Presidential Election: 2012

[Dapper]

I'm describing theft and the fleecing of our tax base, not a lack of revenue generated by it.

Talk about ignoring reality. Theft and fleecing of our tax base? Theft is impossible. Fleecing is wrong. Have you noticed the tax rate compared to historical tax rates? The evidence from your statement says no.

To say that we just need to take in more money so we can keep wasting it is over simplistic and frankly just ignoring reality.

I didn't say we waste money, you did. I said we need to take in more money because the country was better when it took in more money. Again,this is a history thing.

Paying other countries to be our friends, is surely more of a problem than not collecting enough taxes from our own people to pay our bills and continue to bribe them too. We can only take care of ourselves. This over reaching and over parenting outlook is the same kind of thought process that gives us laws that attempt to control others instead of simply focusing on worrying about our own lives.

You don't grasp the magnitude of the US's wealth. You say, "We can only take care of ourselves." but that really makes absolutely no sense. The US has almost 1/4 of the world's GDP and less than 1/20 of the population. But we can only afford to take care of ourselves? There is more than enough money to go around. The government just needs to take more of it because as history has proven, the private sector will simply hoard as much money as possible and none will trickle down.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Talk about ignoring reality. Theft and fleecing of our tax base? Theft is impossible. Fleecing is wrong. Have you noticed the tax rate compared to historical tax rates? The evidence from your statement says no.

I didn't say we waste money, you did. I said we need to take in more money because the country was better when it took in more money. Again,this is a history thing.


You don't grasp the magnitude of the US's wealth. You say, "We can only take care of ourselves." but that really makes absolutely no sense. The US has almost 1/4 of the world's GDP and less than 1/20 of the population. But we can only afford to take care of ourselves? There is more than enough money to go around. The government just needs to take more of it because as history has proven, the private sector will simply hoard as much money as possible and none will trickle down.

No. I could stop there and be perfectly correct, but I'll elaborate.

Theft is possible.... and happens all the time. We actually have proof of that. That very thing. I can't believe you actually said that. Fleecing? Yes, as in sending *how* much money to Israel's enemies in the name of fairness? If you research the history of Foreign aid, you will see this is all very true and is not subject to guilt-based 'reasons' that make it ok. Clicky for example
The historical tax rate is inconsequential in this matter, as the income tax is double taxation to begin with. Our 'wealth' is also inconsequential, as it still is not our place or responsibility to even attempt to send another country one single cent taken from our citizens. There simply is no moral or constitutional basis for this. It does not directly benefit the people as it is OFTEN stolen or misspent, and even if it did help them, it's not my responsibility or yours or anyone else's to rob your neighbor and send their money to anyone else, regardless of any perceived need for it or happy warm feeling inside from doing it.

I understand the desire to help people. I really do, and I personally have spent a large portion of my life trying to do that very thing in my community by working with 'soup kitchens' and homeless shelters, but I also understand and acknowledge that I am doing this freely, of my own good will, and not out of a heavy handed government wealth redistribution program. This is what is needed to improve the world, not taking from one person and giving to another. Personal sacrifices, not state imposed theft. If you want to help, do it. But don't steal from my check and then tell me you did a good thing when you gave my money away.

 

[Dapper]

Theft is possible...

Theft by taxation is literally impossible in the US.

Fleecing? Yes

Most Americans don't pay income tax. The Americans paying tax are doing so at a lower rate. That is the problem. How can there be a fleecing via giving away tax dollars if there are hardly any taxes collected and from about only 1/2 of the population?

The historical tax rate is inconsequential in this matter... Our 'wealth' is also inconsequential...

Then you have nothing to complain about.

it still is not our place or responsibility to even attempt to send another country one single cent taken from our citizens. There simply is no moral or constitutional basis for this.

Your moral compass is slightly askew then.

It does not directly benefit the people as it is OFTEN stolen or misspent, and even if it did help them, it's not my responsibility or yours or anyone else's to rob your neighbor and send their money to anyone else, regardless of any perceived need for it or happy warm feeling inside from doing it.

Tell yourself you get robbed all day long and it still isn't true. And if money doesn't help anything, why are you so caught up on the govt stealing your money?

I understand the desire to help people. I really do, and I personally have spent a large portion of my life trying to do that very thing in my community by working with 'soup kitchens' and homeless shelters, but I also understand and acknowledge that I am doing this freely, of my own good will, and not out of a heavy handed government wealth redistribution program. This is what is needed to improve the world, not taking from one person and giving to another. Personal sacrifices, not state imposed theft. If you want to help, do it. But don't steal from my check and then tell me you did a good thing when you gave my money away.

Dripping in irony (soup kitchens and homeless shelters get money from somewhere, usually not through private organizations).

 

[ChaosStar79]

Playing devils advocate must lose some of it's thrill after a while.

Theft by taxation is literally impossible in the US.

Now, I know you are just pretending. When you take someones property and give it to someone else without the owners consent, that is theft and redistribution. In a court of law, that is Theft and Receiving Stolen Property. Whether you take my money by gunpoint or by 'legal writ' it is still theft. Just as no law can make rape or murder acceptable, no law can justify theft either, even under guise of aid or civic duty. You can only give what belongs to you, and cannot give what is not yours to begin with.

Most Americans don't pay income tax. The Americans paying tax are doing so at a lower rate. That is the problem. How can there be a fleecing via giving away tax dollars if there are hardly any taxes collected and from about only 1/2 of the population?

Well, all the billions of dollars that we 'give' away every year come from somewhere. I'd say that we are doing plenty of taxing here already. Half is a good number to start with, but let's work towards zero. Clearly the money can be taken from us so why shouldn't we be the ones to benefit from it? What possible right could anyone else have to the fruits of my labor?
Yes, I am indeed saying that even Robin Hood was a thief despite his best intentions.

Then you have nothing to complain about.
Your moral compass is slightly askew then.

Negative. My compass is fine and takes nothing from anyone. I have no right to tell anyone how to live and that includes telling them that they must help someone else or give up anything that is rightfully theirs. You do not have that right either.

Tell yourself you get robbed all day long and it still isn't true. And if money doesn't help anything, why are you so caught up on the govt stealing your money?

???? Left field here.

Dripping in irony.

Sorry that you completely missed the point. Charity is a choice, not a mandate. Taking one person's money and giving it away is theft. The two are not reconcilable even under guise of law. And though I do not know the full financial details of the shelters, I do know that local businesses have played large roles in supplying food for them. I have personally gone and picked donations from concerned citizens acting out of the goodness of their hearts. IF there are any tax dollars going to these places, I consider that a far better investment than sending the money to another country.

 

[Keef]

That is nothing remotely close to a fact. Really, that statement sounds super silly considering how overwhelmingly rich the US is compared to every other country. And then considering we aren't taxing the d-bags who are financially fleecing the other 300,000,000 Americans... it seems your view of the world is completely wrong.

2011 ended with a national debt of approximately $15.2 trillion dollars. It was 100.3% of our national GDP. If every single dollar of income and hour of labor produced by the country as a whole during the entire year, including both the private market and the government itself, was funneled directly toward the national debt, it would still not be paid off. It is certainly possible to pay it off, but if current trends continue it simply will never get paid off. The debt currently sits at...

$15.24 trillion. We are 16 days into the year and the debt has already increased by about $40 billion. Sixteen days. Forty-billion dollars. If that debt is divided amongst all taxpayers it would cost each person $135,000. The percentage of GDP currently sits at 100.786%.

That number is only government debt. Out total sovereign debt is nearly $56.5 trillion. That's more than the GDPs of the EU, US, China, and Japan combined.

These numbers should be proof enough that Ron Paul's "radical" plan to cut $1 trillion in one year is just a drop in the bucket, and Congress's and the President's pledges to cut however many billion over a span of 10 years is positively laughable.

 

[Sam48]

It says "Opinions", I don't have to justify it, but I will if necessary.

Oh not at all, just giving you fair warning.

Yuck? Really? Who do you favour? Mr. Robot Romney, or Geeser Paul, or 3 tiers of Government Perry, or a** juice? Those are what I call

I really don't see a difference between Huntsman, Romney, or Perry (They're all big government conservatives in my opinion). Mr. Paul, on the other hand, is a libertarian like myself.

 

[Dapper]

2011 ended with a national debt of approximately $15.2 trillion dollars. It was 100.3% of our national GDP. If every single dollar of income and hour of labor produced by the country as a whole during the entire year, including both the private market and the government itself, was funneled directly toward the national debt, it would still not be paid off. It is certainly possible to pay it off, but if current trends continue it simply will never get paid off. The debt currently sits at...

$15.24 trillion. We are 16 days into the year and the debt has already increased by about $40 billion. Sixteen days. Forty-billion dollars. If that debt is divided amongst all taxpayers it would cost each person $135,000. The percentage of GDP currently sits at 100.786%.

That number is only government debt. Out total sovereign debt is nearly $56.5 trillion. That's more than the GDPs of the EU, US, China, and Japan combined.

These numbers should be proof enough that Ron Paul's "radical" plan to cut $1 trillion in one year is just a drop in the bucket, and Congress's and the President's pledges to cut however many billion over a span of 10 years is positively laughable.

Bush tax cuts + Bush wars=current debt problem

And any one year plan is ridiculous. Only bad things happen in one year.

 

[Keef]

Only bad things happen in one year.

The Federal budget for the current fiscal year already has a deficit of $1.3 trillion dollars. Ron Paul's cut wouldn't even balance this year's budget. That, despite being the largest cut proposed by anybody so far. That's how tremendously irresponsible our government is with its money.

Bush tax cuts + cost of war iraq and afghanistan=current debt problem

The former, which was extended by Obama in late 2010, and the latter which Obama is still supporting.

We both agree we have a debt problem. I plan to vote for a candidate who has vowed all his time in Congress and his presidential campaigns in part to balancing the US's pocketbook. Which candidate are you supporting again?

 

[Keef]

I've been watching the FOX debate for about twenty minutes now. Perry has spoken three times, Santorum argued with Romney for a few minutes and spoke twice more, Romney was asked two other questions besides the arguemnt, and Gingrich got one question. Nothing was directed toward Ron Paul in those twenty minutes, nor was he prompted to speak by any of the other candidates. I turned off the TV.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I don't blame you. I didn't even bother to try to watch this one after the last one. The bias is amazing and infuriating to watch. I'll just catch the RonPaulFlix recap. Shouldn't take more than five minutes.

Edit: The twitter review they are doing now is almost amusing. I like how they announced Ron Paul has been above average on everything through the entire night. I really wanted not to turn the debate on, but here I am. Argh.

 

[YSSMAN]

The former, which was extended by Obama in late 2010, and the latter which Obama is still supporting.

Not everyone who supports Obama supports that decision. Not sure what his (Dapper) stance is on the issue, but I know at least for me, it was very disappointing. He very easily could have justified letting the tax rates return to normal for the wealthy, and extend those for lower income people without too much political blowback.

Or, he could have just done the right thing and let them all sunset. Whoops.

 

[FoolKiller]

And then considering we aren't taxing the d-bags who are financially fleecing the other 300,000,000 Americans... it seems your view of the world is completely wrong.

I know. That lower 50% should be paying something. Wait, I think your math is wrong.

Why is it a bad idea to help others? You seem to not understand that the world is essentially one economy and the better they do the better we do. The US is in a position to help, thus we should.

So, would you say the US is the 1% of the world? Occupy...us?

Yes, I am indeed saying that even Robin Hood was a thief despite his best intentions.

Let's really examine Robin Hood's actions. I know "steal from the rich and give to the poor" is the motto used, and even has a fun ring to it for social policy people. But let's remember he was working in a feudal system, where the rich was the government and their lackeys and the poor were the people they beat the taxes from (power through force, at the end of a sword). Robin Hood stole unjustly and forcibly taken taxes and returned them to the people who had earned them through hard work. There is no honest businessman when all property is assumed to be that of the government and given or taken as favors or punishment. The only flaw in his system was that he stayed localized and didn't return the money to all the citizens of England.





And by the way, I start my new job tomorrow. I will laugh at anyone that suggests my new job has anything to do with Obama. To do that you must also blame him for my previous employer going bankrupt. Even when I was angry at the situation I knew he had nothing to do with it. Also I had another positive report from my cardiologist checkup today. Again, none of Obama's doing.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Let's really examine Robin Hood's actions. I know "steal from the rich and give to the poor" is the motto used, and even has a fun ring to it for social policy people. But let's remember he was working in a feudal system, where the rich was the government and their lackeys and the poor were the people they beat the taxes from (power through force, at the end of a sword). Robin Hood stole unjustly and forcibly taken taxes and returned them to the people who had earned them through hard work. There is no honest businessman when all property is assumed to be that of the government and given or taken as favors or punishment. The only flaw in his system was that he stayed localized and didn't return the money to all the citizens of England.

Noted

 

[Dapper]

Not everyone who supports Obama supports that decision. Not sure what his (Dapper) stance is on the issue, but I know at least for me, it was very disappointing. He very easily could have justified letting the tax rates return to normal for the wealthy, and extend those for lower income people without too much political blowback.

Or, he could have just done the right thing and let them all sunset. Whoops.

I am not even a supporter of Obama. Needless to say I don't agree with every decision he makes. But I will admit my support for government actions that are proven to work for all Americans for extended periods of time, which consisted of high top income bracket tax rates and a lot of regulations.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Keef, no I have not b/c I am a Quaker, a registered Democrat, and because Ron Paul's idea of eliminating ALL foreign aid is a dangerous idea. Also, you should checkout flipocrat.com to see a list of what President Obama has gotten accomplished. On a more personal level, most of the Republican contenders are talking about a ban on Gay marriage scares the crap out of me. I feel this way because my sister is a Lesbian who got marred this past September :-) btw click on the store button to view a t-shirt w/ the list I told you about.

Ron Paul never talked about banning Gay marriage. Please provide a link where he said he'd take away foreign aid I haven't seen this. Scaling back the military and getting rid of foreign aid are two different things. He talks more about not giving "aid" to groups that really end up being our enemies like say I don't know Pakistan, something Bush and Obama didn't pay too much attention to. The aid he's talking about seems to be more military aid and backing rather than actual aid of the generic sense.

Also joining a team/club that the Republican and Democrat party project is somewhat naive. Why not pick the person that best fits what will help out America in the long run and not the labels you've personified here, there are others that support gay rights and are not democrat.

Keef, WTF!?!? I have been a registered Democrat since the age of 18. I DO NOT appreciate you saying that I changed parties!! And I said MOST of the contenders, not all!!!

He never said that you changed parties...

Way to pay attention.

Why is it a bad idea to help others? You seem to not understand that the world is essentially one economy and the better they do the better we do. The US is in a position to help, thus we should.

Yes that would work if we were in position to be helping, at the moment we are not in position to help out. He also gave the reason why it was a bad idea to help out, which you seemed to ignore. The world isn't one economy the global market or one world economy has to do with trading factors. One nation that trades with us could be doing much better than we are but that doesn't mean we'd have a reciprocating effect.

Also your opinions on the revenue issue to me are somewhat right. I think we have a problem in both areas, the top have a lot of money but the government spends alot of money as well then an inflation issue occurs that both sides seem to project, resulting in one wanting to keep their money and not create jobs and the other making more money and only forcing the issue. Bush Tax cuts (revenue) + Bush Wars (Spending) = Obama extending bush tax cuts (more revenue) + Obama spending more on Bush wars and increasing X. X= Bailouts due to Bush and made more by Obama.

So in summary both are equally to blame and when you have Dems in control of the house and senate at that time it doesn't make things better. The inverse effect is also the same Repubs in charge.

 

[Keef]

South Carolinians booing the Golden Rule. Who the hell raised these people?!

[youtubehd]7v8qtZ3I5AM[/youtubehd]

They boo the Golden Rule, feeling that because we are the United States we are entitled to police other countries and direct them as we please with military force, and yet they cheer for him when he says bring the troops home.

 

[Omnis]

Bomb unto others...

 

[Famine]

They boo the Golden Rule, feeling that because we are the United States we are entitled to police other countries and direct them as we please with military force, and yet they cheer for him when he says bring the troops home.

Simpsons did it!

Kodos: Abortions for all!
Crowd: Boooooooooooooo!
Kodos: Very well, no abortions for anyone!
Crowd: Boooooooooooooo!
Kodos: Hmm. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Crowd: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay! *flag-waving*

 

[Liquid]

South Carolinians booing the Golden Rule. Who the hell raised these people?!

[youtubehd]7v8qtZ3I5AM[/youtubehd]

They boo the Golden Rule, feeling that because we are the United States we are entitled to police other countries and direct them as we please with military force, and yet they cheer for him when he says bring the troops home.

'Merica.

 

[Keef]

 

[Danoff]

They boo the Golden Rule, feeling that because we are the United States we are entitled to police other countries and direct them as we please with military force, and yet they cheer for him when he says bring the troops home.

In all fairness, that was probably 10% of the audience booing and 20% of the audience cheering and probably not the same people.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Great political Cartoon.

 

[Keef]

In all fairness, that was probably 10% of the audience booing and 20% of the audience cheering and probably not the same people.

Totally possible. Somehow, the negative energy is always louder than the positive energy. Coming up on your Evening News at 11...

 

[Sam48]

This need many more Youtube views. 👍


(Although I'm not sure exactly when this happened, it was uploaded about one month ago)

 

[DK]

I'm not sure whether I should post this in here or in the SOPA thread, but what are the positions of the Republican candidates on SOPA and PIPA? I think I've already heard that Ron Paul opposes SOPA.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm not sure whether I should post this in here or in the SOPA thread, but what are the positions of the Republican candidates on SOPA and PIPA? I think I've already heard that Ron Paul opposes SOPA.

Ron Paul and Obama are against SOPA/PIPA, I have not heard any other way with the other Republican candidates, there have been suggestions that Mitt Romney is against it, but nothing has ever been solidified by any of the candidates.

 

[Keef]

Newt's ex-wife interviewed by ABC, says she could end his career with one interview. ABC makes the tentative decision not to air the interview until after the South Carolina vote.

 

[Omnis]

I dunno guys. I was on the fence for a while but now I'm definitely voting for Ron Paul.

 

[FoolKiller]

Suddenly, my video seems very anti-climactic. Definitely on the opposite end of the climax scale from that.

But for everyone who doesn't like the NDAA, only one of the candidates is actually trying to stop it. He put his campaign on hold to deal with this.


I'm still trying to figure out why Ron Paul is considered crazy.

 

[Famine]

It's being reported over here that Rick Perry has withdrawn.