What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

And there are beliefs on both sides of that struggle, for each party They certainly want to protect or police different things but the behaviors are similar. And I respect that to a degree, to me it isn't the belief that concerns me as much as the blind obedience people show toward their party's platform. If they believe more, argue more and donate more they'll prove the star belly sneetches are better, just like they'll prove that Christians are better than other people.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

To the person who left me the rep:

Why should I be open to an opinion that is so clearly wrong? Should I be open to the opinion that Obama is a Muslim or that he's not a citizen? Should I be open to the opinion that the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks? Or that we've never landed on the moon? No, they're all preposterous as is the notion that Obama (or any administration) doesn't have ideologues on staff.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

pirate said:
And there are beliefs on both sides of that struggle, for each party They certainly want to protect or police different things but the behaviors are similar. And I respect that to a degree, to me it isn't the belief that concerns me as much as the blind obedience people show toward their party's platform. If they believe more, argue more and donate more they'll prove the star belly sneetches are better, just like they'll prove that Christians are better than other people.
Click to expand...

I'm married to a straight ticket Dem voter who has a fully functional brain (other than her choice in a spouse, obviously), and she would argue that a lot of the full support people show to their party is about establishing a bargaining position. Obama's first 2 years is a perfect example of what happens when one side is open to compromise and the other holds firm -- it artificially moves the center of policy to the hard-nosed side.

I don't know if I believe this, since I think being flexible and sane attracts additional support from the center and moves the ball back towards you (other things being equal, like not being in a near depression), but there are other explanations than blind submission. Clearly, though, there is an uncomfortably large mass of people who will believe anything their side puts out there. I think that's the audience of Beck and Olbermann, since as I said even when I agree with KO his shtick makes me ill.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Speaking as a right wing extremist nutjob, I still sure hope the Repubs will go along with Obama on extending the tax cuts. Seems to me extremely foolish (which shouldn't be shocking to anyone) to sacrifice all your political capital in a battle to save the rich a couple percent. If all the cuts were to expire, I've no doubt we'd see a backlash against the Repubs for not getting on board in this case.
But as I've said, I think the ceiling for cuts should even be lowered to about $50K/individual as we begin to pay off the national credit card so we all can share in the realistic consequences of past binges. So maybe I am a liberal, after all.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

geezer said:
Seems to me extremely foolish (which shouldn't be shocking to anyone) to sacrifice all your political capital in a battle to save the rich a couple percent.
Click to expand...
Well it is the republicans you're talking about....
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Since the Dems generally have no spine, I imagine they'll reach some sort of agreement where they extend them for all the lower brackets permanently but only temporarily extend the top bracket for a year or two.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

pardonme said:
Since the Dems generally have no spine, I imagine they'll reach some sort of agreement where they extend them for all the lower brackets permanently but only temporarily extend the top bracket for a year or two.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's such a bad thing. Do that, and then let the 2012 election be a referendum on the policy going forward. Although I suppose you could argue that said referendum was held in 08 and the results were pretty definitive...
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

geezer said:
Speaking as a right wing extremist nutjob, I still sure hope the Repubs will go along with Obama on extending the tax cuts. Seems to me extremely foolish (which shouldn't be shocking to anyone) to sacrifice all your political capital in a battle to save the rich a couple percent. If all the cuts were to expire, I've no doubt we'd see a backlash against the Repubs for not getting on board in this case.
But as I've said, I think the ceiling for cuts should even be lowered to about $50K/individual as we begin to pay off the national credit card so we all can share in the realistic consequences of past binges. So maybe I am a liberal, after all.
Click to expand...

As far as I've heard "tax cuts" are tied to "cap and trade"... that's still economic suicide in the name of a green god that does not exist. Generally we know that tax hikes tend to restrict the ability of the private sector to do things because in the end its paying for the public sector do things... further the private sector tends to be more efficient. Regardless, our public sector has given us a large debt hole that must be paid... or else inflation as we'll see become a problem see during the Palin administration (I've seen a lot of people saying that the intent is inflation in the 4-6% range during the Palin administration... ok, somewhere in the "2012-2017" window... same effect). In either case, the rich certainly have the ability to pay and that, generally, the economy is turned by people needing goods and the ability to meet that need. Generally, its met by formenting this in an efficient manner. To that end, I think favoring tax cuts towards the lower brackets is the favorable position. What the "higher brackets" need is for the president stop pursuing retrograde policies and promote policies which allow for efficiency... you get more people to enter the market those evil "profit takers" all of the sudden don't have as many profits and society operates in a more efficient fashion. The ideal in eliminating "profit takers" is that in doing so you're making things more efficient. Rarely, when you take "profit" will it be more efficient and further doing so is more apt to push people out of the market. In certain situations government effort would make things better for the "profit takers".

I suppose we will see... but if tax cuts come with cap and trade then I want no part of it.

edit: The beautiful thing... the evil "top bracket" get a good dose of what it needs... still makes a ton of money and we get what we want at the same time... but you know, its just doesn't make people feel good, so it won't happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Patman said:
To that end, I think favoring tax cuts towards the lower brackets is the favorable position.
Click to expand...
I don't. We are suffering from a massive free rider problem in this country, and the idea of people earning money and paying zero federal income tax is a colossal joke. If we all supposedly gain some benefit from the government by living here, then it stands to reason that we all should take some ownership of it via taxes (and not just social security or medicare taxes since those are paying current retirees rather than for the actual operation of the government). If you work - at all - you should be paying some level of federal income tax. Period. If we're serious about the funding problem and the deficit problem, the first things to go should be deductions and credits. There's little need to raise the marginal rates if you dump those.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bakunin said:
I don't. We are suffering from a massive free rider problem in this country, and the idea of people earning money and paying zero federal income tax is a colossal joke. If we all supposedly gain some benefit from the government by living here, then it stands to reason that we all should take some ownership of it via taxes (and not just social security or medicare taxes since those are paying current retirees rather than for the actual operation of the government). If you work - at all - you should be paying some level of federal income tax. Period. If we're serious about the funding problem and the deficit problem, the first things to go should be deductions and credits. There's little need to raise the marginal rates if you dump those.
Click to expand...

There's an intellectual honesty to your argument that's very appealing, but... if you dump all tax credits, including for children, you're talking about taxing an income that supports 4, 5, or six people at the same rate as a single person... I do realize that's what a lot of people want (to disincentivize having kids). But I feel like there's an obvious societal value to being able to support a stay-home parent. Which is where GW and I saw eye to eye.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Old Pio said:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...c-Anwar-al-Awlaki-Judge-to-hear-case/(page)/2

Naturally the ACLU wants to protect Awlaki's "rights." I say the sooner the president shoots a hellfire where the sun don't shine, the better.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope question... does anybody think in our anti-war and anti-harm zeal we'll eventually get to the point where the courts stike down war or combat orders because it might kill an American citizen?
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Patman said:
Slippery slope question... does anybody think in our anti-war and anti-harm zeal we'll eventually get to the point where the courts stike down war or combat orders because it might kill an American citizen?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past a district judge and the 9th Circuit is capable of anything. Otherwise, I doubt it. These are matters best left to the political branches of government. Can't you just see some judge demanding to see the plans for Operation Overlord before June 6th? After all, there are some American air crew held prisoner in occupied France, and we have to taylor our combat operations to avoid killing them. And if the White House doesn't comply, this guy's threatening to issue a TRO to stop Ike from stepping off?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

pardonme said:
Since the Dems generally have no spine, I imagine they'll reach some sort of agreement where they extend them for all the lower brackets permanently but only temporarily extend the top bracket for a year or two.
Click to expand...

Jonathan Alter thinks so too.
Now the most likely outcome, according to sources on Capitol Hill, is a bill that makes the middle-class tax cuts permanent and extends those for families making more than $250,000 for two years, giving everyone something else to argue about just before the next election.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I have no idea where else to put this.

Am I the only one who is at least a little interested in watching that Sarah Palin series on Discovery? Looks at least somewhat interesting and maybe worth a half hour to give it a shot. Doesn't really seem political nor would I imagine Discovery allowing it to become political.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

dxmnkd316 said:
Am I the only one who is at least a little interested in watching that Sarah Palin series on Discovery? Looks at least somewhat interesting and maybe worth a half hour to give it a shot. Doesn't really seem political nor would I imagine Discovery allowing it to become political.
Click to expand...
This is why we can't have nice things. Whoever set that project up needs to be fired, tarred and feathered, and then run out of town.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

dxmnkd316 said:
Why? Or is this just plain ol' "ZOMFG I HAIT SARUH PAYLEN!!!" Which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad reason I should add.
Click to expand...
Because I wasted time that I can never get back to watch the promo video. There are an absurd amount of people who could actually go out and make a great series about Alaska. Sarah Palin is not one.

And there is a little ZOMFG I HAIT SARUH PAYLEN!! When someone has shown themselves to be as worthless as she has, do you really expect everyone to judge her on a case by case basis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top