namelesstavern.net

Lyion wrote: We are getting record levels of taxes and all they want is more. Fuck Federalism and those who want the government to take more of my check. It's skinned enough already. Properly budget the 3+ Trillion they are getting now, and do the fucking job.

That is so much bullshit, and is completely a quote straight out of the GOP spin machine. Taxes are not even REMOTELY close to record levels. In fact, they are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than they were for most of the 20th century. Go look up historic income tax rates. Back in the 1950s, a time the GOP loves to look back on as the golden era of 'Murica, the top tax rate was at least *90* percent. Even the first 6 years of Reagan's presidency, the top tax bracket was 50%, and in 1983 as a single person you only had to make 55k/yr to hit that tax bracket. For 84-86, it was only 85k. I know my dad made more than that in those years.

So, is YOUR income tax 50% right now? How about 90? No? Then how about you actually embrace reality about tax rates, and stop claiming things that are simply provably false.

If you want to look up the tax rates yourself, go here: http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/ ... ominal.pdf

Tax revenue was over 3 Trillion dollars. Those are record levels.

It has nothing to do with tax rates since our tax system is and has been a convoluted fucked up mess for decades, thanks to our idiot progressive tax code that primarily fucks the middle class. A Fucked up tax rate over a decade 50 years ago does not justify even more fucked up high taxes today. Total red herring. The government takes in a FUCKTON of revenue, most of which it spends poorly.

Lyion wrote:Tax revenue was over 3 Trillion dollars. Those are record levels.

we also have record levels of citizens dude - what was our population in 1950? what is it now? k thx

Lyion wrote:It has nothing to do with tax rates since our tax system is and has been a convoluted fucked up mess for decades, thanks to our idiot progressive tax code that primarily fucks the middle class. A Fucked up tax rate over a decade 50 years ago does not justify even more fucked up high taxes today. Total red herring. The government takes in a FUCKTON of revenue, most of which it spends poorly.

also while you're complaining about revenue, how about you look at the percentage of that $3T+ in federal revenue that currently comes from personal income tax and payroll tax versus that which comes from corporate tax (and then take a look at how those percentages have changed over the last half century)

nah don't bother, someone already did that. here you go:



do you not see how payroll taxes and corporate taxes switched places? do you think that's an accident? fuck the 1% and fuck the tax code they bought. this is what happens when the market gets too free.

e: separated Lyion's quote for clarity

Lyion,

We've tried it your way for 35yrs and it has been catastrophic. Perhaps it's time to switch it up maybe?

I'm willing to try something new and I'm hopeful someone can come up with a better solution, but the Democrats had a super majority and the executive branch so the vast amount of what was done over the last 8 years was done from the left. I also have no problem with paying my fair share of taxes, and I've done so my entire life. I'm just frustrated by the waste and corruption in our government. I'm irked that so much money is spent on things not in the purview of the government. Government to me is inefficient, expensive, and often times corrupt.

On the flip side, I would argue our country is far from a failure. People are working. GDP is growing. Our quality of life is good.

In my opinion, our government was not built to be a unitary executive with vast federal powers. I'm concerned some want to concentrate even more power in DC, instead of limiting exactly what our government can and should be doing. We are approaching 20 trillion in debt. The global economy is causing many parts of businesses to leave America. I also don't agree with raising corporate taxes without any form of pro growth policies that create private sector jobs which are the lifeblood of our way of living. The other issues I see are large corporate welfare and regulations designed to be anti competitive under the guise of 'protections'.

What I'd personally like to see are term limits, balanced budget amendment, and the executive and judicial branches doing what they are supposed to do and not to legislate. The bumper crop of Presidential candidates all are promising vast legislative changes which are completely out of the purview of the responsibilities of the executive branch which the public seems to ignore for some reason.

Lyion wrote:I'm willing to try something new and I'm hopeful someone can come up with a better solution, but the Democrats had a super majority and the executive branch so the vast amount of what was done over the last 8 years was done from the left.

this is a very skewed interpretation

first of all the dems only had a supermajority for about a year tops, just long enough to punch the ACA through. since then the govt has done absofuckinlutely nothing whatsoever - so the "vast amount of what was done over the last 8 years" really only happened in the first 2. yea sure POTUS has done some things here and there (too-little-too-late EPA regs, immigration deferments) but since the idiot hell fuckers took over the house in 2010 not a single large-scale thing has happened that wasn't a result of a SCOTUS ruling. plus all signs point to another impending shutdown as the tearrorists glue an attempt to defund planned parenthood to anything and everything within arm's reach, despite PP not getting any federal funding for abortion and despite abortion being only 3% of what they do and despite the millions of women who depend on them for non-abortion (and even non-contraceptive) care

Lyion wrote:I also have no problem with paying my fair share of taxes, and I've done so my entire life. I'm just frustrated by the waste and corruption in our government. I'm irked that so much money is spent on things not in the purview of the government. Government to me is inefficient, expensive, and often times corrupt.

lots of sense here. i'm sure we would have disagreements over what we both think falls within the purview of the government, but i fully agree re: waste, corruption, inefficiency, cost, etc

Lyion wrote:On the flip side, I would argue our country is far from a failure. People are working. GDP is growing. Our quality of life is good.

we are not a failure, but we are on a decline. people are working, but too many are underemployed and/or pasting together multiple part-time jobs. GDP and overall productivity are growing, but wages have not budged in 35+ years. quality of life is good, but people suffer and die all the time from preventable diseases due to lack of access to adequate health care. and whether it's jobs, wages, or access to health care, the GOP continually (and gleefully) stands in the way of progress across the board.

Lyion wrote:In my opinion, our government was not built to be a unitary executive with vast federal powers. I'm concerned some want to concentrate even more power in DC, instead of limiting exactly what our government can and should be doing.

again i feel we would have different ideas about what the govt can and should be doing, but i share the overall sense of too much power being concentrated there.

Lyion wrote:We are approaching 20 trillion in debt. The global economy is causing many parts of businesses to leave America. I also don't agree with raising corporate taxes without any form of pro growth policies that create private sector jobs which are the lifeblood of our way of living. The other issues I see are large corporate welfare and regulations designed to be anti competitive under the guise of 'protections'.

two wars and medicare part D on a credit card + erosion of financial regulations (particularly glass-steagall) = massive deficits. massive deficits + time = massive debt. funny how we always find money for war but we can't scrape together enough to feed homeless veterans. funny how we always crow about how great main street america is on our way to buy cheap chinese-made garbage at walmart. funny how the banking crisis that blew a hole in our economy just 8 years ago hasn't taught us anything and that the TBTF banks who fucked us then are even bigger and more unregulated now. funny how at least half of us believe that banning abortions will prevent them from happening, yet banning guns won't stop anyone from getting guns. i could go on and on, but suffice to say there are deep flaws in our nation's view of reality that are quite a bit bigger than our political system can handle, and at any rate they won't be fixed while congress has a 90% reelection rate and the toxic brew of citizens united + bucky v valeo lets the rich control the govt wholesale

Lyion wrote:What I'd personally like to see are term limits, balanced budget amendment, and the executive and judicial branches doing what they are supposed to do and not to legislate. The bumper crop of Presidential candidates all are promising vast legislative changes which are completely out of the purview of the responsibilities of the executive branch which the public seems to ignore for some reason.

i have mixed views on term limits - obviously they help control corruption and the calcification of congress into nothing but old rich millionaires that have lived inside the DC bubble for so long they stop understanding ordinary american life, but it also has a way of limiting the amount of collective legislative experience those bodies can draw upon to do their jobs. i think Nebraska has an interesting workaround actually, our unicameral state senate (we have the only unicameral in the nation!) limits senators to two consecutive terms. it's common knowledge the rule was passed to get rid of ernie chambers, but after taking a term off he ran again and defeated the incumbent quite easily. that model might work for US congress - it prevents any one person from monopolizing an office for decades and occasionally forces fresh blood in, but doesn't permanently disqualify particularly popular congresscritters from returning if the people really want them back. for that matter, my boss has a pretty cool idea about the POTUS, he says we should limit them to a single 6-year term so s/he doesn't have to spend the entire 4th year campaigning for reelection. just a thought

i am not a big fan of the balanced budget amendment idea. it's nice in theory, but what happens when some crazy shit goes down and we don't have the cash to pay for it? like say we finally balanced the budget - you know, like clinton did - but another katrina or 9/11 or sandy happens? "sorry, millions of americans, but we stapled our dicks to this amendment that says we are literally not allowed to spend a penny more than we have, and we didn't budget for this, so you're totally out of luck." no thanks

finally i don't particularly feel like the judicial branch is legislating. some decisions i really loathe and other decisions really pleased me (and if i ever meet scalia in person i'm going to break my hand on his stupid face) but i feel 99% of the time when someone accuses them of "legislating from the bench" it's usually because they're pissed about a particular ruling. you have a much better argument about the executive branch attempting to legislate, but again i also sorta feel like the POTUS is really only doing what he can with the agencies under his direct control (EPA for example) since congress has done nothing but sit on each other's thumbs for the past 5 years

mandatory pisstake: hey at least someone's legislating

So, I've legitimately attempted to educate my friends (in my own way, by baiting them into a discussion like a troll, and then going legit with facts and data once they bite)

They're hopeless.

They're so convinced that the Republicans are looking out for the little man working class, that it's impossible to prove them otherwise.

I'm not sure I can even be acquaintances with someone who is genuinely going to vote for Trump in 2016 and when presented with why it's an awful idea, they dig in deeper and start spewing shit about welfare leeches, illegals, and how much they pay in taxes.

me when people talk about Trump as a real candidate

Trump is the heel we need. He's uniting America through their disgust for him lol.

trump worries me for two reasons

1. he is a product of us

if you take every xenophobic poorhating vaguely-racist sentiment we collectively share as a nation of morons addicted to cheap trinkets and reality TV, distill the whole mess down into one human-shaped homunculus, put 11 digits into his bank account, and stick him in front of the world's biggest microphone, you get trump. he's not some loon spouting hateful privileged outrage everywhere, he's US. our society created him. our society fed and nurtured what he has become. you could say "oh he's just a businessman" but that's exactly the problem - there's a DEMAND for his type of awfulness, all he's doing is supplying it.

2. he doesn't give a fuck

all the other clowns in the GOP primary circus (whether varsity or JV) have to manage their statements and control their diction and rhetoric, at least to an extent. sure they still use code words and dog whistles to convey their anti-poor anti-color anti-woman stances (a large portion of which come from the "southern strategy" of their forbears), but that's still something. they realize there is a consequence for going "full retard" and that consequence is a serious loss of public credibility that could surely make them lose and might even cost them their jobs/livelihoods.

trump on the other hand does not give any sort of fuck. he has nothing to fear from losing his job/office, so he feels no compulsion to filter any of the heinous bile he spews. and thanks to the supply-and-demand phenomenon i pointed out above, this has proven to be really popular with assholes all over america. popular enough to win the nomination? maybe. heck, fox news went after him for not falling into line like a good little GOP-bot, and he didn't even flinch - and now roger ailes threw his own reporter under the bus just to make it up to him. ultimately i don't think he takes the white house, but still. shit's gonna get ugly.


edit: left out a preposition argh

Trump is the only reason I'm following politics right now outside of my local area and he's making other politicians more honest and angry. That's a good thing, even if it's happening as a result of a scumbag being in the race.

The thing about Trump is, he's such an arrogant prick, he thinks lying is beneath him. In a way, it's an admirable quality. He's also much more moderate than many of the other candidates. Problem is, he doesn't play the game. All the other Republicans think just like he does, or worse. They just don't say it. I like Trump the same way I like Kanye West. He's crazy and funny, and at the end of the day it has no effect on my life. I just think there's more damaging than Trump out there. He's not electable though, so it makes no difference.

Zanchief wrote:All the other Republicans think just like he does, or worse. They just don't say it.

kinda said that already but yeah pretty much

they all have the "if i say what i really think i won't get elected and my brand name will be tarnished" mentality

whereas his mentality is like "i'm already a multibillionaire, the fuck am i afraid of"

Sorry TLDR.

perry long gone, walker out today

rundown of the remainders:

evangelical clowncar (cruz, huckabee, santorum): the establishment hates cruz because he keeps dicking around in the senate. huckster won't get any support either, his brand of fundamentalism has 0% chance of winning over the 30% of centrists the two parties fight over every cycle. nobody knows why santorum is even bothering, he's a joke - i'm choosing to believe his friends had a bet going as to whether they could get him to take a third swing.

establishment toadies (bush, graham, jindal): idk why graham or jindal think they have any chance either. graham is a) too hawkish for most americans and b) suspected of having The Gay, and jindal is too brown for the base. bush will probably hang around for the long haul since he's got the pedigree and the establishment's blessing.

not crazy enough (kasich): "Just because they don’t think the same way doesn’t mean we shouldn’t love them," he said. "That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith." p much disqualifies him from nomination process, i'd say. GOP primary voters are way too rabidly anti-gay to give this guy the time of day. he'll shuffle off quietly like huntsman did in 2012

too many skeletons in the closet (christie): the second he looks like a credible threat he'll start getting hammered on his mob-style governor tactics. only chance he has is to really play up his bipartisan work following superstorm sandy and hope it translates into the impression of electability.

GOP ain't ready yet (rubio, paul): rubio is not white enough, and not mature(-looking) enough. his only real chance is if the establishment decides they HAVE to do something to reach out to nonwhites. though he toes a fair chunk of the party line, paul's outspoken views on NSA, drones, and the war on drugs pretty much queers him for most of the base.

outsiders (trump, fiorina, carson): trump is altogether awful and i've already commented on him above. fiorina stands a chance i think because the GOP loves their capitalists no matter how shitty they are - and she's a WOMAN! what a great way to show all the women (we've tried our best to deprive of health care) that we can connect with them! carson is tough to read; he scores in the minority column but the rightwing jackoffs in this country love to rally behind a demagogue and he's got a pretty flat personality. hell he makes Mitt look charming.


to be fair, here's my take on the Ds:

hillary - she's got all the backing from the establishment, brand recognition, and shitloads of money. gonna be hard to beat. capitalists around the nation will probably be fairly happy with her in the white house, so expect her to have home court advantage the whole way.

bernie - still putting up big numbers despite a virtual media blackout, but i'm gonna predict hillz just straight chokes him out with pure superPAC muscle

biden - if he does announce, i don't see him beating either of the above. depending on the voter, his close association with obama might count against him. if nothing else i'd say too little too late

o'malley - nope



final prediction:

trump vs hillary

trump gets all the scared old white men, hillary gets most of the women and minorities. hillary over trump, 320-218... and we're all dumber and less prepared for the future than ever.


(edit: math)

Whats the knock on Hillary? Most of the negative stuff I've heard is from people who hate GMOs and other such silliness because she's supported Monsanto.

for me? too cozy with big bank lobbies, too hawkish, too opportunistic

Specifically? I feel she's the most realistic candidate, but don't know much about her.

brinstar wrote:for me? too cozy with big bank lobbies, too hawkish, too opportunistic

these plus the war on drugs are basically the main reasons i'm not an establishment democrat myself fwiw

I've fact checked this myself. If you want the sources cited, I can go through the painstaking process of digging them up again.



I can't, ever, vote for Hillary.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary even if it was Trump vs Hillary. It's a lose/lose. That bitch is just as bad as Trump, but hides it behind her party line.

Hrmm well put.

although she did just announce she's against the keystone XL pipeline, years too late

the hope that bernie will drag hillary to the left is a false one - i think if she gets elected she'll snap back into the middle/slightly-right area where most of the dems lurk these days

I'm no big Hillary fan, but given the shit show in the GOP, I'll vote for her over any of those idiots.

It is incredibly sad and disturbing that Trump is at the top of the polls in the GOP. But it's at LEAST as disturbing that Ben Carson is up there. Did you know that he claims that if you believe in evolution, you can't believe in ethics, nor can you live by any sort of moral code, or have any capacity for selfless love? Check this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... dkRg1AQdVE

Obviously, Carson has never heard of Saint Augustine, who lived in the late 4th century to early 5th century AD. He's the saint that famously quipped (paraphrasing here) "God, make me celibate and take me to heaven, but not yet!" He wrote on the perils of literal bible interpretations being at odds with science and reason way back in about 410 AD. If I may quote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

If early Christian major saints are saying that science is not incompatible with Scripture, and that people who claim otherwise are not only worthy of being ridiculed as fools, but also damage Christianity itself, how in fuck is this still a debate today, 1700+ years later? And this idiot is #1 or #2 (depending on the poll) candidate for President of the United States for one of the major parties? I don't even...

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov