No fiscal platform. Sorry, but I might have to become a partisan. The death of the Republican party

ultramanhyata said:
You're accidentally using libertarian talking points here. I mean, I'm assuming it was an accident.
Click to expand...

Not a talking point I've heard from anyone. It's just disagreeing with your position (and I don't even oppose publicly funded elections--I'd just support them for different reasons than you do). A libertarian talking point would be like, "taxation is theft" or "targeted tax breaks to big corporations is just letting them keep more of their own money."

ultramanhyata said:
Here's a thought experiment: Would you expect the relative sales figures of various brands of toothpaste to change if every toothpaste company were allotted the exact same chunk of annual marketing dollars and was restricted from exceeding that amount?
Click to expand...

I would. But note that toothpaste is toothpaste. There's very little difference between different types. Politics is quite unlike that. Additionally, with our system structurally set up to ensure the existence of only two major parties at any time and a MSM firmly committed to the belief that those two parties are always equal at all times on all issues, no one is going to hurt for attention. Supporting that point, note that campaign spending levels are not observed to have any impact on voting patterns (I would assume that they'd matter at some point, but they don't matter at real-world levels).
 
Jack V Savage said:
I would. But note that toothpaste is toothpaste. There's very little difference between different types. Politics is quite unlike that. Additionally, with our system structurally set up to ensure the existence of only two major parties at any time and a MSM firmly committed to the belief that those two parties are always equal at all times on all issues, no one is going to hurt for attention. Supporting that point, note that campaign spending levels are not observed to have any impact on voting patterns (I would assume that they'd matter at some point, but they don't matter at real-world levels).
Click to expand...

I think I get what you're trying to spin now...

Candidates aren't really slavishly beholden to their corporate donors, as progressives would have us believe, since the amount of money a candidate has in his/her campaign warchest doesn't really have any bearing on election outcomes.

Nice. Debbie Wasserman would be proud. lol
 
HatchetHarry said:
Move out of America if you don’t like it. The debt will be addressed but one thing at a time. If we can get rid of the ACA and implement huge cuts to Medicaid it will reduce the problem while encouraging people to earn their own way instead of leeching. GDP increases as a result, tax influx increases, debt reduces. These social “safety net” programs are the issue. They do nothing but reward laziness while hindering progress.
Click to expand...
You realize that every other developed country in the world has a much more thorough social safety net and universal healthcare, right?

So, how are the "safety nets" the problem rather than American oligarchic economy that refuses to fund them?
bobgeese said:
On a side note, I honestly think a lot of you folks want a system that just doesn’t exist and has almost no chance of happening.
Click to expand...
That is pure defeatism. Every other country is able to have universal healthcare at a much lower per person price than the US pays for a system that leaves 40 million people uninsured.

It's not a dream to suggest we can do better.

It's a nightmare that we're not.
 
Last edited:
luckyshot said:
You realize that every other country developed country in the world has a much more thorough social safety net and universal healthcare, right?

So, how are the "safety nets" the problem rather than American the American oligarchic economy that refuses to fund them?
Click to expand...

Move to one of those countries. I don’t believe in social “safety nets” and don’t want my money going towards them. Those countries you talk about also have outrageous tax rates and people abusing the system.

Why is the concept of creating your own social safety net so foreign to you people? I have a years worth of living expenses($35k) in the bank for a reason. Everyone else is too busy buying cigarettes and popping out babies.
 
HatchetHarry said:
Why is the concept of creating your own social safety net so foreign to you people? I have a years worth of living expenses($35k) in the bank for a reason. Everyone else is too busy buying cigarettes and popping out babies.
Click to expand...
Sweet! That will be good for one night in the ER if you lose your insurance!
 
Last edited:
luckyshot said:
Sweet! That will be good for one night in the ER if you lose your insurance!
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong. I work in the ER and uninsured people get an 88% discount. A stroke alert in the ER costs you like $30k. Take 88% off that if you don’t have insurance. I would be fine
 
ultramanhyata said:
I think I get what you're trying to spin now...

Candidates aren't really slavishly beholden to their corporate donors, as progressives would have us believe, since the amount of money a candidate has in his/her campaign warchest doesn't really have any bearing on election outcomes.

Nice. Debbie Wasserman would be proud. lol
Click to expand...

What an odd way to conduct a discussion and to go through life. You must be miserable.
 
HatchetHarry said:
Move to one of those countries. I don’t believe in social “safety nets” and don’t want my money going towards them. Those countries you talk about also have outrageous tax rates and people abusing the system.

Why is the concept of creating your own social safety net so foreign to you people? I have a years worth of living expenses($35k) in the bank for a reason. Everyone else is too busy buying cigarettes and popping out babies.
Click to expand...

Sweet, you can pay your parents back then?
 
Jack V Savage said:
What an odd way to conduct a discussion and to go through life. You must be miserable.
Click to expand...

I didn't know how else to respond to what was, truly, a flat-earth level argument against the obvious ramifications that strict, publicly funded elections would produce.

If you want to have a serious and respectful discussion on a particular topic don't try and initiate it by spouting naked, false propaganda that insults the intelligence of your readers.
 
AVX said:
Feds Collect Record Taxes in First Month Under Tax Cut; Run Surplus in January

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-49-billion-surplus-in-january-idUSKBN1FW286


Let's give these tax cuts a little more time, so far they have exceeded expectations. The GOP will run the primaries on the platform of the Economy and the DNC has absolutely nothing to counter it.
Click to expand...

This was expected with the repatriation of cash that's coming in, hence why we tend to project these things (and judge them) over a period of time rather than a couple of months in.

The reality of the situation is that the deficits will be quite large when you're not seeing everyone shlepping their one time sums in. This is pretty basic.
 
ultramanhyata said:
I didn't know how else to respond to what was, truly, a flat-earth level argument against the obvious ramifications that strict, publicly funded elections would produce.
Click to expand...

Meh. You can look it up yourself. It's a simple fact that campaign spending differences don't drive electoral results. And if you think through your own position more, I think you'll abandon it.

Here's some of what led me to my current position:

http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/...influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

ultramanhyata said:
If you want to have a serious and respectful discussion on a particular topic don't try and initiate it by spouting naked, false propaganda that insults the intelligence of your readers.
Click to expand...

I didn't, though. It's just a combination of ignorance, close-mindedness and CT thinking that drives your response. You don't realize that the factual claim I made is true, you won't accept it, and you can't seem to imagine anyone disagreeing with you for good reasons. Ted Cruz would be proud lol.
 
Last edited:
KILL KILL said:
Leech.

You're the type of person you're always complaining about. You didn't pay your way.
Click to expand...

Family helped pay. This is why people work hard. Take care of their own family and not cigarette smoking scumbags who are poor because of life choices.
 
HatchetHarry said:
Family helped pay. This is why people work hard. Take care of their own family and not cigarette smoking scumbags who are poor because of life choices.
Click to expand...

Do you not realize this makes you the biggest hypocrite in the war room?

You had things handed to you in life, yet get pissed that someone down on their luck gets some sort of aid. How do you not see how ridiculous this is?
 
KILL KILL said:
Do you not realize this makes you the biggest hypocrite in the war room?

You had things handed to you in life, yet get pissed that someone down on their luck gets some sort of aid. How do you not see how ridiculous this is?
Click to expand...

It’s a little different when it’s family versus government. The government steals from people to give to the “less fortunate”.

Someone “down on their luck”. Is there for a reason
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,706
Messages
55,436,219
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top