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?

geezer said:
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...
Click to expand...
... which is the rate at which it should be taxed. Singles subsidize families enough as it is. We do pay property and state income taxes after all - and money from those sources is used to fund the education system, which basically means I'm being taxed to educate someone else's kids. While it's an indirect benefit (educated population) to society, it's a direct one to the parents who don't have to shoulder the entire cost of educating their kids in the public education system. To give them that benefit *and* to hand them $1k per kid is excessive in my estimation.

I'm guessing the group working on finding ways to end the deficit will come out with a recommendation similar to the one I just made regarding the tax system giveaways. I hope that Congress and the administration take the recommendations seriously.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Foxton said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your sentiment about making a great series about Alaska. I just think it's an interesting twist. I'll probably watch half an episode and forget about it. Who knows.

I don't expect it, but then again, I figured I would ask.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bakunin said:
.

I'm guessing the group working on finding ways to end the deficit will come out with a recommendation similar to the one I just made regarding the tax system giveaways. I hope that Congress and the administration take the recommendations seriously.
Click to expand...

Are you drunk?:D
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I have a sinking feeling that the next window for true deficit reduction is January 2012 - July 2013, because the next two years are going to be consumed by the mendacities of the nomination and election process. Congress will have a shower of deficit rhetoric with no sincere suggestions; Obama will keep pushing stimulus to revive employment.

Our government really only works on problems about 18 months out of each 4 years -- the rest is posturing.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
I have a sinking feeling that the next window for true deficit reduction is January 2012 - July 2013, because the next two years are going to be consumed by the mendacities of the nomination and election process. Congress will have a shower of deficit rhetoric with no sincere suggestions; Obama will keep pushing stimulus to revive employment.

Our government really only works on problems about 18 months out of each 4 years -- the rest is posturing.
Click to expand...
That much? I never had you pegged as an optimist! :)
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bakunin said:
... which is the rate at which it should be taxed. Singles subsidize families enough as it is. We do pay property and state income taxes after all - and money from those sources is used to fund the education system, which basically means I'm being taxed to educate someone else's kids. While it's an indirect benefit (educated population) to society, it's a direct one to the parents who don't have to shoulder the entire cost of educating their kids in the public education system. To give them that benefit *and* to hand them $1k per kid is excessive in my estimation.

I'm guessing the group working on finding ways to end the deficit will come out with a recommendation similar to the one I just made regarding the tax system giveaways. I hope that Congress and the administration take the recommendations seriously.
Click to expand...

You're being taxed at the Federal level as well for education. Everyone pays equally for education in this country cause society has deemed it a benefit to all. As bad as our education system is right now and all the stupidity involved in it I'm all for defunding the whole fffing thing. Privatize it. That seems to be the answer for everything anyway.

Oh, and don't get me started on how stupid it is that the schools have to spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out where their funding is coming from. Fed cuts this out, or the State cuts something then they have to get it from somewhere else, teachers buying supplies for their classroom on their own dime, etc. It's stupid. And for a great example special education funding. The Feds mandated it and I think the number they said they would fund is 40%. The formula is at about 15%. History section of this PDF covers it well.

http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/reports/...deral Funding for Education - May 3, 2001.pdf

If I were truly running things here is what I would do.

1. Special Education funding. Federal. 100%.
2. Federal Dept. of Education. Gone.
3. State education funding. Gone.
4. Local education funding. The rest.

Since we can't do that just abolish it altogether.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I see that El Presidente wants a permanent UN Security Council seat for India. If they get it, UN will have good technical support.

PLO: I wish to complain about Israel
India: Yes. Thank you for your complaint. Have you rebooted?
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

dxmnkd316 said:
ZOMFG!!!!! RLY!?!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

bigblue_dl said:
I've written about quantum string theory before, therefore I'm an expert on it. I have the McDonald's napkin to prove it.
Click to expand...

dxmnkd316 said:
I think I wrote a paper on South Africa back in middle school. I'm on the phone with Obama demanding I be made ambassador.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a book report; I'm talking about professional writings. I have a BA and MA in political science. As we speak, I'm working on another project involving Obama's transportation policy and his choice of a Republican as Secretary of Transportation.

One of the major complaints people have about people in this field is that they don't speak of it in the vernacular. We definitely love precision and accuracy in our works, but to someone with little or no formal background, it can seem elitist and condescending. That's why I don't come here and start throwing out 40-paragraph posts of agreement, disagreement, or analysis, written as if I was trying to get it published in APSR.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people here who are quite willing to remain mired in ignorance, repeat outright lies, and conduct personal attacks (on the Internet? Never!) Even if I felt it would be beneficial, I simply do not have the time nor energy to deal with people like this. There is plenty of room for legitimate discussion, but it needs to be done responsibly and with the realization that a difference of opinion does not make one inferior.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

dxmnkd316 said:
You want fries with that?
Click to expand...

Your response reminds me of this:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/swDpWNKB5Co?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/swDpWNKB5Co?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

There are always bonus points for Futurama references. ALWAYS.

If he's happy and making money, more power to him.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Sar'nt said:
Oh, boy, another person with no effing clue of what socialism is.
Click to expand...

Socialism tends to be either "an intermediary point between captialism and communism"... something where you need some of the structures before advancing to the ideal solution.

It also is a set of expansive ideas that the state should own and control the means of production. The definition usually comes down to where you stand politically... the closer you are to being a communist the more rigid and precise the flavors of socialism become... for us normal folk not fit to breathe your air it usually means government policies meant to take money from people for the purpose of servicing others in some manner. Clearly there's a lot of nuance between A and B.

But please, tell me I have no "effing clue" what socialism means... let me say something that'll burn you... liberalism and progressivism is limited-based (think Calculus) Communism. The goal is the same... the people have control over all resources because it is righteous and we shall have equality of all things because it is only fair because we are born to this world and nobody has a more inherent right to anything than others. The limit-based behavior is insulated in those principles because much of liberalism/progressivism is rooted in those notions... so as a whole object, it will work in that direction.

But no, I have no clue what socialism is... I've only read about a dozen definitions of the subject. Its a moot point... the goal is control of society through the state to provide for others fairly.

Except that he didn't. There were few, if any, ideologues in his adminstration. That's why he hasn't gotten things done the way he thought he could.
Click to expand...

Beautiful... the double down argument... first of all, he couldn't get them done the way he thought he could because 1) he isn't that smart... 2) he wasn't able to gauge the effect of backlash upon legislators... he had to fight with his own party to get bills through. His inner circle is made up of a core of ideologues. His czar system is a feeder group for some of them. A few are literally communists... or did we forget Van Jones already. Just because they aren't jumping as high as you like and isn't as hard-core as you doesn't change much.

As for the "obfuscation bit"... do you know what's in the Health Care Bill?

A man as smart as you claim should know that the health care bill's passage was a farce. Remember "we have to pass it so you know what's in it"? I sure do. Oh, but that was only Pelosi/Reid... horse. Obama didn't want to waste the political capital which is why he had the house handle it... he didn't ever think it would go so wrong... but the start of the administration was built on generating a steamroller effect. In this he had to preserve as much of his allure or aura as he could. Nevertheless they didn't have to lie... they could have gone out into the open AS WAS A CAMPAIGN PROMISE. An intellectual such as yourself should not commit such a sin against intellectualism to say that it wasn't or that it didn't occur.... but I expect you to do so.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Patman said:
Socialism tends to be either "an intermediary point between captialism and communism"... something where you need some of the structures before advancing to the ideal solution.

It also is a set of expansive ideas that the state should own and control the means of production. The definition usually comes down to where you stand politically... the closer you are to being a communist the more rigid and precise the flavors of socialism become... for us normal folk not fit to breathe your air it usually means government policies meant to take money from people for the purpose of servicing others in some manner. Clearly there's a lot of nuance between A and B.

But please, tell me I have no "effing clue" what socialism means... let me say something that'll burn you... liberalism and progressivism is limited-based (think Calculus) Communism. The goal is the same... the people have control over all resources because it is righteous and we shall have equality of all things because it is only fair because we are born to this world and nobody has a more inherent right to anything than others. The limit-based behavior is insulated in those principles because much of liberalism/progressivism is rooted in those notions... so as a whole object, it will work in that direction.
Click to expand...

The prosecution rests.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Ok, Snooty McSmartpants. What is socialism? Enlighten us o' great holder of knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top