Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
Printable View
Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
Pretty significant movement towards Romney on intrade today for whatever thats worth.
Shame on you. I'm not at all deriding the Mormon Church, I'm suggesting that they are not in a position of need. For instance the Catholic Sisters suggest how immoral the Ryan budget is. I have nothing against religious people, I have something against immoral people.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerGotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
The man gives to charity huge amounts of money to causes outside of his church. Call him immoral again you classless partisan ass.
Pseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerGotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it.
Call someone a name again and you get the ban. I've posted all over these forums about where we draw the line and you just crossed it. If you can't discuss something civilly, find a different place to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeer
Calling someone immoral for giving money to charity of course isn't calling someone a name. It's kind of pathetic what is tolerated and what isn't, but sorry man. I figured saying the name of a certain political parties mascot was OK. And just for clarification "all over these forums" must mean something different to you then me because I would have seen it before at some point if it was all over these forums. What is this place rubechat?
I like the fact that the guy that wants to ban me joined in the political discussion. Thats pretty tacky.
Calling charitable giving immoral is impossible to let slide. Don't insult me by saying my feelings are fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock BeauchampPseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeerGotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it.
Speaking of rubechat I got the ban for complaining about Dubay calling someone a drunk about three weeks before his first arrest. I guess when you know how right a person it's tough to deal with.
You were warned. Don't insult people. Keep the conversation above board or leave. It's that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeer
By the way, I "joined this conversation" two pages ago and I commented on Pseudo's statement while you were calling him an ass (look at the time stamps). And don't insult my intelligence by claiming you were referencing the party mascot. If I "wanted" to ban you, I would have done it SIX YEARS AGO.
So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense.
Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and B) He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane.Quote:
Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.
I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.
Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.
When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow. Until that happens, someone disagreeing with a public figure and stating an opinion isnt your concern and it certainly does not give you license to insult said poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeer
I've said all there is to say on this. Let it rest and go back to your conversation.
Pig, no one knows what's in you head or heart but you, that's not the point. If one wants to be taken seriously, one should characterize issues and ideas fairly and accurately. The only reason I wrote something on the thread at all (because I'm just here for baseball and find these squabbles ineffective and only yielding resentment towards a poster that I/you might otherwise very much enjoy reading post about baseball. It colors one's view of that poster) is because the distortions and mischaracterizations in your post and others' deserve to be challenged. You say the GOP has left you? Fine. But don't say: you like Huntsman as a GOP candidate, that the GOP campaigns against women's rights ("war on women" garbage) because you think you have a right to make someone else pay for your contraceptives, use the phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" and "trickle down economics" (a term coined by democrats to deride Reagan's policies in the 80's, when you say were a big republican) -- and expect us to believe you were ever a staunch "moderate" republican. If you don't want the government in you bedroom (and I don't) then don't have government/taxpayers pay for things that go on in your bedroom, okay? But uttering this makes one in a campaign against women? Come on. I've got to believe you are better than this, and by better I don't mean that you should believe something other than you believe, but at least try be fair. You would be the first person I've ever met to have said such things and claim to have been a GOP member.
The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeer
[QUOTE=TheLeviathan;45185]With all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say?
If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out.
Liberals and Democrats, generally, are willing to comprise. We want policy over ideology. This is often framed as weakness, and I might agree. I'd personally love to take the moral fight to conservatives; I'd love for them to define decency and corral a sense of ethics. But that's personal. And really not about solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by glunnWith all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say?
If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out.
Look, we all agree that entitlements and government spending leaves much to be desired; we all want to make such programs efficacious. But doing away altogether with such programs is cowardly and immoral. A bit of patriotism: I don't doubt American ingenuity can find a way to do right by the poor without screwing the working class. Government, as ugly as the word, is a path to doing right by people beyond our selves; yes, we need to hold elected clowns accountable, but we must also give such officials the capacity to do their jobs. There is policy that can be made to help weakest among us live better lives.
Personally, I live in near luxury (as is); I can give more, even with my poverty level income. I'm not about giving anyone free rides, but I am about using the excess of my income to help level the playing field for the less fortunate. I'd happily give up my cable (my xbox, my high speed internet, my whatever) if I knew that money was going to push welfare beneficiaries to rebuild our bridges and highways. Heck, we need merely give these tools jobs and the economy would ripen.
Honestly, I can't help but feel the conservative blue print is simply to let the less fortunate class die out. I don't see any other agenda. That's it. Old people too expensive. Working class too expensive. Some quick death might cheapen American labor and corporations might reinvest in our country. Oh boy.
Hey, Levi, I really don't disagree with you that people milk the system, that capable people become lazy, that some of us wilt before the hard-won life. I get that. But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathanSo is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABR
The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense.
To ask another way, how much sunk cost is too much for civilization to be civil? My belief is that we really haven't given the weakest among us much of chance. We've been damn cheap in regard to making efficacious social programs and educational institutions. We don't invest in our schools and our communities; instead we seem to hope that some private benefactor might swoop in and save us all. (Swoon!) Again, the free market/private enterprise will not take care of the weakest among us--so what will we do? Are we so callous to give them street and the waiting room ER (which bites us in the butt anyway)? I think we can do better. I agree it will cost us more in the short run, a lot more, but we will benefit by having a skilled lower class, rather than a bitter, job-hopeless class. Again, there simply aren't jobs for such unskilled, near-derelict people to work. That sense of too-good American pride has long since washed away; American middle aged adults are willing to do whatever we ask of them as long as they can pay their bills and retire in non-misery. Under the Ryan plan, we don't even offer them that. Awful.
Some of what you say here makes sense, and I'm on board with. I am down for sensible cuts, only if we don't leave people out. We should fight for the efficacy of Medicare and Social Security, not weaken the basis of their premise; in my view, as an intellectual, as try-hard, as an earner, we must care for people that cannot (or refuse to) care for themselves and pay for it with our hard won dollars; we must not cheapen care to save ourselves a buck we probably don't need.Quote:
Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and B) He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane.Quote:
Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.
I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.
A point of policy: The Vouchers in Ryan's plan and the general idea of Vouchers make me sick. The only way vouchers save the government money is if these vouchers cheapen under the cost of health care. So that 100 dollar Voucher today isn't worth a 100 dollars of health care tomorrow. That's the only way that the system saves money, by cheapening the health care Medicare provides.
If you want to make entitlements more inexpensive, let's talk about taking the profits out providing health and housing to the elderly. The problem is that entitlements benefit for-profit enterprise, and obviously, such for-profit enterprises will make it as expensive as they can for programs that MUST exist (the essentially hold a monopoly over gov't, squash the gov'ts bargaining power to zero). It's not these entitlement programs that are the problem, it's the businesses that make profit off them.
Is it really such an awful thing that Americans live longer than we intended, and that we must pay more to care for our elderly? We can do this. Even if we must take less of our earnings. We can do this. Let's not be so cheap; let us who have jobs foot the bill to engender a self-sustaining class of Americans. It won't be cheap, but I believe we can do it. That is, if we want to.
When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock BeauchampWhen Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbeer