BF2S Forums Palin Edging to 2012 Run, Says She's Willing to 'Give It a Shot'

Harmor wrote:

@A: Obviously.  So the 80s were not a recession, but the largest peacetime expansion of the United States, right?

Sure, and led to the recession of 1989-1990 and the 2007-Present recession. But the 80s sure were cool.

@C: Social issues aren't as important now when you have this kind of economy.  When times are good, you're right, social issues would definiately be more of a campaign issue than economic issues.  Remember Clinton and "Its the Economy Stupid?" campaign slogan?

Social issues are never important. It shouldn't be the governments business to pick which form of morality is 'the winner'.

So supporting candiates that want to lower taxes is means that they are idiotic?  You know you can pay more to the IRS then what they say you should pay?  The private sector will to alot better in pulling up out of this recession that having the government spend the money on stimulus fund (need I remind you that we recently spent $2 million per stimulus job here in L.A?).

Yes, lowering taxes is idiotic when the other talking point is the national debt. If you're ok with expanding the debt, cut taxes. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I guess Conservaties will `trot` on Regan's corpse while Liberials have been `trotting` on Roosevelt's corpse for decades now.  I guess its only fitting that everyone has a hero to look up to.

Cool. A pissing match over two of the three worst Presidents from the prior century. Groovy.

As an aside, I want to thank you JohnG@lt.  Its not often I get into a these kind of debates - its rare for me.  But you're doing me a favor by learning to defend Conservative principles against Liberal attacks.  You're really are helping me get my ducks in a row in formulating my arguments to Liberal counter arguments.  And also allowed me to research some bills and programs that did in fact have some unintended consequences, I'll give you that.

+1

Yeah, except you're using it to reinforce your already mistaken assumptions. You haven't beaten me on a single point or proven me wrong yet.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Harmor wrote:

@A: Obviously.  So the 80s were not a recession, but the largest peacetime expansion of the United States, right?

Sure, and led to the recession of 1989-1990 and the 2007-Present recession. But the 80s sure were cool.

Yep, we agree on that   :-P

JohnG@lt wrote:

@C: Social issues aren't as important now when you have this kind of economy.  When times are good, you're right, social issues would definiately be more of a campaign issue than economic issues.  Remember Clinton and "Its the Economy Stupid?" campaign slogan?

Social issues are never important. It shouldn't be the governments business to pick which form of morality is 'the winner'.

What about 'Abortion' politics?  When times are good that seems to be an issue brought up in many elections?

JohnG@lt wrote:

So supporting candiates that want to lower taxes is means that they are idiotic?  You know you can pay more to the IRS then what they say you should pay?  The private sector will to alot better in pulling up out of this recession that having the government spend the money on stimulus fund (need I remind you that we recently spent $2 million per stimulus job here in L.A?).

Yes, lowering taxes is idiotic when the other talking point is the national debt. If you're ok with expanding the debt, cut taxes. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

If we're talking about deficits need I remind everyone that Obama has spent more since the beginning on our country's founding til Reagan.  And what do we have to show for it?  Nearly 10% unemployment?  Nationalized banks, auto companies, student loans, and Obamacare that's going to rip this country a new asshole in entitlment spending.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I guess Conservaties will `trot` on Regan's corpse while Liberials have been `trotting` on Roosevelt's corpse for decades now.  I guess its only fitting that everyone has a hero to look up to.

Cool. A pissing match over two of the three worst Presidents from the prior century. Groovy.

Actually Carter was the worst president in the 20th century in my book.

JohnG@lt wrote:

As an aside, I want to thank you JohnG@lt.  Its not often I get into a these kind of debates - its rare for me.  But you're doing me a favor by learning to defend Conservative principles against Liberal attacks.  You're really are helping me get my ducks in a row in formulating my arguments to Liberal counter arguments.  And also allowed me to research some bills and programs that did in fact have some unintended consequences, I'll give you that.

+1

Yeah, except you're using it to reinforce your already mistaken assumptions. You haven't beaten me on a single point or proven me wrong yet.

I'm not trying to `beat you` or demonize you.  Its funny how you are the one with all the personal attacks.  There's a book you may want to read:

JohnG@lt wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ve.svg.png

Let me reintroduce you to the Laffer Curve. I'm sure you've seen it before, it was popularized under Reagan.

Since the highest tax rate in America is currently sitting at 34.4%, this will rise to 39.6% if the Bush tax cuts expire. Now, charting based on the graph above, will tax revenue increase or decrease based on where the new rate will be on the Laffer Curve?

I've always seen it rotated 90% to the right.

I do not believe that increasing taxes on anyone is prudent to continue the `recovery`.

When you tax something more you encourage less of it.

No one likes paying taxes Harmor. I would love them abolished completely if it were feasible. I would love the government to be shrunk down to a minimal level. It's not going to happen so what I'm presenting to you is reality instead of my ideal stylized world. My ideal world will never exist. I accept that. So I have to take into account the fact that people in this country don't want Social Security to go away, they don't want Medicare to go away. They've planned their lives around the fact that it will exist one day for them to use and you can't pull the rug out from under them now. So be it.

Because I live in the really real world and not some mythical small government world, I understand and accept that taxes have to be maintained at a certain level in order for us not to fall off a cliff economically and financially. It's called being fiscally prudent. Running deficits in order to save people a few thousand dollars on their tax receipts should never be the goal. That's just kicking the can down the road for another generation to get stuck paying the bill. I'm six months short of thirty years old and what I see ahead of me is a lifetime of paying other peoples debts, debts that exist because they didn't want to pay the taxes necessary to fund their lifestyle. Faced with default and/or hyperinflation, my generation doesn't have the ability to kick the can. We're stuck. Frankly, we should be trying to fleece the babyboomers for as much as we can now before they saunter off into a retirement they never paid for, but for which I will be stuck with the bill.

Is Obama and the Democrat party a bunch of economic fools? Yes, but so are the Republicans. Combined, they've done a very good job of diminishing the future prosperity of this nation while saddling it with crushing tax burdens in the future.

On the subject of Palin though, as long as she appears to be interested in running for President, she makes money. As soon as she says she won't, the media loses interest in her and so she makes less. So who knows what she actually wants to do.

You do realize the Federal Income Tax didn't even exist before F.D.R. Some how we got along without it. 
          Also a smaller government. even a smaller IRS for that matter, would need less funding to support it.
         You could decimate the I.R.S. just by instating a Flat Tax. Senate and Congressional staffs could be limited.

                 It is not Unfeasible or Naive to think you could easily shrink the Government safely.
           Not to mention other government institutions that were supposed to be temporary or quick fixes.
                                         You could make a pretty big list.
                    I think very few people here have a grasp of what the Tea Party is about.
           It is understandable with the effort put into slandering it. You can see their efforts echoed verbatim.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-21 12:51:20)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Federal Income Tax didn't even exist before F.D.R.

Wikipedia wrote:

The federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, partnerships, companies, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates. Some state and municipal governments also impose income taxes. The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment  was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

Last edited by Doctor Strangelove (2010-09-21 12:51:29)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

You do realize the Federal Income Tax didn't even exist before F.D.R. Some how we got along without it. 
          Also a smaller government. even a smaller IRS for that matter, would need less funding to support it.
         You could decimate the I.R.S. just by instating a Flat Tax. Senate and Congressional staffs could be limited.

                 It is not Unfeasible or Naive to think you could easily shrink the Government safely.
           Not to mention other government institutions that were supposed to be temporary or quick fixes.
                                         You could make a pretty big list.
                    I think very few people here have a grasp of what the Tea Party is about.
           It is understandable with the effort put into slandering it. You can see their efforts echoed verbatim.

There are certainly sane ways to reduce government, but the question is whether special interests will allow for it.

For example, we could reduce military spending by tons by not getting as involved in foreign conflicts.

We could reduce law enforcement spending by legalizing weed and ending mandatory drug sentencing.

We could decrease the costs of illegals by reforming the citizenship process and opening up more visas for immigrants.

We could end all agricultural subsidies.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-21 12:58:31)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

The most significant impact on the individual income tax that I was referring to was to

Take it out of the working mans pay before he received it and then ask him to try and get some back

if he was deemed entitled to it

Collection was ensured by the adoption of payroll withholding.
We are so used to that term we don't even think about it. Our Grand Parents must have been stunned !
          a Draconian shift in policy

That was what I was referring to. I was'nt Clear and Honestly didnt know about the Civil War tax acts.

Though your post was more accurate and with greater detail,

That jump to the adoption of payroll withholding changed everything and it never changed back. it was supposed to !

instead it transformed  to a mass tax that was broadly based and progressive.

Before that Large businesses were responsible for Federal Taxes.

In 1941, changes were made to both rates and base.
Higher tax rates were adopted and lower exemptions were allowed,
thus expanding the base exponentially in my opinion .
Higher tax rates were adopted again in 1942. With the inclusion of a surtax, tax rates ranged from 13 percent on the first $2000 of taxable income to 82 percent on taxable income in excess of $200,000. The number of taxpayers increased from 3.9 million in 1939 to 42.6 million in 1945. At the end of the war, 60 percent of households paid the income tax.  By 1944, the individual income tax generated about 40 percent of federal revenues.

DIAF.

die in a fire

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DIAF.

wat?

Die In A Fire
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=D.I.A.F.

Its also a reply by trolls to completely belittle their opponent by refuting their point by not and instead just wishing them dead.

Other similar replies could be:

Myth

Fuck Off

and the always classic:

Whatever

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

die in a fire

ah...  that's a new one for me...

no i have told you that before