Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[JS]

The average IQ in this country is 98. Do you think the average American has the ability to create large amounts of wealth?

That's scary. Think about how dumb the average American is, and then think about the fact that half of all Americans are more stupid than that. In other words, half of all people in this country are of below-average intelligence. Fact.

[Vertigo]

Why, because God evolution and genetics made all of us with unequal skills and talents.

FIFY

[JS]

My view is that the government exists as the caretakers of our national community, to perform the tasks that individuals and smaller communities/business cannot do for themselves. These tasks include protection of individual liberties and agency/opportunity, provision for trade and commerce, defense from foreign and domestic threats, legislative and judicial oversight, assistance in recovery from grave disasters (beyond the scope and capability of local communities), developing/protecting baseline standards for national resources, interfacing with foreign nations, and other necessary tasks to administer their constitutional duties.

Kind of like the basic things the Constitution specifically spells out that a federal government could do? Good stuff. Playing devil's advocate, how do you interpret the "Promote the General Welfare" clause in the Constitution?

[matmacwc]

FIFY

The Theory of evolution, prove it......oh, nobody has been able.

[JS]

I mean, those really poor guys on the bottom literally have more wealth and a higher standard of living than the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Caesars of Rome, and all the kings and queens of the Middle Ages.

Are you being serious here or just a bit of hyperbole?

Serious - in terms of transportation, electricity, heating/cooling a home, communications, entertainment, sanitary services, running water, access to high-quality healthcare (cough), life expectancy, and all of the other technological advances that we have seen over the centuries.

The only thing those guys had better was that they could bang multiple broads with no questions asked and have other people killed if they didn't like them.

Besides, I think I stole that analogy and phrasing from Tom Friedman, if I recall, in his World is Flat book.

[Buddy Spike]

The only thing those guys had better was that they could bang multiple broads with no questions asked and have other people killed if they didn't like them.

\

I don't think that's much different from what the "lower class" in places like Chicago are accustomed to.

[nsplayr]

Serious - in terms of transportation, electricity, heating/cooling a home, communications, entertainment, sanitary services, running water, access to high-quality healthcare (cough), life expectancy, and all of the other technological advances that we have seen over the centuries.

Like you said, mostly due to technological advances. I find it hard to argue that someone below the poverty level in the U.S. has a better quality of life compared to an Egyptian Pharaoh. Especially considering quality of life, while you can measure it quantitatively in some ways, is largely qualitative and thus relative QOL is important in how well-off a person believes they are. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

The only thing those guys had better was that they could bang multiple broads with no questions asked and have other people killed if they didn't like them.

Buddy Spike beat me to it...damn it feels good to be a gangsta.

[dream big]

Dupe, on 09 March 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

We need and deserve a debate in this country that's more advanced than "Stop socialism!"

As do we a better debate than the "tax the rich, we are the 99%."

[Fuzz]

Like someone else brought up in another thread, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This is a great blog BTW if you're interested in healthcare policy and their take on this question about health outcomes is, in part, here. Obviously health outcomes involves a lot more than a nation's healthcare system i.e. why Japan is ranked highest in health outcomes although its healthcare system, while good, is not.

Props where props are due though...among all the things the U.S. healthcare system does poorly, we're not too shabby at cancer survival rates.

I see nothing that disproves either claim I made in those links. Also "emergency" is relative to the person that defines it, which we all know how governments will. And the U.S. is still better all around with emergency & elective surgery, I also don't see the government paying hospitals to speed up patients deaths *cough* NIH *cough*

[nsplayr]

I see nothing that disproves either claim I made in those links.

Because I wasn't talking to you.

The only claim you made was that, "Canada and England's healthcare system is crap." Kinda on you to either clarify that or to provide some data if you really wanna have a debate about this. Are those systems "crap" because they cost too much? Are they crap because their outcomes are not as good as ours? Are they crap because people in those countries like them less than our people like our system?

[Vertigo]

The Theory of evolution, prove it......oh, nobody has been able.

Yeah- we don't HAVE to get a new flu shot every year because the flu virus evolves or anything....

[pawnman]

The Theory of evolution, prove it......oh, nobody has been able.

It's pretty well established fact. Some of the details are still being worked out, but the basic idea is irrefutable. You can look at genetic similarities between primates, then mammals, then other creatures. You can see the vestigial organs and bones in many creatures. Fossil evidence.

[Guest one]

It's pretty well established fact. Some of the details are still being worked out, but the basic idea is irrefutable. You can look at genetic similarities between primates, then mammals, then other creatures. You can see the vestigial organs and bones in many creatures. Fossil evidence.

All of those fossils were put in the ground by the devil to trick us. It is impossible to argue with this type of logic, so why bother?

Edited March 10, 2013 by one

[HeloDude]

All of those fossils were put in the ground by the devil to trick us. It is impossible to argue with this type of logic, so why bother?

Funny, I've been saying the same thing about you and your liberal friends regarding guns, taxes, and welfare.

Though I believe in evolution, last I checked, that issue wasn't affecting the country that much.

[Guest one]

That is why I said it is not worth debating. It is pointless to argue something based on someone's faith or on something that involves the supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about a liberal. You can disagree with someone politically using logic and facts.

I am not a liberal. Just because I am not a part of the crazy right wing fringe doesn't mean I am not a Republican. A moderate Republican will almost always be more successful politically than the far right.

Edited March 10, 2013 by one

[Buddy Spike]

There is nothing supernatural about a liberal. You can disagree with someone politically using logic and facts.

Yeah right. That's about all liberalism is - unicorns and rainbows.

But in all seriousness, there is no logic in liberalism. It's feeling.

I am not a liberal. Just because I am not a part of the crazy right wing fringe doesn't mean I am not a Republican. A moderate Republican will almost always be more successful politically than the far right.

RIght wing fringe? Small government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense is the fringe? Copy, you're a RINO.

[nsplayr]

RIght wing fringe? Small government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense is the fringe? Copy, you're a RINO.

[Guest one]

RIght wing fringe? Small government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense is the fringe? Copy, you're a RINO.

No, those are things that make Republicans...Republicans.

The things that I disagree with are things like...the federal government shouldn't try to feed hungry children, poor people are only poor because they are lazy, women that are "legitimately raped" rarely have babies, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is from Kenya, the government is trying to take away all our guns, and 47% of Americans are moochers and voted for Obama because of all the entitlements they get.

You know...Crazy shit that 4 out of 5 people on this forum seem to believe in. The average Republican does not believe in this nonsense.

Edited March 10, 2013 by one

[Buddy Spike]

Can't you just shut the fuck up for once in your life? Or are you too afraid someone will forget that you're a moron?

The things that I disagree with are things like...the federal government shouldn't try to feed hungry children,

I think the difference is that people don't think it's the government's responsibility to feed hungry children. And certainly not starving children in other countries. Private charities often do a much better job much more efficiently.

poor people are only poor because they are lazy,

I don't think anyone is saying that. Sure, some are, but the issue is not why they're poor - it's why they stay poor and why the government gives people incentive to produce more welfare babies.

women that are "legitimately raped" rarely have babies,

That I agree with you on. The religious right wing to me is the "fringe."

Obama is a Muslim, Obama is from Kenya,

These are just people desperate to get the man out of office and keep him from "fundamentally changing America."

the government is trying to take away all our guns,

You're naive if you think this isn't happening. See Dianne Feinstein, Cuomo in New York, California, and Colorado. It's not paranoia if it's true.

and 47% of Americans are moochers and voted for Obama because of all the entitlements they get.

There's a problem in this country when 47% don't pay "their fair share." And welfare rolls have increased under this president.

You know...Crazy shit that 4 out of 5 people on this forum seem to believe in. The average Republican does not believe in this nonsense.

I'm not sure you know what the "average Republican" really is.

[nsplayr]

Can't you just shut the fuck up for once in your life? Or are you too afraid someone will forget that you're a moron?

Here's hoping for a moderate Republican revival...it is possible, however crazy it may seem, to be a "real" conservative and not absolutely insanely right-wing

[Guest one]

There's a problem in this country when 47% don't pay "their fair share." And welfare rolls have increased under this president.

This is one of the most misleading statistics out there when it comes to the "moochers". 47% of people do not pay federal taxes. This includes the elderly, the poor, many people in the military and so on. To say that all or even most of these people voted for Obama is insane. It might even be possible that the majority of these people voted for Romney. There are poor Republicans, elderly Republicans, and many Republicans in the military. You have to also remember, the poor is one of the least likely groups of people to vote. All of this and people try to equate the 50% of Americans that voted for Obama with the 47% that doesn't pay taxes.

You're naive if you think this isn't happening. See Dianne Feinstein, Cuomo in New York, California, and Colorado. It's not paranoia if it's true.

For every right wing nut there is at least one left wing nut. For every Michelle Bachmann there is a Al Franken or Barney Frank. Just because some people want to vastly limit guns in America, there is only so much that they can do. For every right wing nut that thinks every American should be able to buy an RPG if they want, there is a left wing nut that thinks no one needs a gun at all. It is a good thing most Americans are reasonable enough to be somewhere in the middle.

It is paranoia if you think it is even remotely likely that the government is going to go house by house taking people's guns away.

Edited March 10, 2013 by one

[HeloDude]

...the federal government shouldn't try to feed hungry children

-Not the federal government's job. The federal government was created by sovereign States (not the other way around) to protect the Rights of all (obviously originally dicked up with slavery, but it's not like it was a secret) and to serve the States (ie border protection)--try reading a book man. Giving a massive federal government money just to turn around and have them give it back to the States is inefficient and allows for many more opportunities of corruption. Or is it a person's Right to be given food, healthcare, shelter, etc?

poor people are only poor because they are lazy

-I firmly believe that 80-90% (throwing a number out there) of poor people are poor because of poor choices they make. Trust me, I have a brother who doesn't do nearly as well as the rest of us siblings because of the continued amount of poor choices he makes. Being lazy is just one of the many potential poor choices that some poor people make. Having children when you can't afford to care of them (often out of wedlock) is another poor choice. Drug and alcohol abuse is another poor choice. Not studying much and/or dropping out of high school. Not living within your means (ie buying lottery tickets for example) is another poor choice, just like having cable, a smartphone, a vehicle that is not the cheapest one you can find that still works, etc. Not buying your clothes at the goodwill stores is another bad choice...do I need to go on?

women that are "legitimately raped" rarely have babies, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is from Kenya

Please show me quotes for 4 out of the 5 people on this forum said anything of the sort with regards to the first 2.

The Kenyan part is the most interesting in terms of a discussion because some of Obama's own folks up until around 2005ish were saying he was Kenya. For example, his Harvard Law Review biography said he was born in Kenya. I think it's interesting for a discussion because there is proof to argue it either as true or as several 'errors'...but my problems with the President have nothing to do with where he was born...he could have been born in the Soviet Union for all I care as he is in fact the President--I take issues with his policies and lack of leadership. But again, I do not believe the country is in a bad situation because of where the President claimed or currently claims to have been born, it's irrelevant.

the government is trying to take away all our guns

Do you argue that there are not government folks who want to take away various firearms? Feinstein said she would take them away if she could. As for the President, look how he voted when he was in the Illinois State Legislature and what he said before he ran for President. He was definitely for restricting the Right to bear arms, even handguns. So even if he isn't actively trying to take guns away at this moment, he has shown in the past that he has little respect for allowing people to have this Right. So at a minimum it is accurate to say that there are many government officials trying to 'restrict' our Rights to bear arms, even more so than have already been restricted. It's called incrementalism.

and 47% of Americans are moochers and voted for Obama because of all the entitlements they get.

The Democratic Party ran on a message of free stuff! Did you not watch their convention? The national party ran on free healthcare, free college education, free birth control, etc. 81% of those who believe 'Government should do more to solve problems' voted for Obama. Did he not run on what the federal government would, could, and should do for people? Especially for the people already paying the least amount of federal income taxes?

The average Republican does not believe in this nonsense.

To be honest, I don't know what the 'average' Republican believes in anymore, hence why I am no longer one. In most cases they have shown that they can be the party of 'Democrat-light'. I do know that the traditional Republicans still support corporate welfare. I feel my lack of personal education in the past led me to once be a rubber stamp for the GOP, just like how I duped into believing that Lincoln was an honest man and truly believed in a government 'for and of the people'. Sadly I also thought years ago that he started the Civil War to free the slaves.

It's amazing what some personal research will do for you. Then again, I understand you are 24...but almost 25 if I remember correctly. It took me a few more years after my mid 20's to actually see things correctly.

[Buddy Spike]

This is one of the most misleading statistics out there when it comes to the "moochers". 47% of people do not pay federal taxes. This includes the elderly, the poor, many people in the military and so on. To say that all or even most of these people voted for Obama is insane. It might even be possible that the majority of these people voted for Romney. There are poor Republicans, elderly Republicans, and many Republicans in the military. You have to also remember, the poor is one of the least likely groups of people to vote. All of this and people try to equate the 50% of Americans that voted for Obama with the 47% that doesn't pay taxes.

It's federal income taxes. But let's look at those receiving aid from the government.

That food stamps number is up 72% over the last five years (45.3 million on food stamps vs the 65 million votes Obama got in 2012).

For every right wing nut there is at least one left wing nut. For every Michelle Bachmann there is a Al Franken or Barney Frank. Just because some people want to vastly limit guns in America, there is only so much that they can do. For every right wing nut that thinks every American should be able to buy an RPG if they want, there is a left wing nut that thinks no one needs a gun at all. It is a good thing most Americans are reasonable enough to be somewhere in the middle.

It is paranoia if you think it is even remotely likely that the government is going to go house by house taking people's guns away.

•New York - In what will likely infuriate plenty of legal gun owners, New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo said this afternoon that he'd like the state's legislature to consider all options in debating new gun control measures, including "confiscation" of "assault" weapons or "mandatory sales to the state" and "permitting."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ve_option.html

•Missouri - Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons” to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.

Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”

https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...become-felons/

•California - Law abiding gun owners in California have to feel uneasy after Democrats rolled out a massive gun control package on Thursday, which includes strict ammunition regulations and even a bill that allows potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally registered semi-automatic rifles.

https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...an-save-lives/

•Washington - Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

[.....] “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

https://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html

Not to mention the POTUS

Since that time, Lott has watched Obama act on his anti-gun beliefs, noting in particular four instances:

1. In a 1998 questionnaire for the Illinois state legislature, Obama said he wanted to "ban the sale or transfer of all sorts of semi-automatic weapons."

2. From 1998-2001, Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the "major funder for gun-control research" at that time.

3. Obama opposes concealed carry and always has.

4. Obama only sees two "legitimate" purposes for guns: "hunting and target shooting." This means using guns for self defense is not legitimate. And this goes a long way in explaining Obama's past support of laws banning the use of guns for self-defense in Illinois, even in one's own home.

https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/07/John-Lott-Obama-said-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-To-Own-Guns

[matmacwc]

AZ- Open and concealed carry, both legal without ANY license.

[Vertigo]

I'm not sure you know what the "average Republican" really is.

I'm pretty sure it's this guy-