Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[HeloDude]

Words...

Here's the problem I see when you try to argue (which means I'm either getting better or you're getting worse or some combination of there of) is that you argue almost entirely on emotion. Your main source of argument is that 'we should do X because it's the right thing to do, it's the 'fair' thing to do, it's what other western countries do'...blah blah blah--that's arguing on emotion. Or when you say, 'well, the majority of the people want X from the government, therefore we should do it, blah blah blah'--now you're just arguing on behalf of other people's emotions. And occasionally you'll bring up The Constitution, when it suits you--ie gay marriage, voter ID, etc...and good on you when that occasionally happens. And occasionally (you used to do it much more) you'll actually post data to back up what you say...and for the record, finding someone else to give their opinion that you share still makes it just an opinion.

So to address your comments:

-The woman in the video doesn't 'seem' like an idiot, she is one. 200 years ago she'd be dead because nobody would want to support a lazy bum (and yes, I'm aware of slavery, etc...200 years ago a white guy saying the same thing would be dead). And there are plenty more just like her, in all genders and ethnicity. Again, welfare has been rapidly on the rise over the recent years (you never responded to that one). I watched some of the DNC convenetion--your party ran on giving free stuff, whether it was healthcare, education, birth control, health insurance, etc. This woman (again, regardless of what color she is as there are crack moms of all ethnic backgrounds) helps your party win elections.

-Yep, the article on Obamacare came from the National Review, though the GAO came out with the figure. You never commented on the fact that the GAO said it will add $6 TRILLION to the debt--you just dodged the issue and talked about how you wanted something else. Also, you never responded to the fact that if the Dems were serious about spending cuts then they would have never had passed Obamacare in its current form.

-It is almost entirely about winning elections for the Dems, that and getting more people on the government dole, which then helps then win more elections. You proved my point a couple days ago by saying it was non-politically smart for Obama to decide where to make the cuts. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that he really wants cuts? If he wanted cuts, then he should have had his party accept the GOP proposal so that he as the President could decide where to make the cuts. But, since it's all about politics, he refused. Me, I would love to prioritize what's important and what's least important and make the cuts accordingly, but then that would require leadership on his part. But I understand, he'd rather campaign more than lead.

-As for future elections, dude, you called it a while back when I didn't see it--the demographics are changing so rapidly that the Dems have a distinct advantage, and thus again, that's why they want to provide more entitlements (that an amnesty) to ensure the vote. Rubio may be able to pull out a squeaker against Hillary in 2016 (and if so, may be able to pull out another close one in 2020 due to incumbency), but I think that's it. The only way the GOP could win after that is if they became more like Dems and jump on the entitlement bandwagon, but in that case, what's the difference (In many ways they've already done this). A latest poll I saw 2 weeks ago (searched but couldn't find it) stated that 79% of Hispanics believe the government should do MORE for people...well, we all know the party that enjoys giving more, and the vast majority of these 79% will vote accordingly--similar to what happened in Nov. Like you said man, it's not rocket surgery--I get it. Here is the link about how Hispanic vote is likely to double by 2030.

So there it is man, like I said, I get it. You even have more and more people from the Dem party saying we don't have a spending problem--Pelosi, Sen Harkin, and I could name others if need be. So until something big happens, like an economic collapse, I see the vector heading the same way.

...oh, and for the other BO'ers, sorry for the TDLR post again.

Welcome to this thing we call "society".

If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against just about all forms of federal welfare programs. If States want to do it, that's fine. Man, had to call you out again.

[Buddy Spike]

Ns.....Did you just reply to yourself? Minimum wage is a nogo for me, entry level job, you do not support a family on it, you are getting trained to do something therefore get paid ALOT less than anyone else, earn your raise, but that's a bigger can of worms than I will deal with on a forum.

Until nsplyr and his fellow liberals pick up an economics textbook, they will never understand the flawed logic in raising the minimum wage for "inflation/cost of living"

[nsplayr]

Here's the problem I see when you try to argue (which means I'm either getting better or you're getting worse or some combination of there of) is that you argue almost entirely on emotion. Your main source of argument is that 'we should do X because it's the right thing to do, it's the 'fair' thing to do, it's what other western countries do'...blah blah blah--that's arguing on emotion. Or when you say, 'well, the majority of the people want X from the government, therefore we should do it, blah blah blah'--now you're just arguing on behalf of other people's emotions. And occasionally you'll bring up The Constitution, when it suits you--ie gay marriage, voter ID, etc...and good on you when that occasionally happens. And occasionally (you used to do it much more) you'll actually post data to back up what you say...and for the record, finding someone else to give their opinion that you share still makes it just an opinion.

In my most recent posts here it's been extremely broad brushes on almost every major domestic issue...not sure how you want me to back everything up with facts without extreme violations of TLDR. On top of that, some things are based on your worldview; I'm hoping everyone's worldview is backed up by facts but there is an aspect of what you think is right, what fits with your values. Liberty and security are often held up as opposite values, and while that's not entirely true, neither value is right or wrong, in fact I'd say they're both "right." If you argued for a policy that ensured more liberty and I argued for one that ensured more security (hypothetically), would that be based on emotion and thus null and void in your view?

The woman in the video doesn't 'seem' like an idiot, she is one. 200 years ago she'd be dead because nobody would want to support a lazy bum (and yes, I'm aware of slavery, etc...200 years ago a white guy saying the same thing would be dead).

So you'd rather her be dead then dependent on help from the rest of society? I think I know the answer but giving you a fair shot.

This woman (again, regardless of what color she is as there are crack moms of all ethnic backgrounds) helps your party win elections.

If she voted for Democratic party candidates in the past, which we don't know but it seems likely if she voted at all, good on her. If that's the case she's an idiot based on what she said in the video but I'll absolutely take her vote for my party or my candidate. If you're not interested in getting voters to vote for your party or your candidate in elections, you really aren't interested in governing. Academic debates on what policies are best are all in good fun, but until you're able to govern (or influence those who govern) what you believe in doesn't really mean sh*t in terms of impacting the country.

You never commented on the fact that the GAO said it will add $6 TRILLION to the debt--you just dodged the issue and talked about how you wanted something else.

Because that's not what they said at all. Under one possible forecasting model for the future, Obamacare, if its cost control measures are not fully implanted or sustained as intended, will add 0.7% of GDP to the debt. That's an entirely different conclusion than "X will cause Y," which is what the headline and Sen. Sessions who ordered the study implied for obvious reasons.

Also, you never responded to the fact that if the Dems were serious about spending cuts then they would have never had passed Obamacare in its current form.

Since I and probably the rest of the party believe that the cost control measures in Obamacare will in fact control costs more than the previous baseline (i.e. no change to healthcare law), there's no disconnect. It's also hard to argue that, "Well, they supported something in the past that led to deficits, they must not be serious about deficit reduction!" since both parties are guilty as charged then. Like I said before, Obamacare is signed, sealed and delivered, let's focus on other things. The Dems say they want to reduce the deficit by a certain set of policies, the GOP wants to reduce the deficit with a different set.

-It is almost entirely about winning elections for the Dems, that and getting more people on the government dole, which then helps then win more elections. You proved my point a couple days ago by saying it was non-politically smart for Obama to decide where to make the cuts. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that he really wants cuts? If he wanted cuts, then he should have had his party accept the GOP proposal so that he as the President could decide where to make the cuts. But, since it's all about politics, he refused. Me, I would love to prioritize what's important and what's least important and make the cuts accordingly, but then that would require leadership on his part. But I understand, he'd rather campaign more than lead.

Our assessments differ, big surprise. Because politicians engage in politics does not make it "all about politics" in my opinion.

-As for future elections, dude, you called it a while back when I didn't see it--the demographics are changing so rapidly that the Dems have a distinct advantage, and thus again, that's why they want to provide more entitlements (that an amnesty) to ensure the vote. Rubio may be able to pull out a squeaker against Hillary in 2016 (and if so, may be able to pull out another close one in 2020 due to incumbency), but I think that's it. The only way the GOP could win after that is if they became more like Dems and jump on the entitlement bandwagon, but in that case, what's the difference (In many ways they've already done this). A latest poll I saw 2 weeks ago (searched but couldn't find it) stated that 79% of Hispanics believe the government should do MORE for people...well, we all know the party that enjoys giving more, and the vast majority of these 79% will vote accordingly--similar to what happened in Nov. Like you said man, it's not rocket surgery--I get it. Here is the link about how Hispanic vote is likely to double by 2030.

Well it's an issue for the GOP...do they want to remain fully pure to their current ideological positions or do they want to win national elections? If that becomes an either/or (not sure we're there yet), I guarantee ideological positions will be the thing that changes. The Dems today are very different on a lot of things than they were in the late 1970s and early 1980s when they got run out of power, I expect the GOP will evolve in a similar fashion in order to continue to have a role in governing the nation.

Edited March 4, 2013 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

More words, can we force the PYB name on this guy?

[HeloDude]

So you'd rather her be dead then dependent on help from the rest of society? I think I know the answer but giving you a fair shot.

If she is able to work and not make poor choices and decides to do the opposite and that kills her, then so be it. Just like when someone kills themselves when they drink and drive or do drugs--personal responsibility man. Like you said, it's not rocket surgery. You want people to be able to marry whoever they way, ie make their own choices, and I agree. No different in this case--she can get off her ass and do something, and if not, she gets the consequences. If your kid doesn't do their homework or study for their tests and then gets a bad grade and fails are you going to say it was their fault or somebody else's fault?

Now, having said all of this...I believe it's up to each individual State to determine how they take care of their poor--whether they want massive taxes and entitlements or to do nothing and let them fend for themselves or somewhere in between. And by the way, charities have always been there in this country to help the most venerable. The government didn't hire Mother Theresa to help people...she decided to that on her own.

As for the rest of the stuff you posted, I'm interested in Liberty, Rights and Freedom...you're more interested in winning elections and turning the country into an even larger welfare state. Hence why I don't back up the GOP's nonsense either...I'm actually surprised they kept together and didn't break before the Sequester, though I guess they always still could.

And again, you never commented on why we have wayyyy more people on some sore of welfare today? You say it's not getting worse, then why are more people on it? And why are we spending more on it? Again, if taxing more and the government spending more led to more prosperity, then why wouldn't every country be doing it and also doing well?

[nsplayr]

Now, having said all of this...I believe it's up to each individual State to determine how they take care of their poor--whether they want massive taxes and entitlements or to do nothing and let them fend for themselves or somewhere in between.

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond.

And by the way, charities have always been there in this country to help the most venerable. The government didn't hire Mother Theresa to help people...she decided to that on her own.

Private charity can be very efficient but it has no scale. A better combination to me is a partnership between private charity and government programs aimed at raising people out of poverty and providing a minimum level of security for everyone.

And again, you never commented on why we have wayyyy more people on some sore of welfare today? You say it's not getting worse, then why are more people on it? And why are we spending more on it?

The recession of 2008/2009. What I'm saying is the "entitlement mentality" (not total number of people receiving government assistance) today is not worse than it has been in the past.

[Jughead]

Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”

[MT near]

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond.

Private charity can be very efficient but it has no scale. A better combination to me is a partnership between private charity and government programs aimed at raising people out of poverty and providing a minimum level of security for everyone.

The recession of 2008/2009. What I'm saying is the "entitlement mentality" (not total number of people receiving government assistance) today is not worse than it has been in the past.

Do you do anything else other than post opinions on baseops?

[Vertigo]

If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against just about all forms of federal welfare programs. If States want to do it, that's fine. Man, had to call you out again.

Reading comprehension. Get it.

He didn't say pay for, he said responsible for.

A libertarian would rather help someone get on their feet rather than paying for them... but by putting in that effort they are still acting as a responsible party for that person. That's what society is all about.

Now go up to the chalkboard and write the phrase "I will work on my reading comprehension" 100 times.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Vertigo

[disgruntledemployee]

If she voted for Democratic party candidates in the past, which we don't know but it seems likely if she voted at all, good on her. If that's the case she's an idiot based on what she said in the video but I'll absolutely take her vote for my party or my candidate. If you're not interested in getting voters to vote for your party or your candidate in elections, you really aren't interested in governing. Academic debates on what policies are best are all in good fun, but until you're able to govern (or influence those who govern) what you believe in doesn't really mean sh*t in terms of impacting the country.

Ah hah! I knew it. You want lots of welfares so you and your party can get more votes. Its all about buying the election versus principle and leadership.

Based on this evidence, are you the type that will take any measure necessary to get promoted? Whatever it takes to ge the votes, right? Because once you gain high rank, you can govern, right? Maybe not, but it has a common sounding theme.

Out

[joe1234]

That person went on to get married (I hear begrudginly taking the mans last name), had kids, stopped working (hubby made plenty), and over time, became one of the most conservative people I know (Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Experiences change people's view on politics. In your formerly liberal friend's case, having a family and being a housewife drastically changed her political priorities. On the other side of the coin, I know plenty of people who were conservative that went to grad school later in life, were exposed to different people from different backgrounds, and became more liberal.

Also keep in mind some things that passed for liberal 20 years ago can be considered conservative today. Times can change as people stay the same and get older.

[nsplayr]

Do you do anything else other than post opinions on baseops?

Yea, I ride in airplanes once in a while.

Ah hah! I knew it. You want lots of welfares so you and your party can get more votes. Its all about buying the election versus principle and leadership.

What, you don't want her vote for your preferred party or candidate? I think we've ID'd the problem right there...if I support a particular candidate for office I hope they win with 100% of the vote (ok, that's a little Saddam-esque, but you get my point). Not so much into writing people off...if they wanna give their support for policies my candidate is proposing, great, welcome to the team.

Based on this evidence, are you the type that will take any measure necessary to get promoted? Whatever it takes to ge the votes, right? Because once you gain high rank, you can govern, right? Maybe not, but it has a common sounding theme.

Don't worry, my illustrious career in the AF isn't going much further in all likelihood, although I have attained the prestigious rank of Captain despite the several hoops one now has to jump through to make it that far.

Again, if there's a movement out there in the political world that's more interested in orthodoxy than electoral victory it won't last very long. It's doesn't have to be about "whatever it takes to get votes," but at a minimum you need to not turn people off with extreme policies or harsh rhetoric or write them off as unlikely to support you before you even begin.

[HeloDude]

A libertarian would rather help someone get on their feet rather than paying for them... but by putting in that effort they are still acting as a responsible party for that person. That's what society is all about.

Not at the federal man...and not so much even at the State level, though The Constitution definitely allows for it under the 10th Amendment. If a self described Libertarian wants to voluntarily help people on a private/organizational level separate from the government in the form of charity, then I'm all for it.

And just case you were curious as to what the Libertarian Party says on the issue:

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

Or are you just all about the Libertarian stuff when it comes to drugs, gay marriage, and abortion?

[joe1234]

Isn't a state government still government control? Why are things suddenly, magically okay because it's not federal? Is welfare okay if it's run by a state legislature and governor?

Are you all about the Libertarian stuff only when it comes to getting taxed less? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty pro-defense, but wouldn't a libertarian advocate a fully isolationist foreign policy and a military that is made up of a decentralized network of local volunteers?

Because this is one of those "society" things he was talking about.

[Vertigo]

Not at the federal man...and not so much even at the State level, though The Constitution definitely allows for it under the 10th Amendment. If a self described Libertarian wants to voluntarily help people on a private/organizational level separate from the government in the form of charity, then I'm all for it.

And just case you were curious as to what the Libertarian Party says on the issue:

http://www.lp.org/is...rty-and-welfare

Or are you just all about the Libertarian stuff when it comes to drugs, gay marriage, and abortion?

Thanks for the link, may I quote one particualr line from it?

"A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance"

That sounds eerily similar to my line:

"A libertarian would rather help someone get on their feet rather than paying for them... but by putting in that effort they are still acting as a responsible party for that person. That's what society is all about."

So, in other words, thanks for backing me up and showing what I was saying was in line with the official libertarian party stance.

In a society we are all, in one way or another, responsible for everyone else.

[HeloDude]

In a society we are all, in one way or another, responsible for everyone else.

So you then concur that it shouldn't be done at the government level via taxes? Especially at the federal level? Thats what the Libertrian Party says, damn near their exact words.

Vertigo, if you want to give your hard earned money away to charity and to help people, whether they really or not, then that is more then fine and I commend you for doing it...but stealing from people to give it to someone else isn't charity, it's government theft. Or as Obama says "spreading the wealth around".

Isn't a state government still government control? Why are things suddenly, magically okay because it's not federal? Is welfare okay if it's run by a state legislature and governor?

Are you all about the Libertarian stuff only when it comes to getting taxed less? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty pro-defense, but wouldn't a libertarian advocate a fully isolationist foreign policy and a military that is made up of a decentralized network of local volunteers?

Because this is one of those "society" things he was talking about.

My number one Libertarian view is the Federal and State governments honor and follow The Constitution...the 10th Amendment was specifically put in to give most of the powers and decisions to the States, regardless of whether you disagree or agree that it's a good idea. From that, my personal opinion is that charity works best when it's not ran by an inefficient government. Again, why is it ok to take from a person in order to turn around and give it someone else? Because you say it is? Because 90% of people say it's ok?

[Vertigo]

So you then concur that it shouldn't be done at the government level via taxes? Especially at the federal level? Thats what the Libertrian Party says, damn near their exact words.

Vertigo, if you want to give your hard earned money away to charity and to help people, whether they really or not, then that is more then fine and I commend you for doing it...but stealing from people to give it to someone else isn't charity, it's government theft. Or as Obama says "spreading the wealth around".

Yes I do concur- I never said anything contrary. I just pointed out to RUSH, when he implied his disgust at being responsible for others, that responsibility for others is a large part of being in a society.

So until the time comes when people start actually voting libertarian instead of agreeing on the principles of the party and then voting the status quo, we're stuck paying these taxes and conversely stuck giving that money to others in the form of welfare. In the meantime I'll continue to donate my time, energy, and whatever resources I have available to them outside that scope in the hopes they'll get to the point they can in turn pull themselves out of the hole and start helping others as well.

[TreeA10]

"A compassionate society will find other ways to help people who need temporary assistance"

I'm all for a hand out, a hand up, a second chance for those that find themselves needing it. I give money to charity for just that reason. That being said, I think the problem a lot of people have is how we define "temporary" and what is the consequences, if any, of going past that definition.

[Tonka]

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond.

It wouldn't be radically different; it would be similar to a centralized command decentralized execution-esque model... who better to make decisions, but those leaders nearest their effects? Each state has a higher than average # of specific demographics, and could adjust policies accordingly to those local attributes.

Additionally, if a representative of that state had to spend the states $, rather than put pork in federal bills so that a federal bill is passed AND they get federal $ to their state... you might just have a fewer bridges to nowhere.

In some sense: if my local town was solely responsible for everything in that town: roads, welfare, unemployment, etc.(obviously a logical extreme example) you would probably find that towns/states would become much more incentivized to be efficient with that money (because it is THEIRS!) and therefore would find ways to incentivize (or better help) individuals to become less dependent (in fact I, as a voter of that region, would reward efficient politicians, not those that spent with abandon). You could then greatly reduce the federal involvement while letting them focus on broader items like defense, intelligence, and the like.

Mother Teresa didn't just "cut a check" to solve the problems of the poor.

[joe1234]

My number one Libertarian view is the Federal and State governments honor and follow The Constitution...the 10th Amendment was specifically put in to give most of the powers and decisions to the States, regardless of whether you disagree or agree that it's a good idea. From that, my personal opinion is that charity works best when it's not ran by an inefficient government. Again, why is it ok to take from a person in order to turn around and give it someone else? Because you say it is? Because 90% of people say it's ok?

You have a nasty habit of dodging the question. I'll ask it again.

Yes, but that's confusing because you seem pride yourself on two things, loyalty and strict interpretation of the constitution, and libertarian ideals. Which one takes precedence here? I don't understand how you can reconcile being a supporter of a policy that spends the most on its military in the world and a policy of global interventionalism (such as defense treaties with other nations, worldwide operations, overseas bases, foreign wars and the like), but still claim to be a libertarian. Libertarians are isolationists. Wouldn't you be one too, if you so claim to be a libertarian?

Bonus question: As a libertarian, what is your opinion of the Marshall Plan?

[Vertigo]

Libertarians are isolationists.

This is false- which makes your entire question based on a faulty premise.

Not sticking our noses into other nations affairs doesn't make one an isolationist. Trade is a key factor in avoiding war per the libertarian philosophy. How can good cross borders if you are an isolationist? When goods cross borders, armies don't.

[Guest one]

I am sure he meant non-interventionist.

[joe1234]

I am sure he meant non-interventionist.

That's a better way to say it. Hoping for some libertarian education!

[RASH]

Yes I do concur- I never said anything contrary. I just pointed out to RUSH, when he implied his disgust at being responsible for others, that responsibility for others is a large part of being in a society.

So until the time comes when people start actually voting libertarian instead of agreeing on the principles of the party and then voting the status quo, we're stuck paying these taxes and conversely stuck giving that money to others in the form of welfare. In the meantime I'll continue to donate my time, energy, and whatever resources I have available to them outside that scope in the hopes they'll get to the point they can in turn pull themselves out of the hole and start helping others as well.

But Forced Responsibility is not...I'm more than happy to lend a helping hand to those in need, and do so on a regular basis. But the key here is the NEED--it disgusts me to know that our tax dollars go to people who are gaming the system, and that we've allowed the system to deteriorate to this condition.

[Vertigo]

it disgusts me to know that our tax dollars go to people who are gaming the system, and that we've allowed the system to deteriorate to this condition.

So do you call your fellow aircrew members out when they game their travel voucher? Or stay off base when on base would suffice?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Vertigo