• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arde5643

Member
mAcOdIn said:
I'll check out the link, we'll see. Not happy with either candidate so my vote still is in the air.


As for why I still skew Republican? Funny you ask. Because outside of what I call, hope is, fringe shit like gay marriage bans I actually support the majority of the platform. I want less government, less taxation and less spending. Well the Democrats flat out disagree with 2 of those. So on the face of it, I can't in good conscious agree with the Democrats.

Because the Republican party has traditionally been more irresponsible than the Democrats also doesn't really matter since that doesn't really say how well or bad either McCain or Obama would do if elected. So that's a non issue to me. I mean, it works on a statistical level but not on a personal level you know?

Further, just once I'd like to see a candidate deliver on their promises, just once. Us voting on what we think a candidate will do versus what they say is a dangerous precedent in my opinion. I think that basically they should be forced to deliver, if it fails it fails but at least it was put forth, and I frankly don't understand why Democrats aren't mad at the Democratic party for being so half-assed with their proposals as they sure as hell aint what you guys wanted either. It would be nice if there was a way to make a President accountable for what they say they will do versus what they actually try to do. I think lying to gain votes from special interest groups and shit like that should be illegal.


This time I really am fucked because McCain is basically staying just to the left of the Democrats which is really pissing me off because I think that if you are going to spend the money and make the program you should go all out on it. So if we are going to do shit like universal health care and all these other issues I disagree with, I at least want lots of money thrown at them and for them to be effective instead of joke bullet points some candidate gets approved for good marks that sucks ass and ends up being a pain in the ass for the average American. I mean, if we're going to go socialism at least go all the way I guess.


Yeah, you pretty much has jumped the shark here. This is basically one of the effects of cynicism - fuck it, everyone's the same! Let me keep my eyes shut and my ears blocked! La la la la la la !
Everyone's fucking the same thing! So let me just vote the party I've always voted in the past.
The American people did that in 2000 and 2004 and look where the fuck we are now.
If you want to remain so cynical, go ahead and do so, but you're not doing anything for yourself and for this country.

I'm not asking you to vote for Obama, but your reason for voting for Republican is so cynical it's disgusting. Have some more respect of your own vote, man!
 
MacOdin said:
I want less government, less taxation and less spending.
Since when has the GOP ever given this?

All they do is fake one of them by borrowing from China such that they lower taxe rates . . . but it is illusory since you still owe all those taxes but with interest now too.
 

thekad

Banned
Mandark: Yeah, I saw it, thanks. It was the current law/current policy thing that was confusing me. The Bush administration has been pretty clever with their accounting practices.
 
Arde5643 said:
Quick, someone show this poor soul the cartoon with the graphs between the presidents from Reagan to Bush Jr. on the deficit and surplus.

Protip: it's not the reps who are fiscal conservatives.
GOPAndDemDeficitCartoon.jpg
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Boogie said:
I'm not sure how much current Republican foreign policy can be compared with Cold War foreign policy, considering how broad the anti-communist and interventionist sentiment was during the Cold War.

Yeah, the post-WW2 pre-Vietnam consensus was a... consensus. The neocon war on terror not so much.

The point of my post was that I disagree when people treat the neocons like a recent development and a departure from traditional Republican foreign policy.

The animating impulses behind the movement (disdain for multilateral institutions, a willingness to go to war, a good vs. evil worldview) are generally the same as the ones which found a home in the GOP before.

When people accused FDR and Truman of appeasement in Eastern Europe and Taiwan and when Reagan took a much harder line against the USSR, those were similar dynamics.

The party was never really "isolationist" even when Pat Buchanan was regularly pulling in protest votes to the tune of 20% in 92. There was just no obvious enemy, so the sovereignist issues took front state (so far as any foreign policy issue was front stage at that time).

So basically: Neocons not sui generis. Paleocons overrated.
 

Trakdown

Member
speculawyer said:
Since when has the GOP ever given this?

All they do is fake one of them by borrowing from China such that they lower taxe rates . . . but it is illusory since you still owe all those taxes but with interest now too.

Like Obama said, "They can't govern, but they sure can win elections".
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Arde5643 said:
The thing is I don't want to elect a party in the first place, there's just no choices, I want to elect a candidate.

I haven't jumped the shark until I don my jacket and it's too warm for that.

I think you also missed the part where I said my vote was still in the air, so it's still anyone's game. McCain/Palin may drive me away maybe not, who knows?


Here's what I really want barring the creation of a country just for me and those like me:

Since I live with all of you guys, just once I wish everyone was both mature and patiet enough to do 100%. That means if a Democrat is elected to do everything, it pisses me off that we have this silly system that tries to hamper the other party. If this election the Democrats win for example I wish the country was fluid enough that we at least try a full blown UHC if that's what the majority of the people want. I mean, I do recognize I'm in a representative Democracy here. I may even be pleasantly surprised for all I know. But that also means that if a different party win that they not try and protect things that they want. I'd like to try that for a generation or two and see what kind of grand experiments come from that.

I'll never have the country I want, and by that definition all of these candidates are compromises but I hate compromises on most issues because I don't think they work. For example I don't want to pay for a health care plan that is so shitty I don't use it, if I'm going to be charged for it it should be worth my while. If it's so shitty I won't use it I shouldn't be forced to pay into it. So if Republicans for example decide to hamper the Dem's plan for one if they win and call some neutered UHC a victory on the face that it doesn't cost as much that's not a real victory for me. Either it gets done and done right or not done at all.

Either way it'll be an interesting time.
 
The second Democratic proposal — to impose compensation limits on Wall Street executives — is meeting more resistance.

“Hank says it’s a poison pill,” Frank said. “I say I don’t think it’s very patriotic for someone to not give up his golden parachute when we’re trying to save the markets.”


As now drafted, the bill increases the U.S. debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion to help accommodate the financing arrangement, but further modifications may be needed to ensure that this extra borrowing authority is dedicated to the rescue plan and not eaten up by other spending.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13676.html
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
2nu3gq8.jpg


2nu3gq8.jpg


Al Gore and John Kerry did not have field operations in Durango, Colorado. Barack Obama is here -- in force. It's a buoyant, bubbling crowd of enthusiastic volunteers. We ran into waves of Saturday canvassers, including family groups going out with their kids to knock on doors in the shadow of the stunning San Juan Mountains. We followed a few of these volunteers as they knocked on doors, registered voters, and signed them up to request a mail-in ballot.

Voter registration deadline in Colorado is October 6. Registered voters may request mail-in ballots up until October 28, and Democrats are definitely placing a large emphasis on mail-in voting because it continually reduces the universe of remaining voters who need to be turned out on Election Day. A reduced universe allows for more efficient and targeted use of resources. It also allows the campaigns to see which precincts (Democratic-leaning or Republican-leaning) are getting their ballots in early. That also permits an efficient, as-necessary shifting of ground game resources as Election Day closes in.

We spoke with Alex Max, a 15-year old Durango High student and Obama's Southwest Colorado Youth Outreach Coordinator. It turns out that Alex had logged onto Barack Obama's website more than any other person in La Plata County, and one day he got a call from the Obama field organizer here who asked whether he'd be willing to help coordinate high school seniors in youth turnout. There are approximately 300 students in the DHS senior class, and of those only some have birthdays before November 4. Alex has registered 30-50 students to vote, so you do the math on how effective Alex' work has been. They've been reaching out to other high school students to set up similar groups.


2nu3gq8.jpg


There was more success with the Republican field operation in Cortez. The Republican Party office was open until about 4pm today, and several volunteers operated the office. They expressed pride in their all-volunteer status, and insisted that Obama needed paid staff because nobody would have volunteered full time for him here. A rotating group of approximately 10 volunteers manage the office 1-3 at a time throughout the week. While we were there, one man came in to find McCain pins.

The Obama group in Cortez did not exactly strike us as lacking in the volunteer effort or in grassroots energy. In terms of numbers, there was more going on at the Obama office, which is open 9 to 9 every day of the week. In the twenty minutes we spent at the office, we saw a local woman come in to register and take a form for her daughter. Another 70-something woman returned with her completed phone sheet and took another one home. Two phone bankers made dials. Another man, who volunteers twice a week, had taken upon himself the task of blind-knocking his trailer park and was getting a high contact and success rate.

We tagged along with a canvasser on each side here in town. We got into town around 4, which was too late to spend much time with the McCain canvasser (they were closing shop but made a kind extra effort for us). While we were with the Obama canvasser, he knocked on a door where the voter wasn't home -- and was apparently a Republican -- but by chance the daughter and her husband were home, were both Obama supporters, registered to vote and requested mail-in ballots. She was a teacher, and she took a handful of forms to register her students. That teacher may not have taken the initiative to register to vote, or she might have. The point is that by fanning out into the field and putting in the work, campaigns find voters who wouldn't have otherwise voted.

But it takes real work. It takes showing up. And it takes a volunteer sacrifice of time and energy. It takes wanting it. That work is heroic.

Link
 

Jak140

Member
Mandark said:
Jak140, LuCkymoON: mAcOdIn knows what he's doing.

While modern Republicans never make the tough decisions necessary to cut government, Obama and other liberal Democrats just have a different philosophy from him.

The best thing he can do is to consistently vote in primaries and general elections for the candidates that are closest to him ideologically. Voting for Obama wouldn't send a signal that fiscal conservatism is the way to win elections, which is the signal mAc should be trying to send.

Well, I wasn't suggesting he vote Democrat. Since his views seem to lean Libertarian, I think that voting for that party would more adequately send the signal than voting one that cuts taxes while increasing spending exponentially.
 
speculawyer said:
[IG]http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k153/speculawyer/GOPAndDemDeficitCartoon.jpg[/IMG]

Politic-savvy gaf...

Can somebody explain to me what a surplus is, exactly? I doubt it's as simple as that cartoon would lead you to believe. Could a surplus mean that the people were over taxed during that period? The term "surplus" seems like it would imply that the government taxed more than they needed to spend. Is that an accurate description? If so, would that mean that a surplus is not necessarily a good thing relative to one's own philosophy on economics? Because I am no economist, I'd just like to know what this means a little better.
 

Arde5643

Member
Jak140 said:
Well, I wasn't suggesting he vote Democrat. Since his views seem to lean Libertarian, I think that voting for that party would more adequately send the signal than voting one that cuts taxes while increasing spending exponentially.
Agreed - that's why I said voting Republican will just shows his cynicism of US and politics in general.
 

Boogie

Member
Mandark said:
Yeah, the post-WW2 pre-Vietnam consensus was a... consensus. The neocon war on terror not so much.

The point of my post was that I disagree when people treat the neocons like a recent development and a departure from traditional Republican foreign policy.

The animating impulses behind the movement (disdain for multilateral institutions, a willingness to go to war, a good vs. evil worldview) are generally the same as the ones which found a home in the GOP before.

When people accused FDR and Truman of appeasement in Eastern Europe and Taiwan and when Reagan took a much harder line against the USSR, those were similar dynamics.

The party was never really "isolationist" even when Pat Buchanan was regularly pulling in protest votes to the tune of 20% in 92. There was just no obvious enemy, so the sovereignist issues took front state (so far as any foreign policy issue was front stage at that time).

So basically: Neocons not sui generis. Paleocons overrated.

Ah, okay. I think there may still be an argument that pre-1941, the Republican party was genuinely isolationist, but even so, that's more an academic historical argument, and certainly doesn't apply for the past 60 years.

But even post-Vietnam, I think Carter was responsible for a re-escalation of the Cold War, before Reagan took it to the heights that he did.

Naturally, I agree with you in the broad strokes, I just like to try and nitpick. ;)
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Arde5643 said:
Agreed - that's why I said voting Republican will just shows his cynicism of US and politics in general.
Well it's funny that options are:
Vote for someone you know disagrees with you or vote for someone who will probably in all likely hood also do things you disagree with.

Not exactly a winner in either of those choices.

I am actually happy that so many of you actually do like your candidate of choice though.
 
Incognito said:
The second Democratic proposal — to impose compensation limits on Wall Street executives — is meeting more resistance.

“Hank says it’s a poison pill,” Frank said. “I say I don’t think it’s very patriotic for someone to not give up his golden parachute when we’re trying to save the markets.”

As now drafted, the bill increases the U.S. debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion to help accommodate the financing arrangement, but further modifications may be needed to ensure that this extra borrowing authority is dedicated to the rescue plan and not eaten up by other spending.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13676.html

Normally I would not support this . . . and I probably would modify it a bit to have not compensation limit but just have an increasingly high tax rate or something. They've got no leverage . . . they fucked up we are bailing them out. This is a market negotiation to some degree. Accept the terms or no bail-out.
 

Jak140

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Well it's funny that options are:
Vote for someone you know disagrees with you or vote for someone who will probably in all likely hood also do things you disagree with.

Not exactly a winner in either of those choices.

I am actually happy that so many of you actually do like your candidate of choice though.

Or you could vote for Bob Barr.
 
vas_a_morir said:
Politic-savvy gaf...

Can somebody explain to me what a surplus is, exactly? I doubt it's as simple as that cartoon would lead you to believe. Could a surplus mean that the people were over taxed during that period? The term "surplus" seems like it would imply that the government taxed more than they needed to spend. Is that an accurate description? If so, would that mean that a surplus is not necessarily a good thing relative to one's own philosophy on economics? Because I am no economist, I'd just like to know what this means a little better.

NO! It means people were finally taxed enough. We still had massive debts and it would be nice to pay them down a bit . . . especially since the baby boomers are gonna start retiring en masse. Actually having the government able to pay its bills doesn't mean the people are over taxed . . . especially since the rates at that time were much lower than the rates of most earlier decades.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Jak140 said:
Or you could vote for Bob Barr.
Or stay at home and watch TV, both have the same effect.

Edit: Honestly I don't know who the fuck he is, if he was big enough to be considered in the race then I'd pay attention.
 

Jak140

Member
mAcOdIn said:
Or stay at home and watch TV, both have the same effect.

Edit: Honestly I don't know who the fuck he is, if he was big enough to be considered in the race then I'd pay attention.


He's the Libertarian candidate for president, currently polling at around 8% in Georgia. If the Republicans started losing more votes to a party more representative of your views, they might have to consider reforming their actions. Right now I think they are losing a net of 2% of Republican votes to Barr nationwide.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Jak140 said:
He's the Libertarian candidate for president, currently polling at around 8% in Georgia. If the Republicans started losing more votes to a party more representative of your views, they might have to consider reforming their actions. Right now I think they are losing a net of 2% of votes to Barr nationwide.

Truthfully I feel out of era if that makes sense. The whole rest of the civilized world has this socialist/capitalist blend and it does work for them. Germany for example was pretty nice when I lived there for 3 years and sure they weren't hitting US level of performance, but then look at us now right?

I kinda wonder if it's time that people who think like me step aside because we're always going to be on the outside, and if all we do is whine and hamper those plans we're gonna get these piece of shit half baked measures that try and mix big business and government and we just ruin every bodies party.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Boogie said:
Ah, okay. I think there may still be an argument that pre-1941, the Republican party was genuinely isolationist, but even so, that's more an academic historical argument, and certainly doesn't apply for the past 60 years.

But even post-Vietnam, I think Carter was responsible for a re-escalation of the Cold War, before Reagan took it to the heights that he did.

Naturally, I agree with you in the broad strokes, I just like to try and nitpick. ;)

I was totally going to say something about the prewar GOP in my post, but didn't want to hit the Loki limit.

The Republican party in the 30's is probably the last time there was a genuine isolationist movement with significant support. I think the historical memory of that (and the preceding decades) has given Americans a tendency to frame things as Isolationist vs. Internationalist when that's not what's really happening.

I haven't read a lot about Carter, but my impression is that he was overtaken by events. The Carter Doctrine seems more like an ad hoc response to the Iran and Afghanistan crises than an actual, ya know, doctrine.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/20/politics/main4462366.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4462366

(CBS/AP) Just when it seemed the Alaska investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of a state official might have been scuttled by the pressures of presidential politics, another turn of events has kept it going.

Palin's firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan last July, allegedly after pressure by her, her husband and staff members on Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law was ignored, is at the center of the investigation (known as Troopergate) into whether Palin abused her power.

Palin originally agreed to participate in the investigation, authorized in July by the Republican-controlled legislature. She told Alaskans, "Hold me accountable." Once named to the McCain ticket, however, Palin backpedaled. She has since refused to testify.

Palin has maintained that she fired Monegan not over the status of Trooper Mike Wooten, but over budget disagreements - specifically a trip Monegan planned to Washington which she said was unauthorized.

Earlier this week the McCain campaign released a series of e-mails detailing the frustration several Palin administration officials experienced in dealing with Monegan. The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

Palin, saying she did not authorize the expenses for the travel, cited that trip as a primary example of the insubordination that led to Monegan's firing.

However, Palin's chief of staff did authorize the travel to Washington.

A travel authorization document signed by Palin's Chief of Staff Mike Nizich on June 18 approved Monegan's trip to Washington for the purpose of meeting Sen. Lisa Murkowski.


The document's existence was first reported by ABC News on Friday.

Monegan told ABC that the travel authorization was explicitly to pursue funding for the anti-sexual-violence program, though the document does not state that as a reason for the trip.

McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Friday that the travel authorization was for a routine trip, and that state commissioners regularly travel to meet members of Alaska's congressional delegation.

"He was not authorized to lobby Congress," Griffin said.

The revelation came on the same day that several individuals subpoenaed to testify in Troopergate refused to appear as ordered.

Those who refused to answer their subpoenas (including Todd Palin, the Governor's husband; Randy Ruaro, the governor's deputy chief of staff; and aide Ivy Frye) will be referred to the full Senate for contempt, said Sen. Hollis French, who is heading the investigation.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
avatar299 said:
Macodin, what is your point?
None, started as a joke trying to imply that we should vote Democrat so the real party people like gets it's act together, people ask me why and what I'm voting so I got into this.

No real point.
 
mAcOdIn said:
Truthfully I feel out of era if that makes sense. The whole rest of the civilized world has this socialist/capitalist blend and it does work for them. Germany for example was pretty nice when I lived there for 3 years and sure they weren't hitting US level of performance, but then look at us now right?

I kinda wonder if it's time that people who think like me step aside because we're always going to be on the outside, and if all we do is whine and hamper those plans we're gonna get these piece of shit half baked measures that try and mix big business and government and we just ruin every bodies party.


Voting for a candidate you actually agree with makes for more sense to me. I don't know your social views but their economics views for the most part seem to line up with what you've been talking about.

http://www.lp.org/


While I fuck with Gaborn and JayDub alot for seemingly going after Obama a ton more than Mccain at least they don't defend some of the worse hypocrisies within the Republican party which I respect. I won't pretend Democrats are without their own set of personal hypocrisies but I think currently Democrats are subjectively closer to at least trying to achieve what they preach at the moment.
 

avatar299

Banned
mAcOdIn said:
None, started as a joke trying to imply that we should vote Democrat so the real party people like gets it's act together, people ask me why and what I'm voting so I got into this.

No real point.
oh okay.

It was beginning to feel like a ramp up to a hollywood-like speech:lol
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
20pdc81.jpg



John McCain and the Republicans are running a workmanlike ground game here. They now have ten offices open, up from five a week ago. Their volunteers often begin calling showing up at 8:30 am to make phone calls. Some call all day. In larger offices they'll fill the twenty-ish seats for a full phone bank.

But it really doesn't feel close to the Obama ground game. While Republicans are relying heavily on direct mail, the Democrats have a 4-1 office edge, and those offices are being worked. If you notice in our pictures a few more Obama volunteers, it's not purposeful, but also not an accident. There are vastly more volunteers and the field edge is much, much bigger.


The New Mexico Obama field operation is top notch. From the state field director down through the RFDs and FOs (regional field directors and field organizers), this is a motivated, deeply talented bench. Without going into specifics, this is an A-team.

What we tend to do is get into town and try to go back and forth – Obama office, McCain office, Obama office, McCain office – so as to get the atmospheric feel and contrast. "Firewall" was the word Brett suggested for Obama's operation in New Mexico, and it's just right. If Obama wins Kerry states and Iowa (Michigan and New Hampshire seem most at risk), then adding New Mexico puts Obama at 264 EVs. Just one more state gives him the Presidency. Colorado, our next destination, seems the likeliest add. But Obama could add Nevada (and win under the 269-269 messy scenario, though some Dems would feel a bit of 2000 satisfaction from that). Or Virginia, or Ohio, or Indiana, or North Carolina, or Florida. To use a poker term, Obama has far more outs.

In New Mexico, there is a focus on the Obama side to get a 30/30 push - 30,000 voters registered in 30 days before the deadline closes October 7. Early voting starts October 18. As of just a few days ago, Dems had gained roughly 13,000 registrations, which is off the pace of Nevada, but still on pace for new registrations proportional to margin of 2004 loss (3-1).

The reality is that New Mexico is a complex state - its Hispanic population has been here for hundreds of years and is not the same immigration model in other southwestern states. Republicans have successfully wooed Hispanic small business owners and veterans. It's not anywhere near as simple as majority-minority = automatic Dem win, as we've seen.

Still, there's a reason Barack Obama urged Hispanic voters, who are nearly 40% of the population in this majority-minority state, to "vote your numbers." What we've been seeing on the ground is organic outreach from community member to community member. By contrast, John Kerry came into the state and didn't do much outside Albuquerque. This time, Barack Obama seems to have learned that lesson. His outreach to Native groups and Hispanic communities is clearly better than Kerry's, though we're still hearing that in some areas that outreach can be improved.

Obama's Campaign for Change has 36 offices open in the state, probably too many to post in separate google map links. If you live in New Mexico, there's probably one near you. John McCain's campaign has these ten offices open, and in the counties (for example, the Grants, NM office we visited the other day) there are Republican Party offices open, often staffed by a county chair volunteer. There are 10 Republican paid field organizers.

The bottom line in New Mexico is that if an accurate poll has New Mexico tied on election day, Obama would probably win due to ground game. The Land of Enchantment is lopsided.

538 says Obama's ground game in this part of New Mexico is clearly better than McCain's. This is great news.


Obama's operations pictures.

30rlmoy.jpg

2hhewky.jpg

23jwd4.jpg
 
Mandark said:
I was totally going to say something about the prewar GOP in my post, but didn't want to hit the Loki limit.

The Republican party in the 30's is probably the last time there was a genuine isolationist movement with significant support. I think the historical memory of that (and the preceding decades) has given Americans a tendency to frame things as Isolationist vs. Internationalist when that's not what's really happening.

I haven't read a lot about Carter, but my impression is that he was overtaken by events. The Carter Doctrine seems more like an ad hoc response to the Iran and Afghanistan crises than an actual, ya know, doctrine.

The largely middle class, fundie portion of the GOP is pure isolationist but get bamboozled time and time again into voting for the corporate wing of the party that is into pure free market, deregulation, and union-busting capitalism because they're scurred of the crazy librulz. It makes sense to cut off your nose to spite your face and bleed to death...
 
speculawyer said:
NO! It means people were finally taxed enough. We still had massive debts and it would be nice to pay them down a bit . . . especially since the baby boomers are gonna start retiring en masse. Actually having the government able to pay its bills doesn't mean the people are over taxed . . . especially since the rates at that time were much lower than the rates of most earlier decades.

I'm a bit confused... so, if they were taxed ENOUGH, then wouldn't that not be a surplus or a deficit? You know what I mean? Like, the term surplus implies that they have MORE than they need. I know that this doesn't mean we weren't in debt, or going deeper into debt for that matter. So, why would there ever be a "surplus" if, as you put it, we need the money? Serious question, no political agenda: I swear it!
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
speculawyer said:
NO! It means people were finally taxed enough. We still had massive debts and it would be nice to pay them down a bit . . . especially since the baby boomers are gonna start retiring en masse. Actually having the government able to pay its bills doesn't mean the people are over taxed . . . especially since the rates at that time were much lower than the rates of most earlier decades.
For a biblical example, after God gave Joseph a vision of Egypt receiving seven years of famine after seven years of plenty, he didn't tell him not to "overtax" his citizens, he told him to take that surplus and STOCKPILE IT. When the years of famine hit they had enough storage to make ends meet.

...but some people would rather pay more attention to the "hate thy neighbor" parts of the Bible.
vas_a_morir said:
I'm a bit confused... so, if they were taxed ENOUGH, then wouldn't that not be a surplus or a deficit? You know what I mean? Like, the term surplus implies that they have MORE than they need. I know that this doesn't mean we weren't in debt, or going deeper into debt for that matter. So, why would there ever be a "surplus" if, as you put it, we need the money? Serious question, no political agenda: I swear it!
Deficit spending NOW builds debt that needs to be paid in taxes LATER.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
vas_a_morir said:
I'm a bit confused... so, if they were taxed ENOUGH, then wouldn't that not be a surplus or a deficit? You know what I mean? Like, the term surplus implies that they have MORE than they need. I know that this doesn't mean we weren't in debt, or going deeper into debt for that matter. So, why would there ever be a "surplus" if, as you put it, we need the money? Serious question, no political agenda: I swear it!
Well if you have a huge debt and you make profit and are paying the debt off that's good. If you have a huge debt and make just enough to operate and never pay down any of the debt that's bad.

Your view only takes into effect once the national debt is gone, then you're spot on correct.
 
Hitokage said:
For a biblical example, after God gave Joseph a vision of Egypt receiving seven years of famine after seven years of plenty, he didn't tell him not to "overtax" his citizens, he told him to take that surplus and STOCKPILE IT. When the years of famine hit they had enough storage to make ends meet.

...but some people would rather pay more attention to the "hate thy neighbor" parts of the Bible.
Deficit spending NOW builds debt that needs to be paid in taxes LATER.

The problem is he keyed in on a political response, when really, I wanted to know what the hell a surplus is to begin with. What defines a surplus?
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
vas_a_morir said:
The problem is he keyed in on a political response, when really, I wanted to know what the hell a surplus is to begin with. What defines a surplus?
Greater revenue than budget outlays. Quite simply, the government has more money than what they've planned to spend. However, this doesn't mean people have been "overtaxed" if there's debt to be paid down, which helps should the time come to go into deficits again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom