2012 US Presidential Election

[Ixarku]

I'll do that when the democrats stop yapping about how they saved GM and how Obama created 2 million jobs.

Again, you're over-generalizing.  Do you really think every Democrat or liberal believes everything that comes out of the Obama administration?  I'll give you a hint -- we don't.  If you think we do, you're just buying into a different angle of the media hype.

[Burkingam]

According to Monkeyfinger's definition of democrats, I don't think anybody here is one.

[Ixarku]

According to Monkeyfinger's definition of democrats, I don't think anybody here is one.

WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG.
 
Oh well, fuck it.  I just hope the whole 'fiscal cliff' bullshit gets worked out before year end.  If the tales are true, it's not going to hurt me as badly as it will some people, but it would be nice to have enough money next to take another trip next year as I've planned.

[Nikkoru]

I'll do that when the democrats stop yapping about how they saved GM and how Obama created 2 million jobs.

Again, you're over-generalizing.  Do you really think every Democrat or liberal believes everything that comes out of the Obama administration?  I'll give you a hint -- we don't.  If you think we do, you're just buying into a different angle of the media hype.

I don't see how they're comparable, intellectually or practically. Whether or not I believe those events occurred the way the Obama administration describes them is indicative of nothing, really. It's simply an assessment of facts, skewed perhaps towards a partisan end, but Monkeyfinger is perpetrating the same thing through the tone of cynicism in his criticism.

Besides, how exactly are American businesses under Republicans so different? Have the Republicans not perpetrated subsidies, bailouts, free trade, and corporate welfare in general? It seems to me the only people that Republicans believe that the government owes are corporations.

I believe corporations do owe their employees a living  --  and that the government has been making sure they get it.

[Burkingam]

I believe corporations do owe their employees a living  --  and that the government has been making sure they get it.

Kinda. Not enough IMO. Certainly not if it was only for conservatives seeing how they are generally all about reducing or banning minimum wages.

[Nikkoru]

I believe corporations do owe their employees a living  --  and that the government has been making sure they get it.

Kinda. Not enough IMO. Certainly not if it was only for conservatives seeing how they are generally all about reducing or banning minimum wages.

Moreso than say, the 19th century. I suppose I'd rephrase that as "should be making sure". I think the emphasis on appeasing "job creators", toppling unions, and the globalization of the work force is going to undermine this. The standards are going to be set by private sector, and we're just going to have to live with it.

[Monkeyfinger]

Leave it to Nik to speak the cold hard truth. I have nothing but scorn for republican backed farm subsidies and the like.

On the other hand, Burk and Zherok are the poster children for the democrat party. Reagan pinned their approach to governing pretty accurately - If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

[zherok]

On the other hand, Burk and Zherok are the poster children for the democrat party. Reagan pinned their approach to governing pretty accurately - If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

I've not mentioned increasing taxes outside of a single reference to the pre-Bush II level tax rates. I'm a strong believer in public education, but I don't think I'm alone in that here.

I don't really know where you got this idea I was calling for taxing the shit out of everything, but you can jaybug sure seem to love to jump to that conclusion.

[Burkingam]

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

If a conservative said, for example, "there shouldn't be any regulation regarding the use of CFC", then it's pretty easy to explain why that would be a very bad idea, but that's not what you usually hear. What you hear is "them liberals are always creating useless regulation". Notice how it's much harder to refute such a vague statements. There is a name for this kind of deliberate vagueness, it's called obscurantism.

Other than that, yeah this kind of statement is definitely what you'd expect from a republicans: short, catchy, simple enough that even an idiot would understand and completely disconnected from reality. I hope not even you are so disconnected from reality to think that there is no reason whatsoever why the left doesn't share your enthusiasm for tax cuts.

[Monkeyfinger]

Hey I never said we need tax cuts, I'm fine with the status quo. If we can get people working and companies making money, and actually paying income taxes, we wouldn't have to hear about trillion dollar deficits every year.

I can name several regulations that do nothing but make life suck. Bans on indoor smoking in my home state of Washington, for example. How am I supposed to pick up chicks if I can't look cool in a bar? And New York banning large soft drinks? These are just recent examples in certain states, but its this kind of nanny state crap that just rubs me the wrong way.

edit - ok maybe I don't entirely support the status quo, America's corporate tax rate is way too high, and there are way too many loopholes and deductions. Tackling this was actually one of Romney's few strengths and I think he could have been successful. Zherok, if you support Obama, then you support taxing the shit out of businesses, because there is no way in hell Obama or the democrat senate will successfully lower the taxes American businesses pay. All the plans he's put forth come with too many strings attached.

[Burkingam]

Ah so you are against social engineering are you?

[Monkeyfinger]

I'm against anything with the word "social" in it.

[AceHigh]

Ah so you are against social engineering are you?

Who isn't? "Social engineering" has such a negative connotation to it, that only the most retarded people would support it... and I mean retarded as in down syndrome, those who literally can't feed themselves less the want to poke their own eyes out with a fork. The rest of us see social engineering as a revolting kindergarten power play by the politicians in order to cure symptoms of the problems instead of it's root.

[zherok]

edit - ok maybe I don't entirely support the status quo, America's corporate tax rate is way too high, and there are way too many loopholes and deductions. Tackling this was actually one of Romney's few strengths and I think he could have been successful. Zherok, if you support Obama, then you support taxing the shit out of businesses, because there is no way in hell Obama or the democrat senate will successfully lower the taxes American businesses pay. All the plans he's put forth come with too many strings attached.

We don't really know what he would have done, since his only specifics were a broad and arbitrary tax cut across the board.

You talk about strings attached but Romney is sort of the embodiment of that. It's not even disguised here; the foremost concern was to cut personal income taxes, which overwhelmingly benefit the rich over the middle class and poor. As if it's impossible to help Walmart workers without first giving a massive return for the Waltons. If they weren't going to spend their money now they aren't going to after a 20% tax cut either. And again, it's the only thing we even really know about what Romney wanted to do. I think we have an idea what his priorities were when "adding 12 million jobs to the economy" is just something he'd magically conjure out of the ether rather than something attached to an actual policy.

It's all recycled trickle down nonsense. I've quoted it before, but here's the facts, the economy does better under Democrats than it does Republicans.

I don't agree with Obama on everything. But for the last election I didn't have to. Romney was an exceptionally shitty candidate. The baggage was severe. And I don't really think he was all that worried about the small businessman so much as the prestige of the office and helping people like himself. Add that on top of the regressive social policies and overly aggressive posturing and I can't say I have any regrets. I'd settle for Obama managing to get little to nothing done over letting Romney have the chance to pick a couple supreme court nominees.

[Burkingam]

Ah so you are against social engineering are you?

Who isn't? "Social engineering" has such a negative connotation to it, that only the most retarded people would support it... and I mean retarded as in down syndrome, those who literally can't feed themselves less the want to poke their own eyes out with a fork. The rest of us see social engineering as a revolting kindergarten power play by the politicians in order to cure symptoms of the problems instead of it's root.

Are you an anarchist, AceHigh? And if not, can you name me one thing, any thing, that the government could do that you would support and that isn't social engineering or doesn't require social engineering? Remember if you can't that would make you retarded by your own criteria.

[Ixarku]

I can name several regulations that do nothing but make life suck. Bans on indoor smoking in my home state of Washington, for example. How am I supposed to pick up chicks if I can't look cool in a bar? And New York banning large soft drinks? These are just recent examples in certain states, but its this kind of nanny state crap that just rubs me the wrong way.

Both are good examples of liberals going too far with regulations.  This is stuff that I agree are simply ridiculous.  I think it's reasonable to regulate business to keep the playing field fair, but I don't need government to control my behavior to this degree as a consumer.

[Nikkoru]

Banning smoking in bars has a lot do with with preventing toxic working conditions for the staff. That's why it was implemented here, considering the rates of cancer among people in that sector of the service industry it seems pretty justified to me. Your phallus-enhancing stupidity aside.

And yes, it is the states' job to ensure employers don't expose their employees to deadly chemicals on a daily basis simply because they're more concerned with their patrons' money than their committing slow and painful manslaughter.

As for soft drinks cup sizes, there are better ways for governments to influence health. They could, for instance, put a small tax on escalating sizes of beverages so were less inclined to ingest so much. Or, better still, simply ensure people are better educated about nutrition and fund programs to develop a more health-inclined culture in your city. Banning them outright simply antagonizes people and doesn't change the fact that they still have poor eating habits.

[occasional]

As for soft drinks cup sizes, there are better ways for governments to influence health. They could, for instance, put a small tax on escalating sizes of beverages so were less inclined to ingest so much. Or, better still, simply ensure people are better educated about nutrition and fund programs to develop a more health-inclined culture in your city. Banning them outright simply antagonizes people and doesn't change the fact that they still have poor eating habits.

Would've made much more sense to ban free refills.

[AceHigh]

Are you an anarchist, AceHigh? And if not, can you name me one thing, any thing, that the government could do that you would support and that isn't social engineering or doesn't require social engineering? Remember if you can't that would make you retarded by your own criteria.

Laws that are built on reason. Not allowed to murder, robbing people, age of consent, traffic laws, and other laws in that category.

What I am against are laws that specifically aim to change our habits which is social engineering: Food and drinks restrictions and regulations, smoking bans in privately owned establishments, ban on homosexual activities between adults, taxation or subsidy that aims to change behaviour, etc...

If you can't see the difference between those, then you might want to be careful next time you wield that fork at the dinner table.

[Tiffanys]

Smoking bans are fine, and I support them... Second hand smoke is more deadly than smoking itself, beyond how physically uncomfortable it is for some people to be around. My body basically treats it like a full on alergen and the smell is so horrendous that there's no way I could eat around it.

Smoking and non-smoking areas are fine, but if an owner doesn't want their establishment to smell like shit then there's no reason they should have to cater to smokers (and if it's somewhere that has waiters or something, then it's a health hazard to them, too!). It's a disgusting archaic deadly habit that needs to be done away with to begin with...