Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

When did American conservatives lose their minds?

72 replies to this topic
Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#31

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:03 PM Edited by Vlynor, 21 November 2013 - 09:04 PM.

 

 

 

Right, and as I've said, many politicians considered liberal/progressive have done the same: FDR, Kennedy, Clinton. Harry Truman has made racist remarks. What I'm trying to get at is, you're discounting someone's achievements based on racial/homophobic/whatever remarks and not based on their actions. If you were arguing purely on achievement, you wouldn't have brought up his antisemitism/homophobia.

 

Is ordering the CIA to harass people and fabricate rumours about their sexuality , in his capacity of President of the United States, not an achievement that can be discussed as a part of his record?

 

Is having a traditional Republican anti communist position (Meetings with China only done to counter the Soviet Union) not something that is a valid part of his record?

 

What about actively suppressing left wing regimes around the world via covert operations? Is that not a valid part of his record that can be considered? (Partially leading to the rise to power of one of the most notorious strongman, right wing , genocidal butchers of South America?)

 

How about a traditional Republican outlook on financial matters within the United States?

 

I can go on for a while, but i'll just summarize by saying that he is a very moderate Republican in my opinion, by no means is he a liberal or progressive unless you are comparing him to a tea party nutjob of today's era.

 

 

I should've separated my paragraphs. I meant the remarks, not the actions, shouldn't be considered when determining if he's a progressive/liberal President. Was anti-Communism a strictly Republican matter? I would think that most Presidents/politicians during the Cold War would've had that type of leaning, regardless of political affiliation. And by left-wing, do you mean Communist or just socialist/liberal/progressive?


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#32

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:13 PM Edited by theadmiral, 21 November 2013 - 09:15 PM.

Again, i'm not so much worried about him being a racist, homophobic, anti-Semite. I'm worried about those views being used in the Oval office, during business meetings and policy discussions, and as a basis to order the CIA, FBI, and IRS to harass people.

 

There is a distinction between being a racist at home and allowing those views to become involved in your decision making process.

 

I don't know if you want to call Allende a communist , socialist, or Marxist, but Nixon certainly had a role in bringing him down and financing things that led to the coup which replaced him with Pinochet, and we all know how Pinochet was.  200,000 exiled, 50,000 tortured, 3,000 disappeared by his secret police. Now, you can't pin that entirely on Nixon, but he was involved in directing the CIA to bring down Allende and he was involved in supporting the military junta and Pinochet's rise to power.

 

Nixon voiced frustration when the first coup in Chile failed, and after Allende was overthrown and replaced with the butcher (Pinochet) there is this famous exchange with Kissenger:

 

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there? Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown. Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something. Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes. Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though. Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [garbled] created the conditions as great as possible. Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.

 

But we are getting far off topic here and I don't want to derail this thread and make it entirely about Nixon. Perhaps there should be a new thread if this conversation is going to continue.

 

I don't consider overthrowing regimes to replace them with far right genocidal dictators, then celebrating it, to be a actions of a progressive liberal.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#33

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:47 PM

Rand Paul didn't run in 2012, Ron Paul, his father, did. He was a more intelligent politician than Rand.

Not really. Ron Paul is a right-wing extremist as well.

 

 

 

 They don't oppose any gun control measure, just recent ones like background checks. There hasn't been a bill brought into question (to my knowledge) regarding magazine capacity, type of firearm (fully/semi-automatic/bolt) on the federal level to the House of Representatives, where the majority of Republicans are. 

I have no idea what you're talking about. They're more or less the only reason America has such piss poor firearm policy.

 

 

 

Taxes, again, not all that different. Both the Republicans and Democrats are fairly similar in regards to taxes for the middle/lower classes, they only really differ on taxes for the rich.

You're missing the point. Low taxes for the rich is a pretty big deal as the Republicans tend to flush billions of dollars in revenue down the sink every year with their tax cuts, not to mention it's their entire fiscal policy. 

 

 

 

You don't have an extremely radical right-wing vs. an extremely radical left-wing. It's mostly a center-left vs. center-right debate on most issues

No, you have a centre (democrats) versus a very radical right. Seriously, they are completely against any and all environmental regulations. They're against government healthcare. They're think the biggest social issue in America is that taxes are too high. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#34

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:17 PM

Ron Paul was a popularist with utterly unworkable policies. He rode solely on the fact that he was different, anti-interventionist and decent public speaker. It seems to escape everyone that he's a lunatic, racist bigot- worse, of course, because he claimed that he never made the statements instead of admitting he had f*cked up.
  • Tyler and TheFoxRiverFugitive like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#35

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:34 PM

He's also not even for gay marriage or legalising pot as people like to claim, he's for leaving it to the states. He's for devolving most issues to the states purely so the northen blue states can have all the equality and weed that they like, while in southern red states gays and women and non-Christians can be oppressed without yanky interference. 


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#36

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:35 PM

 

Rand Paul didn't run in 2012, Ron Paul, his father, did. He was a more intelligent politician than Rand.

Not really. Ron Paul is a right-wing extremist as well.

 

I guess it's subjective. I think Ron Paul is a better Presidential candidate than Rand Paul will ever be (that doesn't mean I support either). Rand is more of a typical Republican with some Libertarian values, where as his father was a Libertarian and a RINO. (anti-Drug War, mostly secular, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 They don't oppose any gun control measure, just recent ones like background checks. There hasn't been a bill brought into question (to my knowledge) regarding magazine capacity, type of firearm (fully/semi-automatic/bolt) on the federal level to the House of Representatives, where the majority of Republicans are. 

I have no idea what you're talking about. They're more or less the only reason America has such piss poor firearm policy.

 

 

 

How? What have the Republicans done in recent years that have contributed to our 'piss poor' firearm policy specifically? I'm not trying to draw out an argument, I just want to know what exactly they've done.

 

 

 

 

Taxes, again, not all that different. Both the Republicans and Democrats are fairly similar in regards to taxes for the middle/lower classes, they only really differ on taxes for the rich.

You're missing the point. Low taxes for the rich is a pretty big deal as the Republicans tend to flush billions of dollars in revenue down the sink every year with their tax cuts, not to mention it's their entire fiscal policy. 

 

 

It depends on your definition of rich. If rich starts at $250,000 or lower, then yes, the Republicans have halted progress in terms of taxation of the rich. If it's $1,000,000 or higher, then no, the Republicans, specifically John Boehner, have proposed increasing taxation. The difference being about $20 billion dollars in revenue. ($40 billion with Obama's and $20 billion with Boehner's)

 

 

 

You don't have an extremely radical right-wing vs. an extremely radical left-wing. It's mostly a center-left vs. center-right debate on most issues

No, you have a centre (democrats) versus a very radical right. Seriously, they are completely against any and all environmental regulations. They're against government healthcare. They're think the biggest social issue in America is that taxes are too high. 

 

 

The Democrats aren't centrists, they're liberals and progressives. Although, they may be considered centrists where you're from, very few are actually centrists from an American perspective and many who are self-proclaimed centrists are actually fairly liberal.


Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#37

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:43 PM

Any human being that doesn't think Nixon was a dirty rat prick son of a bitch bastard has some sanity issues.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#38

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:46 PM

Democrats are in no way 'left wing', and the party itself should either be described as centre or centre-right.

  • Tyler likes this

Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    Working hard to maintain my sanity.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009
  • US-Virgin-Islands

#39

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:51 PM

Thing is, the tea party wasn't even that insane when it first started. I remember witnessing its formation first hand on the internet. It wasn't a response to Obama, it was a response to to the bank bailouts. Conservatives, until that point, were generally pro-establishment but I remember getting the impression that they felt somewhat betrayed by the bailout- learning that the government aren't pro-capitalism, they're pro-rich people. But over time it seems to have descended into a blatantly racist circle jerk that paints itself a bizarre fantasy view of the outside world. They've gotten rude and hostile.


Ahh jeez, you had that first part nailed, but then it decends into racist/bigot/homophobe/anti-woman territory. Every. Single. Time.


Let's try a little role reversal here, if YOU were called racist every time you disagreed (heck un-patriotic 2003 2004 anyone?) with the way the federal government was going, wouldn't you be a little off? Not defending just saying

Just as an F.Y.I. to everyone: T.E.A. Party is Taxed Enough Already, mainly dealing with economic issues, not some sort of KKK revival. thx

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#40

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:58 PM

 

Thing is, the tea party wasn't even that insane when it first started. I remember witnessing its formation first hand on the internet. It wasn't a response to Obama, it was a response to to the bank bailouts. Conservatives, until that point, were generally pro-establishment but I remember getting the impression that they felt somewhat betrayed by the bailout- learning that the government aren't pro-capitalism, they're pro-rich people. But over time it seems to have descended into a blatantly racist circle jerk that paints itself a bizarre fantasy view of the outside world. They've gotten rude and hostile.


Ahh jeez, you had that first part nailed, but then it decends into racist/bigot/homophobe/anti-woman territory. Every. Single. Time.


Let's try a little role reversal here, if YOU were called racist every time you disagreed (heck un-patriotic 2003 2004 anyone?) with the way the federal government was going, wouldn't you be a little off? Not defending just saying

Just as an F.Y.I. to everyone: T.E.A. Party is Taxed Enough Already, mainly dealing with economic issues, not some sort of KKK revival. thx

 

Well it descends into that territory every time because generally conservatism inherently involves a certain level of oppressing or generally removing from existence minorities. In any case, the Tea Party/modern conservative movement has nothing to do with opposing the big bad federal government on any sort of rational basis, it's a knee jerk reactionary movement orchestrated by big business. If I were a sadistic man I would say it's funny to see large companies manipulate working class and lower middle class people to actively oppose legislation that would be in their best interest in favour of maintaining current legislation supporting big business and money makers.


Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#41

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:03 PM

. If I were a sadistic man I would say it's funny to see large companies manipulate working class and lower middle class people to actively oppose legislation that would be in their best interest in favour of maintaining current legislation supporting big business and money makers.

 

 

What exactly is this legislation you refer to that is "in their best interest"?


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#42

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:05 PM

Classing a person a 'liberal compared to...' is stupid anyway. By that logic it's perfectly fine to say Batista was more Liberal than Hitler.

 

you're missing the point.

no one is just pulling the comparison out of thin air.

 

it's appropriate because it illustrates how radically the Republican party has changed.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#43

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:09 PM

 

. If I were a sadistic man I would say it's funny to see large companies manipulate working class and lower middle class people to actively oppose legislation that would be in their best interest in favour of maintaining current legislation supporting big business and money makers.

 

 

What exactly is this legislation you refer to that is "in their best interest"?

 

Healthcare, economic stimulus and progressive taxation spring to mind.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#44

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:13 PM

 

. If I were a sadistic man I would say it's funny to see large companies manipulate working class and lower middle class people to actively oppose legislation that would be in their best interest in favour of maintaining current legislation supporting big business and money makers.

 

 

What exactly is this legislation you refer to that is "in their best interest"?

 

Oh boy do you want me to make a list? America has a major history in favouring corporate law or business law rather than workers rights and on a more abstract level like the whole healthcare 'debate', which should be obvious to anyone who hasn't taken repeated severe blows to the head.

 

 

Classing a person a 'liberal compared to...' is stupid anyway. By that logic it's perfectly fine to say Batista was more Liberal than Hitler.

 

you're missing the point.

no one is just pulling the comparison out of thin air.

 

it's appropriate because it illustrates how radically the Republican party has changed.

 

I understand the point and I agree, the Republican party has become more right wing, western politics in general has become much more right wing thanks to the 80s, but the point is badly executed, Nixon was in no way liberal. Political positions don't change in relation to the political climate.


Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    Working hard to maintain my sanity.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009
  • US-Virgin-Islands

#45

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:20 PM




 



Thing is, the tea party wasn't even that insane when it first started. I remember witnessing its formation first hand on the internet. It wasn't a response to Obama, it was a response to to the bank bailouts. Conservatives, until that point, were generally pro-establishment but I remember getting the impression that they felt somewhat betrayed by the bailout- learning that the government aren't pro-capitalism, they're pro-rich people. But over time it seems to have descended into a blatantly racist circle jerk that paints itself a bizarre fantasy view of the outside world. They've gotten rude and hostile.

Ahh jeez, you had that first part nailed, but then it decends into racist/bigot/homophobe/anti-woman territory. Every. Single. Time.


Let's try a little role reversal here, if YOU were called racist every time you disagreed (heck un-patriotic 2003 2004 anyone?) with the way the federal government was going, wouldn't you be a little off? Not defending just saying

Just as an F.Y.I. to everyone: T.E.A. Party is Taxed Enough Already, mainly dealing with economic issues, not some sort of KKK revival. thx
 
Well it descends into that territory every time because generally conservatism inherently involves a certain level of oppressing or generally removing from existence minorities. In any case, the Tea Party/modern conservative movement has nothing to do with opposing the big bad federal government on any sort of rational basis, it's a knee jerk reactionary movement orchestrated by big business. If I were a sadistic man I would say it's funny to see large companies manipulate working class and lower middle class people to actively oppose legislation that would be in their best interest in favour of maintaining current legislation supporting big business and money makers.
---

Flipping quote system

I think your missing my point there fella, The OP ask why people that think like I do are generally rude or hostile. I tried my best to answer without being rude or hostile. Only to be told I would like to remove all minorities from existence. Now that's rich!

I could go on about how this is totally incorrect, but how about I use something from todays news? The senate today changed the rules for filibuster for judicial nominees. This rule was inplace to HELP the minority. Yes I know, they aren't minorities biased on race, rather ideology. But I believe someone said to judge a person biased on the content of their character not the content of their skin. Guess that got thrown out the window. Anyways, last I checked the Senate was controlled by Democrats. So who is holding down minorities?

Let's get this back on track rather than hurling names eh?

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#46

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:29 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 21 November 2013 - 11:31 PM.

 

 

 

Thing is, the tea party wasn't even that insane when it first started. I remember witnessing its formation first hand on the internet. It wasn't a response to Obama, it was a response to to the bank bailouts. Conservatives, until that point, were generally pro-establishment but I remember getting the impression that they felt somewhat betrayed by the bailout- learning that the government aren't pro-capitalism, they're pro-rich people. But over time it seems to have descended into a blatantly racist circle jerk that paints itself a bizarre fantasy view of the outside world. They've gotten rude and hostile.

Ahh jeez, you had that first part nailed, but then it decends into racist/bigot/homophobe/anti-woman territory. Every. Single. Time.


Let's try a little role reversal here, if YOU were called racist every time you disagreed (heck un-patriotic 2003 2004 anyone?) with the way the federal government was going, wouldn't you be a little off? Not defending just saying

Just as an F.Y.I. to everyone: T.E.A. Party is Taxed Enough Already, mainly dealing with economic issues, not some sort of KKK revival. thx
 
Well it descends into that territory every time because generally conservatism inherently involves a certain level of oppressing or generally removing from existence minorities. In any case, the Tea Party/modern conservative movement has nothing to do with opposing the big bad federal government on any sort of rational basis, it's a knee jerk reactionary movement orchestrated by big business. If I were a sadistic man I would say it's funny to see large companies manipulate working class and lower middle class people to actively oppose legislation that would be in their best interest in favour of maintaining current legislation supporting big business and money makers.
---

Flipping quote system

I think your missing my point there fella, The OP ask why people that think like I do are generally rude or hostile. I tried my best to answer without being rude or hostile. Only to be told I would like to remove all minorities from existence. Now that's rich!

I could go on about how this is totally incorrect, but how about I use something from todays news? The senate today changed the rules for filibuster for judicial nominees. This rule was inplace to HELP the minority. Yes I know, they aren't minorities biased on race, rather ideology. But I believe someone said to judge a person biased on the content of their character not the content of their skin. Guess that got thrown out the window. Anyways, last I checked the Senate was controlled by Democrats. So who is holding down minorities?

Let's get this back on track rather than hurling names eh?

 

I'm not 'hurling names' By definition, conservatism wants to preserve the social order. That means the non existence of as many of the people who are outside that social order as possible. Right or wrong, Conservatism is not an inclusionary world view, it's an exclusionary one. Moreover, the reactionary brand that the Tea Party espouses is actively proposing the removal of certain modern social structures that are inclusionary.


Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#47

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:32 PM

Healthcare, economic stimulus and progressive taxation spring to mind.

 

So the poor in the US are suffering because of a marked deficiency in economic central planning and inadequate levels of monetary confiscation? Okey-dokey.


Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    Working hard to maintain my sanity.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009
  • US-Virgin-Islands

#48

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:35 PM

Huh? According to Merriam-Webster it's: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) I fail to see where 'get darky' is in there. Maybe you can enlighten me nale

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#49

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:38 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 21 November 2013 - 11:39 PM.

 

Healthcare, economic stimulus and progressive taxation spring to mind.

 

So the poor in the US are suffering because of a marked deficiency in economic central planning and inadequate levels of monetary confiscation? Okey-dokey.

 

Oh boy you reeally showed him there. You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

Huh? According to Merriam-Webster it's: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) I fail to see where 'get darky' is in there. Maybe you can enlighten me nale

stressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutionsstressing established institutions

 

Conservatism isn't about gradual change, it's about no change.


Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#50

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:41 PM Edited by Chunkyman, 21 November 2013 - 11:42 PM.

 

You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

 

Well, you sure got me there.

 

5sjt.jpg


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#51

Posted 21 November 2013 - 11:56 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 21 November 2013 - 11:57 PM.

 

 

You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

 

Well, you sure got me there.

 

5sjt.jpg

 

 

Sorry, didn't you just do the exact same thing in response to Melchior? If anything my post was mocking yours. Of course a certain economic viewpoint isn't the ONLY reason for poverty or issues with the poor, but having a tax system that puts the burden on extremely weathly individuals, or a healthcare system that doesn't economically cripple people who are afflicted with cancer and are too poor to afford private healthcare costs, or supporting industries that would employ those people sure would go a way to helping.

I'll assume your wanton ignorance of my post means you do want a list. Well to start with there's Corporate Personality law, then there's the lack of a corporate manslaughter law. These two combined are saying on a basic level that corporate entities have the same rights as humans, but none of the responsibilities. f*ck poor people, Corporations are favoured more in the law courts than the shareholders who own them.

Then there's corporate tax laws, in which corporations pay less in tax than people on middle income jobs. Then of course you have the most glaring example involving the bank bailouts of the late 00s in a country that has almost no social security measures for the unemployed.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#52

Posted 22 November 2013 - 12:09 AM

 

 

 

You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

 

Well, you sure got me there.

 

5sjt.jpg

 

 

Of course a certain economic viewpoint isn't the ONLY reason for poverty or issues with the poor, but having a tax system that puts the burden on extremely weathly individuals...

 

 

I think that's the problem. There's no reason that the wealthy should have to pay more taxes (in terms of percentage) than anyone else, making their tax levels equal isn't a problem, but making them pay more in terms of percentage without giving a valid reason (and no, "Fair Share" isn't a valid reason) is.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#53

Posted 22 November 2013 - 12:30 AM

 

 

 

 

You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

 

Well, you sure got me there.

 

5sjt.jpg

 

 

Of course a certain economic viewpoint isn't the ONLY reason for poverty or issues with the poor, but having a tax system that puts the burden on extremely weathly individuals...

 

 

I think that's the problem. There's no reason that the wealthy should have to pay more taxes (in terms of percentage) than anyone else, making their tax levels equal isn't a problem, but making them pay more in terms of percentage without giving a valid reason (and no, "Fair Share" isn't a valid reason) is.

 

You could say the opposite from the other perspective, why should a toilet cleaner have the same amount of his wage as a CEO taken into tax. On another level, say you have 35% tax. For a billionaire that's rather annoying, for the cleaner that's money for food. I suppose you could make a more sophisticated argument, like the production worth of low wage people and corporations relative to tax and stuff like that, but that sounds like effort on my part.

 

There's also the point that corporations aren't people and shouldn't be attributed the same rights in terms of tax fairness as humans, but they are so oh well.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#54

Posted 22 November 2013 - 12:39 AM

 

 

 

 

 

You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

 

Well, you sure got me there.

 

5sjt.jpg

 

 

Of course a certain economic viewpoint isn't the ONLY reason for poverty or issues with the poor, but having a tax system that puts the burden on extremely weathly individuals...

 

 

I think that's the problem. There's no reason that the wealthy should have to pay more taxes (in terms of percentage) than anyone else, making their tax levels equal isn't a problem, but making them pay more in terms of percentage without giving a valid reason (and no, "Fair Share" isn't a valid reason) is.

 

You could say the opposite from the other perspective, why should a toilet cleaner have the same amount of his wage as a CEO taken into tax. On another level, say you have 35% tax. For a billionaire that's rather annoying, for the cleaner that's money for food. I suppose you could make a more sophisticated argument, like the production worth of low wage people and corporations relative to tax and stuff like that, but that sounds like effort on my part.

 

There's also the point that corporations aren't people and shouldn't be attributed the same rights in terms of tax fairness as humans, but they are so oh well.

 

 

I agree about corporations, but not income tax. If someone could give me a valid reason as to why a rich person should pay more in terms of percentage, please do, but I find it ridiculous to say it's a "fair share". If I make more money than you, I shouldn't be paying a larger percentage just because of that.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#55

Posted 22 November 2013 - 12:46 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right, US law is perfectly fine and does not have a negative affect on the poor and vulnerable in society.

 

 

Well, you sure got me there.

 

5sjt.jpg

 

 

Of course a certain economic viewpoint isn't the ONLY reason for poverty or issues with the poor, but having a tax system that puts the burden on extremely weathly individuals...

 

 

I think that's the problem. There's no reason that the wealthy should have to pay more taxes (in terms of percentage) than anyone else, making their tax levels equal isn't a problem, but making them pay more in terms of percentage without giving a valid reason (and no, "Fair Share" isn't a valid reason) is.

 

You could say the opposite from the other perspective, why should a toilet cleaner have the same amount of his wage as a CEO taken into tax. On another level, say you have 35% tax. For a billionaire that's rather annoying, for the cleaner that's money for food. I suppose you could make a more sophisticated argument, like the production worth of low wage people and corporations relative to tax and stuff like that, but that sounds like effort on my part.

 

There's also the point that corporations aren't people and shouldn't be attributed the same rights in terms of tax fairness as humans, but they are so oh well.

 

 

I agree about corporations, but not income tax. If someone could give me a valid reason as to why a rich person should pay more in terms of percentage, please do, but I find it ridiculous to say it's a "fair share". If I make more money than you, I shouldn't be paying a larger percentage just because of that.

 

Well I probably can't convince you, so RIP me, but I would just say it's all relative, like I said a 40% tax rate for a billionaire is only a minor annoyance compared to what it would mean to a cleaner. I guess you could also look at it from this angle: The tax rate is relative to what you get out of the society. Sure you work harder and have a more difficult and economically productive job you get more money, but you also take more from society. You're more likely to use public services, you cause more pollution, your activities are more likely to require new public facilities etc etc.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#56

Posted 22 November 2013 - 01:34 AM Edited by gtamann123, 22 November 2013 - 01:35 AM.

The problem I have had with progressive income tax is that its basically pubushment for being successfull. If you are skillfull successfull and productive and earn a high income you will be punisned by having to pay a higher tax. Where as if you fail and can't cut it in the real world and lack any skill or ability you get rewarded with a lower tax and eventually just go on welfare and mooch the system. Beinh rewarded for your failure. I think I flat tax is the fairest way. Plus I don't understand where the "rich dokt oay taxes" stuff comes from. My uncle paid well over $100k in taxes last year. Far more than the earnings of the majority of people. All to the government. I apoligize for the typos I'm on my phone

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#57

Posted 22 November 2013 - 01:45 AM Edited by Nale Dixon, 22 November 2013 - 01:57 AM.

The problem I have had with progressive income tax is that its basically pubushment for being successfull. If you are skillfull successfull and productive and earn a high income you will be punisned by having to pay a higher tax. Where as if you fail and can't cut it in the real world and lack any skill or ability you get rewarded with a lower tax and eventually just go on welfare and mooch the system. Beinh rewarded for your failure. I think I flat tax is the fairest way. Plus I don't understand where the "rich dokt oay taxes" stuff comes from. My uncle paid well over $100k in taxes last year. Far more than the earnings of the majority of people. All to the government. I apoligize for the typos I'm on my phone

So cleaners, factory workers, retail workers, service assistants, kitchen staff, receptionists are all failures and moochers?

 

Nice, man.

 

As for 'punishment for being successful, this is a complete fallacy. Ignoring what you mean by 'successful', people who want to achieve more are going to achieve more regardless of income tax rates. Generally in laddered careers, people want to go up and other careers like being a doctor, those people aren't in it for the money. Besides which, income tax is generally tiered so that people don't make less money at higher job brackets.

  • trip likes this

trip
  • trip

    ~

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [GTAF]
    Contribution Award [Gen Chat]

#58

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:00 AM

 

The problem I have had with progressive income tax is that its basically pubushment for being successfull. If you are skillfull successfull and productive and earn a high income you will be punisned by having to pay a higher tax. Where as if you fail and can't cut it in the real world and lack any skill or ability you get rewarded with a lower tax and eventually just go on welfare and mooch the system. Beinh rewarded for your failure. I think I flat tax is the fairest way. Plus I don't understand where the "rich dokt oay taxes" stuff comes from. My uncle paid well over $100k in taxes last year. Far more than the earnings of the majority of people. All to the government. I apoligize for the typos I'm on my phone

So cleaners, factory workers, retail workers, service assistants, kitchen staff, receptionists are all failures and moochers?

 

Nice, man.

 

As for 'punishment for being successful, this is a complete fallacy. Ignoring what you mean by 'successful', people who want to achieve more are going to achieve more regardless of income tax rates. Generally in laddered careers, people want to go up and other careers like being a doctor, those people aren't in it for the money Besides which, income tax is generally tiered so that people don't make less money at higher job brackets.

 

 

Yup.

 

I'm in a higher tax bracket and I don't mind.  I don't feel punished.  I live in a 7 bedroom house, own a car, buy expensive motorcycles...all sorts of sh*t that people on welfare can't do.  I don't have to worry "how am I going to afford to eat tonight", I have to deal with "what do I want to eat tonight".

 

 

I'm also very much a bleeding heart.  Some people are going to need some help, and I feel the people who can help - should help.  

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and to answer the original question posed in the OT:

I think the US conservatives started going nuts shorty after 911...either that or when they realized that White Male was not going to be at the top of the census soon...or maybe around the time of Sarah Palin.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    human right and human gain

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#59

Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:13 AM Edited by Melchior, 22 November 2013 - 04:14 AM.

The problem I have had with progressive income tax is that its basically pubushment for being successfull. If you are skillfull successfull and productive and earn a high income you will be punisned by having to pay a higher tax. Where as if you fail and can't cut it in the real world and lack any skill or ability you get rewarded with a lower tax and eventually just go on welfare and mooch the system. Beinh rewarded for your failure. I think I flat tax is the fairest way. Plus I don't understand where the "rich dokt oay taxes" stuff comes from. My uncle paid well over $100k in taxes last year. Far more than the earnings of the majority of people. All to the government. I apoligize for the typos I'm on my phone

Jesus Christ mate, where are you getting this sh*t?

 

Do you have any idea how much of your lifestyle is subsidised by the government? Do you know how much of what you consider to be yours was actually given to you by society? Do you know what food would cost without farm subsidies? If you live in a cold area do you know what it would cost to heat your home without the government? But apparently that's all fine, and somebody only becomes a moocher if they collect unemployment benefits, because that's the only government program where people just get a handout!

 

People who live in a society are entitled to sh*t. Just like you're entitled to a higher standard of living through government subsidy; just like you're entitled to a lawyer if you're accused of a crime and just like you're entitled to have a cop come over if you're the victim of one. Why is that only the poor are freed loading parasites when they take advantage of these entitlements?

 

 

 

I agree about corporations, but not income tax. If someone could give me a valid reason as to why a rich person should pay more in terms of percentage, please do, but I find it ridiculous to say it's a "fair share". If I make more money than you, I shouldn't be paying a larger percentage just because of that.

 

 

 

This is the thing with the American right. They frame debates with things that mean nothing. Why is the idea of paying a fair share ridiculous? We take more from people who have more to give, because we need money for stuff. What, we should drastically shrink the government or put a massive tax burden on the poor and middle class all to honour your arbitrary notion of fairness? And what would we gain for doing that? Literally the entire conservative script is based on things that mean nothing. You're just taking for granted that certain arbitrary things are right or wrong with no logic behind it.

 

Literally all you've said is "you shouldn't have to pay a higher tax percentage because you make more" which doesn't mean anything. Why should we have a flat tax? Because it's fair? By what metric of fairness?

 

Even if it were "fair" the purpose of taxation is to take peoples' money because we need it to get things done, it was never meant to be fair.

  • D- Ice and Mr. House like this

TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#60

Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:24 AM Edited by whatsstrength, 22 November 2013 - 04:39 AM.

This is why I prefer the American liberals. The Michael Moore's and Rosie O'Donnell's are much more sane and trustworthy.

I'd dare to say that the liberals are almost as annoying as the conservatives are, honestly. However, I still would much rather prefer the left have more power though as I find myself in line more with liberal ideologies than conservative ones.

 

Moore does a good job with satire, but some of the content in his films are inaccurate and tend to sway the viewers into gobbling up everything he says by showing his political enemies in a negative light.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users