World Politics

[Anonymous]

There's many things that shouln't happen. Unions should not be able to compel a member for dues and then contribute to a political party/candidate the member disagrees with. Life's full of shitty conflicts.

I'm not necessarily disagreeeing with corporate vote argument but I will defer to the sitting Supremes vs a new law student if that's ok. Maybe Corporations should get no govt benefits/incentives/contracts and pay no tax and have no ability to contribute to a campaign. Problem solved.

I don't believe I ever said unions should be treated as individuals either. Straw, meet your man.

Secondly, you can defer to the Supreme Court all you want, but don't pretend you understand it and are basing your decision on my lack of knowledge. If you would like, we can discuss the issue in greater depth and see if your proclamation of my shallowness is from a standpoint of greater understanding, or expediency. I think I know the answer to that question.

 

[Anonymous]

Also note that not all of the Justices came to the same conclusion...only the "Strict Constructionists." What a joke. They seriously believe that our founder intended for corporations to have the same rights in the election process as do individual voters...

 

[ChrisE]

Because repubs are generally for limited govt. moreso than your side.

Time to whip out "the issue". Limited government....what exactly does that mean?

Wouldn't oil companies make much more money if they could just dump (legally, of course) waste into waterways or drill whereever they want? How about that pesky FDA causing hardship by ensuring the things we digest are safe? Or, those a$$holes in the EPA stifling business with their rules?

If those government entities didn't exist you just know the free market would weed out the bad companies that caused the public harm.

Where exactly does "limited govt" start?

Taxes? Of course, lower taxes mean more revenue for the govt anyway. I always have a hard time getting an answer from the typical wingnut when I ask if 0 taxes would result in infinite govt. revenue. I usually get called a name at the point lol. It's all they have when you call them on the BS.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't believe I ever said unions should be treated as individuals either. Straw, meet your man.

Secondly, you can defer to the Supreme Court all you want, but don't pretend you understand it and are basing your decision on my lack of knowledge. If you would like, we can discuss the issue in greater depth and see if your proclamation of my shallowness is from a standpoint of greater understanding, or expediency. I think I know the answer to that question.

We, literally, can go tit-for-tat all day. You make a point, I make a point.

My point to your point is that there is plenty of corruption to go around and is not limited to coporations or govt, ceo's, union bosses or politicians. If you want to say one is more corrupt than another then make your best argument and I'll do the same.

I'll re-state. I'm not a fan of corruption no mateer where it's found.

The supreme court decision may not be their greatest, but at it's core, mccain feingold certainly limited free speech for individuals in the days leading up to an election. We can argue about weather you believe corporate entity's have free speech rights but, at this point, it doesn't matter.

 

[scribe]

Also note that not all of the Justices came to the same conclusion...only the "Strict Constructionists." What a joke. They seriously believe that our founder intended for corporations to have the same rights in the election process as do individual voters...

Especially so when corporations can simply shut their doors and re-open as something different when the going gets rough.

Can I turn in my citizenship and just become a corporation?

 

[scribe]

Time to whip out "the issue". Limited government....what exactly does that mean?

Wouldn't oil companies make much more money if they could just dump (legally, of course) waste into waterways or drill whereever they want? How about that pesky FDA causing hardship by ensuring the things we digest are safe? Or, those a$$holes in the EPA stifling business with their rules?

If those government entities didn't exist you just know the free market would weed out the bad companies that caused the public harm.

Where exactly does "limited govt" start?

Taxes? Of course, lower taxes mean more revenue for the govt anyway. I always have a hard time getting an answer from the typical wingnut when I ask if 0 taxes would result in infinite govt. revenue. I usually get called a name at the point lol. It's all they have when you call them on the BS.

None of them can provide a standard for limited government. It's just a talking point without intent.

 

[scribe]

Heard on the news today that the government would like to lend directly to students. What do you conservatives think of that?

 

[Anonymous]

Time to whip out "the issue". Limited government....what exactly does that mean?

Wouldn't oil companies make much more money if they could just dump (legally, of course) waste into waterways or drill whereever they want? How about that pesky FDA causing hardship by ensuring the things we digest are safe? Or, those a$$holes in the EPA stifling business with their rules?

If those government entities didn't exist you just know the free market would weed out the bad companies that caused the public harm.

Where exactly does "limited govt" start?

Taxes? Of course, lower taxes mean more revenue for the govt anyway. I always have a hard time getting an answer from the typical wingnut when I ask if 0 taxes would result in infinite govt. revenue. I usually get called a name at the point lol. It's all they have when you call them on the BS.

It means l i m i t s on the s i z e and s c o p e of the Federal Govt.

Yes Chris, illegal dumping of contaminants is what every capitalist strives for. You see we don't need clean air and water for our survival unlike you big government types. Boy, thank your lucky stars for all those ABC agencies for without them where would mankind be?

Limited govt starts by not allowing the govt to grow any larger. A good start might be, urm, no new massive entitlements?

I've never advocated zero taxes, Chris, as even I realize the need for checks and balances.

Since your argument of a zero tax rate is so clever, I'll argure for a similarly clever 100% rate that way the Federal Treasury will never run out of money. Won't that be swell?

 

[Anonymous]

Heard on the news today that the government would like to lend directly to students. What do you conservatives think of that?

College tuition skyrocketed about the time when loads of govt money became available for student loans. Wonder if there's a cause and effect?

Besides, how better to endoctrinate skulls full of mush?

 

[Anonymous]

None of them can provide a standard for limited government. It's just a talking point without intent.

You called me out there. No limits on govt then (as there actually appears to be none).

 

[ChrisE]

It means l i m i t s on the s i z e and s c o p e of the Federal Govt.

Yes Chris, illegal dumping of contaminants is what every capitalist strives for. You see we don't need clean air and water for our survival unlike you big government types. Boy, thank your lucky stars for all those ABC agencies for without them where would mankind be?

Limited govt starts by not allowing the govt to grow any larger. A good start might be, urm, no new massive entitlements?

I've never advocated zero taxes, Chris, as even I realize the need for checks and balances.

Since your argument of a zero tax rate is so clever, I'll argure for a similarly clever 100% rate that way the Federal Treasury will never run out of money. Won't that be swell?

I never make the tax cut argument for increased revenue. Your side does, and they don't have a clue WTF they are talking about.

It sounds like you define "limited govt" by kicking welfare recipients to the streets. I have usually heard it somewhat defined by the interference of the govt into everyday business.

So, if we do away with welfare, medicare, etc. but don't limit the scope of regulation on business you are OK with that?

 

[Anonymous]

I never make the tax cut argument for increased revenue. Your side does, and they don't have a clue WTF they are talking about.

It sounds like you define "limited govt" by kicking welfare recipients to the streets. I have usually heard it somewhat defined by the interference of the govt into everyday business.

So, if we do away with welfare, medicare, etc. but don't limit the scope of regulation on business you are OK with that?

Go back and look at treasury receipts under Reagan. I know it's painful for you.

You said welfare, which is typical.

Are you really saying there's nothing that can be cut or limited in the govt? Really?

 

[ChrisE]

Go back and look at treasury receipts under Reagan. I know it's painful for you.

You said welfare, which is typical.

Are you really saying there's nothing that can be cut or limited in the govt? Really?

Of course. I know a big bunch of money being wasted in Iraq right now. I know a big bunch of money in aid we give to foreign countries that is being wasted right now.

Comparing Reagan's tax policy to the previous time is not relevant. The tax cut chant is omnipresent without logic of when the line in the sand occurs.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course. I know a big bunch of money being wasted in Iraq right now. I know a big bunch of money in aid we give to foreign countries that is being wasted right now.

Comparing Reagan's tax policy to the previous time is not relevant. The tax cut chant is omnipresent without logic of when the line in the sand occurs.

Not relevent = doesn't fit your argument (translated).

 

[ChrisE]

Not relevent = doesn't fit your argument (translated).

It doesn't answer my question.

My question to you is at what tax rate do receipts begin to decrease. I don't care to go back and research Reagan because it is not relevant, but surely you will admit there is some point that decreased revenue will occur.

See, it's not fun running around yelling tax cut when you get jammed with a question like this, is it?

I answered your question about what government spending could be limited. You haven't answered mine about the taxes nor how much government regulation you believe should be in business. I mistakenly thought "limited govt" to you was referrence to regulation stifling great unbridled capitalism. I sometimes forget the power social issues play on the right in defining what the govt should do for it's citizens.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

It means l i m i t s on the s i z e and s c o p e of the Federal Govt.

Yes Chris, illegal dumping of contaminants is what every capitalist strives for. You see we don't need clean air and water for our survival unlike you big government types. Boy, thank your lucky stars for all those ABC agencies for without them where would mankind be?

Limited govt starts by not allowing the govt to grow any larger. A good start might be, urm, no new massive entitlements?

I've never advocated zero taxes, Chris, as even I realize the need for checks and balances.

Since your argument of a zero tax rate is so clever, I'll argure for a similarly clever 100% rate that way the Federal Treasury will never run out of money. Won't that be swell?

I'm not sure what you mean by "new massive entitlements". The three major ones are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. To what new ones are your referring?

Look, I think we need an honest debate here. We all can see what happens when business is allowed free rein, and ChrisE is right. Look at China and its horrendous environmental record.

The term "limited government" is a nebulous idea whose boundaries have yet to be defined by anyone using the term. But it sounds nice. Until you get e coli in your hamburger and you go to the hospital without healthcare.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Go back and look at treasury receipts under Reagan. I know it's painful for you.

You said welfare, which is typical.

Are you really saying there's nothing that can be cut or limited in the govt? Really?

Please stop with this. This tripe has gone the way of the Laffer curve. For Chrissakes, can we actually stop with the FoxNews talking points and talk seriously? Krugman along with other notable economists have debunked these claims already.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

There are a myriad things that can be cut in government, but the last thing I would cut is education. That should be quadrupled. This country is in dire need of some.

 

[ravens]

Please stop with this. This tripe has gone the way of the Laffer curve. For Chrissakes, can we actually stop with the FoxNews talking points and talk seriously? Krugman along with other notable economists have debunked these claims already.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

There are a myriad things that can be cut in government, but the last thing I would cut is education. That should be quadrupled. This country is in dire need of some.

He calls it tripe and then quotes Krugman. Moose, your proctologist called, they found your head.

But it is fun to watch moonbats like fmr Enron advisor Krugman turn the circular firing squad on Der Fuhrer:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/wall-street-damage-control/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

 

[usedtobefast]

'talk to the hand' lmao... gotta get back to my T Pee!

 

[ravens]

From the publishers of 'Oh, Really !! ' Monthly

PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs

Rick Klahsen, a tax expert at the accounting firm RSM McGladrey, said his clients need to see business pick up before they can hire more workers.

"If demand were increased, they are saying it will take care of itself because I will then have the motivation to go out and hire new employees," Klahsen said.

It's staggering how detached and ignorant the admin is from how free markets actually work. It can't be understated enough how little experience they actually have in the shrinking world of non-gov't jobs.

 

[ravens]

There are a myriad things that can be cut in government, but the last thing I would cut is education. That should be quadrupled. This country is in dire need of some.

'We're the Democrats, and when we find a problem, we throw more money than has ever been thrown at it before. How can that not work? Besides, it's a great way to build the unions, and loyal voters are what really counts. '

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

He calls it tripe and then quotes Krugman. Moose, your proctologist called, they found your head.

But it is fun to watch moonbats like fmr Enron advisor Krugman turn the circular firing squad on Der Fuhrer:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/wall-street-damage-control/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

I don't remember insulting you personally, but since you've taken that route, I think you're better off ignored. To the ignore list you go. Life's too short to waste on angry, rude people.

 

[Carboncrank]

Is there anybody here stupid enough to claim these winter storms are proof there is no global warming?

Rush did. Jim DeMint did. Glen Beck did. The Virginia Republican party did. Mitch McConnall did.

 

[Hugh Januss]

PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs

Rick Klahsen, a tax expert at the accounting firm RSM McGladrey, said his clients need to see business pick up before they can hire more workers.

"If demand were increased, they are saying it will take care of itself because I will then have the motivation to go out and hire new employees," Klahsen said.

It's staggering how detached and ignorant the admin is from how free markets actually work. It can't be understated enough how little experience they actually have in the shrinking world of non-gov't jobs.

They know the truth."Free Markets" only work for a little while. Then they eat themselves and everything around them.

 

[Anonymous]

PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs

Rick Klahsen, a tax expert at the accounting firm RSM McGladrey, said his clients need to see business pick up before they can hire more workers.

"If demand were increased, they are saying it will take care of itself because I will then have the motivation to go out and hire new employees," Klahsen said.

It's staggering how detached and ignorant the admin is from how free markets actually work. It can't be understated enough how little experience they actually have in the shrinking world of non-gov't jobs.

I wonder how many Republicans will take credit for jobs in their districts after the bill passes without any of their support? I mean, this is the same tired line they used on the stimulus, which if you listen to Republicans in their districts taking credit for jobs and projects funded by the same bill they voted against, then you have to take anything they say with 100 pounds of salt.

Its staggering how detached people like Rush and the CATO institute are from reality considering that I can once again point to the fact that neither they, nor any of the "tax cuts, reduce spending, deficits will kill our children, FDR was a failure" crowd can come up with ONE SINGLE example of their fanciful THEORY at work in the real world in times of economic crisis. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone explain the recession created by their dear leader Reagan...you know, the one that Bush 1 had to deal with.

Yea, thats the ticket, lets put policy that has no proof of efficacy into effect in an economic crisis....

See, not only does the news have a liberal bias, but so does REALITY.