Thread: Are Republicans delusional or knowingly ruining the country?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Evidently he thinks the system he's espousing would work and be beneficial. Unless he's a known sociopath, it's not fair to ask why he "wants" to destroy the economy.

Exactly. Now back up a step and criticize the comment I was responding to.

Is that really all you have to say about this thread?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. Now back up a step and criticize the comment I was responding to.

"Two wrongs don't make a right," etc., etc.

Is that really all you have to say about this thread?

For now, all I have to say is that most Repubs are delusional. I can't imagine why anybody would want to ruin the country.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"Two wrongs don't make a right," etc., etc.

That is not a full explanation. If you have a problem with two "wrongs," it makes more sense to criticize the instigator and not the retaliator. My "wrong" was a satirical response to an asinine comment. Good job on ignoring that one.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

For now, all I have to say is that most Repubs are delusional. I can't imagine why anybody would want to ruin the country.

Do you think Republicans are ruining the country by taxing the rich too little?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not a full explanation. If you have a problem with two "wrongs," it makes more sense to criticize the instigator and not the retaliator. My "wrong" was a satirical response to an asinine comment. Good job on ignoring that one.

You tend to be on "my side" of the issues more so I would hope that you wouldn't use the same tactics as he did. Plus I didn't read the part you were replying to lol.

Do you think Republicans are ruining the country by taxing the rich too little?

No. They're contributing to the ruination by being socially backward and making what could be good economic policies look stupid by saying they're implementing those policies when in reality they're doing something completely different.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No. They're contributing to the ruination by being socially backward and making what could be good economic policies look stupid by saying they're implementing those policies when in reality they're doing something completely different.

That is very true.

Not wanting GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes does not make me a socialist. Try again.

I think the underlying problem here isn't that the rich are paying too little tax, I would say it is more that not enough is being spent to motivate people to get jobs or an education. Trickle down economics really isn't the right solution though. Instead of stimulating people to try improve themselves and guarantee themselves a future position in an industry money is being spent motivating businesses to stay in the country and keep the jobs of the people who are already there.
If there is a competition between the people to reach a good place the economy will naturally heal itself, but that currently isn't exactly being stimulated since the whole system goes against it. Expensive tuition fees, flawed law system, and extreme control on some things and none on others blocks the ability for the average person to progress themselves and for income inequality to lower.
I watched a ted talk on a governor who was trying to give a company deals to stay in the city keep it's employees. She tried to offer them all kinds of things like, grants, no tax, help with growing the business but the company refused. All the money that would have cost could have easily payed for the education of the employees working there to get an even better job.

It's also true that education needs to be subsidized. But Universal Mind is ignoring the fact that that super wealthy pay less taxes than teachers, and he's stuck on the fact that the general wealthy pay more taxes. He's acting like I'm targeting the top 10% who pay a 35% tax margin when in reality I'm targeting the top .01-.05% that pay a 0-14% tax margin.

Austerity in regard to social safety programs and education is also the wrong way to go. Social safety program enable people that lose their middle class status to quickly climb back into the middle class. The middle class, also known as the consumer/producer class, is the most necessary class for the economy. Without them, production slows down because there's no one to buy anything. Austerity is simply a terrible idea and we're seeing its effects in Europe, but Republicans are pushing it while defending the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy. I still cannot possibly think anyone could be so delusional, and I honestly don't think the politicians are delusional, but their constituencies are, as exemplified by Universal Mind.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I think the underlying problem here isn't that the rich are paying too little tax, I would say it is more that not enough is being spent to motivate people to get jobs or an education.

The problem is that the government is spending too much and the super rich are paying very little to nothing in taxes because of Bush's tax cuts. It's not that people aren't motivated to get jobs, most of the people that I know who don't have jobs are looking for one and they can't pay for an education because they don't have money because they don't have a job because they don't have an education because they don't have money...

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Not wanting GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes does not make me a socialist. Try again.

I didn't say it does. Try again.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It's also true that education needs to be subsidized. But Universal Mind is ignoring the fact that that super wealthy pay less taxes than teachers, and he's stuck on the fact that the general wealthy pay more taxes. He's acting like I'm targeting the top 10% who pay a 35% tax margin when in reality I'm targeting the top .01-.05% that pay a 0-14% tax margin.

Austerity in regard to social safety programs and education is also the wrong way to go. Social safety program enable people that lose their middle class status to quickly climb back into the middle class. The middle class, also known as the consumer/producer class, is the most necessary class for the economy. Without them, production slows down because there's no one to buy anything. Austerity is simply a terrible idea and we're seeing its effects in Europe, but Republicans are pushing it while defending the Bush tax cuts to the super wealthy. I still cannot possibly think anyone could be so delusional, and I honestly don't think the politicians are delusional, but their constituencies are, as exemplified by Universal Mind.

I suspect you of trolling, but I'll argue with the assumption that you are not because this is an important issue for anybody reading. You socialists throw around the word "middle class" all the time without really explaining why you do it. I am gung ho middle class, so you can stop name dropping that group on me. Lots of love for the middle class coming from me. Guess what... I want their taxes to be lower than you want them to be. I want everybody's taxes to be lower. You don't. You don't care what effect taxation has on private spending and therefore the economy. I don't want you "targeting" anybody except our dysfunctional stupid fuck organized crime government that has us in a recession because they are reckless out of their minds with people's private property. Get it? If the goal is to get people to trade more apples so that the apple system can take off, it would be insane for the government to take half of the apples of the biggest apple traders. The government would need to take as few apples as possible to see true success in the apple system. Get it?

How do you expect to lower taxes? What programs would need to go? Republicans love to advocate lower taxes but never explain how the budget would be balanced with lower taxes, hence the massive deficit and resulting inflation (which hurts the middle class). If you intended to lower taxes with a plan such as, I don't know, removing the parasitic military and prison industrial complexes, then you'd be off to a good start. But Republicans also seem to consider those two aspects of the budget to be sacrosanct. If you planned to balance the budget by cutting food stamps, college grants, etc, then you're throwing the middle class under the bus and destroying some of the most important aspects of our social infrastructure.

And you still haven't mentioned even a hint of an opinion regarding something absolutely integral to balancing the budget, which is closing the tax loopholes. Instead, you still acting like that's not the purpose of the thread, and in fact you seem to be purposely trying to derail this thread, then calling me a troll for calling you out on trying to derail my fucking thread. So answer the question or I'll report you for thread derailing. Should GE pay less percentage than a teacher in taxes or not?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

removing the parasitic military and prison industrial complexes

Yes, that would be a really good start. Ending the war on drugs, getting our military out of other countries, and cutting the vast majority of entitlement spending would be excellent. We could cut out most of this insanity...

List of United States federal agencies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education could be completely privatized with a back up voucher program. If taxes were low enough, space exploration could become a private business. Food stamps and college grants could be cut without being eliminated, but I think private charity could handle food donations if taxes were low enough. I used to be a social worker, and I assure you that the entitlement system is severely abused. Student loans are supposed to be paid back, so they are not really a problem. The IRS is unnecessary because a sales tax system would be simple and not a bureaucratic financial clusterfuck. I could get into a lot of details about ridiculous amounts of money the government spends on things that the government should not be spending any money on at all, such as pointless scientific research on things that just don't matter. There are private scientists out there for the things that do matter. Elections cost absurd amounts of money. Those are a few things off the top of my head.

I think you know by now that I am not a Republican. Atheists who want all drugs legal and make fun of patriotic rituals are not Republicans.

Yeah but you're a capitalist idealist, and much like socialism or communism, capitalism looks good on paper until you realize that too many fuckwads exist to screw it up. History has shown what happens when you completely depend on charity to handle food subsidies. What you call entitlement programs, I call safety nets. Shit happens, that's why social infrastructure exists. GE spent 0 dollars in taxes last year, and so far I haven't seen a dime of that go to space exploration. Your logic is flawed because we actually do have a trickle-down economy. Obama is basically Reagan II. And we're not seeing any good come out of giving these investors all their ridiculous tax breaks. They haven't helped anything with it, so your claim is flawed that lower taxes will fix everything. I would like to see taxes lowered for the 99% though, but I think it should be evened out by removing the tax loopholes for the 1%.

Just a slight interjection: socialism and communism don't actually look good on paper. They have fundamental flaws that make them impossible to successfully operate.

What a wonderfully irrelevant and biased interjection. Capitalism also has "fundamental flaws" when you examine it, the idealization simply makes sense on paper for any popular economic philosophy. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need sounds nice on paper, just like individual empowerment sounds nice on paper. The idealization still comes down to principle over reality.

Whatever fundamental flaws capitalism possesses still don't inhibit its ability to immensely benefit the human race as a whole. The fundamental flaws socialism possesses actually prohibit it from working at all, nevermind with an appreciable degree of benefit or efficiency.

Originally Posted by Woodstock

The problem is that the government is spending too much and the super rich are paying very little to nothing in taxes because of Bush's tax cuts. It's not that people aren't motivated to get jobs, most of the people that I know who don't have jobs are looking for one and they can't pay for an education because they don't have money because they don't have a job because they don't have an education because they don't have money...

You didn't counter anything I said. In fact you just supported it, most people can't get a job because they don't have the money to pay for an education.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Whatever fundamental flaws capitalism possesses still don't inhibit its ability to immensely benefit the human race as a whole. The fundamental flaws socialism possesses actually prohibit it from working at all, nevermind with an appreciable degree of benefit or efficiency.

Do you have an argument to go with that claim or are you just trolling because I think you've just won the prize for the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far.

Guys, lets face it, any system involving money is unsustainable. Some just take longer to die than others.

As for the original question, which has been discussed and moved past, I would argue that it is neither political party, but the result of a general decline in both the country and here on earth due to unsustainable systems that were put in place hundreds of years ago. All this time expansion has been used to solve all of our problems, so that now, when we have pretty much expanded and divided up as much of earth as we can, it doesn't matter what either party does or doesn't do. It's not a matter of which political system is right, it's a matter of the larger system being broken. By changing politicians your basically putting a band-aide on a sinking ship.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Guys, lets face it, any system involving money is unsustainable. Some just take longer to die than others.

People trading belongings or services is unsustainable?

Not when the system/medium through which they are traded requires constant expansion to succeed. That's a different story though. One I conveniently created a thread about.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Not when the system/medium through which they are traded requires constant expansion to succeed. That's a different story though. One I conveniently created a thread about.

Yes, that's a common meme amongst Venus people. Actually, there's nothing inherently unstable about fractional reserve banking. It just increases the money supply by a multiple. You're conflating this with fiat currency, which is unsustainable.

You can't make people owe you more money than exists without requiring constant growth. So now you have to argue there's nothing inherently unstable about constant growth.

I haven't read through the thread, I just read the question. And the answer is, the people in power now are looking for personal gain. By destroying the lower classes, the upper classes gain. They know that, definitely. As a nation we actually do have the resource and means to have a flourishing economy, but that involves sharing equally, and people aren't into that. The state of the economy is a result of power and profit mongering, lead by parties such as the government and the central banking systems. People have been warned countless times throughout history not to form governments under these ideals, but it's gone unheeded within the last century. Us Americans are now slaves, that don't realize we're slaves. Slaves to the work force, to poverty, and to deep... deep disregard of what goes on below our common radar. America sucks. And I can't wait to leave.