 |
| |
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
There's a reason the Republicans control everything after 9/11 and the Democrats are losing power. Enough said. People aren't buying the same old lines about minority rights and fighting for the middle class. We heard it with Clinton and he made some of the biggest tax hikes in history (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/ecoa4b.html). The fact is the Democratic party has been using the same lines for years and they just keep repeating them but when you get right down to it there is nothing to go with it; it's just rhetoric and propaganda. Usually people scream the loudest when they are losing. The left is losing power and this election is going to determine whether or not the left completely fades from existence or hangs on for another 4 years.
I also find it amusing how loathe some of you people are to admit that you are liberals, present candidate included. I guess I have Reagan to thank for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Why do you choose to ignore that people high in the French government and close associates of Chirac received vouchers?
Why do you choose to ignore that Chirac has a long history of being on the take from his days as Mayor of Paris? |
Because he's their foremost leader of international resistence to the US devil empire. It is incomprehensible that the leader of such a moral and esteemed nation such as France opposed us because they were on the payroll of a brutal dictator. It has to be that Bush is corrupt, not Chirac, and this must be a vast right wing conspiracy to undermine our well intentioned "allies'" opposition to Bush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Drach, the consensus view seems to be that unbalanced budgets and government induced demand are a primary if not the only way to get out of a depression, and that balancing budgets and raising taxes only reinforces a recession into a depression.
Remember, we only really got out of the depression of the 30's when we began massive deficit spending during WWII. |
WWII caused us to get out of the depression. How much the policies of the era helped is highly debateable.
As for handling a depression:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0815203.html
It is not entirely agreed upon generally speaking.
Anyhow, Kerry is proposing a tax increase on the very upper end of the bracket, and those can handle less money for a while. They are more resistant to lower incomes. He is then going to boost the working class, who in turn will boost the overall economy.
Bush wants to increase our debt by trillians of dollars with no plan in site on getting out of that eventual mess. We already spend a large amount of the yearly income of the Fed on paying off just the interest on our current debt. I don't think increasing it by 10-30% is a very good idea.
There is operating under a deficit (which is what Kerry will do) and then there is making the deficit an extraordinarily massive problem. We cannot affrod to burden future generations any more than we have to.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Why do you choose to ignore that people high in the French government and close associates of Chirac received vouchers?
Why do you choose to ignore that Chirac has a long history of being on the take from his days as Mayor of Paris?
Chirac is as corrupt as they come. |
Innocent until proven guilty, and as there is not even any evidence against Chirac at the moment you must give him the benefit of the doubt.
Additionally, there are American individuals and corporations involved, but whose names haven't been released.
This sort of thing is the corruption of a few individuals, who will be found eventually, but not the outright endorsement of countries. That is seeing conspiracies where there are none. Iraq is much more of a threat to Europe than he is to us, and the governments are not crazy enough to endore giving him more power.
Once again, there is no evidence of Chirac being involved nor of any government being involved. There are only the actions of a few individuals and some companies at worst. Some of these are U.S. companies and individuals whose names haven't been released.
And once again, we still need many strong allies if we are to stay a global superpower. Demonizing entire countries for the errors of a few is not the way to conduct foreign policy.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
What companies? Surely not the ones who have to pay the higher minimums.
The effect of the bubble is short term because companies compensate by reducing employment in some fashion. |
Income will be spent, stimulating the economy and making it grow. Companies needing to pay a lot of minium wages would be hurt a bit early on, but would grow and benefit as the rest of the economy took off.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Anyhow, Kerry is proposing a tax increase on the very upper end of the bracket, and those can handle less money for a while. They are more resistant to lower incomes. He is then going to boost the working class, who in turn will boost the overall economy. |
Before I even go into how ridiculous that idea is, let me first ask how many god damn times have we heard this from a Democrat? If time they run for election it's always about how the rich make too much money and they are stepping all over the poor so we're going to tax the **** out of the rich and bring them down. Well who are the so called "rich"? The real population of the "rich" is made up of small business owners who make over 200K a year, but aren't making millions. They are greatly affected by tax increases and you can bet if you hit their pockets they are going to make cuts. I know this for a fact because my father is a small business owner. He's struggling to make ends meet right now while he pays off debt and if kerry gets elected he is ****ed. And all those people that work for him are ****ed too because they're out of a job. Your idea of "boosting" the working class has never worked and never will work. We heard the same god damn things from Clinton and it didn't work. Again, it's just the same tired lines over and over and over again. All the Democrats do is set one side against another. You talk about how the white man is pushing down the black man. You talk about how the rich are stepping all over the poor. Get a new line for once and actually back up your "policies" and "plans" with some real statistical numbers because it is obvious a tax increase on only the rich isn't going to pay for everything Kerry has proposed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
All of this does not change the fact that Kerry opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place at the height of the recession, and has been highly critical of the deficit during the entirety of Bush's term, not just now. We are now out of the recession where reducing the deficit becomes fiscally responsible.
What I said is true. Either Kerry is being completely disengenous concerning the deficit, or he is completely ignorant concerning economics. Regardless of which is true, he does not inspire confidence. |
Bush's tax cuts were stupid. They should have been focused on the middle and lower class. They were not, despite Bush's lies to the contrary.
Bush has no plan to reduce the deficit other than to spend even more money and somehow hope that the economy grows so much we are making many, many trillians more in taxes. That is a pipe dream and a poor excuse for bad fiscal policy. There is deficit spending and there is spending money without regard for what you can afford. Bush is doing the latter. His social security proposal alone could easily cost 2 trillion dollars; that's not something we can afford, that's not something that would stimulate the economy.
Kerry wants to work towards a balanced budget, and that partially means that you acknowledge any deficit spending will be temporary. Bush doesn't, he wants to make everything permanent. Kerry wants to give benefits to the working class that are the equivalent of a tax cut, and he wants to do it responsibly.
I guess if you don't mind our debt increasing by many trillions of dollars, you can vote for Bush.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Innocent until proven guilty, and as there is not even any evidence against Chirac at the moment you must give him the benefit of the doubt.
Additionally, there are American individuals and corporations involved, but whose names haven't been released.
This sort of thing is the corruption of a few individuals, who will be found eventually, but not the outright endorsement of countries. That is seeing conspiracies where there are none. Iraq is much more of a threat to Europe than he is to us, and the governments are not crazy enough to endore giving him more power.
Once again, there is no evidence of Chirac being involved nor of any government being involved. There are only the actions of a few individuals and some companies at worst. Some of these are U.S. companies and individuals whose names haven't been released.
And once again, we still need many strong allies if we are to stay a global superpower. Demonizing entire countries for the errors of a few is not the way to conduct foreign policy.
-Drachasor |
Bull. There is evidence that people high in the French government and close to Chirac were involved. This does not per se mean that Chirac is involved, but it does raise a lot of questions does it not?
Your lack of incredulity is incredulous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Before I even go into how ridiculous that idea is, let me first ask how many god damn times have we heard this from a Democrat? If time they run for election it's always about how the rich make too much money and they are stepping all over the poor so we're going to tax the **** out of the rich and bring them down. Well who are the so called "rich"? The real population of the "rich" is made up of small business owners who make over 200K a year, but aren't making millions. They are greatly affected by tax increases and you can bet if you hit their pockets they are going to make cuts. I know this for a fact because my father is a small business owner. He's struggling to make ends meet right now while he pays off debt and if kerry gets elected he is ****ed. And all those people that work for him are ****ed too because they're out of a job. Your idea of "boosting" the working class has never worked and never will work. We heard the same god damn things from Clinton and it didn't work. Again, it's just the same tired lines over and over and over again. All the Democrats do is set one side against another. You talk about how the white man is pushing down the black man. You talk about how the rich are stepping all over the poor. Get a new line for once and actually back up your "policies" and "plans" with some real statistical numbers because it is obvious a tax increase on only the rich isn't going to pay for everything Kerry has proposed. |
Your dad would save money by having to spend less on health care for his employees. There are many other benefits to small businesses in particular that Kerry is proposing. He plans on increasing financing and venture capital into small businesses. He plans on increases government contracting to aid them. He plans on simplifying the taxes for small businesses so they are not drowning in forms. He plans on giving tax credit on utility costs for small businesses. He also wants them to have a more of a voice with the WTO.
Bush is proposing some of this, but not nearly as much.
Kerry is well aware of the very small businesses making less than 500k a year need some help, but larger businesses can afford to not make as much money for a few months as the economy recovers. They have money saved up for such occasions.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
They were "stupid" only if you believe in socialism. |
Or if you believe the current Nobel Price Winner in Economics. Or if you understand that trickle-down economics doesn't always work; especialyl if companies hardly hire any more people despite recovery. Putting money into the hands of the people helps a lot more.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Bull. There is evidence that people high in the French government and close to Chirac were involved. This does not per se mean that Chirac is involved, but it does raise a lot of questions does it not?
Your lack of incredulity is incredulous. |
I said there is no evidence that Chirac was involved, and right now the evidence against others hasn't been fully tested and gone over.
Do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? No one has been proven guilty yet, least of all Chirac, and even more least of all the people of those democratic countries. You see corruption in a few and you then claim that the entire country is untrustworthy and terrible; that is at the very least, highly innaccurate.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
some '50s lit.
quote:
The concern with conformity is reflected in David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd, John Kenneth Galbraith -The Affluent Society, William H. Whyte's The Organization Man , Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged , and Sloan Wilson's The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. A new group of authors appeared on the scene in the form of the Beats, or the beat generation or some called them beatniks. Best known of these are Jack Kerouac - Kerouac's works - On the Road, Dharma Bums, The Town and The City, Mexico City Blues (poetry), Lawrence Ferlinghetti A Coney Island of the Mind , Pictures of a Gone World, and Allen Ginsberg Howl(Poetry). Gregory Corso , Neal Cassady , Michael McClure , Gary Snyder, William S. Burroughs were other beat authors giving voice to the anti-establishment movement.
Science Fiction became more popular with the actual possibility of space travel, Ray Bradbury wrote The Martian Chronicles. Isaac Asimov wrote I, Robot, and other books about worlds to be discovered. Established authors continuing to write included Tennessee Williams -The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone; Robert Penn Warren -World Enough and Time; Carl Sandberg -Complete Poems; Herman Wouk -The Caine Mutiny; J. D. Salinger-The Catcher in the Rye; Truman Capote -The Grass Harp; John Steinbeck- East of Eden; Edna Ferber -Giant; James Michener -The Bridges of Toko Ri, Hawaii; Thomas Costain-The Silver Chalice; Eudora Welty -The Ponder Heart; William Faulkner -The Town. |
oh, and in 1951 Hannah Arendt published The Origins of Totalitarianism.
And Ralph Ellison published Invisible Man in 1952.
James Baldwins first two novels, including Go Tell it on the Mountain
Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut
The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills
Last edited by lord of the mark on 22-10-2004 at 00:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
I guess you don't talk to many doctors. My dad does and he IS a doctor and he knows that Kerry is the better choice in a variety of ways.
I also find it ironic that you think giving tax credits to small businesses, helping them have a role in the WTO, making healthcare more affordable, helping them get government contracts and financing, which are all ways to help small businesses stay aloft and grow are suddenly "evil" interloping by the government.
Oh, and if you look at the latest figures you'll find that job growth is slowing down. This is especially bad because of all of the lost jobs and the fact that not only are there fewer jobs, but there aren't jobs for all the new people that regular job growth provides. 9 million immigrants and population growth are nothing to sneeze at. The job situation is quite serious. |
Then your father is in the minority. Maybe you should look up some of the groups against Edwards then come back and talk to me. I don't know of any doctors that are for a government run healthcare system. Maybe you should read up sometime on the idea of the invisible hand in economics. Taxes shouldn't be so high that tax credits are even needed. If you have to start giving out tax credits in order for a small business to make it then something is wrong. And again, I see alot of promises but I don't see any ways on how any of this is going to work. Government getting involved in the private sector is never a good thing. All of you can point to the great depression, but that was a different era and those social programs (including social security) were never meant to be continued after we came out of it. Who is the government to plan the retirement of people and to take their money and give it to someone else? And I have looked at the latest figures and they are very good. Unemployment is at a lower level than when Clinton ran for re-election in 96. You keep harping on unemployment, but that only works on voters when they actually know someone who isn't employed (yet another issue used every single election by Democrats). What's next on the list, out-sourcing? Maybe we can get started on the Heinz corporation then. Or how about while we're on the subject of taxes we ask why Teresa Heinz Kerry is only paying 1.2% in income tax. Hypocracy is a religion for Democrats.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-10-2004 23:19
Both sides do this when they're either losing an argument or frustrated with the opponent. A leftist will typically call the opponent stupid or evil, and a rightist will typically call the opponent a degenerate (socially values) or a traitor. *shrug*
|