What Makes People Vote Republican?

Page 28 of 29 [ 455 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 Dec 2010, 1:23 am

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem of trying to fund entitlements that we can't afford.

Good to see you are still thoughtlessly regurgitating the garbage you eat up on Fox News.

Actually it's more of I can do basic math... If you are spending far more than you are taking in, you have a problem. If anyone is regurgitating something it is you regurgitating the Democrats talking points, if I wanted to listen to them (and I don't) I would listen to an interview of Nancy Pelosi or Obama. Considering a lot of stories that are coming out now, was reported by Fox News monthes prior, I can't help the fact your sources routinely practice journalistic malpractice.

Orwell wrote:

Tell me, would our "spending problem" be gone if we completely shut down all federal entitlement programs tomorrow? And do you really think doing that is a good idea, especially since shutting down Social Security would also require eliminating Social Security taxes at a time when SS tax revenues are significantly greater than payments for that program?

We can't just up and up close them down instaneously but we need to phase them out. Social Security wouldn't be in the mess it is in if lawmakers from both sides hadn't treated it as their piggy bank.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Dec 2010, 10:32 am

Inuyasha wrote:

1) I am one class away from a degree in applied mathematics, with a number of extra math electives like topology, discrete mathematics, and nonlinear dynamics. You couldn't handle linear agebra. Don't talk to me about "basic math."
2) I am not a Democrat, and most of the sources I check are regularly critical of the Democratic Party.

Quote:

Orwell wrote:

You are avoiding the question. Would abolishing those programs, even instantaneously, solve our budget problems? And remember, Social Security so far has been a net positive for the federal budget, because as you say both parties have been plundering it to pay for things they didn't feel like properly funding. If you want to say our budgetary problems would be gone without the entitlement programs, you also have to assume the elimination of taxes that are directly related to them. I'm sure you can handle the basic math of adding and subtracting to figure this one out.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

13 Dec 2010, 1:56 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

You're corny, no one's advocating anarchy here. And who said to completely depend on cops? Most right wingers would rather be self-sufficient and grab a gun than pray for them to arrive in 10 mins when they could be dead within that time.

I am sorry, I happen to have lived in the real world. I've seen exactly what happens when cops stop existing, and the idea that you having a gun would save you from the pillage is utterly stupid. There is a reason the elites designed the world as it is right now - and I mean, there is a reason why the elites decided that taxes were a good thing for them to implement. Well, actually there are tons and tons of reasons for it, but that's another topic.

Quote:

I know if I owned a gun, I'd rather pick one up and have my finger on the trigger than pick up a phone and have my finger on a button.

Congratulations, whilst shooting a guy to defend your property, the other 99 people have already stolen all your stuff.

Quote:

Not to mention the telephone line working isn't always a guarantee in the event of a power outage, riot, or w/e could possibly happen.

Oh that's right, the telephone lines won't be there either. No taxes, great stuff.

Quote:

btw, you make an ass out of yourself when you resort to knee jerk reactions and straw man arguments.
If you're gonna argue, grow up and realize everyone can see that crap from a mile away. It's called a political SPECTRUM, not a political BORDERLINE. Most people would find it reasonable to have the cops, electricity, water, roads, etc. handled by the public sector. But at the same time, you can't always take cops, electricity, or water as guarantees.

Yes, I did notice that the so-called conservatives in the debate believe in magic. They don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the cops to protect them. They don't want welfare, but they still expect other people to be nice with them and not robe their houses. So, yeah my characterization was not of what the conservatives "want", it was merely of what it would actually happen if things went the way they want. In their twisted world, they want only the poor to pay taxes and the taxes to benefit only the rich and they think that makes sense. Your failed attempt to rationalize it and your aggressive reaction actually benefit my point in the argument.

_________________
.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 9:43 pm

Inuyasha, you still have not responded. I'm going to take a leaf from your obnoxious book and keep pestering you until you do, while accusing you of lying.

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Quote:

Orwell wrote:

So, have you checked? The government budget numbers are publicly available information. All you have to do is go add and subtract. Imagine we had no federal entitlement programs. Would there still be a budget shortfall or wouldn't there?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Dec 2010, 10:07 pm

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha, you still have not responded. I'm going to take a leaf from your obnoxious book and keep pestering you until you do, while accusing you of lying.

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Quote:

Orwell wrote:

Uh where am I lying btw, I should use the CBO's numbers when they have admitted that they weren't given accurate figures.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/24/cbo-a ... rformance/

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... erformance

Obama’s budget would explode the national debt while increasing taxes. That’s the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by lawmakers who support Obama. “The President’s proposals would add $4.8 trillion to the national debt,” increasing “the cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 to $9.3 trillion.” The budget also adds $1.9 trillion in tax increases.
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/03/20/ob ... bo-admits/

The CBO issued a report last month claiming that the massive Obama stimulus boondoggle "created or saved" millions of jobs. This report was much-ballyhooed in Left-wing circles as proof that this massive Keynesian injection into the American economy was working great.
It turns out that's not exactly the case. The CBO released said report, but recently director Doug Elmendorf admitted that his models pre-assume the conclusion. At a question-and-answer forum, he was asked directly if the CBO's models would be able to tell if the stimulus failed. Backed into a corner, Director Elmendorf answered simply: "no."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/KevinGlass ... lus_failed

I'm not saying you're a Democrat, I'm saying you are a leftist and you keep using the Democrats' talking points.

I haven't avoided the question, even if you tax the "rich" at 100% of their income the entitlements that you are so fond of can't be covered. We can't afford it.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 10:20 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

I haven't avoided the question, even if you tax the "rich" at 100% of their income the entitlements that you are so fond of can't be covered. We can't afford it.

That wasn't my question, and quit making unfounded assumptions about what programs I do or do not support. My question was, if we didn't have the entitlement programs at all, would current government revenues (less those taxes directly tied to entitlement spending, such as the Social Security withholding) suffice to pay for everything else the government does? If not, on what basis do we "not have a revenue problem" and instead only have a "spending problem," and why are entitlements the sole culprit?

You have so consistently either misunderstood or ignored my question that I can only assume that you are either a liar or an idiot. I actually think the truth lies somewhere in between.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Zara
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

14 Dec 2010, 11:20 pm

Perhaps it time to take a look at the poster?...

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

I'm not entirely certain what "entitlement" programs are being spoken of, but Social Security itself appears to covered by it's own receipts.

Even if it was magically removed along with it's receipts, we would still be in the red. So yes, there is still a spending/revenue gap. Even playing Devil's advocate and removing Medicare and Medicaid... still in the red. So "Entitlements" can not be the sole problem of overspending.

_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

14 Dec 2010, 11:24 pm

If you want to get out of the red, drop the standing military and revert back to a fully volunteer military rather than a fully career military. Just imagine: if we didn't have anyone to kill, those people would all be jobless...good thing there's always someone that somebody wants killed, huh?

Standing military: a respectable career for respectable killers.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 11:28 pm

Zara wrote:

Even if it was magically removed along with it's receipts, we would still be in the red. So yes, there is still a spending/revenue gap. Even playing Devil's advocate and removing Medicare and Medicaid... still in the red. So "Entitlements"
can not be the sole problem of overspending.

Precisely my point. Which means we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. Republicans don't like to admit this because their mantra is to always cut taxes no matter what the budget looks like. The hard truth is that if we want to solve our budget problems, we have to cut spending and raise taxes—two policies which, in combination, are guaranteed to piss off 100% of the electorate.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Dec 2010, 11:31 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Taking our current budget and deleting the military entirely (and I mean complete disbandment of the entire military and all of our defensive capabilities, as well as everything related to it in any way) does not, on its own, solve the budget problem.

Balancing the budget requires deep cuts to both military and entitlement spending in conjunction with higher taxes. There are probably zero total voters in this country who would be happy about that.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

14 Dec 2010, 11:35 pm

Orwell wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Sorry, that was hyperbole. Really, I think we could cut costs in the government by putting the standing military to use reconstructing roads and bridges and what not and actually doing the infrastructure work that's needed. Most of them are sitting around bored waiting for deployment (and collecting checks doing so) so why not put them to work instead of just dicking around? It'd cut down on expenses in the budget.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

14 Dec 2010, 11:36 pm

Orwell wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

I haven't avoided the question, even if you tax the "rich" at 100% of their income the entitlements that you are so fond of can't be covered. We can't afford it.

There is one option you haven't considered - that is, Inuyasha being a secrete Communist agent. Think about it, he attacks one of the most effective anti-Communists of the last thirty years (George Soros) and gives such reprehensible, irrelevant, fallacious, and absurd arguments for chandelier conservatism that he actually turns people off from healthy capitalism in the process! His goal is, ever so subversively, left-radicalizing the masses through rightwing actions!

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Dec 2010, 10:52 am

Orwell wrote:

Zara wrote:

It is, indeed, a two-parter. The fact that it would piss off 100% of the electorate is exactly why our deficit has grown way out of control. No one in Washington has the guts to do what's needed - democrat or republican.

Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,919
Location: Post Falls, ID

15 Dec 2010, 11:11 am

We do not have a revenue problem. If we cut only entitlements, correct, we would still be in the red, which is why more would need to be cut. The federal government is involved in so much more than it should, it's crazy. Look at the bill that just got passed that involves the federal government even more so in school lunches. There's no reason for the federal government to be involved in issues like that.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Dec 2010, 11:25 am

Bataar wrote:

Which part of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" is so horrible? The updating of nutritional guidelines? Improving food safety? Are you even familiar with the garbage most schools serve their kids?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Dec 2010, 11:32 am

number5 wrote:

Bataar wrote:

Which part of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" is so horrible? The updating of nutritional guidelines? Improving food safety? Are you even familiar with the garbage most schools serve their kids?

The U.S. Constitution gives the Federal Government no such power to pass this law. This law would be a matter for the States.

ruveyn

Page 28 of 29 [ 455 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Next

Jump to:

What Makes People Vote Republican? Post Reply New Topic

What Makes People Vote Republican?