Are Republicans Holding Tax Cuts Hostage?

[Zdrasti]

No, I would've never voted for Obama. The only reason I didn't vote for Mitt is because he was a shoe-in concerning Texas. I wasn't excited about him, how could I be? What improvements he would bring would be small and near insignificant--but he would still be superior, unfortunately, to the alternative. The only issues I aligned with Obama on was the ones I already knew he was lying for to grab some easy votes. I am not gullible nor naive as a lot of my younger counterparts appear to be. They may have been fooled twice, I'll gladly take up mantle of having yet once been duped in a similar manner. You think he really cares? I'd say Romney had more character than him, which many chose to not believe because of the simple fact he has more money. Disappointing how quickly jealousy can turn people against one another, isn't it?

You chose the greater of two evils, if your aim was to slow the clock and give us a better chance down the road you certainly stumbled this time.

I am a libertarian and I will not cater nor "compromise" with evil. Even if Romney had been elected, I would've spent all of my time fighting anything of his I vehemently disagreed with. I don't work with or support a president just because he is that. He is not an emperor, he is just another man and another part of our system. Our goal, as a people ultimately, as an ideology is to save this country and in doing so perhaps the world as well. There is no room for what you speak of. I would hope as a man of liberty that you would kick Mr. Obama in the cahones, 24/7. Because he has done and will do nothing to aid us in our cause.

Thank you.

I didn't vote for evil. I voted for the candidate that more closely aligned with my principles of personal liberty. In the choice between the two, that was Obama.

To label a man as evil just because you disagree with him on a matter of principle is narrow minded. Rational and well intentioned people can disagree. There are many ways to skin a cat and I find the great strength of our democracy comes about because of checks and balances. Things swing one way then they swing back the other way. Just cause some of your principles didn't get the lime light is no reason to be bitter and withdraw. You'll get them next time. =)

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Problem is, what he wants never existed and never will. The illusion that people think we were somehow freer in older days is a joy to watch, that's for sure.

And the ignorance comes spewing forth. Even more disappointing that some of it is from a supposed libertarian. Agh, I wish people wouldn't call themselves such if they're not serious about taking such on a great mantle of responsibility. Flakes we certainly do not need. They'll destroy the term and make it meaningless like so much else at this rate.

However, I digress.

I don't want to "go back to the olden days" anymore than the next person. What I want is us to look back at history and see that authoritarianism, the growth of bureaucracies, and debt has destroyed so many countries that could have been so much more. Instead we embrace it with a rapidly growing enthusiasm and all I see at the end of it is collapse. We're encouraging an unsustainable cycle. Being in the "modern age" doesn't magically make gravity suddenly lose its pull, the physics of our world are still quite intact.

Yet you would act like it means nothing. As if the advancement of utter ignorance somehow takes us one step further to a golden age.

No friend, we do not live in better days. We're just as pathetic and disgraceful as any ancestor if not more so. In fact I would argue the latter because we're equipped with the knowledge and tools to be better men, they were not. Yet here we are.

[Spectral]

And the ignorance comes spewing forth. Even more disappointing that some of it is from a supposed libertarian. Agh, I wish people wouldn't call themselves such if they're not serious about taking such on a great mantle of responsibility. Flakes we certainly do not need. They'll destroy the term and make it meaningless like so much else at this rate.

Yeah, believing market solutions makes you a fuckin' hero.

I don't want to "go back to the olden days" anymore than the next person. What I want is us to look back at history and see that authoritarianism, the growth of bureaucracies, and debt has destroyed so many countries that could have been so much more. Instead we embrace it with a rapidly growing enthusiasm and all I see at the end of it is collapse. We're encouraging an unsustainable cycle. Being in the "modern age" doesn't magically make gravity suddenly lose its pull, the physics of our world are still quite intact.

Yet you would act like it means nothing. As if the advancement of utter ignorance somehow takes us one step further to a golden age.

No friend, we do not live in better days. We're just as pathetic and disgraceful as any ancestor if not more so. In fact I would argue the latter because we're equipped with the knowledge and tools to be better men, they were not. Yet here we are.

The faux intellectual writing tone has to be among the most grating, particularly when it's used to say essentially nothing.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The faux intellectual writing tone has to be among the most grating, particularly when it's used to say essentially nothing.

I've read that post five times and I still don't know what it says.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I've read that post five times and I still don't know what it says.

How could you? Ignorance is blinding, not illuminating. I've spelled out a thousand times before what is wrong with our current direction in explicit detail only for it to fall upon def ears. You people assume that gluttony and greed will somehow prevail and bring greatness to the world and then get angry when someone says otherwise? All I ever asked for is some sort of reasoning to occur, the sort of reasoning you can apply from basic every day problems. I ask very little of my fellow man and I've about run out of patience.

For instance; what does mommy and daddy do when their checkbook is bouncing? They cut back, they prioritize, they budget. Even if they were to take loans they're very limited to what extent they can rely on them, why is not our government held in similar check? Why do we not demand that our representatives practice care and concern with our very own money and resources? Instead we applaud them when they raid the piggy bank of others in a fruitless effort to stem the tide. How does this make sense in real world terms?

If you want someone to treat you with respect and care, you should probably start by using your brain even if only in small doses at first. At least then, by doing so, you show you have a desire, a spark so to speak. I can respect even the most fundamental desire to learn and contemplate upon matters that effect us most. What I don't respect(obviously) is a complete lack of regard for basic common sense and thoughtfulness. I deal with it constantly, do you think your added barrage of ignorance-bred insanity amuses me after years of dealing with almost nothing but?

Get real and while you're at it, maybe consider the fact that I'm right and take a step back for a moment.

---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 09:51 PM ----------

I never called myself a libertarian. Because libertarian ideology ignores the realities of life. Libertarians and their great mantle of responsibility. That's rich.



You've been digressing the entire thread. Start making statements that can exist and belong in the real world, instead of what you think things are supposed to be, or hell, even are.



If what we have today sucks, what do you propose we go back to, then? An imagined utopia?

This is the world, Kelliak. Try living in it, rather than dramatizing it into being some doomed, angst-ridden drama fest. Smell the damn roses. Spend some time making something out of yourself, or enjoying the people around you, rather than complaining about how it isn't perfect and how the world sucks and there's no stopping it. If any heavy emo people are reading this thread, you've probably killed a few, because believing in your imagined world means that life isn't worth living, and they've gone and slit their wrists.

If you want to talk about ignorance, look in the mirror, and realize what you're doing, that anyone you disagree with is deemed ignorant or willfully so. I reject this notion.

Why do you keep saying "go back to" as if I'm stuck in the past? The past is fuel, not the destination itself. The fact you can't recognize it proves your lack of wit.

No, the destination is a future and place that has yet been achieved. What we're heading to as it stands is quite frankly, the same old crap with a bit more glitter sprinkled on top--your children's future crushed up into a sparkling wonder of what once could have been all over your smoldering mess of yesteryear.

Something to think about, eh? Greed takes on many forms, not just on Wall Street or in Washington.

[Zdrasti]

Yeah, believing market solutions makes you a fuckin' hero.

The market is powerful indeed, but unfortunately many of these new libertarians trust it in it blindly. Like anything man made it has a design, and if poorly designed either by choice or circumstance, it can result in any number of "market failures." Trusting in the market in such circumstances is reckless.

Like any ideal, libertarianism can be taken to foolish extremes (look at the seat belt crusade that relegated us to the fringe for decades). To generally err on the side of personal liberty, choice, and less government interference is the goal. But to do so on principle in all circumstances is zealotry and devoid of intellectual substance.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

The market is powerful indeed, but unfortunately many of these new libertarians trust it in it blindly. Like anything man made it has a design, and if poorly designed either by choice or circumstance, it can result in any number of "market failures." Trusting in the market in such circumstances is reckless.

Like any ideal, libertarianism can be taken to foolish extremes (look at the seat belt crusade that relegated us to the fringe for decades). To generally err on the side of personal liberty, choice, and less government interference is the goal. But to do so on principle in all circumstances is zealotry and devoid of intellectual substance.

And yet many libertarians acknowledge the need for regulation. What we don't appreciate is governing bodies, that we did not elect, going about on a whim and working with special interests to smother our market. There is a difference between enacting laws that aid in growth and protections of what we hold dear and laws born of corruption and special interests. As it stands, I can't pull out the good from the murky, tainted depths concerning regulation this day and age. Here is the problem and it's funny because you sort of hit the nail right on the head...

The opposite end of the spectrum is going on the supposed "crusade" with a venomous appetite to conquer anything they don't agree with. It has gone from a matter of ensuring basic rights and mobility in the market to an all you can eat buffet for those with a politician's ear to whisper sweet things into. In other words, it's gotten severely out of hand. Yet when any of us libertarians try to intervene and talk sense into the entire affair, about pulling back unnecessary regulation and helping businesses(particularly small and less endowed ones) breathe again we're view as lunatics and absolutionists. If there is anything aiding corporate giants in this country, that'd be it. They tend to make the rules after all.

Small government does not mean no government. There is a distinct difference, otherwise I'd be a bloody anarchist. I have no disillusions of what and who I am.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

You stated that we as a people have a duty, no, an ideology to achieve in this country. What is that ideology? When did it occur?

The fact that you can't understand that people disagree with you proves a lack of wit, does it not? It also proves to be contrarian. I mean, you have all the answers man. Lay em out. Fix our country. Just be sure to tell me how to live in it.

Not all the answers but I have an idea where to begin and how philosophically we should approach things. What we have now, the way we're headed, this is not it. I hope you can at LEAST realize that much, even if you don't agree with me on how we should alter our course. Again, all I ask for is a little common sense. The basic realization and contemplation over just how twisted and corrupted our system has become. The only way to fix a problem is to acknowledge it first.

You're getting emo again. The sooner you realize that you're an ant in a huge colony, with the capacity and freedom and liberty to do whatever the hell you want to, or just be an ant. There's nothing wrong with being unable to impact every person in a society. You have to get really lucky to do that. The best you can hope for is that you impact the people you know. That's how life works.

Libertarian ideology is a pipe dream. It's an imagined utopia that has never proven to exist, because it simply can't be so. It ignores the scope of human history and human interaction entirely.

Yet socialism has succeeded? Not really. Even in small doses it has proven poisonous to the structure of a society in many ways. So how can something, that has never been truly utilized and fully imagined in a society, be a failure while an actual failure is somehow now a success despite still failing right before our very own eyes? This is the kind of thinking that baffles me and makes me "emo" as you so eloquently put it. It also makes me a very callous and crude individual. After all, how do you reason with that kind of logic?

If you can give me a good answer I'm all ears!

[Spectral]

How could you? Ignorance is blinding, not illuminating.

You people assume that gluttony and greed will somehow prevail and bring greatness to the world and then get angry when someone says otherwise?

I ask very little of my fellow man and I've about run out of patience.

I deal with it constantly, do you think your added barrage of ignorance-bred insanity amuses me after years of dealing with almost nothing but?

If you want someone to treat you with respect and care, you should probably start by using your brain even if only in small doses at first. At least then, by doing so, you show you have a desire, a spark so to speak.

The faux intellectual writing tone has to be among the most grating, particularly when it's used to say essentially nothing.

Examples abound!

For instance; what does mommy and daddy do when their checkbook is bouncing? They cut back, they prioritize, they budget. Even if they were to take loans they're very limited to what extent they can rely on them, why is not our government held in similar check? Why do we not demand that our representatives practice care and concern with our very own money and resources? Instead we applaud them when they raid the piggy bank of others in a fruitless effort to stem the tide. How does this make sense in real world terms?

Countries aren't households, and people that still mistakenly believe they're analogous in a useful way should probably skip on the condescension and go pick up an economics book.

Let's be clear, you're not John Galt, and writing in a pretentious, chopped fashion won't make anyone think you're oh so erudite.

---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 11:14 PM ----------

The market is powerful indeed, but unfortunately many of these new libertarians trust it in it blindly. Like anything man made it has a design, and if poorly designed either by choice or circumstance, it can result in any number of "market failures." Trusting in the market in such circumstances is reckless.

Agreed, I'm actually a pretty big proponent of market solutions to many problems. Profit motive can be a remarkably powerful incentive, and people that ignore incentives when thinking about economic policy do so at their own peril. Nonetheless, as you say, blind trust is not such a good idea.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Countries aren't households, and people that still mistakenly believe they're analogous in a useful way should probably skip on the condescension and go pick up an economics book.

Let's be clear, you're not John Galt, and writing in a pretentious, chopped fashion won't make anyone think you're oh so erudite.

So how are they not like a household financially? What makes a government special from any other institution that has to worry about their bottom line and financial survival? Have you considered we're in the mess we are now because of that exact reasoning? From where I am standing, the government should never be unbound from the same rules as you or me. Otherwise, how do we control it and call it our own? It ascends over us as a result and rules us, rather than a more equalized distribution of power. To me this is not an appealing future and never will be.

I find it ironic that the same people who likely scream for democracy in all its glory and peril, basically shrug it off. So what will it be? You can't have what you're speaking of and still retain proper representation. What you're talking about doesn't even seem to reflect that of a democracy. These concepts imply responsibility shared by the people and a controlled, restrained governance that more properly reflects the nature of its people. In other words, what is it that you really desire? Slavery is always tempting, I know this. It's so easy to let go isn't it? What is your preferred form? There are so many to choose from...

[Spectral]

So how are they not like a household financially?

Households don't have monetary policy, central banking, and bond markets.

I stopped reading after that. You'll forgive me if I have a tough time treating someone like they have a fucking clue when they ask the question you do in an apparently serious fashion.

[Spectral]

The slippery slope is strong in this one.

Wait, are you saying that being OK with a government issuing bonds isn't actually a direct road to slavery?

[Phishy714]

IMO

Lets get EVERYBODY paying taxes before we start trying to figure out who should pay more.

[Riidii]

IMO

Lets get EVERYBODY paying taxes before we start trying to figure out who should pay more.

Oh my gosh.

That's what I've been saying.

"Hey guys, I have this crazy idea for revenue. It's called full employment."

[araine]

The fiscal cliff is a joke created by the media and politicians use it as a guise that they're actually working to fix something. Raising taxes on the rich would only bring in a very small fraction compared to the amount of spending increases proposed by Obama. So what's the point exactly? What they need is massive cuts across the board.

Guess you have missed the facts that Obama have been in actual dollars and cents the most fiscal conservative president in generations. only time we saw a bigger change in fiscal savings was when we ended the marshall help plan some 60 years ago.

[Spectral]

Lets get EVERYBODY paying taxes before we start trying to figure out who should pay more.

Could you define "everybody" for me in this context real quick?

[Riidii]

Guess you have missed the facts that Obama have been in actual dollars and cents the most fiscal conservative president in generations. only time we saw a bigger change in fiscal savings was when we ended the marshall help plan some 60 years ago.

Pffffffft.

I just spat out my imaginary coffee.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

You started off great here, then you decide to throw out veiled criticisms about common sense. Did it ever occur to you that people disagree with your solutions, not your identification of the problem? Think a little on that last question.

Of course the way we're headed is not the way we should go. I figured that was plainly obvious. But to cry foul and claim it's because of certain people or "you just don't understand, man"? Disingenuous.

You fight for what you believe in if it means anything to you. At times ruthlessly. If I had to I would resort to violence in the end, should I have no other option. Mind you that's an extreme that is hopefully far off in the future, if ever required to begin with. I have no desire to harm others, especially not in a physical manner but there does come a time and a point where others will go too far and we're left with no choice but to act. You might even be right beside me should that time come, regardless of whether or not you believe that now.

My point is, I have no qualms about fighting for my cause. Even to the bitter end. What's the point of living if you can't sling some mud and break some bones? Not much of a stance if you simply step aside for everyone with a differing opinion or surrender it at the first sign of being hailed as a criminal/terrorist. You may not like my tact but there is nothing wrong with it. Men far greater and more intelligent than myself killed for much less. Let alone argued in a harsh tone! Take my position as one of generosity at this time, I still appreciate your viewpoint even if I think it's pure idiocy. Others might not be so kind and shrug you off entirely.

You dig?

In which ways? Note that I'm not a socialist, and neither is this country. At least not in the terms of what socialism *actually* is. Hell, any form of governance taken to its extremes will fail. What you have to come to grips with, however, is that there are people in this country that feel government is a tool, not a hindrance. That's not my absolute philosophy, but it's there. Besides, that's still not socialism. That's the point of government of/by/for the people.

Didn't say you were but I will disagree on the subject of this country. It's extremely socialist, perhaps even imperialist in a lot of ways. A lot more than many of the more hardened libertarians like myself care to admit. Our fight isn't just a matter of pushing our agenda but also discrediting and removing the leech already suckling off of our poor ripe populace. It can only be accurately describe as socialism, perhaps even with hints of fascism cropping up among the weeds. It's curious how well the two ideologies can intertwine at times.

And make no mistake darling, I agree with you on our government being a tool. A tool of thousands upon thousands of special interests, each vying for control over your sweet little soul. It represents small segments of society, while lying to the majority and betraying your rights. Corporations, organizations, wealthy individuals, everyone is trying to dip their hand in that pot while you're at the mercy of everything besides your own free will. How is that representation for you? How is it for me?

Because you can't prove a negative. It's just as illogical as telling me that I can't prove God doesn't exist, so therefore he must exist. I mean, it's all great and dandy to have an idea that will solve all the world's problems. I would love it if kids stopped getting abused or old people didn't get so smelly. But you know what? Kids get abused and old people smell funny. You get to a point in life where there are certain things you just can't fight, because it is in our nature.

That doesn't mean it's what you should believe, and I'm certainly not going to call you willfully ignorant or lacking wit for disagreeing with me.

It's ironic that you say our system is based on human nature, when I can very easily argue that what I am pushing for, the world I desire, is much more in tune with human nature than we've ever achieved. It subtracts one major facet of humanity while improving others--fear being that one major facet. Fear seems to control us in every way now. Our entire government, our policies, our way of life is practically developed upon fear. I have grown weary of it. Fear breeds war, hate, ignorance. It is such a disgusting emotion when it is fed upon, completely unbecoming of a higher species.

However, if we could deduct fear and force ourselves into a state of reason, we could act with greater clarity and conscience. We would not be smothered in regulation or senseless law. Our people would not die in pointless conflict. Fear unfortunately grips both republicans and democrats, hence why both parties represent me so poorly as a whole. If you can't understand the nature of fear and how powerful it has become in the modern world, then you cannot possibly see the outcomes and end that I do.

I doubt you'd even take the idea seriously. That one primitive emotion has grown so obscenely powerful it now practically overwhelms the entire western world. I believe without it, we could accomplish a more liberty orientated experience and really find us a new path. As I said, I don't have all the answers. I just know where to start and how to better correct our course.

If I had the answers I'd be running for office or something, or writing a book, not posting in this forum. In my initial response on this thread I said I didn't have much to offer, except to point out the melodramatic tone of your posts, where you say a lot of eloquent things, but as Spectral put it, managed to say nothing substantial.

I say something substantial with almost every sentence. You're just not looking into it beyond the surface. You're also quick to dismiss me because I actually have energy and conviction in my stances. For some reason belief these days is an outdated concept--it's all about a gray and meaningless compromise that might, at best, slow our end but not stop it entirely.

It does little to address the core of our problems and bring to light more promising solutions that are now seen as "radical" by the very same men and women that put us into this situation in the first place.

[obdigore]

Guess you have missed the facts that Obama have been in actual dollars and cents the most fiscal conservative president in generations. only time we saw a bigger change in fiscal savings was when we ended the marshall help plan some 60 years ago.

Don't forget Clinton actually didn't run a deficit his last two years. All the GOP, as it is now, has left is fearmongering. 'Bamas comin for your guns! 'Bamas comin for your liberty! 'Bamas comin for your FREEDOM!

I'm honestly surprised fox news hasn't run a clip from blazing saddles where they are getting the KKK guys to come into the bushes to beat them up and the sheriff says 'where the white women at' with Obamas face photoshopped over Cleavon Little's face. Yes I had to IMDB for his name.

Anyway, I enjoy the 'get everyone paying taxes' and 'get back to full employment' (I assume you mean between 5 and 6% unemployment, and not actual 100% employment, but still) without stating any plans, suggestions, solutions, bills, recommendations, or pipe dreams that would be a way to do it. And no, Riidii, your earlier 'legalize weed' (although something I support) wouldn't employ 5% of the population, although I believe it would help revenue if we taxed it.

[Last Starfighter]

And your point is what exactly? So you're saying spending hasn't increased. And I can say the sky is green. Doesn't make it true. They can cut the budget and still increase spending. Pretty simple concept.

He burned you, and you came up with "The sky is green"? Don't get your facts from a quick google.