5 ms·

You started off with an interesting addition to the conversation, and I was hoping for a reference regarding the relationship between corporate taxes and the ul

by gwright 13y ago

You started off with an interesting addition to the conversation, and I was hoping for a reference regarding the relationship between corporate taxes and the ultra-weathy, but instead I got a gratuitous, tired, over-used, boring, ad-hominem about Republicans that added nothing to conversation.

criley2 13y ago
No he didn't. The national Republican Party is outspoken about raising taxes on lower income people, in "broadening the base". In the election-year expose of Romney's secret fundraising speeches, we learned about "the 49%" of Americans who don't pay taxes. Well, we didn't learn about it, it's a very common trope for conservative politicians. It's no secret that Republicans largely support "base broadening", as well as less-overt attacks on the finances of the poor like their CURRENT attempts to divorce the farm bill from food stamps, to further cut food stamps. You're trying to enforce some politically correct echo chamber where a national political party isn't responsible for their votes and their policy. Republicans are openly for raising taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans, are openly for decreasing wealth transfer like foodstamps, welfare and unemployment, and are openly for lowering (and abolishing) corporate taxes. Those are their policies and it is utterly and totally fair to state that and reference it.
- talmand 13y ago
  Yes he did. Your comment and jellicle's comment are not quite the same thing. Even then, you are painting some of the party's platform in a negative light without showing why exactly that is their platform to begin with nor why you consider them terrible ideas. Some of their reasons may be bad, but that doesn't mean all of their reasons are.
  - karamazov 13y ago
    He didn't say these policies were bad, just that they were consistent. They're only bad if you disagree with them.
    - talmand 13y ago
      No he didn't say they were bad, he was just agreeing with the person that said they were bad. But I think it's fair to say that the tone of the discussion implies these two people feel negativity towards the GOP's platform without stating why. Disagreeing with someone's idea doesn't inherently make that idea bad. People who have the notion that another person's idea is bad solely because they disagree with them with no other evidence is simply a shallow person.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    GOP Platform: "I've got mine, f* you."
    - talmand 13y ago
      "but instead I got a gratuitous, tired, over-used, boring, ad-hominem about Republicans that added nothing to conversation"
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Leftist Platform: "I'm taking yours, f* you." Yeah, this line of discussion is going to get us far.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        I'd say the real Leftist Platform is "there is no mine or yours, only ours". Everyone else is a faker ;)
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Let me be more specific: Who is blocking comprehensive reform of the banking sector (which arguably drove not only the US into a recession, but the world as a whole)? Republicans Draconian anti-abortion laws? Republics Raising student loan interest rates while keeping lending rates to banks near zero? Republicans Supporting egregious amounts of defense department spending (The US spends more on defense then the next 10 countries COMBINED; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...)? Republicans Blocking immigration reform? Republicans Trying to prevent the implementation of universal healthcare? Republicans. I could go on, but it would be pointless.
        ctdonath 13y ago
        Ah, having had a snide ad-hominem insult duly countered, retaliate with a series of non-sequitur malicious context-free imputations.
        gwright 13y ago
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Taking half of earners' incomes with one hand and blocking ways to earn more with the other will NOT end well. I'm making a good buck, but at this rate of taxation I'm gonna have to resort to self-sufficiency homesteading with zero taxable income. Remember the goose & golden egg? Totally not fair to present only the allegedly "bad" parts of a position without the good goals that necessitates it. Opening the paths to hiring more people is quite fairly coupled with telling the capable to stop sitting around collecting checks; if you're going to socialize health care payment, you'll need to stop giving companies reason to not have more than 49 employees.
  - ppereira 13y ago
    > Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Wow, you really do drink the trickle-down effect Kool-Aid.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      You can't "spread the wealth" if there isn't any. Printing more money doesn't make more wealth, it just diffuses it more. If I stop working, you can't tax my now-nonexistent income.
      - criley2 13y ago
        I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around. The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era. You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around. But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numbers of billionaires and record lows for the middle class. I refuse your argument because the world around me clearly shows that our "wealth producers" have figured out how to depress labor costs and increase investor returns. Great for them, but that concept is 100% contrary to your "wealth producers spread wealth". No, wealth producers rightfully squeeze labor costs and rightfully return the biggest amount of money to themselves, their boards, and their investors. That's not spreading wealth downwards, it's spreading laterally only.
flyinRyan 13y ago
You're the one going political here. What he stated is a well known fact about the Republicans whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.
- gwright 13y ago
  It isn't a fact. It is an unsubstantiated opinion. Your assertion that my comment was the political one is nonsensical. We've got serious long-term and structural problems in this country. We've got to find a way to discuss them that rises above trite generalizations.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    We do have problems indeed. And as long as people continue to get bogged down with the silly "Democrat/Republican" song and dance, the issues can't be addressed. The parties are practically the same thing (see: Bush Jr. vs Obama) so seeing one side as a friend and the other as an enemy is just a straw man boxing match.
    - gwright 13y ago
      If you really believe this, why would would you agree with something like "Republicans just want to tax the poor"? I didn't take potshots at Democrats, I just pointed out that taking potshots at Republicans wasn't furthering the discussion.

by gwright 13y ago

criley2 13y ago

No he didn't. The national Republican Party is outspoken about raising taxes on lower income people, in "broadening the base". In the election-year expose of Romney's secret fundraising speeches, we learned about "the 49%" of Americans who don't pay taxes. Well, we didn't learn about it, it's a very common trope for conservative politicians. It's no secret that Republicans largely support "base broadening", as well as less-overt attacks on the finances of the poor like their CURRENT attempts to divorce the farm bill from food stamps, to further cut food stamps. You're trying to enforce some politically correct echo chamber where a national political party isn't responsible for their votes and their policy. Republicans are openly for raising taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans, are openly for decreasing wealth transfer like foodstamps, welfare and unemployment, and are openly for lowering (and abolishing) corporate taxes. Those are their policies and it is utterly and totally fair to state that and reference it.

talmand 13y ago
Yes he did. Your comment and jellicle's comment are not quite the same thing. Even then, you are painting some of the party's platform in a negative light without showing why exactly that is their platform to begin with nor why you consider them terrible ideas. Some of their reasons may be bad, but that doesn't mean all of their reasons are.
- karamazov 13y ago
  He didn't say these policies were bad, just that they were consistent. They're only bad if you disagree with them.
  - talmand 13y ago
    No he didn't say they were bad, he was just agreeing with the person that said they were bad. But I think it's fair to say that the tone of the discussion implies these two people feel negativity towards the GOP's platform without stating why. Disagreeing with someone's idea doesn't inherently make that idea bad. People who have the notion that another person's idea is bad solely because they disagree with them with no other evidence is simply a shallow person.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  GOP Platform: "I've got mine, f* you."
  - talmand 13y ago
    "but instead I got a gratuitous, tired, over-used, boring, ad-hominem about Republicans that added nothing to conversation"
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Leftist Platform: "I'm taking yours, f* you." Yeah, this line of discussion is going to get us far.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      I'd say the real Leftist Platform is "there is no mine or yours, only ours". Everyone else is a faker ;)
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Let me be more specific: Who is blocking comprehensive reform of the banking sector (which arguably drove not only the US into a recession, but the world as a whole)? Republicans Draconian anti-abortion laws? Republics Raising student loan interest rates while keeping lending rates to banks near zero? Republicans Supporting egregious amounts of defense department spending (The US spends more on defense then the next 10 countries COMBINED; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...)? Republicans Blocking immigration reform? Republicans Trying to prevent the implementation of universal healthcare? Republicans. I could go on, but it would be pointless.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        Ah, having had a snide ad-hominem insult duly countered, retaliate with a series of non-sequitur malicious context-free imputations.
      - gwright 13y ago
ctdonath 13y ago
Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Taking half of earners' incomes with one hand and blocking ways to earn more with the other will NOT end well. I'm making a good buck, but at this rate of taxation I'm gonna have to resort to self-sufficiency homesteading with zero taxable income. Remember the goose & golden egg? Totally not fair to present only the allegedly "bad" parts of a position without the good goals that necessitates it. Opening the paths to hiring more people is quite fairly coupled with telling the capable to stop sitting around collecting checks; if you're going to socialize health care payment, you'll need to stop giving companies reason to not have more than 49 employees.
- ppereira 13y ago
  > Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Wow, you really do drink the trickle-down effect Kool-Aid.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    You can't "spread the wealth" if there isn't any. Printing more money doesn't make more wealth, it just diffuses it more. If I stop working, you can't tax my now-nonexistent income.
    - criley2 13y ago
      I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around. The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era. You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around. But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numbers of billionaires and record lows for the middle class. I refuse your argument because the world around me clearly shows that our "wealth producers" have figured out how to depress labor costs and increase investor returns. Great for them, but that concept is 100% contrary to your "wealth producers spread wealth". No, wealth producers rightfully squeeze labor costs and rightfully return the biggest amount of money to themselves, their boards, and their investors. That's not spreading wealth downwards, it's spreading laterally only.

flyinRyan 13y ago

You're the one going political here. What he stated is a well known fact about the Republicans whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

gwright 13y ago
It isn't a fact. It is an unsubstantiated opinion. Your assertion that my comment was the political one is nonsensical. We've got serious long-term and structural problems in this country. We've got to find a way to discuss them that rises above trite generalizations.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  We do have problems indeed. And as long as people continue to get bogged down with the silly "Democrat/Republican" song and dance, the issues can't be addressed. The parties are practically the same thing (see: Bush Jr. vs Obama) so seeing one side as a friend and the other as an enemy is just a straw man boxing match.
  - gwright 13y ago
    If you really believe this, why would would you agree with something like "Republicans just want to tax the poor"? I didn't take potshots at Democrats, I just pointed out that taking potshots at Republicans wasn't furthering the discussion.