REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Missing the Obvious

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 24, 2008 05:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 778
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Seems like common sense has been lacking from the right-wing over the past several years. I believe this all started when Ronnie Raygun ran on the plaform that he would do three things:

Cut taxes
Increase military spending
Balance the budget

Then the right-wing stepped off a cliff with him, and have been falling ever since. So now we get peeps who can't believe their eyes and ears. They believe that they're on a mission from Jesus. That credit is a great economic base. That making the wealthy even more obscenely wealthy will lead us to prosperity (instead of an imitation of the Mexican economy). That we would be greeted as liberators and that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the war.

Whatever the frak happened to common sense?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Yeah, it seems that way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I have NO IDEA how that triple-post happend!!!!

And the site won't let me fix the title either.

Anyhoo... so, whatever DID happen to common sense?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:53 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Seems like common sense has been lacking from the right-wing over the past several years.


We disagree. Its not a matter of sense or senselessness. Its ideology. Just because a person does not share your ideology does not make them senseless or stupid.

Common sense has little to do with the issue...its too often lacking on both sides. What is not lacking on either side are good, honost, hard-working Americans with differing views on how the world should be. Also in good supply on both sides are those who have tired of civil discourse and reasonable debate of these issues and instead resort to discrediting an idea by discrediting the person. Perhaps a baseless attack on a person's integrety, intellegence, or patriotism. (Thinks of Joe the Plumber, Tito the builder, Hero the Prosecutor, and all those who'd like to ask a question for the sake of hearing the answer.)

Certainly there are those whose patriotism, intellegence, and integrety should be questioned (PirateNews is the best example in our own little corner of the verse). But I caution you not to make the same mistake about entire classes of folks whose only crime is disagreeing with you.

That said...I wish all you commie-loving Barrack supporters well and encourage you all to go out on November 5th and vote for your man.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:45 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


I'm just wondering if I'm the only one here who knows the definition of doublethink...

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Hero,

That was a well-thought, lucid argument you presented:

"Its not a matter of sense or senselessness. Its ideology. Just because a person does not share your ideology does not make them senseless or stupid".

Agreed!

But I caution you not to make the same mistake about entire classes of folks whose only crime is disagreeing with you.

Bravo!

...you commie-loving Barrack supporters well and encourage you all to go out on November 5th and vote for your man.

LOL.....that was HI-Larious

You commie-loving Barack supporters....

H


Don't rush me, I'm a thinkin', my head hurts!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:11 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

We disagree. Its not a matter of sense or senselessness. Its ideology. Just because a person does not share your ideology does not make them senseless or stupid.

...Perhaps a baseless attack on a person's integrety, intellegence, or patriotism.

(Thinks of Joe the Plumber, Tito the builder, Hero the Prosecutor, and all those who'd like to ask a question for the sake of hearing the answer.)

Certainly there are those whose patriotism, intellegence, and integrety should be questioned...

H



Considering the source , maybe 1 for 3 isn't bad...

We perhaps can't question the patriotism of our local self-made 'hero'...

But we can question his 'intellegence' and his 'integrety' , since he's not familiar enough with either one to even be able to spell 'em...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

We disagree. Its not a matter of sense or senselessness. Its ideology. Just because a person does not share your ideology does not make them senseless or stupid.
We can disagree about goals, we can disagree about means, and we can disagree about the underlying mechanisms behind the data. But the one thing we can't disagree on is observable fact. If we do, then at least one of us is disconnected from reality.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

I'm just wondering if I'm the only one here who knows the definition of doublethink...

The republican party platform ?

Orwell should be required reading for any decent History or Civics class.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Whatever the frak happened to common sense?


The right began the big EFF-UP with Reagan, it's been getting worse and worse ever since, and needing to deny it more and more to keep the illusion alive, hence the seeming lack of common sense.
Hero's statement of differing ideologies makes sense on the surface, but let's also remember that Stalin had a different ideology too, does that make HIM wrong? Uh, YES. Because his ideology SUCKED.
So much for my liberal tolerance.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I've been thinking about this.


I think John Kennedy was a real revelation to the repubicans. And they've been in the business of providing feel-good images ever since; while trying to stick democrats with feel-bad ones - with more or less success. (They’ve been much better at negative campaigning on the whole.) (It's also interesting to me that they - the republican machine operators - seem to prefer brain-damaged people to run for president, like Reagan, W Bush, and McCain.)

The thing is that, in general, people don't vote for who has the better policy, it's more like a junior-high popularity contest.

So people just trample over their own common sense in their rush to the candidate that makes them feel good.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:35 PM

KIRKULES


You are correct Rue, JFK was an inspiration for Republicans.



"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:50 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
You are correct Rue, JFK was an inspiration for Republicans.



"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill




So you agree that Obama is the best choice, because he cuts taxes the most, for the greatest number of people, which will in turn increase the flow of revenue into the treasury!

Mike

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Kirkules

You would not like Kennedy's plan - the top tax rate was 70%. And there were proportionally larger tax cuts aimed at the middle class (which generates consumption) as opposed to the moneyed class. And there were other differences between then and now. The government was running a surplus - it was paying down existing debt. So it could afford to reduce its income without competing with individuals and businesses for loans.

IF you had a 70% top tax bracket, and IF the government was running a surplus and IF the tax cuts were aimed primarily at the middle class, you'd have a point.

But they aren't, so you don't.


***************************************************************

But it does make a good case for a 70% top tax bracket and tax cuts for the middle class. I think we should implement the Kennedy plan all the way including those tax rates --- don't you ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:20 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So you agree that Obama is the best choice, because he cuts taxes the most, for the greatest number of people, which will in turn increase the flow of revenue into the treasury!

Mike



There's no doubt that even Obama's tax cuts would have somewhat of a stimulative effect on the economy in the short run. Giving tax cuts to those in lower tax brackets and those who pay no taxes will result in consumer spending, because these groups spend a greater potion of their disposable income. The problem is that to have an economy that is healthy over the long term you need the capital investment that results from low capital gains and corporate taxes. If low income people would begin to save again like they have in the past that would provide investment capital to the system, but the levels of savings in recent years is no were near what is needed to create the infrastructure for sustainable economic growth.

If you look at a graph of Federal revenues over US history you will see that revenues temporarily declined after the Bush tax cuts. There is a lag between the time taxes are cut and when revenues increase. Revenues would have quickly returned to the historical trend line if it hadn't been for the Clinton recession, 911, and the dot.com bubble. In the last few years revenues have returned to historic levels and the slope of the trend line has even increased. If it wasn't for the ridiculous Federal spending by the Bush administration we would be in good shape now on the revenue side.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:29 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Kirkules

You would not like Kennedy's plan - the top tax rate was 70%. And there were proportionally larger tax cuts aimed at the middle class (which generates consumption) as opposed to the moneyed class. And there were other differences between then and now. The government was running a surplus - it was paying down existing debt. So it could afford to reduce its income without competing with individuals and businesses for loans.

IF you had a 70% top tax bracket, and IF the government was running a surplus and IF the tax cuts were aimed primarily at the middle class, you'd have a point.

But they aren't, so you don't.


***************************************************************

But it does make a good case for a 70% top tax bracket and tax cuts for the middle class. I think we should implement the Kennedy plan all the way including those tax rates --- don't you ?


I could live with a slow increase in taxes on the rich, as long as it's done in a responsible way that doesn't stifle economic growth and entrepreneurship. The problem with Obama is that he wants to raise taxes to punish the rich without regard for the consequences to the economy and revenues. His tax plan will stifle growth over the long term and result in lower revenues not higher. This is what JFK understood that Obama doesn't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

There's no doubt that even Obama's tax cuts would have somewhat of a stimulative effect on the economy in the short run. Giving tax cuts to those in lower tax brackets and those who pay no taxes will result in consumer spending, because these groups spend a greater potion of their disposable income. The problem is that to have an economy that is healthy over the long term you need the capital investment that results from low capital gains and corporate taxes.
Ah, so you try to reach a balance between Keynesian and supply-side economics. Do you want to get into a deep discussion about theory? Or will it suffice to say that our spending is only improving China's productivity, and there is no guarantee that even if WE save that "our" savings will shore up "our" economy?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:

If low income people would begin to save again like they have in the past that would provide investment capital to the system, but the levels of savings in recent years is no were near what is needed to create the infrastructure for sustainable economic growth.



Of course, that assumes that low-income people actually earn enough money to have any left to save. A large number of them don't. To get people to save, first they have to have money left over at the end of the month TO save. Another way to increase saving and decrease needless spending would be to tighten up the credit market, but that apparently isn't what anyone wants now that it's happening.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:

I could live with a slow increase in taxes on the rich, as long as it's done in a responsible way that doesn't stifle economic growth and entrepreneurship. The problem with Obama is that he wants to raise taxes to punish the rich without regard for the consequences to the economy and revenues. His tax plan will stifle growth over the long term and result in lower revenues not higher. This is what JFK understood that Obama doesn't.



Actually, Obama's plan would raise taxes on the top 5% by THREE PERCENT. And it's not exactly a radical raising of their taxes - it's going back to the rates they paid before Bush. Surely three percent qualifies as a "slow increase", yes? What would be better, a one-percent increase per year for three years?

Mike



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 24, 2008 3:49 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

The thing is that, in general, people don't vote for who has the better policy, it's more like a junior-high popularity contest.

So people just trample over their own common sense in their rush to the candidate that makes them feel good.



Yeah, I've a friend in DC that puts it well: "People vote for who they could see themselves sitting around having a beer with- people just like themselves. Trouble is most people aren't qualified to run this country...
like, would you rather be operated on by a skilled surgeon that comes off a little stiff socially, or a friendly, personable orderly?"

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 24, 2008 4:09 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
"People vote for who they could see themselves sitting around having a beer with- people just like themselves.


McCain owns a brewary...

Somehow I can see McCain, Palin, and myself sitting around drinking beer and eating mooseburgers while watching football on the big screen, but I picture my dinner with Barrack and Michelle (Joe would not be there) to be fine china, gormet food (catered), wine, and crappy conversation about 'art' or 'eductation'.

I am confident that Barrack can drink beer, watch football, and eat wings...but I get the impression Michelle does not allow it.


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 24, 2008 4:18 AM

CHRISISALL


So, you're gonna have the orderly tend to your aortic aneurysm, eh?

Or would that be Joe The Plummer?

isall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 24, 2008 5:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, Ding-bat (Dingell, D - MI) might not be all that personable, but he's a rare bird, blue collar conservative jerk, and yes, someone you CAN drink a beer and chow down a burger with, but pretty damned competent at his job too.

Levin, of course, tends to hold his nose and run behind his bodyguards whenever he spots one of us non-jewish peons, and isn't very competent at anything but selling us out to a foreign power every way he can, bleh.

Now, if I had to pick a Presidential hopeful to party with ? hmmm...

Hands down, Kucinich.

Ron Paul, Nader and Obama are just too reserved, Romney and Huckleberry are way too uptight, Shrub would prolly get us arrested with his fratboy antics, and McCain would get all maudulin and either tell boring war stories or get quietly mopey on us... and soccer mom image or not, I bet Palin could go mug for mug with half my Astaru buddies if it came to it.

But it's Dennis that I'd party with, by choice, cause he's been "down there" and back again, never quits, never goes down for the count and is always ready to sink his teeth into somebodys ankle given half a chance - he's an OK Democrat, but he'd make a GREAT Anarchist.


Now if only he'd give up the ludicrous idea that banning guns would accomplish anything, I might even support him - but I don't, on that one point, I'll not be moved.

But party with him, damn right I would.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:38 - 43 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:38 - 45 posts
NATO
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:24 - 16 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 13:23 - 4773 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL