Coffeehouse Thread

56 posts

real republicans are northerners

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • JohnAskew

    , Srikanth_t wrote

    *snip*

    Au Contraire, you seem to be not listening to what Obama himself is saying. And more importantly the rhetoric coming out of Liberal echo chamber known as MSNBC. So far, Obama proposed raising the taxes on "those rich" and closing some tax loopholes (we don't know what those "some loopholes" are). All of this makes like *a dent* in his Trillion dollar per year deficits. It does make for a good talking point though...you gotta have a boogeyman and this time it's the rich.

    I do listen. You didn't prove that Obama claimed his tax increase idea for income > $250,000 will balance the budget, yet you accuse him of saying so.

    Nope. 1990s taxes did not balance the budget. This tells me how misinformed you are on 1990s economy. You see, as it so happened, the tax revenues of 1990s are NOT because we all got taxed slightly higher rates. It was because, Fed Reserve artificially kept interest rates lower than what the actual market would have priced them. It fueled a fake boom in DotCom companies on one hand and also (and more importantly) the stock market bubble on the other hand.

    The budget was balanced. It is documented. Tricksey? Sure, it's politics. But the deficit under the Democrats is always far smaller than under Republicans. You may not promote the idea that wars started under Bush are Obama's spending ideas. You must subtract the two war costs from Obama's deficits to be honest about which party has the spending problem.

    When Government manipulates the economy through it's artificial financial engineering, the three main factors of Capitalist economy, namely Labor, Resources and Capital will get grossly misallocated. We all have seen how many DotCom companies got started on the Flimsiest of business cases. So much of capital moved in to the fake boom of stock market. At one point in time, Yahoo itself was valued at more than the entire GDP of New Zealand. That's right, Newzealand with it's rich mineral, timber, tourism, agriculture, fishing, etcetra was less than Yahoo. That is one incredible fake movement of capital in to stock market. The fakeness of Clinton era boom was fully brought to bear in the subsequent crash. And then Bush, with help from Greenspan and Bernanke, engineered even bigger boom called "housing" and we all know how it turned out. Again, everybody and their grandma was a real-estate agent...lol (labor allocation).

    Government doesn't declare Facebook is worth 100 billion, Wall Street does that -- and is always greedy wrong. Same with all other IPOs of ridiculousness. You want to blame government?

    Government doesn't micro-manage private corporations (unless they are insolvent). Misallocations are from private company decisions going after short-term profits.

  • Maddus Mattus

    , ScanIAm wrote

    @Maddus Mattus:I could list out every time I pay tax when I buy a burger and fries, too, but it doesn't change the fact that

    You don't even know your own tax rate.

    You should take "Mad Matts Taxes are Too Damn High" show on the road.

    Thanks!

    Forgot a few that were listed there as well!

  • brian.​shapiro

    , JohnAskew wrote

    The budget was balanced. It is documented. Tricksey? Sure, it's politics. But the deficit under the Democrats is always far smaller than under Republicans. You may not promote the idea that wars started under Bush are Obama's spending ideas. You must subtract the two war costs from Obama's deficits to be honest about which party has the spending problem.

    But you seem to enjoy being 'tricksey' yourself.

    Its hard to say that the government under the 90s was "under Democrats" vs "under Republicans", since the Congress was largely driving the agenda by the point the Balanced Budget Agreement of 97 was passed, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution failed by one vote, a Democrat. Plus, the budgets in the 80s were largely influenced by a Democratic congress. There are big problems with the claim that anything was solved during the 90s, whether by Republicans or Democrats, because as Srikanth said, it was the good economy that helped the budget more than any other factor, so I wouldn't credit Republicans or Democrats with the 90s budget -- but that's entirely another issue. There are also problems with saying only the Democratic congress was responsible for the 80s budgets too -- because Reagan spent overbudget on the military, against Republican objections -- but that's another issue too.

    The point is I wish we could just have an honest discussion about political issues without people being 'tricksey' about it. Political nonsense from both sides ruins things more than any one party does.

  • Srikanth_t

    1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

    I do listen. You didn't prove that Obama claimed his tax increase idea for income > $250,000 will balance the budget, yet you accuse him of saying so.

    Oh ok. Obama is doing Theatrics then. There... is that good enough for ya ? There is no real interest in *actually* addressing the issue he says he is addressing. In fact there is no real interest in addressing the deficit but all a bunch of deceptive talk like a typical street side performer. He is the one who initiated this "tax the rich" talk...supposedly to address the deficit. That makes him a dishonest person at best and a liar at worst.

    Most of the Economically challenged "deficits don't matter" crowd seem to be having a hard time comprehending the real danger of such high Debt. In programming, we account for things called "exception conditions". On a current account debt of $16.5 trillion, if interest rates reach 10%, government will have to pay $1.6 trillion on just interest payments alone. That's right, majority of tax receipts just go for one single line item..aka Interest payments. May be the mentally challenged "mainstream" parties that you seem to favor over the one sane person (Ron Paul) don't want to account for the exception conditions, but those of us who care about this country are genuinely concerned.

    By the way, 10% interest rates are very much with in the realm of possibilities. Back in 1980s interest rates reached > 15%.

  • brian.​shapiro

    , Srikanth_t wrote

    *snip*

    Oh ok. Obama is doing Theatrics then. There... is that good enough for ya ? There is no real interest in *actually* addressing the issue he says he is addressing. In fact there is no real interest in addressing the deficit but all a bunch of deceptive talk like a typical street side performer. He is the one who initiated this "tax the rich" talk...supposedly to address the deficit. That makes him a dishonest person at best and a liar at worst.

    Most of the Economically challenged "deficits don't matter" crowd seem to be having a hard time comprehending the real danger of such high Debt. In programming, we account for things called "exception conditions". On a current account debt of $16.5 trillion, if interest rates reach 10%, government will have to pay $1.6 trillion on just interest payments alone. That's right, majority of tax receipts just go for one single line item..aka Interest payments. May be the mentally challenged "mainstream" parties that you seem to favor over the one sane person (Ron Paul) don't want to account for the exception conditions, but those of us who care about this country are genuinely concerned.

    By the way, 10% interest rates are very much with in the realm of possibilities. Back in 1980s interest rates reached > 15%.

    I'd agree if you're talking about the inordinate focus on tax hikes, that's a bit of theatrics. 

    If you're talking about the practicality of it, it'll help some short-term deficit issues, like ongoing costs of the wars and so on, but then, after that, they have to move on to discussing big issues like Medicare and Social Security. That should have really been the focus of the election debates, imo... talking about entitlements. We got some little bit of that, but most of the election chatter got diverted into other issues.

    I don't think a tax hike on the wealthy would hurt the economy if you could separate out small businesses or give a tax credit to them. Tax credits for small businesses is something he proposed as a compromise, by the way, which I give him credit for. But I still don't understand why we're talking about it over issues like entitlement reform.

  • JohnAskew

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    *snip*

    I'd agree if you're talking about the inordinate focus on tax hikes, that's a bit of theatrics. 

    If you're talking about the practicality of it, it'll help some short-term deficit issues, like ongoing costs of the wars and so on, but then, after that, they have to move on to discussing big issues like Medicare and Social Security. That should have really been the focus of the election debates, imo... talking about entitlements. We got some little bit of that, but most of the election chatter got diverted into other issues.

    I don't think a tax hike on the wealthy would hurt the economy if you could separate out small businesses or give a tax credit to them. Tax credits for small businesses is something he proposed as a compromise, by the way, which I give him credit for. But I still don't understand why we're talking about it over issues like entitlement reform.

    We talk about tax cuts because that's what makes us smile.

    No one wants to do real work, because that means economic austerity for the U.S.A.

    Today, we, as a culture, are too selfish to do real work, too selfish for austere economic measures.

  • Srikanth_t

    , JohnAskew wrote

    The budget was balanced. It is documented. Tricksey? Sure, it's politics. But the deficit under the Democrats is always far smaller than under Republicans. You may not promote the idea that wars started under Bush are Obama's spending ideas. You must subtract the two war costs from Obama's deficits to be honest about which party has the spending problem.

    The budget was not balanced. National debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency. The only way Clinton showed yearly deficit as Zero was by actually raiding the Social security trust fund. That's right, his administration moved money from the trust fund in to the current account, and showed a deficit of zero. It's called smoke and mirrors. But *National Debt* went up EVERY YEAR. Look it up. 

    Besides, I already pointed out to you that all of that money in to government coffers was all FAKE. It was based on a fake prosperity engineered by government financial engineering (Greenspan interest rates).

    Government doesn't declare Facebook is worth 100 billion, Wall Street does that -- and is always greedy wrong. Same with all other IPOs of ridiculousness. You want to blame government?

    Government doesn't micro-manage private corporations (unless they are insolvent). Misallocations are from private company decisions going after short-term profits.

    Again, clueless on why FaceBook IPO was so high in the first place. It is the government regulations that delayed the debut of facebook IPO. The myriad of government regulations means only expensive companies can afford to go public. The regular people should have gotten a chance to invest in FaceBook long ago, should have gotten a chance to really get in on the ground floor (so to speak). There are no $10million, $50million IPOs for people to invest anymore. Government has made it so expensive such that only after the big institutional investors have bid up the valuation, can they come in to the public market. If not for myriad of government  regulations, FaceBook would have gone public long ago.

    Besides, the point I was making in my earlier post about the market distortion caused by Government financial engineering has got nothing to do with IPO topic. Why are you switching the topic ? Are you trying to follow the logic of "let's justify one worse thing by pointing out to yet another worse thing" ? How does the incorrect facebook valuation justify the engineering a housing bubble ? Do you even realize the scale of Housing bubble ?  Facebook IPO is peanuts compared to the scale of housing bubble.

  • JohnAskew

    , Srikanth_t wrote

    *snip*

    The budget was not balanced. National debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency. The only way Clinton showed yearly deficit as Zero was by actually raiding the Social security trust fund. That's right, his administration moved money from the trust fund in to the current account, and showed a deficit of zero. It's called smoke and mirrors. But *National Debt* went up EVERY YEAR. Look it up. 

    Besides, I already pointed out to you that all of that money in to government coffers was all FAKE. It was based on a fake prosperity engineered by government financial engineering (Greenspan interest rates).

    *snip*

    Again, clueless on why FaceBook IPO was so high in the first place. It is the government regulations that delayed the debut of facebook IPO. The myriad of government regulations means only expensive companies can afford to go public. The regular people should have gotten a chance to invest in FaceBook long ago, should have gotten a chance to really get in on the ground floor (so to speak). There are no $10million, $50million IPOs for people to invest anymore. Government has made it so expensive such that only after the big institutional investors have bid up the valuation, can they come in to the public market. If not for myriad of government  regulations, FaceBook would have gone public long ago.

    Besides, the point I was making in my earlier post about the market distortion caused by Government financial engineering has got nothing to do with IPO topic. Why are you switching the topic ? Are you trying to follow the logic of "let's justify one worse thing by pointing out to yet another worse thing" ? How does the incorrect facebook valuation justify the engineering a housing bubble ? Do you even realize the scale of Housing bubble ?  Facebook IPO is peanuts compared to the scale of housing bubble.

    In a separate thread, I'd enjoy reading how the government's regulations prevent $10-50M IPO's.

    In the separate thread: How does the government force FB, for example, to wait years before it can go public, and then, finally, grossly overprice itself for it's IPO? Greed is greed, who's clueless?

     

    For this thread: The fact remains that the since 1970, Republican Presidents spend more than Democrat Presidents; most times for war, as you pointed out.

    For this thread: There is a very big difference between the Texan and New Hampshire Republicans. Mostly to do with social / fundamental religious conservatism. New Hampshire are the Republicans of Lincoln, socially liberal. Southern Republicans are well represented by students at Ol' Miss ranting racial epitaths at Obama's reelection, plus the secession baloney -- social hebephrenics. The GOP is going to be torn apart during the next 4 years and a new party will hopefully emerge...

  • JohnAskew

    Housing bubble is for a seperate thread, too.

    My relatives had been warning me of the housing bubble (realtors) since 1988, when I started house hunting. In 1998 when I bought a house, I was advised by my relatives to "buy the cheapest home in the nicest neighborhood so that I could get out quickly and not ever go upside down". Good advice. It worked.

    The housing bubble is not only a governmental mistake, it also involves those originating junk loans. In fact, I'd say the 'honor system' will place the blame totally on loan originators, not policy. But this, again, is for a separate thread...

  • BitFlipper

    All I can say is that Bush got 8 years to @$#&* up the country. Obama should get 8 years to fix it.

  • Srikanth_t

    , JohnAskew wrote

    *snip*

    In a separate thread, I'd enjoy reading how the government's regulations prevent $10-50M IPO's.

    In the separate thread: How does the government force FB, for example, to wait years before it can go public, and then, finally, grossly overprice itself for it's IPO? Greed is greed, who's clueless?

    This article explains all I wanted to say on this topic. Please read

    For this thread: The fact remains that the since 1970, Republican Presidents spend more than Democrat Presidents; most times for war, as you pointed out.

    For this thread: There is a very big difference between the Texan and New Hampshire Republicans. Mostly to do with social / fundamental religious conservatism. New Hampshire are the Republicans of Lincoln, socially liberal. Southern Republicans are well represented by students at Ol' Miss ranting racial epitaths at Obama's reelection, plus the secession baloney -- social hebephrenics. The GOP is going to be torn apart during the next 4 years and a new party will hopefully emerge...

    You make it sound like we Ron Paul supporters don't fault the Republican presidents. As you might already know, Ron Paul criticized Bush heavily. He even called Bush's foreign policy "demented". You are raising non-existing argument...atleast with me. Republican presidents not only wasted tons of money on wars but also actually turned in to liberals in the domestic policies. Like Bush's prescription drug program and highway spending. 

    Mitt Romney is a "northern" Repub..and the staunchest NeoCon there ever was. We all know about the illustrious Rick Santorum. You seem to be placing too much optimism on your "Northerners". When the heads are not screwed right, it doesn't make a difference whether you are a Notherner or a Southerner.

    When it comes to being attracting young people with socially liberal policies, Ron Paul already proved he can bring in thousands of people. The only survival for Republican party is if they move towards libertarians.

  • TexasToast

    , Srikanth_t wrote

    When it comes to being attracting young people with socially liberal policies, Ron Paul already proved he can bring in thousands of people. The only survival for Republican party is if they move towards libertarians.

    I am with you on that.  I bet JohnAskew has never been to a Ron Paul rally.   Ron Paul has a lot of support it just gets suppressed by the media.   Anyway I think Ron Paul is done running again but someone will need to carry the torch for him.   I do not see anyone from the North in the republican party that has any chance.   

    The republicans need an answer so they stop pandering to the southern holy rollers.  This works in a regional election but fails nationally.   Ron Paul did not pander to anyone.

  • brian.​shapiro

    , TexasToast wrote

    *snip*

    I am with you on that.  I bet JohnAskew has never been to a Ron Paul rally.   Ron Paul has a lot of support it just gets suppressed by the media.   Anyway I think Ron Paul is done running again but someone will need to carry the torch for him.   I do not see anyone from the North in the republican party that has any chance.   

    The republicans need an answer so they stop pandering to the southern holy rollers.  This works in a regional election but fails nationally.   Ron Paul did not pander to anyone.

    Just a reality check: Ron Paul at the polls is attracting young people, but only young white males. Very few young women, minorities are showing up to vote for him. If Republicans have a demographics problem, so does Ron Paul x 10. I've read a lot of grumbling from some libertarians that the libertarian movement has to move towards the left to survive.

    Also: liberal states like California also still prove to be relatively split on social issues. The demographics may or may not to be moving against conservatives, but we're talking years down the line, when all the baby boomers are dead.

    I'm just saying reality is a bit more complex than people's perception of things. We need to get the media back to reality, and back to discussing actual issues of importance, like Medicare and SS, the war in Afghanistan, trade agreements, and even social issues, which are as valid to talk about as anything -- and away from distracting drama about what gaffe Romney made or what gaffe Obama made or whether young voters like Ron Paul or who is really being racist who "broke" the economy or which general is sleeping with whom.

  • TexasToast

    @brian.shapiro:Brian, nice comment except for one part.  Ron Paul is not a racist.   That whole story is BS and do not spread it.   I am not young(not old either) and I like Ron Paul.  I have enough money where I do not worry but I want my kids to have a good life.

  • brian.​shapiro

    , TexasToast wrote

    @brian.shapiro:Brian, nice comment except for one part.  Ron Paul is not a racist.   That whole story is BS and do not spread it.   I am not young(not old either) and I like Ron Paul.  I have enough money where I do not worry but I want my kids to have a good life.

    I'm not, I think its BS too. That's another "gotcha" thing by the media, a distraction from talking about the issues. I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul isn't necessarily a magic bullet for the GOP since he can't seem to do better than the mainstream GOP candidates with other demographics.

    In general, I think the GOP and politics in general needs to move a little bit away from the "demographics debate" and focus on making arguments. If the GOP has good arguments they can persuade the demographics they need to win, the numbers as they stand don't matter. They also shouldn't give up positions they think they hold on principle just in order to pander and win votes. Obama isn't helping either, though, he made the election entirely about demographics too.

  • JohnAskew

    , TexasToast wrote

    @brian.shapiro:Brian, nice comment except for one part.  Ron Paul is not a racist.   That whole story is BS and do not spread it.   I am not young(not old either) and I like Ron Paul.  I have enough money where I do not worry but I want my kids to have a good life.

    Who called Ron Paul a racist? And why? I can't see anything in this thread, Tex...

    => .HasNeverBeenToAnyPaulRally()

    brian. the arguments ARE demographically identifiable. 

    GOP arguments need to widen to bring women, hispanics, and young compassionate voters to presidential races. And they need to expunge the southern racists from their platform. They will not get it done in 2 years, and I suspect it will be a scramble for 4.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @JohnAskew:

    , JohnAskew wrote

    I'd like to see them run the southern racists out of the GOP wholesale so that they can form their own southern white t-party - perhaps those racist Republican university students at Ol' Miss can champion a new redneck t-party and give the educated and decent northerner back his GOP.

    And I can quote some of your other replies as wel.

    If the southeners are racists, why did 40% of Texas vote for Obama?

    And what do you think of the 93% of the African American vote for Obama? Or the 70+% of the Hispanics and Asians? Howcome that number is so unbalanced?

    Are you aware that the 40% in Texas is very close to the 41% White vote for Obama?

    Just my 2cents,.

  • evildictait​or

    I'd like to see them run the southern racists out of the GOP.

     

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    If the southeners are racists, why did 40% of Texas vote for Obama?

    Sorry, Maddus, but no.

    ThereExists(X where X is southern and X is racist and X is in the GOP) does not imply ForAll(X where X is southern implies X is a racist).

    Learn some basic logic or tone down your rhetoric and then try again.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.