology to build a nuke that is when they get to make a choice. The goal of sanctions and diplomatic pressure is to make them realize that its in their best interest to never make a nuke.

"You've been trained by Fox and Cnn to instantly dismiss anyone saying imperialism and war profiteer and corporate robot because the media is owned by people who interests have much to gain from the public not knowing or caring about these things. If you dont learn to follow the money, then you will never have true insight into what is really going on."

And hello elitism. I barely watch Fox News at all and CNN I may glance at from time to time but I get most of my news from the AP and BBC.

I would love to see that poll.

As I said, the wars will end, but if Obama has his way we will be paying for Obamacare forever (or as long as we can which may not be very long).

Americans agree that the rich could do to pay more taxes, however the polls also show that spending cuts are the only way to solve our spending problems long term.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120224/D9T3L7SG3.html

Raising taxes might help (though I would point out that closing tax loopholes makes more sense because you can raise taxes all you want, the rich can still hire a tax accountant to take advantage of every loophole they can (ie like Warren Buffet does).

What we need is complete reform of the tax system to simplify it and close the tax loopholes. The progressive tax system should be preserved on that we agree. However you have to realize that we cannot balance the budget at our current levels of spending by raising taxes within reasonable levels. Deep spending cuts will need to be made no matter what. Obama doesnt seem to realize that and we quite literally can't afford four more years of this level of spending. It has got to stop and it will stop if we do nothing but it will hurt far worse then than if we work to stop our spending problem now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035160/Most-Afghans-know-9-11-according-disturbing-poll.html

Apparently 92% weren't aware according to this poll.

We agree on one thing: spending cuts need to be made, but to balance the budget you need both spending cuts and tax increases. You cant just look at one side of the equation it doesn't work like that.

Now lets talk about what to cut. Defense has been largely off the table, however we are finally seeing a substantial reduction now that IRaq is over (thank cthulu). How about subsidies? Instead of cutting what is already a barebones industry in Solindra solar energy, how about cutting those retarded oil subsidies that were instated well over a hundred years ago when the oil industry didnt really exist? Why not instead move those to start ups that could really use it? Did you know that GE paid negative 13.5% on their taxes last year? We paid them... billions. You want to talk about fancy accountants, any two bit accountant can get a 16% rate for buffet because what he does is purely capital gains.

I agree that tax code is needlessly convoluted. But i honestly have no earthly idea how you can support romney assuming youre not a multi multi millionaire. The guy will blow up the debt and try to cover it up buy stealing from yours and my social security and medicare. Now I can see scaling medicare back, but social security ought to be untouchable. We paid into it, these fucking sleazey shits need to keep their grubby paws off of it.

As for Obamas Health plan, at the very least we are finally covering those without the ability to do so for themselves, just like every other 1st world nation on earth. The plan is shit, probably because it was drafted by the heritage foundation (a conservative think tank) and pushed for by the insurance giants. If only he had stuck to his guns and said "public option for everyone", the health plan would be near perfect. As it is, its a shitty compromise

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:
[quote="SurfinTaxt" post="528.336708.13991095"][quote="Seekster" post="528.336708.13991041"]

When there is no war? The same people make weapons and sell them to countries who want them. As for mercenaries, so long as there are humans there will be conflict and there will be plenty of opportunities for mercenaries whether America is at war or not.

Iran is best settled diplomatically if it is at all possible to do so. Thats largely up to Iran. If there is going to be a war with Iran it will be something Iran started. There is no widespread call for invading Iran in the United States. No they arent after a nuke now for the same reason we arent on our way to Neptune right now, we don't have the technology. When Iran does have the technology to build a nuke that is when they get to make a choice. The goal of sanctions and diplomatic pressure is to make them realize that its in their best interest to never make a nuke.

"You've been trained by Fox and Cnn to instantly dismiss anyone saying imperialism and war profiteer and corporate robot because the media is owned by people who interests have much to gain from the public not knowing or caring about these things. If you dont learn to follow the money, then you will never have true insight into what is really going on."

And hello elitism. I barely watch Fox News at all and CNN I may glance at from time to time but I get most of my news from the AP and BBC.

I would love to see that poll.

As I said, the wars will end, but if Obama has his way we will be paying for Obamacare forever (or as long as we can which may not be very long).

Americans agree that the rich could do to pay more taxes, however the polls also show that spending cuts are the only way to solve our spending problems long term.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120224/D9T3L7SG3.html

Raising taxes might help (though I would point out that closing tax loopholes makes more sense because you can raise taxes all you want, the rich can still hire a tax accountant to take advantage of every loophole they can (ie like Warren Buffet does).

What we need is complete reform of the tax system to simplify it and close the tax loopholes. The progressive tax system should be preserved on that we agree. However you have to realize that we cannot balance the budget at our current levels of spending by raising taxes within reasonable levels. Deep spending cuts will need to be made no matter what. Obama doesnt seem to realize that and we quite literally can't afford four more years of this level of spending. It has got to stop and it will stop if we do nothing but it will hurt far worse then than if we work to stop our spending problem now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035160/Most-Afghans-know-9-11-according-disturbing-poll.html

Apparently 92% weren't aware according to this poll.

We agree on one thing: spending cuts need to be made, but to balance the budget you need both spending cuts and tax increases. You cant just look at one side of the equation it doesn't work like that.

Now lets talk about what to cut. Defense has been largely off the table, however we are finally seeing a substantial reduction now that IRaq is over (thank cthulu). How about subsidies? Instead of cutting what is already a barebones industry in Solindra solar energy, how about cutting those retarded oil subsidies that were instated well over a hundred years ago when the oil industry didnt really exist? Why not instead move those to start ups that could really use it? Did you know that GE paid negative 13.5% on their taxes last year? We paid them... billions. You want to talk about fancy accountants, any two bit accountant can get a 16% rate for buffet because what he does is purely capital gains.

I agree that tax code is needlessly convoluted. But i honestly have no earthly idea how you can support romney assuming youre not a multi multi millionaire. The guy will blow up the debt and try to cover it up buy stealing from yours and my social security and medicare. Now I can see scaling medicare back, but social security ought to be untouchable. We paid into it, these fucking sleazey shits need to keep their grubby paws off of it.

As for Obamas Health plan, at the very least we are finally covering those without the ability to do so for themselves, just like every other 1st world nation on earth. The plan is shit, probably because it was drafted by the heritage foundation (a conservative think tank) and pushed for by the insurance giants. If only he had stuck to his guns and said "public option for everyone", the health plan would be near perfect. As it is, its a shitty compromise

Huh...so you mean to tell me that most Afghans just assume the United States invade Afghanistan because its handy for the shops or something? That actually would explain a lot but still the Afghans can have their country, we have just about had it with that wasteland anyway.

Yes you need spending cuts and tax increases. My ideal plan in general would be to cut as much as we can and then see how much we need to raise taxes to make up the difference. Also its not just about raising taxes. More importantly we need tax reform to make the tax system make sense to most Americans. Most Americans cant afford to hire a tax accountant to help them do their taxes (luckily most of those people don't pay income taxes anyway). We need to close the tax loopholes.

Sure getting rid of oil subsidies should be looked into. However we need to make sure that doing that isnt going to cause gas prices to suddenly skyrocket because thats just going to create an even greater problem since gas prices affect nearly everyone.

Farm subsidies too should be looked into for cutting, its yet another sacred cow we dont need but there again, we don't need to cut recklessly there if doing so would raise the price of food to the point where starvation becomes a major problem in the USA which we dont need.

Defense cuts have already been made and I don't think the military can do its job if it has any more taken out of it than what is already planned for them in the next 10 years. Even with what will be cut over the next 10 years its not a sure thing they can still do their job. Maybe we could make do with 8 Fleet carriers instead of 11 but the cuts are already on the books and so now its time to let those cuts take effect and look at what else needs to be cut.

The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and it should not be bailing companies out. If a company can't survive on its own then it needs to go through the bankruptcy process (I got hired by a company that is in bankruptcy so bankruptcy is not the end of the world). The government has an interest in breaking up monopolies to ensure competition but if a company fails then let it fail and let someone else rise up to take their share of the market. Its called the market.

I made a bit less than $35,000 last year (first full year out of college) and the government apparently owes me $500 or such. I don't fully understand why, think it has something to do with payroll taxes, like it matters, Social Security likely wont be there when I am old enough to use it anyway but I digress). Honestly I'm surprised that I am not being asked to pay anything in terms of federal income tax and on top of that I am getting money from the government. Now I wont complain but I have to wonder about how on Earth the government plans to make ends meet. Then again Texas doesnt have state income taxes so I don't have anything to pay there.

Why do I support Romney? Because of the 5 people in the race (5 includes Obama) Romney is the only one that isnt a divisive partisan. Nobody really loves him but nobody loathes him really either. Both the left and the right can learn to live with him, no other candidate has that quality. We face so many problems right now that our biggest problem is the petty partisan divide in Washington which makes it nearly impossible to even seriously address the other problems. You can blame Congress all you want but if you ask me they need to take the box that is Washington, turn the whole thing upside down, dump all the bums out from the President down, and start over. That wont happen but if they can replace the President that will be a start. All Obama will bring us is four more years of f all getting done.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about living within our means, NOTHING can be untouchable. We should cut sensibly but everything should be looked at. We can't have sacred cows in the budget.

There are a few good things in Obamacare (pre-existing conditions, letting kids stay on their parent's plan etc) but most of it is a massive pile of shit we can't afford anyway. It would be far better to take that money, block grant it to the states and say "make your own health plan that works best for you" (something that Romney actually did by the way).

Seekster:

Huh...so you mean to tell me that most Afghans just assume the United States invade Afghanistan because its handy for the shops or something? That actually would explain a lot but still the Afghans can have their country, we have just about had it with that wasteland anyway.

Yes you need spending cuts and tax increases. My ideal plan in general would be to cut as much as we can and then see how much we need to raise taxes to make up the difference. Also its not just about raising taxes. More importantly we need tax reform to make the tax system make sense to most Americans. Most Americans cant afford to hire a tax accountant to help them do their taxes (luckily most of those people don't pay income taxes anyway). We need to close the tax loopholes.

Sure getting rid of oil subsidies should be looked into. However we need to make sure that doing that isnt going to cause gas prices to suddenly skyrocket because thats just going to create an even greater problem since gas prices affect nearly everyone.

Farm subsidies too should be looked into for cutting, its yet another sacred cow we dont need but there again, we don't need to cut recklessly there if doing so would raise the price of food to the point where starvation becomes a major problem in the USA which we dont need.

Defense cuts have already been made and I don't think the military can do its job if it has any more taken out of it than what is already planned for them in the next 10 years. Even with what will be cut over the next 10 years its not a sure thing they can still do their job. Maybe we could make do with 8 Fleet carriers instead of 11 but the cuts are already on the books and so now its time to let those cuts take effect and look at what else needs to be cut.

The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and it should not be bailing companies out. If a company can't survive on its own then it needs to go through the bankruptcy process (I got hired by a company that is in bankruptcy so bankruptcy is not the end of the world). The government has an interest in breaking up monopolies to ensure competition but if a company fails then let it fail and let someone else rise up to take their share of the market. Its called the market.

I made a bit less than $35,000 last year (first full year out of college) and the government apparently owes me $500 or such. I don't fully understand why, think it has something to do with payroll taxes, like it matters, Social Security likely wont be there when I am old enough to use it anyway but I digress). Honestly I'm surprised that I am not being asked to pay anything in terms of federal income tax and on top of that I am getting money from the government. Now I wont complain but I have to wonder about how on Earth the government plans to make ends meet. Then again Texas doesnt have state income taxes so I don't have anything to pay there.

Why do I support Romney? Because of the 5 people in the race (5 includes Obama) Romney is the only one that isnt a divisive partisan. Nobody really loves him but nobody loathes him really either. Both the left and the right can learn to live with him, no other candidate has that quality. We face so many problems right now that our biggest problem is the petty partisan divide in Washington which makes it nearly impossible to even seriously address the other problems. You can blame Congress all you want but if you ask me they need to take the box that is Washington, turn the whole thing upside down, dump all the bums out from the President down, and start over. That wont happen but if they can replace the President that will be a start. All Obama will bring us is four more years of f all getting done.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about living within our means, NOTHING can be untouchable. We should cut sensibly but everything should be looked at. We can't have sacred cows in the budget.

There are a few good things in Obamacare (pre-existing conditions, letting kids stay on their parent's plan etc) but most of it is a massive pile of shit we can't afford anyway. It would be far better to take that money, block grant it to the states and say "make your own health plan that works best for you" (something that Romney actually did by the way).

Exactly, its a quagmire and we need to leave asap.

Lets talk about oil prices. Cutting subsidies would have amrginal effect on the price at BEST. Even talks of being energy independent are a farce, the price of oil is a global one in the day and age. What drives the oil prices are about 70% speculation, with the rest going to the mnaufacturers, purveyors and refiners etc... Think about that, 70% of what goes into gas prices are a bunch of old guys sitting in a room betting on the price of oil. Thats exactly how Kochs made their fortunes, the ones they are using to squash our voices.

Even if Keystone Xl goes through, theres exactly zero guarantee that the oil will stay here in the u.s. There was a piece of legislation proposed saying that oil produced here should stay here. Bill was struck down by 230 republicans... whats the matter? I thought they wanted energy independence, no turns out they just want big oil to have more power to do whatever the hell is the most profitable at the expense of our commons.

The rest of your post makes it sound like you think the gov't should be breaking up the BAC's and Goldman Sach's... which Im totally in favor of. What do you think about the bailouts, more importantly the secret bailouts by the fed, printing 7 and a half trillion and giving it away?

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Huh...so you mean to tell me that most Afghans just assume the United States invade Afghanistan because its handy for the shops or something? That actually would explain a lot but still the Afghans can have their country, we have just about had it with that wasteland anyway.

Yes you need spending cuts and tax increases. My ideal plan in general would be to cut as much as we can and then see how much we need to raise taxes to make up the difference. Also its not just about raising taxes. More importantly we need tax reform to make the tax system make sense to most Americans. Most Americans cant afford to hire a tax accountant to help them do their taxes (luckily most of those people don't pay income taxes anyway). We need to close the tax loopholes.

Sure getting rid of oil subsidies should be looked into. However we need to make sure that doing that isnt going to cause gas prices to suddenly skyrocket because thats just going to create an even greater problem since gas prices affect nearly everyone.

Farm subsidies too should be looked into for cutting, its yet another sacred cow we dont need but there again, we don't need to cut recklessly there if doing so would raise the price of food to the point where starvation becomes a major problem in the USA which we dont need.

Defense cuts have already been made and I don't think the military can do its job if it has any more taken out of it than what is already planned for them in the next 10 years. Even with what will be cut over the next 10 years its not a sure thing they can still do their job. Maybe we could make do with 8 Fleet carriers instead of 11 but the cuts are already on the books and so now its time to let those cuts take effect and look at what else needs to be cut.

The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and it should not be bailing companies out. If a company can't survive on its own then it needs to go through the bankruptcy process (I got hired by a company that is in bankruptcy so bankruptcy is not the end of the world). The government has an interest in breaking up monopolies to ensure competition but if a company fails then let it fail and let someone else rise up to take their share of the market. Its called the market.

I made a bit less than $35,000 last year (first full year out of college) and the government apparently owes me $500 or such. I don't fully understand why, think it has something to do with payroll taxes, like it matters, Social Security likely wont be there when I am old enough to use it anyway but I digress). Honestly I'm surprised that I am not being asked to pay anything in terms of federal income tax and on top of that I am getting money from the government. Now I wont complain but I have to wonder about how on Earth the government plans to make ends meet. Then again Texas doesnt have state income taxes so I don't have anything to pay there.

Why do I support Romney? Because of the 5 people in the race (5 includes Obama) Romney is the only one that isnt a divisive partisan. Nobody really loves him but nobody loathes him really either. Both the left and the right can learn to live with him, no other candidate has that quality. We face so many problems right now that our biggest problem is the petty partisan divide in Washington which makes it nearly impossible to even seriously address the other problems. You can blame Congress all you want but if you ask me they need to take the box that is Washington, turn the whole thing upside down, dump all the bums out from the President down, and start over. That wont happen but if they can replace the President that will be a start. All Obama will bring us is four more years of f all getting done.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about living within our means, NOTHING can be untouchable. We should cut sensibly but everything should be looked at. We can't have sacred cows in the budget.

There are a few good things in Obamacare (pre-existing conditions, letting kids stay on their parent's plan etc) but most of it is a massive pile of shit we can't afford anyway. It would be far better to take that money, block grant it to the states and say "make your own health plan that works best for you" (something that Romney actually did by the way).

Exactly, its a quagmire and we need to leave asap.

Lets talk about oil prices. Cutting subsidies would have amrginal effect on the price at BEST. Even talks of being energy independent are a farce, the price of oil is a global one in the day and age. What drives the oil prices are about 70% speculation, with the rest going to the mnaufacturers, purveyors and refiners etc... Think about that, 70% of what goes into gas prices are a bunch of old guys sitting in a room betting on the price of oil. Thats exactly how Kochs made their fortunes, the ones they are using to squash our voices.

Even if Keystone Xl goes through, theres exactly zero guarantee that the oil will stay here in the u.s. There was a piece of legislation proposed saying that oil produced here should stay here. Bill was struck down by 230 republicans... whats the matter? I thought they wanted energy independence, no turns out they just want big oil to have more power to do whatever the hell is the most profitable at the expense of our commons.

The rest of your post makes it sound like you think the gov't should be breaking up the BAC's and Goldman Sach's... which Im totally in favor of. What do you think about the bailouts, more importantly the secret bailouts by the fed, printing 7 and a half trillion and giving it away?

We will leave when we plan to leave and then we can say good riddance.

If a duck farts in Belgium it will probably effect gas prices somehow, yeah I get that. Also save your talk about the Koch brothers, their importance is far overblown and I don't deal in conspiracy theories. Nobody is squashing our voices (except maybe captcha).

The Keystone XL pipeline was and is a long term infrastructure project. How it would effect gas prices is hard to forecast. We need to take advantage of the resources we have and its idiotic that we are not. The Keystone Pipeline should have been a no brainier decision for the President and it was under review for more than enough time. It will eventually be approved but not until after Obama puts on a show for the environmental nutjobs. In the meantime the company behind the pipeline is going to build a pipeline between Oklahoma and Texas to the gulf coast. Since it doesnt cross a national border they don't need the permission of the Federal government.

As for the bill you mentioned, dollars to donuts it was attached to another bill that had stuff in it that Republicans like even less. Provide a relevant link if you want to pursue that line of criticism.

A capitalistic economy runs on competition. If you can't compete you fail. Companies can go into bankruptcy. The government should be bailing out anyone and also there shouldnt be any company out there that would take most of the economy if it failed. The government does have an interest in "trust busting" but beyond that it should keep its hands off the economy and let it run. Yes sensible regulations are needed but right now we have too many regulations we don't need and not enough that we do need.

Seekster:

We will leave when we plan to leave and then we can say good riddance.

If a duck farts in Belgium it will probably effect gas prices somehow, yeah I get that. Also save your talk about the Koch brothers, their importance is far overblown and I don't deal in conspiracy theories. Nobody is squashing our voices (except maybe captcha).

The Keystone XL pipeline was and is a long term infrastructure project. How it would effect gas prices is hard to forecast. We need to take advantage of the resources we have and its idiotic that we are not. The Keystone Pipeline should have been a no brainier decision for the President and it was under review for more than enough time. It will eventually be approved but not until after Obama puts on a show for the environmental nutjobs. In the meantime the company behind the pipeline is going to build a pipeline between Oklahoma and Texas to the gulf coast. Since it doesnt cross a national border they don't need the permission of the Federal government.

As for the bill you mentioned, dollars to donuts it was attached to another bill that had stuff in it that Republicans like even less. Provide a relevant link if you want to pursue that line of criticism.

A capitalistic economy runs on competition. If you can't compete you fail. Companies can go into bankruptcy. The government should be bailing out anyone and also there shouldnt be any company out there that would take most of the economy if it failed. The government does have an interest in "trust busting" but beyond that it should keep its hands off the economy and let it run. Yes sensible regulations are needed but right now we have too many regulations we don't need and not enough that we do need.

You obviously underestimate the Kochs. They have a combined wealth of over 50 billion dollars, 90% of which was "earned" in the last 4 years. They have single handedly commandeered the tea party movement and refocused it to support things that are inherently contrary to the interests of the people in the movement. this is why most people see teapartiers as a bunch of gullible retards, prejudiced against knowledge.

I absolutely believe in a free market, but the market we have isnt free in even the vaguest sense. Until we criminalize bribery, there will be no such thing as a free market. Please dont tell me youre one of those too big to fail apologists that think contributions have no effect on how Politicans vote or what legislation they propose, if that were the case then lobbies wouldnt exist, let alone to the extent that they do.

Oh and the term conspiracy has been bastardised which explains your bias against it, just like the term liberal. If you think that conspiracies dont exist, then you are a fool. Conspiracy doesnt have to mean that you believe the holocaust didnt exist or that we never landed on the moon, you just need to take the facts and read between the lines. Not everythng a corporation says can be taken at face value, in fact Id venture to say that nothing they say can. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, because in the end these corporation will do what they can to maximize their profits, some more legally than others.

Heres the link on the Oil amendment struck down by republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/?mobile=nc

fyi i have no idea what dollars to donuts means

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

We will leave when we plan to leave and then we can say good riddance.

If a duck farts in Belgium it will probably effect gas prices somehow, yeah I get that. Also save your talk about the Koch brothers, their importance is far overblown and I don't deal in conspiracy theories. Nobody is squashing our voices (except maybe captcha).

The Keystone XL pipeline was and is a long term infrastructure project. How it would effect gas prices is hard to forecast. We need to take advantage of the resources we have and its idiotic that we are not. The Keystone Pipeline should have been a no brainier decision for the President and it was under review for more than enough time. It will eventually be approved but not until after Obama puts on a show for the environmental nutjobs. In the meantime the company behind the pipeline is going to build a pipeline between Oklahoma and Texas to the gulf coast. Since it doesnt cross a national border they don't need the permission of the Federal government.

As for the bill you mentioned, dollars to donuts it was attached to another bill that had stuff in it that Republicans like even less. Provide a relevant link if you want to pursue that line of criticism.

A capitalistic economy runs on competition. If you can't compete you fail. Companies can go into bankruptcy. The government should be bailing out anyone and also there shouldnt be any company out there that would take most of the economy if it failed. The government does have an interest in "trust busting" but beyond that it should keep its hands off the economy and let it run. Yes sensible regulations are needed but right now we have too many regulations we don't need and not enough that we do need.

You obviously underestimate the Kochs. They have a combined wealth of over 50 billion dollars, 90% of which was "earned" in the last 4 years. They have single handedly commandeered the tea party movement and refocused it to support things that are inherently contrary to the interests of the people in the movement. this is why most people see teapartiers as a bunch of gullible retards, prejudiced against knowledge.

I absolutely believe in a free market, but the market we have isnt free in even the vaguest sense. Until we criminalize bribery, there will be no such thing as a free market. Please dont tell me youre one of those too big to fail apologists that think contributions have no effect on how Politicans vote or what legislation they propose, if that were the case then lobbies wouldnt exist, let alone to the extent that they do.

Oh and the term conspiracy has been bastardised which explains your bias against it, just like the term liberal. If you think that conspiracies dont exist, then you are a fool. Conspiracy doesnt have to mean that you believe the holocaust didnt exist or that we never landed on the moon, you just need to take the facts and read between the lines. Not everythng a corporation says can be taken at face value, in fact Id venture to say that nothing they say can. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, because in the end these corporation will do what they can to maximize their profits, some more legally than others.

Heres the link on the Oil amendment struck down by republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/?mobile=nc

fyi i have no idea what dollars to donuts means

You obviously overestimate the Kochs, just as you overestimate the Tea Party. If the Republicans win big in 2012 they wont need the Tea Party anymore and the Democrats will end up with their own tea party equivalent. (Ignoring all your attacks on the Tea Party, an organization I have my own issues with).

I am fairly certain it IS a crime to bribe a government official. Trouble is nobody is enforcing the law (much like with immigration).

We need honest campaign finance reform sure but every time the subject comes up its just one party or the other trying to gain an advantage. Occupy really should have dumped the anti everything nonsense and just rallied around the issue of campaign finance reform but alas even the Tea Party is more effective than the waste of everything that was Occupy Wall Street. (Full Disclosure, I have a long standing disdain for nearly all activists though they are even less tolerable when they serve no utility).

I deal in facts not conspiracies, if there are facts involved then show them to me.

First of all the headline is: "Bought By Big Oil, House GOP Vote Against Keeping Keystone XL Oil In America"

Really? You couldnt use this story as a jumping off point to help you google an ACTUAL story about this? Whatever lets see what it says.

The issue is HR 3408

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3408/show

H.R.3408 - Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act

Yeah do I even need to post the full text of the bill? The name alone gives you a strong indication that there was more in this bill than what that biased story of yours let on. Hmm now I am curious what it might have been.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03408:@@@L&summ2=m&

And that my friend is called doing your homework. Act Independently is one of the things they drill into you at journalism school but its a good idea in any profession.

Check your sources next time.

Edit: Dollars to donuts is just a figure of speech. Essentially I was skeptical that the bill was just about what you said it was about and was proven correct.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

We will leave when we plan to leave and then we can say good riddance.

If a duck farts in Belgium it will probably effect gas prices somehow, yeah I get that. Also save your talk about the Koch brothers, their importance is far overblown and I don't deal in conspiracy theories. Nobody is squashing our voices (except maybe captcha).

The Keystone XL pipeline was and is a long term infrastructure project. How it would effect gas prices is hard to forecast. We need to take advantage of the resources we have and its idiotic that we are not. The Keystone Pipeline should have been a no brainier decision for the President and it was under review for more than enough time. It will eventually be approved but not until after Obama puts on a show for the environmental nutjobs. In the meantime the company behind the pipeline is going to build a pipeline between Oklahoma and Texas to the gulf coast. Since it doesnt cross a national border they don't need the permission of the Federal government.

As for the bill you mentioned, dollars to donuts it was attached to another bill that had stuff in it that Republicans like even less. Provide a relevant link if you want to pursue that line of criticism.

A capitalistic economy runs on competition. If you can't compete you fail. Companies can go into bankruptcy. The government should be bailing out anyone and also there shouldnt be any company out there that would take most of the economy if it failed. The government does have an interest in "trust busting" but beyond that it should keep its hands off the economy and let it run. Yes sensible regulations are needed but right now we have too many regulations we don't need and not enough that we do need.

You obviously underestimate the Kochs. They have a combined wealth of over 50 billion dollars, 90% of which was "earned" in the last 4 years. They have single handedly commandeered the tea party movement and refocused it to support things that are inherently contrary to the interests of the people in the movement. this is why most people see teapartiers as a bunch of gullible retards, prejudiced against knowledge.

I absolutely believe in a free market, but the market we have isnt free in even the vaguest sense. Until we criminalize bribery, there will be no such thing as a free market. Please dont tell me youre one of those too big to fail apologists that think contributions have no effect on how Politicans vote or what legislation they propose, if that were the case then lobbies wouldnt exist, let alone to the extent that they do.

Oh and the term conspiracy has been bastardised which explains your bias against it, just like the term liberal. If you think that conspiracies dont exist, then you are a fool. Conspiracy doesnt have to mean that you believe the holocaust didnt exist or that we never landed on the moon, you just need to take the facts and read between the lines. Not everythng a corporation says can be taken at face value, in fact Id venture to say that nothing they say can. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, because in the end these corporation will do what they can to maximize their profits, some more legally than others.

Heres the link on the Oil amendment struck down by republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/?mobile=nc

fyi i have no idea what dollars to donuts means

You obviously overestimate the Kochs, just as you overestimate the Tea Party. If the Republicans win big in 2012 they wont need the Tea Party anymore and the Democrats will end up with their own tea party equivalent. (Ignoring all your attacks on the Tea Party, an organization I have my own issues with).

I am fairly certain it IS a crime to bribe a government official. Trouble is nobody is enforcing the law (much like with immigration).

We need honest campaign finance reform sure but every time the subject comes up its just one party or the other trying to gain an advantage. Occupy really should have dumped the anti everything nonsense and just rallied around the issue of campaign finance reform but alas even the Tea Party is more effective than the waste of everything that was Occupy Wall Street. (Full Disclosure, I have a long standing disdain for nearly all activists though they are even less tolerable when they serve no utility).

I deal in facts not conspiracies, if there are facts involved then show them to me.

First of all the headline is: "Bought By Big Oil, House GOP Vote Against Keeping Keystone XL Oil In America"

Really? You couldnt use this story as a jumping off point to help you google an ACTUAL story about this? Whatever lets see what it says.

The issue is HR 3408

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3408/show

H.R.3408 - Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act

Yeah do I even need to post the full text of the bill? The name alone gives you a strong indication that there was more in this bill than what that biased story of yours let on. Hmm now I am curious what it might have been.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03408:@@@L&summ2=m&

And that my friend is called doing your homework. Act Independently is one of the things they drill into you at journalism school but its a good idea in any profession.

Check your sources next time.

Edit: Dollars to donuts is just a figure of speech. Essentially I was skeptical that the bill was just about what you said it was about and was proven correct.

Here's the thing: conspiracies can be fact. The two are not mutually exclusive words. You have an obvious bias against the word conspiracy which is just not right. You shouldnt have a bias against people who have conspiracy theories, you should instead focus that dismissive attitude on false conspiracies. When you just say youre against conspiracies, its similar to you saying that youre against spending. What kind of spending, you know?

And, no you havent proven anything with your two links. Care to expand upon why your so right instead of just saying "See, Im right!", that might work with the rabble but I tend not to take people at face value if I dont know them.

To my knowledge, the amendment had no significant caveats, therefore I have no choice but to conclude that republicans struck down the amendment after paying lipservice to it simply because it was the will of big oil.

You haven't addressed the fact that those who voted against the bill were paid seven times more money on average by big oil than those who voted for it.

Also I inferred the meaning of dollars to doughnuts, im just curious where it comes from and why its used that way. Texas thing maybe?

BOOM headshot65:

And it's funny how it's only called 'class warfare' when the poor try fighting back. I haven't heard you guys calling Governor Walker's union-busting 'class warfare'.

Oh, boo hoo, Governor Walker managed to get elected on an anti-union platform in the most unionized state and then when he actually when thourgh with his promises, people got mad.
Personally, I say more power too him. The unions have become the bullies they were formed to stop and I lost all sympathy for them around the 70's, 60's, heck maybe even the late 50's.

Actually, no he didn't. IIRC, the "DESTROY ALL UNIONS" stuff only started AFTER he got elected. Probably because he knew perfectly well that talking up union-busting would've lost him the election.

And you know, I'm pretty sure the country's economy was in MUCH better shape back when we allowed Labor to conspire against Management the way Management ALWAYS conspires against Labor. Balance of power, y'know? Like back in that Golden Age of the 1950's the Republicans always talk up, while actually trying to revert society to the 1850s.

"Bullies". Hah. I suppose the guys who lay off whole offices aren't 'bullies'?

BOOM headshot65:
Personally, I believe it is the process of trying to tax the rich to death because "they have more money than me!" It is class envy taken to an extreme. But it can go the other way, like in the Gilded age in the 1800's, but we are nowhere CLOSE to that point.

Do we need Pinkertons murdering union organizers AGAIN before you'll concede things are getting out of hand? Because if you count things our companies (and/or their subcontractors) have done overseas, we're there.

Seekster:

*rolls eyes* Yeah you see someday we will leave Afghanistan but the burden from something like Obamacare would last long into the future so don't even try to go there.

You prefer the burden from private health-insurance companies looking to maximize profit by minimizing payouts?

That was a rhetorical question. I know you will die PROUDLY as long as a corporation makes a few bucks off of your noble sacrifice.

Seekster:
If people want a service bad enough they should be willing to pay more taxes specifically for that service, not to subsidize the government's spending addiction in general.

So... the Poor should be paying more taxes towards welfare, while the Rich should be paying for airports? That's Republican Logic at its finest most Republican.

Seekster:

The government does have an interest in "trust busting" but beyond that it should keep its hands off the economy and let it run. Yes sensible regulations are needed but right now we have too many regulations we don't need and not enough that we do need.

Bullshit.

Some smart guy:
"Let the market decide" makes as much sense as saying "Let the car drive."

And do you have any understanding of the extend to which unregulated business was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for nearly starting another Great Depression back in the misty depths of THREE YEARS AGO, or are you blaming it all on the Community Reinvestment Act and Those People?

SurfinTaxt:

You obviously underestimate the Kochs. They have a combined wealth of over 50 billion dollars, 90% of which was "earned" in the last 4 years.

Apparently, renting politicians is a REALLY profitable investment.

SurfinTaxt:

Oh and the term conspiracy has been bastardised which explains your bias against it, just like the term liberal. If you think that conspiracies dont exist, then you are a fool. Conspiracy doesnt have to mean that you believe the holocaust didnt exist or that we never landed on the moon, you just need to take the facts and read between the lines. Not everythng a corporation says can be taken at face value, in fact Id venture to say that nothing they say can. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, because in the end these corporation will do what they can to maximize their profits, some more legally than others.

Ayup.

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

You obviously underestimate the Kochs. They have a combined wealth of over 50 billion dollars, 90% of which was "earned" in the last 4 years. They have single handedly commandeered the tea party movement and refocused it to support things that are inherently contrary to the interests of the people in the movement. this is why most people see teapartiers as a bunch of gullible retards, prejudiced against knowledge.

I absolutely believe in a free market, but the market we have isnt free in even the vaguest sense. Until we criminalize bribery, there will be no such thing as a free market. Please dont tell me youre one of those too big to fail apologists that think contributions have no effect on how Politicans vote or what legislation they propose, if that were the case then lobbies wouldnt exist, let alone to the extent that they do.

Oh and the term conspiracy has been bastardised which explains your bias against it, just like the term liberal. If you think that conspiracies dont exist, then you are a fool. Conspiracy doesnt have to mean that you believe the holocaust didnt exist or that we never landed on the moon, you just need to take the facts and read between the lines. Not everythng a corporation says can be taken at face value, in fact Id venture to say that nothing they say can. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, because in the end these corporation will do what they can to maximize their profits, some more legally than others.

Heres the link on the Oil amendment struck down by republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/?mobile=nc

fyi i have no idea what dollars to donuts means

You obviously overestimate the Kochs, just as you overestimate the Tea Party. If the Republicans win big in 2012 they wont need the Tea Party anymore and the Democrats will end up with their own tea party equivalent. (Ignoring all your attacks on the Tea Party, an organization I have my own issues with).

I am fairly certain it IS a crime to bribe a government official. Trouble is nobody is enforcing the law (much like with immigration).

We need honest campaign finance reform sure but every time the subject comes up its just one party or the other trying to gain an advantage. Occupy really should have dumped the anti everything nonsense and just rallied around the issue of campaign finance reform but alas even the Tea Party is more effective than the waste of everything that was Occupy Wall Street. (Full Disclosure, I have a long standing disdain for nearly all activists though they are even less tolerable when they serve no utility).

I deal in facts not conspiracies, if there are facts involved then show them to me.

First of all the headline is: "Bought By Big Oil, House GOP Vote Against Keeping Keystone XL Oil In America"

Really? You couldnt use this story as a jumping off point to help you google an ACTUAL story about this? Whatever lets see what it says.

The issue is HR 3408

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3408/show

H.R.3408 - Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act

Yeah do I even need to post the full text of the bill? The name alone gives you a strong indication that there was more in this bill than what that biased story of yours let on. Hmm now I am curious what it might have been.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03408:@@@L&summ2=m&

And that my friend is called doing your homework. Act Independently is one of the things they drill into you at journalism school but its a good idea in any profession.

Check your sources next time.

Edit: Dollars to donuts is just a figure of speech. Essentially I was skeptical that the bill was just about what you said it was about and was proven correct.

Here's the thing: conspiracies can be fact. The two are not mutually exclusive words. You have an obvious bias against the word conspiracy which is just not right. You shouldnt have a bias against people who have conspiracy theories, you should instead focus that dismissive attitude on false conspiracies. When you just say youre against conspiracies, its similar to you saying that youre against spending. What kind of spending, you know?

And, no you havent proven anything with your two links. Care to expand upon why your so right instead of just saying "See, Im right!", that might work with the rabble but I tend not to take people at face value if I dont know them.

To my knowledge, the amendment had no significant caveats, therefore I have no choice but to conclude that republicans struck down the amendment after paying lipservice to it simply because it was the will of big oil.

You haven't addressed the fact that those who voted against the bill were paid seven times more money on average by big oil than those who voted for it.

Also I inferred the meaning of dollars to doughnuts, im just curious where it comes from and why its used that way. Texas thing maybe?

Can be sure but my personal experience with conspiracy theories primarily involve convincing idiots and/or Ron Paul fans on youtube that the 9/11 conspiracy theories simply dont work and that there is not a plot to make the USA, Canada, and Mexico one country (something which Ron Paul failed to answer even when I asked him myself on national television in 2004...much obliged CNN). So yeah maybe I am a bit jaded towards conspiracy theories and talk of the government silencing opposition or big businesses sitting a top a tower glaring down at the poor people thinking up ways to make things worse for them inbetween diving into room fulls of money like they are Scrooge McDuck. Trouble is I have never seen anything to make me feel I should alter my negative view towards conspiracy theories.

Thats rather sad that your default is not to take people at their word but alright. I am going to assume you read both of my links so here we go.

First a summary in spoiler tags:

As you can see there are a lot of provisions made for certain environmental regulations that are often not popular for Republicans. This sort of bill is a type of political trap where you attach something the other side claims to want to a bill full of stuff they don't like and then dare them to vote against it. When they do you can go "aha see they don't really mean what they say". Its petty politics and both parties do it.

I provided you with all the research you will need (if you dont want to do your own).

As for the amendment itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00935:

Given that most of those who voted against it are Republicans (the amendment actually which is H.AMDT.935) and Republicans don't demonize oil companies its little surprise that oil companies donated money to Republicans. Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?

Also if you read the amendment it makes provisions for the government basically telling a private company what it must do which is an idea Republicans are going to find absurd. The only reason the company here even needs Federal Approval is because it crosses a national border. Putting more requirements on them is silly and may have been a ploy to further hold up the pipeline and appeal to environmentalists. I don't know the way Washington is nowadays it wouldnt surprise me if the parties were that petty.

Honestly I don't know why I used "dollars to donuts". Its not just a Texas thing (may be a Baptist thing given my religion's passion for the aforementioned pastry) but I don't know. Its actually somewhat archaic.

Bymidew:
snip

People that legitimately think the middle class is waging class warfare on the elites astound me. I just dont get it: theres this huge chunk of the population that bins the obvious truth in favor of the preprocessed pink chicken nugget slime of a platform that the establishment offers. Calling these people stupid isn't nice, but neither is calling John Candy's ass fat.

SurfinTaxt:

Bymidew:
snip

People that legitimately think the middle class is waging class warfare on the elites astound me. I just dont get it: theres this huge chunk of the population that bins the obvious truth in favor of the preprocessed pink chicken nugget slime of a platform that the establishment offers. Calling these people stupid isn't nice, but neither is calling John Candy's ass fat.

The whole class warfare thing is a ploy. Come to think of it, the class warfare thing is sort of like what Argentina does with the UK and Iran does with Israel and America; create an enemy for the people focus on so that they overlook problems at home. Blame the rich for everything because they have more money than you do, how dare they!

Seekster:

Can be sure but my personal experience with conspiracy theories primarily involve convincing idiots and/or Ron Paul fans on youtube that the 9/11 conspiracy theories simply dont work and that there is not a plot to make the USA, Canada, and Mexico one country (something which Ron Paul failed to answer even when I asked him myself on national television in 2004...much obliged CNN). So yeah maybe I am a bit jaded towards conspiracy theories and talk of the government silencing opposition or big businesses sitting a top a tower glaring down at the poor people thinking up ways to make things worse for them inbetween diving into room fulls of money like they are Scrooge McDuck. Trouble is I have never seen anything to make me feel I should alter my negative view towards conspiracy theories.

Thats rather sad that your default is not to take people at their word but alright. I am going to assume you read both of my links so here we go.

First a summary in spoiler tags:

As you can see there are a lot of provisions made for certain environmental regulations that are often not popular for Republicans. This sort of bill is a type of political trap where you attach something the other side claims to want to a bill full of stuff they don't like and then dare them to vote against it. When they do you can go "aha see they don't really mean what they say". Its petty politics and both parties do it.

I provided you with all the research you will need (if you dont want to do your own).

As for the amendment itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00935:

Given that most of those who voted against it are Republicans (the amendment actually which is H.AMDT.935) and Republicans don't demonize oil companies its little surprise that oil companies donated money to Republicans. Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?

Also if you read the amendment it makes provisions for the government basically telling a private company what it must do which is an idea Republicans are going to find absurd. The only reason the company here even needs Federal Approval is because it crosses a national border. Putting more requirements on them is silly and may have been a ploy to further hold up the pipeline and appeal to environmentalists. I don't know the way Washington is nowadays it wouldnt surprise me if the parties were that petty.

Honestly I don't know why I used "dollars to donuts". Its not just a Texas thing (may be a Baptist thing given my religion's passion for the aforementioned pastry) but I don't know. Its actually somewhat archaic.

Im a cynic, have been since I was young. I learned at an early age that some people will try to take advantage of you in any way possible. I also learned that wearing a suit and tie with a four hundred dollar haircut doesn't make you infallible.

As for the provisions you cited as examples, they are both intact in the final version of the bill that passed so they can't have been THAT unpalatable.

Are we reading the same amendment? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00933:
Its only about a paragraph long, and it doesnt say anywhere that the gov't can "tell these companies what to do", it merely states that all oil gained from keystone xl would have to be kept here in the u.s., and that the president can waive it if he can prove that exporting wont increase our dependence. The end.

The point is, if republicans truly wanted to keep the oil here, they would have tried to negotiate to get the amendment passed, not the other way around.

"Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?"

Thats exactly what I'm saying. The big lobbies will spread the money around one way or another to hedge their bets, but once they know who will play ball and who won't, thats when the real money starts pouring in. Political power of the representative in question also factors heavily into this. Newt Gingrich's sugar daddy Adelson for example is the sole reason Gingrich was even relevant so far into the race. Well that and also the fact that your partie's candidate swatch wasnt exactly impressive either. I mean Herman Cain was leading... fucking come on. Michelle Bachmann too HA.

Lets talk about the idea that the GOP is in favor of small government. Its just absurd to suggest this, republicans on the whole want to 1)Control who you can marry, 2)Control which substances you put into your body, and 3)Force you to respect America as a Christian Nation.
The only time they hate big gov't is when we actually try to enforce some social responsibility upon their benefactors.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Bymidew:
snip

People that legitimately think the middle class is waging class warfare on the elites astound me. I just dont get it: theres this huge chunk of the population that bins the obvious truth in favor of the preprocessed pink chicken nugget slime of a platform that the establishment offers. Calling these people stupid isn't nice, but neither is calling John Candy's ass fat.

The whole class warfare thing is a ploy. Come to think of it, the class warfare thing is sort of like what Argentina does with the UK and Iran does with Israel and America; create an enemy for the people focus on so that they overlook problems at home. Blame the rich for everything because they have more money than you do, how dare they!

Buddy, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the world works, and until that changes its impossible to have a serious discussion with you.

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Can be sure but my personal experience with conspiracy theories primarily involve convincing idiots and/or Ron Paul fans on youtube that the 9/11 conspiracy theories simply dont work and that there is not a plot to make the USA, Canada, and Mexico one country (something which Ron Paul failed to answer even when I asked him myself on national television in 2004...much obliged CNN). So yeah maybe I am a bit jaded towards conspiracy theories and talk of the government silencing opposition or big businesses sitting a top a tower glaring down at the poor people thinking up ways to make things worse for them inbetween diving into room fulls of money like they are Scrooge McDuck. Trouble is I have never seen anything to make me feel I should alter my negative view towards conspiracy theories.

Thats rather sad that your default is not to take people at their word but alright. I am going to assume you read both of my links so here we go.

First a summary in spoiler tags:

As you can see there are a lot of provisions made for certain environmental regulations that are often not popular for Republicans. This sort of bill is a type of political trap where you attach something the other side claims to want to a bill full of stuff they don't like and then dare them to vote against it. When they do you can go "aha see they don't really mean what they say". Its petty politics and both parties do it.

I provided you with all the research you will need (if you dont want to do your own).

As for the amendment itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00935:

Given that most of those who voted against it are Republicans (the amendment actually which is H.AMDT.935) and Republicans don't demonize oil companies its little surprise that oil companies donated money to Republicans. Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?

Also if you read the amendment it makes provisions for the government basically telling a private company what it must do which is an idea Republicans are going to find absurd. The only reason the company here even needs Federal Approval is because it crosses a national border. Putting more requirements on them is silly and may have been a ploy to further hold up the pipeline and appeal to environmentalists. I don't know the way Washington is nowadays it wouldnt surprise me if the parties were that petty.

Honestly I don't know why I used "dollars to donuts". Its not just a Texas thing (may be a Baptist thing given my religion's passion for the aforementioned pastry) but I don't know. Its actually somewhat archaic.

Im a cynic, have been since I was young. I learned at an early age that some people will try to take advantage of you in any way possible. I also learned that wearing a suit and tie with a four hundred dollar haircut doesn't make you infallible.

As for the provisions you cited as examples, they are both intact in the final version of the bill that passed so they can't have been THAT unpalatable.

Are we reading the same amendment? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HZ00933:
Its only about a paragraph long, and it doesnt say anywhere that the gov't can "tell these companies what to do", it merely states that all oil gained from keystone xl would have to be kept here in the u.s., and that the president can waive it if he can prove that exporting wont increase our dependence. The end.

The point is, if republicans truly wanted to keep the oil here, they would have tried to negotiate to get the amendment passed, not the other way around.

"Are you implying that if they did not vote a certain way then they wouldnt get donations from oil companies?"

Thats exactly what I'm saying. The big lobbies will spread the money around one way or another to hedge their bets, but once they know who will play ball and who won't, thats when the real money starts pouring in. Political power of the representative in question also factors heavily into this. Newt Gingrich's sugar daddy Adelson for example is the sole reason Gingrich was even relevant so far into the race. Well that and also the fact that your partie's candidate swatch wasnt exactly impressive either. I mean Herman Cain was leading... fucking come on. Michelle Bachmann too HA.

Lets talk about the idea that the GOP is in favor of small government. Its just absurd to suggest this, republicans on the whole want to 1)Control who you can marry, 2)Control which substances you put into your body, and 3)Force you to respect America as a Christian Nation.
The only time they hate big gov't is when we actually try to enforce some social responsibility upon their benefactors.

I tend to be a cynic too but there are many kinds of cynics so yeah. Im cynical towards government but on a personal level if someone says something and I have no clear reason to doubt them I will take them at their word and continue to do so until they give me a reason not to.

Here is the part of the amendment that involves the government telling companies what to do:

"An amendment numbered 2 printed in Part A of House Report 112-398 to ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans. The amendment allows the President to waive this requirement if it can be shown that an export of the oil or fuels won't increase our dependence on oil or fuels we buy from hostile nations, that prices for refiners and consumers won't go up if the export occurs, or if an export is needed to comply with any international treaties or other agreements we have to export oil or fuels. "

As you noticed, its the whole amendment. Yeah it sounds good but we dont have nationalized oil companies. We can't tell a company (which is based in Canada by the way) that it must build a pipeline for this purpose. Also there is no way that the company in charge of the Pipeline could possibly guarantee all of those things. It just builds and operates the pipeline. The government doesnt own the pipeline.

My view on corruption is that corruption is where you would normally do one thing but then someone or some group gives you money or some other gift or favor and as a result to act in a way you would not otherwise act. For this to be corruption you would need to argue that the Republicans would have otherwise voted the opposite way.

Since the GOP is mostly Conservative (like a plurality of the country btw) then yes the GOP normally espouses limited government Conservative principles. The only times exceptions are made tend to be on social issues like Same-sex marriage or abortion (both issues that by all right should be voted on at the state level which Same-sex marriage is being voted on, I personally oppose a federal law or amendment defining marriage either way and that includes DOMA which should be done away with).

You don't have to respect America as a Christian nation any more than you have to respect that America is located in North America.

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:
People that legitimately think the middle class is waging class warfare on the elites astound me. I just dont get it: theres this huge chunk of the population that bins the obvious truth in favor of the preprocessed pink chicken nugget slime of a platform that the establishment offers. Calling these people stupid isn't nice, but neither is calling John Candy's ass fat.

The whole class warfare thing is a ploy. Come to think of it, the class warfare thing is sort of like what Argentina does with the UK and Iran does with Israel and America; create an enemy for the people focus on so that they overlook problems at home. Blame the rich for everything because they have more money than you do, how dare they!

Buddy, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the world works, and until that changes its impossible to have a serious discussion with you.

My understanding is just fine and most of the way the world works fits with how I expect it to work (as opposed to how I would like it to work but meh). When you are ready to accept the world for what it is we can have more discussions.

Seekster:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

Use a better source Seekster. That one is woefully outdated.

Small example (I'll explain all the technical words in parentheses for you)

2011- Their estimate at current dollars (accounting for inflation) has receipts (Amount taken in by all taxes) totaling $2.137Tr with outlays(total spending at federal level) of $3.818Tn
The actual numbers for FY 2011 were receipts of $2.303Tn with outlays of $3.603Tn

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Try again and you still havnt shown me where you are getting your numbers.

Use a better source Seekster. That one is woefully outdated.

Small example (I'll explain all the technical words in parentheses for you)

2011- Their estimate at current dollars (accounting for inflation) has receipts (Amount taken in by all taxes) totaling $2.137Tr with outlays(total spending at federal level) of $3.818Tn
The actual numbers for FY 2011 were receipts of $2.303Tn with outlays of $3.603Tn

Its a little less than 1 year old. Thats not woefully outdated.

If you have a problem with my source find a better one.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked