Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

In other words, you know perfectly well that you can't find a damn thing to back up your assertions that isn't Breitbart Media, so you're not going to try.  I didn't even say tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth, although if actually read any posts in this thread you're posting in you'd see quite a few real economists explaining why the idea is bologna.

I'd love to see this enlightenment.  I know perfectly well that I'm not going to.

No need to quote other people. Trying using your own brain.

If we each get a $100 tax cut, we buy things. I'm not saying everyone will spend all of their $100, but much of it will be spent. The businesses whose products we buy will have more income, so they will pay more in taxes. Not all of them will pay more in taxes because some will not make enough to pay taxes, but much of that money will come back to the government in the form of increased corporate and personal income taxes (some file as individuals). Whether they pay more in taxes or not, they will have more money to hire people, to give pay raises, and to buy more stuff from other businesses. Those other businesses will pay more in taxes and have more money to hire people, give pay raises, and buy stuff from other businesses. It really isn't that complicated. You just need to try to think things through yourself. Haha, not likely.

That isn't how tax cuts work. That $100 per person? The government was going to spend that anyway, and it would be reinvested directly into the economy and provide jobs directly. And in reality that $100 average tax cut is actually a grand for the top 1%, $30 bucks for most people and nothing for the lowest. And that money that goes to the rich person is much more likely to be "saved" by gambling it on the secondary stock market rather than spent to produce more economic activity. You would produce more economic activity by giving $100 in food stamps to everyone because everyone needs to buy food.

[GlyphGryph]

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me.

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

[kaijyuu]

I'm going Stein, GlyphGryph, but if you're in a swing state I suggest Obama. Lesser of two evils and all that. Voting third party is great though for a state that's pretty much already locked in, if only to give them a tiny bit more attention.

[Descan]

Stein. Go with Stein.

We need a Stein that's crazy in the good way, after the whole... Ben Stein thing. >_>

[Nadaka]

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me.

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

Jill might need bail in order to attend her acceptance speech in the fantastically unlikely event that she wins.

[Shinotsa]

Romney did endorse civil unions back in the 90's, but these days he has someone holding his leash.

He's endorsed everything over the course of his life. I hate to mimic the media, but it really is true that he's changed his views drastically from public appearance to public appearance. I know that tends to be the norm during presidential elections, and perhaps my observations are skewed by the fact that this is the first election that I can vote in and thus I have paid more attention to it, but it honestly seems that his "flip-flopping" is far worse than that of past candidates.

Also, is Ben Stein for giving more tax rebates? If so I'd vote for him purely so I could "win Ben Stein's money." Jokes aside, his name also associates with a fairly dorfy drinking apparatus. He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

[kaijyuu]

Jill Stein wouldn't be the first person elected from jail (though the first in the USA).

[Kon]

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me.

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

Well, you did ask. Pick Gary Johnson. My views are actually closer to his than to Romney's or Obama's. Not that I expect my advice to influence your vote.

[Descan]

The whole Ben Stein thing is... well, Ben Stein. What with him publishing that "Expelled" movie and just going downhill from there.

[mainiac]

He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

No he's not, he just hasn't received the glare of public attention that would expose his every flaw, real or imagined.

[Flying Dice]

Jill Stein wouldn't be the first person elected from jail (though the first in the USA).

Close enough? 

[MaximumZero]

Romney did endorse civil unions back in the 90's, but these days he has someone holding his leash.

He's endorsed everything over the course of his life. I hate to mimic the media, but it really is true that he's changed his views drastically from public appearance to public appearance. I know that tends to be the norm during presidential elections, and perhaps my observations are skewed by the fact that this is the first election that I can vote in and thus I have paid more attention to it, but it honestly seems that his "flip-flopping" is far worse than that of past candidates.

Also, is Ben Stein for giving more tax rebates? If so I'd vote for him purely so I could "win Ben Stein's money." Jokes aside, his name also associates with a fairly dorfy drinking apparatus. He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

Ugh, no, Ben Stein is a smarmy douchebag who acts like a know-it-all but just toes the fundie/batshit crazy line.

I just like having people who will kind-of engage over disagreements instead just ignoring me.

Anywho, I'm still undecided between Stein, Johnston, and that other guy I heard was good, and I'm tired of caring about presidents. Someone tell me which one to pick and I'll go with that.

You can always vote for the Toady One.

[MaximumZero]

Fuck, sorry about the doublepost, all.

[Shinotsa]

He's already head and shoulders above Romney and Obama.

No he's not, he just hasn't received the glare of public attention that would expose his every flaw, real or imagined.

To clarify that was not a serious statement. My sole criteria for the decision were jokes involving his television career and the similarity of his name to something dwarven. I still believe firmly that it is possible for him to be better than them. Not probable of course, but the current system for selecting the president seems to select based on criteria that may not be the most important. Like financial wealth and connections rather than intellect and experience.

[Nadaka]

I would vote for Vermin Supreme, just because you know he isn't in anyone's pocket.