Here's My Summary on the GOP Folks

[Ray From Cleveland]

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

The progressives believe that government can and should solve our problems, therefore they propose expanding the government with new programs. These programs cost money, so they raise taxes.
The conservatives believe that government should have limited functions, therefore they propose cutting government programs. They need less money, so they lower taxes.
Ultimately, it's on a single principle: what role should the government play, and why? So?

That my dear is listed in our US Constitution. It's under the heading Powers of Congress.

Our federal government is slowly becoming a nanny state. It may take a couple more decades under Democrat leadership before we finally become such a place, but if voters don't wise up, that's exactly the way it will be.

Our founders didn't create a federal government to supply the people with everything. Our government is not supposed to be a lending institution, it's not supposed to be bailing out industries, it's not supposed to be multiple charities. Our federal government is supposed to do one thing--Govern.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[SwimExpert]

The motive of his proposals does not alter the fact that his plans rely on the assumption I mentioned.

Apparently you didn't understand anything I said. No, his plans do not rely on the assumptions you mentioned. His plans rely on the belief that the it doesn't matter if taxing wealthy people will pay for the programs. The goals is to combat inequality. Sanders believes that combating inequality will in the long term result in the government will achieving lower deficits than will result from allowing inequality to continue ballooning. It's not an unreasonable belief. If we could reduce inequality it would reduce reliance on government programs in the first place.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

The progressives believe that government can and should solve our problems, therefore they propose expanding the government with new programs. These programs cost money, so they raise taxes.
The conservatives believe that government should have limited functions, therefore they propose cutting government programs. They need less money, so they lower taxes.
Ultimately, it's on a single principle: what role should the government play, and why? So?

That my dear is listed in our US Constitution. It's under the heading Powers of Congress.

Our federal government is slowly becoming a nanny state. It may take a couple more decades under Democrat leadership before we finally become such a place, but if voters don't wise up, that's exactly the way it will be.

Our founders didn't create a federal government to supply the people with everything. Our government is not supposed to be a lending institution, it's not supposed to be bailing out industries, it's not supposed to be multiple charities. Our federal government is supposed to do one thing--Govern.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Unfortunately, the constitution is a scroll of paper to be interpreted by those who try to apply it. I am sure that people with different beliefs tend to interpret it differently. Just like some believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional while others insist the opposite based on the same text, it is very difficult to convince anyone without your belief that the constitution limits the government. In fact, they may try to convince you to believe the contrary. It's kinda funny, isn't?

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

The motive of his proposals does not alter the fact that his plans rely on the assumption I mentioned.

Apparently you didn't understand anything I said. No, his plans do not rely on the assumptions you mentioned. His plans rely on the belief that the it doesn't matter if taxing wealthy people will pay for the programs. The goals is to combat inequality. Sanders believes that combating inequality will in the long term result in the government will achieving lower deficits than will result from allowing inequality to continue ballooning. It's not an unreasonable belief. If we could reduce inequality it would reduce reliance on government programs in the first place.

You remind me of my English teacher, now I'm dazed and ready to watch some debate!
Don't get mad, just kidding (not the debate part, you know...)!

 

[SwimExpert]

The motive of his proposals does not alter the fact that his plans rely on the assumption I mentioned.

Apparently you didn't understand anything I said. No, his plans do not rely on the assumptions you mentioned. His plans rely on the belief that the it doesn't matter if taxing wealthy people will pay for the programs. The goals is to combat inequality. Sanders believes that combating inequality will in the long term result in the government will achieving lower deficits than will result from allowing inequality to continue ballooning. It's not an unreasonable belief. If we could reduce inequality it would reduce reliance on government programs in the first place.

You remind me of my English teacher, now I'm dazed and ready to watch some debate!
Don't get mad, just kidding (not the debate part, you know...)!

Well, my sister might be offended to hear you say that. She was the English major.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

The progressives believe that government can and should solve our problems, therefore they propose expanding the government with new programs. These programs cost money, so they raise taxes.
The conservatives believe that government should have limited functions, therefore they propose cutting government programs. They need less money, so they lower taxes.
Ultimately, it's on a single principle: what role should the government play, and why? So?

That my dear is listed in our US Constitution. It's under the heading Powers of Congress.

Our federal government is slowly becoming a nanny state. It may take a couple more decades under Democrat leadership before we finally become such a place, but if voters don't wise up, that's exactly the way it will be.

Our founders didn't create a federal government to supply the people with everything. Our government is not supposed to be a lending institution, it's not supposed to be bailing out industries, it's not supposed to be multiple charities. Our federal government is supposed to do one thing--Govern.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Unfortunately, the constitution is a scroll of paper to be interpreted by those who try to apply it. I am sure that people with different beliefs tend to interpret it differently. Just like some believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional while others insist the opposite based on the same text, it is very difficult to convince anyone without your belief that the constitution limits the government. In fact, they may try to convince you to believe the contrary. It's kinda funny, isn't?

It is true that some things in the Constitution are ambiguous, others are not such as the powers of Congress.

In the Powers of Congress, it does limit what the federal government is supposed to provide for the people. If it was the intent of government to provide us with whatever we wanted, there would be no listings of what they are to provide.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

The progressives believe that government can and should solve our problems, therefore they propose expanding the government with new programs. These programs cost money, so they raise taxes.
The conservatives believe that government should have limited functions, therefore they propose cutting government programs. They need less money, so they lower taxes.
Ultimately, it's on a single principle: what role should the government play, and why? So?

That my dear is listed in our US Constitution. It's under the heading Powers of Congress.

Our federal government is slowly becoming a nanny state. It may take a couple more decades under Democrat leadership before we finally become such a place, but if voters don't wise up, that's exactly the way it will be.

Our founders didn't create a federal government to supply the people with everything. Our government is not supposed to be a lending institution, it's not supposed to be bailing out industries, it's not supposed to be multiple charities. Our federal government is supposed to do one thing--Govern.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Unfortunately, the constitution is a scroll of paper to be interpreted by those who try to apply it. I am sure that people with different beliefs tend to interpret it differently. Just like some believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional while others insist the opposite based on the same text, it is very difficult to convince anyone without your belief that the constitution limits the government. In fact, they may try to convince you to believe the contrary. It's kinda funny, isn't?

It is true that some things in the Constitution are ambiguous, others are not such as the powers of Congress.

In the Powers of Congress, it does limit what the federal government is supposed to provide for the people. If it was the intent of government to provide us with whatever we wanted, there would be no listings of what they are to provide.

Hmm... I got the idea, but again, someone with a different view would certainly say: hey, since it doesn't say no, we are definitely allowed to do it! Nobody can possibly arbitrate arguments like these (everyone can choose his/her side though), and those with the illusions may only wake up after paying tuition in practice... ><!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

The progressives believe that government can and should solve our problems, therefore they propose expanding the government with new programs. These programs cost money, so they raise taxes.
The conservatives believe that government should have limited functions, therefore they propose cutting government programs. They need less money, so they lower taxes.
Ultimately, it's on a single principle: what role should the government play, and why? So?

That my dear is listed in our US Constitution. It's under the heading Powers of Congress.

Our federal government is slowly becoming a nanny state. It may take a couple more decades under Democrat leadership before we finally become such a place, but if voters don't wise up, that's exactly the way it will be.

Our founders didn't create a federal government to supply the people with everything. Our government is not supposed to be a lending institution, it's not supposed to be bailing out industries, it's not supposed to be multiple charities. Our federal government is supposed to do one thing--Govern.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Unfortunately, the constitution is a scroll of paper to be interpreted by those who try to apply it. I am sure that people with different beliefs tend to interpret it differently. Just like some believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional while others insist the opposite based on the same text, it is very difficult to convince anyone without your belief that the constitution limits the government. In fact, they may try to convince you to believe the contrary. It's kinda funny, isn't?

It is true that some things in the Constitution are ambiguous, others are not such as the powers of Congress.

In the Powers of Congress, it does limit what the federal government is supposed to provide for the people. If it was the intent of government to provide us with whatever we wanted, there would be no listings of what they are to provide.

Hmm... I got the idea, but again, someone with a different view would certainly say: hey, since it doesn't say no, we are definitely allowed to do it! Nobody can possibly arbitrate arguments like these (everyone can choose his/her side though), and those with the illusions may only wake up after paying tuition in practice... ><!

Oh, I've addressed that argument before when debating. My response is if our founders were to think of everything the government can't do, then the Constitution would be longer than the ACA. This is why they decided to list what the government CAN do instead.

 

[rightwinger]

Not all of Bernie's proposals work (though most do), but his integrity is what this country needs. He has more of it in spades than any other candidate in the race.

Of course the republicans make Hillary look like Bernie so I would take either one.

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

We better take care of our rich people
Otherwise they might get mad and leave us

Thank you Ayn Rand

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

We better take care of our rich people
Otherwise they might get mad and leave us

Thank you Ayn Rand

If we could somehow put all our poor on an island somewhere, not only would they not be missed, but it would benefit us as a society.

Take all the rich people and do the same, the country collapses.

Remember that the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes. The wealthy are the main support of our country. And the reason liberals hate that is because they think the government is the main support of our country. Well guess what? Without those rich people, government is nothing because they would have no money to spend.