US Presidential Elections 2012 (12 Viewers)

[Maddy]

I do think you need to lay off the fox news drivel channel as your main source of news and/or the bong - just because some states voted to become "grassier" a couple of days ago that doesn't mean you should be wasted 24/7

here is a link, and please read it carefully so that we don't have to waste time on the obvious:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/obama-fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

in short, the bush-taxcuts are about to expire, which automatically returns the level of taxes to the higher Clinton-era ones ... What Obama wants for the new taxcuts he plans to impose is that they stay the same for those with less than 250K, while the rest get a hike - 98% of people and 97% of business are in that sub-250k category.

hopefully a more careful read would avoid unnecessary discussions. Which brings me to a Q - do you think it's a coincidence that during the Clinton era this country had it's healthiest budget of all time, while the tax levels were higher ... and the country hit rock-bottom, while the lower level taxes imposed by Bush to gain him popularity for a 2nd term were enforced ... all that while plunging the nation into 2 wars?

somehow I don't remember people, and more precisely fat-ass, freedom-loving, government-hating rednecks, dying from hunger on the streets during the Clinton era just because they had to pay slightly higher taxes but then again they might start dying now with a black guy with a muslim name in office. who knows really, life has its mysterious ways ...

- - - Updated - - -



indeed - too bad Romney didn't win 'cause then we would have at least had a pres who could never possibly lie or be wrong on any issue seeing as he would have covered/stood on all possible sides to it at least twice.

damn latino, black, etc freeloaders

sadly your post is of no use since the ghostwhisperer sees and understands things no normal ever would.

some call them conspiracy theorists other looneys but they see themself as freedom fighters and being in the know - unlike the ignorant public often brainwashed by different institutions.

what is impressive - convincing to some - is how certain they are in their cause. even tho history, science, studies & cases and so on proves them wrong, they just refuse it with being biased or some other 'attack the man not the argument selfmade'-point.

here's a good example:

Hmm, Congressional Research Service. Lets see. The Congress benefits from tax revenue, they fund the Congressional Research Service. And what do they purport? The above.

Big fuucking surprise that is.

People quoting government sources are just as bad as the politicians.

http://forum.juventuz.org/threads/3...ections-2012?p=3867982&viewfull=1#post3867982

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

acmilan really needs to change his username. He's like the *actual* Good Samaritan (and we all thought it was a hoax, go figure) come to keep us company with his warm personality and explain a lot of things to people in need of an explanation.

His username implies that his mission is something milan related, but it's totally beside the point.

 

[swag]

acmilan is a cool dude by me.

 

[ALC]

yeah, he's a cool dude but you guys aren't supposed to let him know that!

 

[swag]

Pardon me if I don't have a "Ban acmilan" campaign in my signature.

 

[Fred]

Yup, top poster in all matters other than Milan's transfer dealings imo

 

[swag]

Hey, let's not let this get to @acmilan 's head.

 

[ALC]

Pardon me if I don't have a "Ban acmilan" campaign in my signature.

That's taking it a little too far

 

[acmilan]

@ anyone who thinks they know repubs and that repubs know taxes ... not directed at @Maddy at all


obviously you are not very familiar with US history and the effect of political demagoguery on people here - there is this widely spread misconception that republicans are all about smaller government, which in the US is basically equivalent to lower taxes. The republican base, given the illiterate, brainwashed rag-dolls they often are, would go to great lengths in quoting republican presidents and especially their "god" among those named Ronald Reagan, who btw was a great president indeed.

Now, where is the issue you might ask? well, the issue is that Reagan raised taxes several times during his presidency and eventually under him the US had the highest tax-rates in the post WWII era ... smart man he was as he realized that running a healthy and strong economy doesn't exactly fit with the good old republican illusions of low to no taxes. Yet, how come the consensus among the republican base is that republican presidents are synonymous of low taxes? well, remember that reference from above about "brainwashed rag-dolls"? ... see, I didn't use it out of place after all

Here is another story, I mean example of how republican presidents once they come in power smarten up about taxes and raise them even if they ran on the holly republican principles of low taxes - George HW Bush (not monkey-Bush but his Dad. Bush father came to that same realization as Reagan did before him and raised taxes because he didn't want to drive the country in the ground ... unfortunately for him, the ragdolls realized that and it cost him the re-election, which wasn't that big an issue for the US given that his replacement was Bill Clinton, probably the most successful US pres in recent memory.
You wanna take a wild guess what Clinton did while running the healthies US economy of all time? don't bother, time's up - it was a trick question. - Yep, he followed into the footsteps of Reagan and GHW Bush and kept or raised taxes if necessary ... good thing he was a democrat, so the opinion of the disillusioned ragdolls mentioned above didn't matter anyway and he got a 2nd term.

Now, onto the next part of my short story here - G. W. Bush comes into office, somehow. Plunges the country into 2 wars, the more significant of which got started on manufactured evidence but that's beside the point here. More importantly, as stupid as Bush son may have looked, he or his advisors had learned the lesson Bush-father taught them - if you wanna get re-elected for a 2nd term, don't put the interests of the country above your own i.e. common sense may ask for higher taxes but you lower them even if that would drive the country into a hole that may take it decades to get out of ... all this while the US is having to bear the expenses of wars, coupled with unrealistically increased costs for medicare and such, for decades to come, seeing as bush-son needed to make himself popular with seniors, who represent(ed) at the time a really important %-age of the electorate.

So, what is the moral of the story, you might ask? Don't you worry now, this aint no trick question - well, the moral of the story is that American's hear what they wanna hear - as in that Reagan is synonymous in republican folklore to low taxes and small government, while in reality under him, the US had the highest post WWII tax rates. How do you achieve a little, full-of-shit story like this one? well, quite easily actually - just stop living in reality and move into your own bubble filled with hot illusions ... not that big of an issue if you are a ragdoll, after all.
then again, all you have standing between your illusions and reality is bad math skills, which is perfectly in line with the level of math education in the US and resilience for many here to pursue higher education - why get a PhD when you've got yourself a GED. I mention this 'cause it really takes very basic understanding of how math works to realize that the way the republican idealism of low taxes just doesn't work in the real world nowadays. That maybe as easy as putting 2 and 2 together but then again, I did have to waste what like 20 min to type this stuff, so I guess 2+2 ain't that obvious after all, when it really should be.

I could gladly go on an tell you about how the small-government, low-taxes, independence-wanking rednecks in the US are first in line for statewide federal benefits/earmarks (take a wild guess where the money for those comes from) whenever the bell rings but I guess that would lead us towards discussing hypocrisy-driven, petty human nature, which isn't the topic of discussion. Or is it? then again, I don't really have more time for typing and let's face it, if you haven't gotten the gist of it by now, me going on for another page or two ain't gonna matter anyway.

So, to finish up here, feel free to talk to me about socialism and communism and whatnot whenever you feel like it but before that please make sure you actually understand what those words mean and even better how they relate to the reality we live in and not the illusions we try to replace it with.

Class dismissed. you Kids have yourselves a pleasant weekend and don't forget the paper is due on Monday.

- - - Updated - - -

acmilan really needs to change his username. He's like the *actual* Good Samaritan (and we all thought it was a hoax, go figure) come to keep us company with his warm personality and explain a lot of things to people in need of an explanation.

His username implies that his mission is something milan related, but it's totally beside the point.

 

[Maddy]

obviously you are not very familiar with US history and the effect of political demagoguery on people here - there is this widely spread misconception that republicans are all about smaller government, which in the US is basically equivalent to lower taxes. The republican base, given the illiterate, brainwashed rag-dolls they often are, would go to great lengths in quoting republican presidents and especially their "god" among those named Ronald Reagan, who btw was a great president indeed.

Thank you @acmilan. But what on earth does this have to do with my description of bjerknes as a debater or did you not catch the irony behind my gif


you didn't catch it

So, to finish up here, feel free to talk to me about socialism and communism and whatnot whenever you feel like it but before that please make sure you actually understand what those words mean and even better how they relate to the reality we live in and not the illusions we try to replace it with.

 

[acmilan]

acmilan is a cool dude by me.

yeah, he's a cool dude but you guys aren't supposed to let him know that!

Yup, top poster in all matters other than Milan's transfer dealings imo

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you. But what on earth does this have to do with my description of bjerknes as a debater

you quoted me an not Bjerkness so I naturally I thought your post was directed at me, no?

- - - Updated - - -
@Maddy

OK, I see it all went wrong there, was doing it all in a hurry ... anyway, I will leave the long post be so Bjerkness and Klinsmann can read it

 

[Maddy]

OK, I see it all went wrong there, was doing it all in a hurry ... anyway, I will leave the long post be so Bjerkness and Klinsmann can read it

you do that. its well written

 

[acmilan]

Thank you @acmilan. But what on earth does this have to do with my description of bjerknes as a debater or did you not catch the irony behind my gif


you didn't catch it

I did but too late

 

[Bjerknes]

I do think you need to lay off the fox news drivel channel as your main source of news and/or the bong - just because some states voted to become "grassier" a couple of days ago that doesn't mean you should be wasted 24/7

here is a link, and please read it carefully so that we don't have to waste time on the obvious:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/obama-fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

in short, the bush-taxcuts are about to expire, which automatically returns the level of taxes to the higher Clinton-era ones ... What Obama wants for the new taxcuts he plans to impose is that they stay the same for those with less than 250K, while the rest get a hike - 98% of people and 97% of business are in that sub-250k category.

hopefully a more careful read would avoid unnecessary discussions. Which brings me to a Q - do you think it's a coincidence that during the Clinton era this country had it's healthiest budget of all time, while the tax levels were higher ... and the country hit rock-bottom, while the lower level taxes imposed by Bush to gain him popularity for a 2nd term were enforced ... all that while plunging the nation into 2 wars?

somehow I don't remember people, and more precisely fat-ass, freedom-loving, government-hating rednecks, dying from hunger on the streets during the Clinton era just because they had to pay slightly higher taxes but then again they might start dying now with a black guy with a muslim name in office. who knows really, life has its mysterious ways ...

- - - Updated - - -



indeed - too bad Romney didn't win 'cause then we would have at least had a pres who could never possibly lie or be wrong on any issue seeing as he would have covered/stood on all possible sides to it at least twice.

damn latino, black, etc freeloaders

This is all useless "drivel"; the usual political talking points that are very meaningless.

Bush tax cuts or no Bush tax cuts, neither party has a real plan to reduce the deficit. Even if they did, they wouldn't impose it because they would lose their leechfuck support. Even if you tax the rich at 100% we would still have a massive deficit.

Let me guess, are you one of those people who withdraw from college courses after receiving your refund check?

- - - Updated - - -

"Foodstamps Surge By Most In One Year To New All Time Record, In Delayed Release"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-10/foodstamps-surge-most-one-year-new-all-time-record-delayed-release

One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing.

Obaaaaaaaaaaama, Obaaaaaaaaama!

 

[Enron]

Signing up for Foot Stamps is a pain in the ass.

 

[Trequartista]

Bush tax cuts or no Bush tax cuts, neither party has a real plan to reduce the deficit. Even if they did, they wouldn't impose it because they would lose their leechfuck support. Even if you tax the rich at 100% we would still have a massive deficit.

If you tax the rich at 100%, you get no revenue as they have absolutely no incentive to work since all the money goes to the government

But yeah, it's a spending problem, not a revenue one. You need to cut defense spending by at least 30% on the long term and cut entitlement spending as well.

 

[Maddy]

But yeah, it's a spending problem, not a revenue one. You need to cut defense spending by at least 30% on the long term and cut entitlement spending as well.

How do you determine that? Apart from your political conviction.

To my knowledge 'mericans are far from hitting maximum on the laffer curve.

 

[Trequartista]

How do you determine that? Apart from your political conviction.

To my knowledge 'mericans are far from hitting maximum on the laffer curve.

You are correct as under the current tax system, a 4% tax hike for the rich is indeed reasonable as the rich would be taxed at 39%.

However, I think the tax system is terrible, both in the USA and in Canada. If I had it my way, there would be a low, flattish tax rate.

 

[Maddy]

You are correct as under the current tax system, a 4% tax hike for the rich is indeed reasonable as the rich would be taxed at 39%.

However, I think the tax system is terrible, both in the USA and in Canada. If I had it my way, there would be a low, flattish tax rate.

yeah so you determine whether its a spending or revenue problem from your political conviction and that's fair enough.

 

[Trequartista]

yeah so you determine whether its a spending or revenue problem from your political conviction.

Probably, yes. However, we can agree that it is much more a spending problem than a revenue one, can't we?