Fine but in the short term you should be willing to settle for a drastically reduced military, as that is the bulk of the discretionary spending. Are you ready to accept this or not? Most conservatives seem not to be.
Ignorance. Actual historical statistics show that minimum wage does not hurt the economy. Does not fit with actual historical economic results. Doesn't solve any problems that raising taxes is meant to solve. Great solution! Shows ignorance about stem cell research.
Then you should vote Democrat. The 1990's saw the slowest growth of government spending of the past 25-30 years. Government spending grew substantially faster under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. than it did under Clinton. If you're for fiscal responsibility, the absolute WORST thing that can happen is racking up debt at an alarming rate - and that's happened under each of the last 3 Republican administrations, while it did not happen when the Democrats was in charge. Bush Sr was the exception in that he realized the importance of fiscal responsibility and raised taxes since spending wasn't getting cut. Sadly, doing the right thing cost him his job. Spending is increasing, whether you like it or not. So now the question of fiscal responsibility is whether we should pay for it or rack up debt. The best way to cut spending is to make us pay for it so there is a clamor to stop the spending.
"So, yes, it is perfectly okay to cut taxes during a time of a war" "Yes, if I thought it would be necessary, I would be willing to pay higher taxes during a time of war." A bit all over the map here, aren't you? George W. Bush cuts taxes during a war, unlike every one of his predecessors, and you think it's groovy... why? Because Bush did it? What is there in Bush's record that provides proof that he knows something every other American wartime President before him found ludicrous and irresponsible? Bush knows something the rest of them didn't? His record of "success" is so obvious that it overwhelms the previous history of our country during war? I'd like a little more information to back that up, if you don't mind. Just saying it's fine because Bush does it isn't an answer. Considering that the National Guard is being strip-mined of it's equipment because we don't have enough, and is at one of it's lowest states of readiness in decades, that commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan are screaming for more troops and equipment, and are being ignored, and replaced if they don't lower the volume, that our people are having tours extended again and again, having deployments back to the States from the war zones cut short for redeployment back to the war theatres due to lack of troops, and that Rumsfeld and the Administration fought attempts to increase the size of the military for years, that vets aren't getting the care they deserve, and funding for things like research into artificial limbs are being cut by the Administration and the GOP Congress in their budget tells even the simple minded (which you obviously are not, to be clear) THAT THEY AREN'T GETTING ENOUGH FUNDING, HAVE HORRIBLE LEADERSHIP FROM THE TOP, AND WE NEED MORE FREAKIN' MONEY TO GET WHAT THEY NEED. And Bush is still calling for MORE tax cuts. Right now, on the campaign trail. Sure... Bush is so brilliant that he knows something that all previous Presidents did not. Tax cuts are wonderful, the war and our people in the military be damned. You say you would be for raising taxes to pay for all of this if it were needed, but first would want to cut "wasteful government spending." Guess what... the Republican Party has control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They have been increasing government spending while cutting taxes during this war, leading to record government spending, record deficits, and under funding of the military and military benefits. And you think they are doing a better job than those "idiot" Democrats would do? Based on what?? Man, I need more coffee. Reading and replying to this stuff is exhausting. And depressing. I can't believe that otherwise intelligent people can continue to be snowed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional Leadership, along with the RNC, when all the facts point to an opposite conclusion. This government has been an abject failure, and is not only that, but is not conservative. Barry Goldwater wouldn't recognize it. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave. This government has been reelected, tragically, because of one thing... it's not their record, because their record is hideous. They have been reelected because of fear. Fear. It's time for Americans to tell them that their campaign of fear is bull****. That as Americans, we are unafraid. Unafraid to try a government of competence, instead of a government more in the pocket of special interests than any in my memory. A government so deep in the back pocket of big business and the rich that they are willing to cut taxes for their backers, despite the war, despite the record budget deficits, despite veterans not getting the care they deserve, the benefits their families deserve, and the pay they deserve, the equipment they need, the increase in numbers so they don't have to be redeployed again and again. And they dare to accuse Democrats of cutting and running. The Republican Party has cut and run from the American people and responsible government. Time for it to end. Keep D&D Civil.
cut student loan rates in half? this is a "priority one?" my wife's loans are already below 5%. while i'd love for them to be free, i fail to see how this is a huge burden, one that needs to be a national priority. unless of course, you're just demogoging.
Cutting student loans is nothing more than attempt to get a vote. How about cutting x% of your loan if a student graduates? Minimum wage hurts more than it helps. My cheap .99 value menu now turns into a 1.49 value menu. Employee wages are the most expensive part of running a business. It honestly wouldn't help most of the employees. The best things tax cuts do is reshift the flow of money. You can't punish the rich. Most rich people are not trust fund babies. They know how to hold their money. Whether you give a tax cut or a tax hike, they will make their money work for them. Hikes and cuts only hurt the lower class as they have very little control of their taxes. The democratic POV has a falaisy that people are responsible with their money and time. It doesn't matter how much more you give some people, they will still spend 100% of their income. Working hard gets you nowhere. Working smart will take you places. I do not subscribe to this communistic idea.
LOL, considering that the minimum wage hasn't risen in over 10 years, I'm pretty god damned sure that your value menu price rise was not affected by it. You're making a great argument against cutting taxes for the rich, which is that they hold on to their money rather than consume, which negates the economic stimulus effect of tax cuts for them. Spending 100% of your income isn't communist, in fact it's the exact opposite, but anyway keep on making points against yourself....
This whole 'punish the rich' argument is complete bull****, and it gets trotted out everytime someone talks about raising taxes. If you want punishment, try working 50 hours a week for minimum wage, and realizing the difference between your taxed income and your untaxed income is about the same difference between your ability to pay for your electric bill and your inability to pay it. So, go ahead and rehash that "well, if they weren't so lazy/stupid/irresponsible, they wouldn't have to worry about it" argument. There are many, many lazy/stupid/irresponsible people with healthy bank accounts just because they were born into a family that could afford to send them to college. Same old arguments, over, and over, and over - and they're still wrong.
Yeah, only those making over $250 to $300 k per year are productive. How about teachers, nurses, many doctors and the vast majority of even professionals who make less than this. Do you really believe this statement? HOw do you explain that the economy better during the Clinton period and all they are talking about is returning the tax rate on these groups to what it was during that period. Can you actually think about budgets and deficits and interests rates and college tutions at state schools and health care for the disabled etc. and not just respond on a simplistic "I hate all taxes" or a pure ideological abstract level.
The economy was great during the Clinton years because of the Internet boom. Shockingly, the economy took a nose dive when all of the dot-coms went bust. To argue that somehow the higher taxes during the Clinton years were responsible for the strength of the economy is rediculous, yet somehow I am the one called ignorant. I believe that the government's effect on the economy is relativeley small, and that any changes take a while to be felt, but the one method that the government has to push the economy is to make investment as good an option as possible, which can be done with tax relief to those who invest and capital gains relief to encourage investment. Ideally, the goal should be to have the lowest possible tax rates, because individuals are more likely to spend their money the way they want it spent than the government is. If I don't want to pay for abortions or the arts, I can choose not to spend my money on that, but the government has the power to take money from me and spend it on those things. That is why we should pare the government down to those things we deem absolutely essential, and tax just enough to cover those expenses. As concerns lowering taxes in time of war, tax receipts have increased following the Bush tax cuts, so while it may seem that lowering taxes would reduce our resources available, the opposite has happened. It is possible that the tax receipts would have increased more had the taxes not been cut, but it is also possible that they would not have. Either way, trotting out the cutting taxes during a war argument doesn't hold much weight IMO. Which means they would have the ability to choose said higher taxes. If all of the people who were in that tax bracket choose to pay the higher taxes, then my plan would have the exact same outcome as simply raising taxes; however, I don't think everyone making 250k plus feels the same way that double digit billionaires like Gates and Buffet do. Why not find the minimum amount that we need to tax people, and then let whoever wants to pay more send as much extra as they like to the government? Probably because it is easier to say you want higher taxes than it is to choose to pay them when it is an option. I know that I would choose the lowest amount possible. Hitler thought combing his hair was a good idea, and so do I, but I am against the extermination of Jews. Crazy how you can been in agreement on some things but disagree on others. Now, how about those people who are fine with killing a million plus babies per annum and harvesting their stem cells but balk at killing hundreds of convicted criminals and harvesting their organs? Myself, I wouldn't support either position, but I am just weird like that.
Nobody argued that, but I do think you're ignorant as to this issue. My point as to Clinton era prosperity is about the effect of balanced budgets and crowding out. The way this flew right over your head supports my prior assessment. Read your stiglitz. See above. Irrelevant, not an issue. The budget is not imbalanced because of funding for "abortions or the arts". LMFAO, you think the 12 years of republican control of congress means taht these two items are what is causing imbalances? Either you are stupid or you are building straw men. Probably the latter. Anyway, if you weren't stupid, you already know that the biggest spending items are the military and expensive things like wars (that you support). Are you calling for cuts in those? ....it does if you're the talking to the kind of idiot who thinks that the budget is imbalanced because of funding for "abortion and the arts". That's because you're poor. If you were super-rich, you'd feel otherwise. And by the way, in case you haven't been on planet earth lately, Gates & Buffet have in fact been giving their money away as fast as they can lately. While you support the accumulation of dynastic wealth, they do not. PS I did not see your answer as to your opting out of the minimum wage to make a statement - but then again you tend to alter your well-held principles whenever politically convenient so I'm not surprised at that. No, you're weird because you care a lot more about blobs of cells but once they exit the birth canal you do a 180 and seem to be willing to toss them out into the wild, because as we all know, all markets are perfectly efficient, always, forever. Maybe the democrats could run a fetus for president to attract the coveted stupidmoniker voe
You're obviously not reading my posts (other than what you want to quote and attack), because I said that I am absolutely fed up with the Republican leadership. I can't stand what they've done, and agree that they have been a failure. I feel like I've been abandoned by my party. It should be a ripe opportunity for the Democrats to step up and offer me an alternative. But instead, they make promises to be worse at what the Republicans have failed at. And there should be promise in the Democratic Party. The most-recent President whose policies should be emulated was a Democrat. Some of the most promising politicians: Evan Bayh, Harold Ford, Jr., Bill Richardson, are Democrats. But your party is being led by the Socialists instead of the moderates. (For fairness and honesty's sake, I should mention that I am voting to re-elect my Congressman, Kevin Brady, based on his individual record, which has been excellent. I repeatedly voted for Nick Lampson because of his record. I do not judge individual politicians by their party unless they are beholden to the party line.)
I wasn't discussing the reason for budget deficits (ie what items are causing cost overruns) I was discussing the fact that every penny that the government takes from the people if one more penny that the people lose control of, so in fact it is you that are arguing against a straw man. If the vast majority of the people did not think that having a military was a neccessary expense, then yes, it should be cut. I don't think that is the case though. There are certain budget items that are just essential for the country to function, items like the military, the interstate highway system (although we could probably pass that off to the states if people really wanted to, they do have experience in road maintainence), the IRS (to collect what taxes are neccessary), etc. Anything else is the government deciding what it is best to spend your money on, and some of the things they spend money on you may not only disagree with, but be morally opposed to. I'm sure there are many like me that don't want the government paying for women to have abortions, I'm sure there are others who don't want the government paying to go to war in Iraq. Even though I support the war in Iraq, I would support a minimalist government more. They would be free to choose the higher tax rate. Gates and Buffet are two rediculously rich people. John Kerry and his wife have a combined worth in the billions, but Kerry choose to pay the lowest income tax level available to him in Massechusets. Thus, even the super-rich are not of one mind in paying higher taxes. I am also aware that Gates and Buffet have been giving money away hand over fist. They have interestingly not been giving all of that money to the government, but have been using that money as they see fit (or at least Buffet gave his money to Gates to use as he saw fit). Gee, I guess they think that individuals might be better able to decide where they want their money to go than the government. I didn't answer because it is not a very good question. Since I do not make minimum wage, it would be hard for me to opt out of it. If I were making minimum wage, then why would I try to get paid less? My point was not that people should try to make less money, but that companies should not have to pay people more than the minimum they are willing to work for, which is the fair market value of their labor. If no one is willing to work at McDonalds for less than $7.50 per hour, then McDonalds will be forced to pay people $7.50 per hour or close. If there are people willing to work at McDonalds for $2 per hour, then McDonalds should be allowed to hire those people, instead of being forced to pay them or someone else a higher wage. If people are willing to work for less, who are we to tell them they can't? Seems like a good way for less skilled people to compete in the market to me. I don't know that I have ever expressed a desire to throw people out in the wild. In fact, there was a thread here years ago in which I said we should spend money to build housing for the homeless, which is pretty much the opposite of throwing people out in the wild. I guess it is harder to attack someone if you can't dehumanize them though, which you illustrated perfectly by referring to babies as "blobs of cells". I voted for Bush because I thought he would put pro-life justices on the supreme court. Now, there has not yet been a challenge that I am aware of, but Alito and Roberts look promising. So, while there are certainly people who were snowed by Rove, some people may just have different priorities than you.
Honestly, you're the easiest mark here. Why are you and you alone free from practicing what you preach. Since you think everybody who doesn't support massive tax breaks for the rich must pay the government extra on their own - why is it that an anti-labor law crusader like yourself, battling the evil minimum wage, sucks at the teat of labor protections and is not afraid to benefit from it? You're a virtual fetus, sucking resources from the placenta of big business and raising my costs. In the name of efficiency, Why don't you tell your boss that you're willing to forgive other protections you enjoy in order to reduce labor costs? I can thnk of all kinds of ways for you to do that. Why don't you opt out of your health insurance plan? All it does is raise costs. Actually why don't you agree to work longer hours for less vacation? You should also sign a waiver promising not to sue or seek disabilty or all sorts of other protections. It might not be legally enforceable in many cases but I'm sure that's not a problem for an idealist, and that's just the tip of the iceberg....
Honestly, you are a jerk. Of all the posters on ClutchFans, you seem to make things personal 100 times more often than anyone else. Even in this case where there is no connection between me and the topic at hand, you try to personalize it, make me out to be the bad guys, and insinuate that I am a hypocrit if I don't act against both my stated positions and my self interest. If I were one to use the ignore list, I would certainly have you on it. Instead, I will do my best just to avoid replying to you in the future. Have a nice ClutchFans experience. You are really not understanding the concept of a free labor market are you? I take that back, I believe you do understand the concept but you can't figure out a way to attack my position on that that is also an attack on me. That is why you come up with these irrelevent ideas about me trying to get less. I, and every other person should try to get as much compensation as we can. Business should try to give employees as little compensation as they can. Those are the two opposing forces that determine everyone's fair market wage. Minimum wage laws are a distortion of that. I am not exempt from the laws of the labor market any more than anyone else. Just because I don't think there should be a minimum wage does not mean that I want to make less than minimum wage. If there are people that are willing to work for less than minimum wage, there shouldn't be an obstacle to that. I noticed you had no response on the income tax portion of my post. I guess the fact that even the super rich don't always take the give more money to the government path really stymied you. Don't worry about it, Kerry's position is perfectly understandable, he thinks the country would be better off with higher taxes, but he doesn't want to pay them, kind of a rif on the NIMBY phenomenon. Self-interest is one of the most powerful motivators for human beings.
SM, I respect that. As you know, i disagree with the position, but I respect it. You've freely admitted to being a "one issue voter," and that is certainly your right. I do have a problem with people calling Democrats "idiots and socialists," but I don't think that was you. I have a question, and I'm sure you've answered it before, but I haven't had my second cup of coffee. Do you believe Bush has done the right thing to invade Iraq based on the information he gave the American people, information proven to be false? And whether you think the information was false, or not, or that Bush knew before hand that it was false (he did), since we are into this foreign policy disaster at the moment, do you think the American people, besides our professional military and their families, should be asked to sacrifice to support our people fighting for their lives? Trying to recover from their wounds? Attempting to get the latest in artificial limbs? In Bush's budget, research into artificial limbs was cut millions of dollars. Are you willing to pay more taxes to fund the consequences of Bush's foreign policy decisions? I am, despite the fact that I disagree with them. Are you? I can't seem to find a conservative Bush supporter here who believes that, unlike every previous war in our nation's history, we should be asked to sacrifice and pony up more tax dollars to pay for these things, and Bush's mess. How about it? Are you willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the war and to pay for the equipment, medical care, and salaries deserved by our superb volunteer military? Keep D&D Civil.
Let's recap. StupidMoniker thinks labor protections are a bad idea but is unwilling to opt out of them due to self-interest - this is ok. John Kerry thinks that tax cuts for the rich are a bad idea , but when John Kerry doesn't opt-out of them due to self-interest - this is not ok. I've noted this before, so I don't really care if you read this or not because you're obviously aware of it, but you seem to be uniquely prone to make high-minded declarations of principle, usually sounding like its cribbed from a party platform, talk show rhetoric, or hazy rememberances of dime-store Adam Smith from an introductory micro course. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However then you take your high handed moral principles and shove them in the toilet (like you just did above, and just like you are uniquely prone to do ("I am opposed to affirmative action.....but I think Condoleeza Rice would make a great president, because she's a woman and black") I find that to be uniquely shallow and deeply symbolic of a lot of right wing political discourse we have been subjected to in recent years - (such as mark foley). You're right, I probably have made you a whipping boy, but when one just recycles the party line so much with so little forethought, it's hard not to beat on the poster child.
Not exactly. I think he did the right thing in invading Iraq, but I think he provided the wrong information to the American people. It may have been a harder sell to get America to invade Iraq for such purposes as deposing a murderous dictator and creating a stable democracy in the heart of the middle east (that it happens to contain more oil than just about any other country in the world, thus providing a stable democratic oil producer if successful being a big bonus). That does not excuse lying to the American people to get them behind it. That we were mislead into the war is not a good enough reason to leave though, IMO. People make fun of the Republicans for changing the reasons for the war or "moving the goalposts," but I think if there are valid reasons to fight the war, the fact that it was started on false pretenses is irrelevent, except as a mark on Bush's record. A couple of points here (or three): 1. Tax receipts are higher after the tax cuts than they were before. This may or may not be because of the tax cuts. So, while raising taxes may provide for more funds available, it may not. 2. Assuming raising taxes would provide for more funds, sure, I don't see a big problem with raising taxes to cover neccessary expenses. Millions of dollars is a lot of money to you and me, but not to the government. Tax every man, woman, and child in America $1 and you have $200,000,000+ for research into replacement limbs. That would just be too easy though. As an alternative, I think there could be more success with a national appeal for donations. Following Katrina, Americans donated over 4 billion dollars for Katrina relief. Go to the same efforts to get donations for veteran's assistance, and there should be similarly outstanding results. 3. There is plenty of money available to the government to pay for everything they need, without increasing tax receipts. All they have to do is get rid of idiotic spending. The budget provides over 200 million dollars for abstinence only education programs. Wouldn't that money cover the cuts to artificial limb R&D? Unfortunately, I am not the one that gets to make these decisions. Democrats aren't the only party with idiots. I just can't help myself. StupidMoniker does not think labor protections are a bad idea. He thinks there should be saftey standards and a way to enforce them for example. StupidMoniker thinks the minimum wage is a bad idea. Since StupidMoniker does not make minimum wage, it would be hard for him to opt out of it. StupidMoniker feels that all workers should try to get the best compensation package that they can. SamFisher fails to prove StupidMoniker is a hypocrit wrt labor protections. John Kerry wants the rich to pay more taxes, when given an opportunity to put that into action, John Kerry refuses. What does that make John Kerry? Does John Kerry think the rich should pay as little in taxes as they can? How is this different from SamFishers convoluted failure of an attempt to paint StupidMoniker as a hypocrit? Good, I would hate to run afoul of SamFisher, undisputed arbiter of what is right and wrong. Obviously I shattered your argument that I was acting against my stated principals above, and we have addressed thie Condi situation before. I'm willing to beat this dead horse again though. I never said being black or a woman would make Condi a good president. I only said that having a Republican be both the first black and first woman president would really chees off the Democrats, and as such I would vote for her. That is hardly affirmative action. I am not saying that we need to reflect deiversity in our presidents. I am not saying that in the future presidential candidates should get bonus points for being something other than a white male, all I am saying is that if given the opportunity to have a Republican be the first black and/or woman president, I would take it. If anything, my stance is less hypocritical and more offensive tokenism.
