U.S. Government Shutdowns

[opaltiger]

I don't think he was cancelled. Last I hear, he quit to go to another network. Or possibly to set up his own. He's still very much influential, I'm afraid.

 

[Pwnemon]

I have a genuine question about American politics, because for some reason I've sort of stopped paying close attention so I've missed out on some key stuff, but from my understanding, the Tea Party want to stop paying taxes altogether or severely limit them or something?

If yes, then my question is how do they propose to do anything? I've been told that the theory is that rich people would donate to make things happen (pay the army etc) but that sounds like such a retarded concept so I'm sure I'm misinformed.

I'm genuinely curious and I'd like to fill in the gaps in my knowledge since it's a bit embarrassing to be so out of it but I've been paying more attention to European politics since they're somehow more complicated but less infuriating.

You're absolutely right you're misinformed. Look, you may think the Tea party is a bunch of stupid, moronic hicks stuck in the eighteenth century, but nobody's head can physically be stuck that far up their own ass to want to regress to the Articles of Confederation. The Tea Party's platform is not "We want no taxes," it's "we need a smaller government." Basically, the smaller taxes is not a cause, it's an effect of having such a small government that the smaller taxes can completely fund it.

Also, to everyone who's saying "fuck glenn beck" without actually responding to my statement, that's exactly the kind of response I predicted. But why do I need to triple and quadruple prove my statements just because of my source? Furthermore, Beck wasn't cancelled, he quit. On his own terms. He still has a partnership with NewsCorp, he just won't be on the five o'clock timeslot anymore.

To the person who asked where I would get fifty percent cuts from, I could make a very lengthy response detailing how much could be cut, but I'll just say I was backing up Aobaru's hypothetical world in which the government would shrink down to the size it should be.

To the person who said that 34% of our budget is being cut, you got your numbers wrong. It's 34 billion, not percent. That actually amounts to <1% of the budget.

And about planned parenthood, everything that institution offers that isn't covered by Medicaid is contraceptives and other contraceptives. Seriously, that's it. 300 mil for contraceptives.

 

[opaltiger]

And about planned parenthood, everything that institution offers that isn't covered by Medicaid is contraceptives and other contraceptives. Seriously, that's it. 300 mil for contraceptives.

Assuming your facts are right, are you suggesting this isn't money well spent?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

You're absolutely right you're misinformed.

Why the fuck couldn't you answer a question normally? Last thing I need is lip from some guy.

And considering you're so dead-set against abortion, I don't see what the problem is with spending money on contraceptives and sex ed, especially in the United States.

 

[Pwnemon]

Why the fuck couldn't you answer a question normally? Last thing I need is lip from some guy.

And considering you're so dead-set against abortion, I don't see what the problem is with spending money on contraceptives and sex ed, especially in the United States.

I'm sorry, I guess you missed the part where I answered your question normally.

And I don't feel like funding poor people's free protected sex with my own tax dollars, just so you know.

 

[hopeandjoy]

Besides, Planned Parenthood also works as a clinic for the less than fortunate of us.

Oh, wait. That's bad because it's ~welfare~.

The Tea Party wants little to no taxes, and how they expect to get anything done is the million dollar question.

Eh, quitting still gets him off the air waves. *goes to celebrate with some Jon Stewart*

 

[Pwnemon]

Besides, Planned Parenthood also works as a clinic for the less than fortunate of us.

Oh, wait. That's bad because it's ~welfare~.

The Tea Party wants little to no taxes, and how they expect to get anything done is the million dollar question.

Eh, quitting still gets him off the air waves. *goes to celebrate with some Jon Stewart*

Let's play the "answer the whole post without saying a single new thing game!"

Besides, Planned Parenthood also works as a clinic for the less than fortunate of us.

Oh, wait. That's bad because it's ~welfare~.

And about planned parenthood, everything that institution offers that isn't covered by Medicaid is contraceptives

The Tea Party wants little to no taxes, and how they expect to get anything done is the million dollar question.

The Tea Party's platform is not "We want no taxes," it's "we need a smaller government." Basically, the smaller taxes is not a cause, it's an effect of having such a small government that the smaller taxes can completely fund it.

Eh, quitting still gets him off the air waves. *goes to celebrate with some Jon Stewart*

He still has a partnership with NewsCorp

Well that was fun! Let's do it again next week!

 

[Adriane]

Look, you may think the Tea party is a bunch of stupid, moronic hicks stuck in the eighteenth century, but nobody's head can physically be stuck that far up their own ass to want to regress to the Articles of Confederation. The Tea Party's platform is not "We want no taxes," it's "we need a smaller government." Basically, the smaller taxes is not a cause, it's an effect of having such a small government that the smaller taxes can completely fund it.

Hello, I live in South Carolina. I encounter Tea Partiers on a near-daily basis. I agree a smaller government in theory is a good idea... but not for the entirety of the United States. That said, I thought the south seceding was a pretty fab idea. (Of course they tried and failed horribly -- sure showed them Yanks how a weak central government works out) But so long as we're a nation of 300M+ and thousands of miles wide, a smaller government is a terrible idea. The most successful countries with the highest standards of living are all socialist and considerably smaller. I cannot think of a single capitalistic country apart from the US with a high standard of living.

Also, to everyone who's saying "fuck glenn beck" without actually responding to my statement, that's exactly the kind of response I predicted. But why do I need to triple and quadruple prove my statements just because of my source?

Because your source is unbelievable. I have absolutely no reason to place any faith in Glenn Beck.

And about planned parenthood, everything that institution offers that isn't covered by Medicaid is contraceptives and other contraceptives. Seriously, that's it. 300 mil for contraceptives.

Because everybody has Medicaid. Right. Also abortion.

And I don't feel like funding poor people's free protected sex with my own tax dollars, just so you know.

... you're 13, you don't pay taxes. Also horribly spoilt.

 

[hopeandjoy]

No shit he's still has a partnership with NewsCorp. The machine isn't that ready to lose their moron.

And what so fucking bad about contraceptives? It stops those abortions that you have a hate-on for.

And the ~smaller government~ just brings me back to the Articles of Confederation.

EDIT: Relevant chart found while Stumbling:

 

[ultraviolet]

And I don't feel like funding poor people's free protected sex with my own tax dollars, just so you know.

wow, I sure hope you never become poor and have rich people show the same attitude towards you. My family don't make much money, and for a long time we were quite poor and received welfare. stop being so classist, it's actually really hurtful.

 

[Pwnemon]

Hello, I live in South Carolina. I encounter Tea Partiers on a near-daily basis.

hey look it's really cool how I assumed that a Brit would have misconceptions about tea partiers and then you took it personal even though i was like not responding to you and shit but whatever man it's all cool.

I agree a smaller government in theory is a good idea... but not for the entirety of the United States.

why exactly is a smaller government so bad? Please explain your viewpoint. Also, I fail to see the relevance of the rest of that paragraph to this discussion.

Because everybody has Medicaid. Right. Also abortion.

Everyone who would need to get the services from planned parenthood, probably can be covered some other way.

... you're 13, you don't pay taxes. Also horribly spoilt.

That's a nice assumption to make. Maybe I don't pay taxes yet. so?

And what so fucking bad about contraceptives? It stops those abortions that you have a hate-on for.

I'm all for contraceptives except that part where I pay for other people to use them.

And the ~smaller government~ just brings me back to the Articles of Confederation.

Right, it's not like we had 150 years under the constitution where we had a very limited government that would be just fucking silly.

 

[octobr]

Pwnemon. Okay, okay. What? What.

1. I don't think you like... understand how to argue, Pwnemon. I mean. What? What kind of argument is "Why don't ~you~ explain why I am ~wrong~." That just sets them up so you can pick their posts apart line by line, blow each sentence out of proportion, and make situational arguments that don't work against the post as a whole. Before you tell them to disprove you, you should work to prove yourself.

2. You just said "so?" in response to an argument. How is that even -- what gave you the idea that such a response made you look intelligent or like a good debater or anything, I mean, it absolutely reeks of 13-year-old girl. I know I can't /drive/ yet, mom, so /what,/ let me take the car. You should consider forming a full argument before you post your words there pal. "Maybe I don't pay taxes yet. [Reasons why, although I do not yet pay taxes, these things still affect me and mine.]" There ya have it.

3. "I'm all for contraceptives except that part where I pay for other people to use them." "And I don't feel like funding poor people's free protected sex with my own tax dollars, just so you know." agh AGH. Do you not like, get it? Do you not understand that poverty is much like a /disease/ and that if you have the disease already, you can't /prevent getting it?/ Poverty is ouroboros, it's a vicious circle, whatever words you want to use -- once you're sunk into it, the likelihood that your family will fall prey to poverty pretty much sky rockets. Why is this? Because their children may not be planned, because they need to spend money on things like food and not contraceptives, and those children cannot be provided for, and those children can only go to schools meant for impoverished people, and then they will receive subpar education (because it has been proven that education for the poor is not to our standards -- I can pull up my resources if you want), and then they will not be fit to take a job, and then they will be unemployed and poor. How do we stop this? I dunno, maybe help them get things like condoms or other forms of birth control. Saying that you don't want to help pay for contraceptives for those in poverty -- a minute fraction of what we make per year, I mean, seriously -- is pretty much you saying 'I don't want to help end poverty.' Where do you get off saying that.

 

[Koori Renchuu]

Pwnemon, you need to kindly get your facts straight, stop using fallacious argumentative styles, and actually contribute to the conversation. You are detracting from the conversation by using the fallacious argumentative styles and lack of factual information.

Here's the deal, the government is an enormous mess due to the corruption of both parties. The Republicans give money away to large corporations via subsidies. This is not small government, this is government involvement in industries. Democrats have given too much to the lazy portion of the unemployed and those who abuse the system (i.e. Christian Weston Chandler) by not using enough oversight. This isn't a single party issue, it is a bipartisan issue.

 

[Aobaru]

This thread exploded.

Please do remember that, without a relatively* liberal government to control education, you're leaving the future of quite a lot of innocent people in states where like this and thishappen.

And that's where the democratic process comes into play. Parents and students who oppose said policy assemble and make their opinions known, protest, etc. Nothing that requires a $70 billion-funded federal department. These are all local and state issues.

Also, your second link is wrong.

What I don't understand is why you're suggesting we cut education, of all things, rather than, say, defense, seeing that the US spends an ungodly amount of money on defense.

I think I addressed that earlier. I completely agree with severely cutting defense.

This still doesn't get rid of the problem of people with low/no income not being able to afford taxes.

Well, first off, let me tell you I'm not an economist by any means. Economics often confuses me xD

The tax could apply only to those making a minimum income (mind you, depending on how low the tax got, this could be a very low threshold). Also, in this hypothetical situation, those unable to pay could ask for a exemption from the government. But, like now, the tax wouldn't apply to 100% of the populace. Homeless people don't people usually don't make enough to meet the current minimum for income taxes, for example.

But, again, the point is to make the tax small enough that the vast majority could pay it.

Splitting the states into separate countries would aid in fixing internal issues over time -- and if the south/midwest still want to regress, at least they won't take down the others with them. The other big problem is the Constitution. The US is trying to run a country in the 21st century on a document written in the 18th. The second amendment is a fantastic example as to why this is a problem.

I'm completely open to a dissolution of the Union. I actually like the idea behind the Articles: a confederacy of states. They just didn't allow for taxes and control of interstate commerce.

As for the Constitution, I'm not 100% behind it, either. We can empathize today with the Anti-Federalists' fear that the central government would grow to overshadow the states' governments. But the point is, it's here now, so we can't just ignore it. We can amend it, though that's easier said than done.

I have a genuine question about American politics, because for some reason I've sort of stopped paying close attention so I've missed out on some key stuff, but from my understanding, the Tea Party want to stop paying taxes altogether or severely limit them or something?

Pretty much what Pwnemon stated:

The Tea Party's platform is not "We want no taxes," it's "we need a smaller government." Basically, the smaller taxes is not a cause, it's an effect of having such a small government that the smaller taxes can completely fund it.

I agree a smaller government in theory is a good idea... but not for the entirety of the United States. But so long as we're a nation of 300M+ and thousands of miles wide, a smaller government is a terrible idea.

Smaller government especially for the entirety of the United States. What you're neglecting is the power of state governments. Remember, our thousands-of-miles-wide country is actually fifty sovereign states, each with their own government. When the country was founded, all the federal legislature was meant for was these things.

Here's the deal, the government is an enormous mess due to the corruption of both parties. The Republicans give money away to large corporations via subsidies. This is not small government, this is government involvement in industries. Democrats have given too much to the lazy portion of the unemployed and those who abuse the system (i.e. Christian Weston Chandler) by not using enough oversight. This isn't a single party issue, it is a bipartisan issue.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Phantom]

50%? OK you want to see poor, let me show you how I'm living, and I'm better off than a lot of people I know.

Recently filed taxes. I made around 20,000 dollars this last year. Most of it went to taxes, I still owe the federal govt $307 (which I don't HAVE), and am getting $10 back from the state. I am getting jack shit from the gov't. ( I made more than normal last year because I got lots of overtime and was working up to 16 hours days 6-7 days a week, this year so far, notsogood)

My check, which comes biweekly, usually comes to around $700, after taxes and etc removed, averages around $600. I pay $170 for car insurance, $70 for cell phone use, and $60 in utilities, then $550 a month for rent. So of the average $1200 I make per month I can save $350, which then gets split to gas, food, and savings. Now more recently my car was totaled, and I have been driving my father's truck, which has been more gas than normal. So about $150 goes to gas, which I need in order to get to work since I work rather far from my house(about 20 miles). So that leaves $150 to me. Which I spend on perishable food like bread and milk, then I get the rest of my supplies from a food shelf. I have no health or dental, and haven't seen a doctor in three years. And if anything happens like my car getting towed and them charging me for storage for $200 I am virtually screwed. Last month my parent's payed my rent because of the car accident. I've been looking for a second job for three months and no luck.

Tell me how I could afford to pay more in taxes when I can't afford to live right now?

 

[Crazy Linoone]

And that's where the democratic process comes into play. Parents and students who oppose said policy assemble and make their opinions known, protest, etc. Nothing that requires a $70 billion-funded federal department. These are all local and state issues.

But super fundamentalist states will still exist, and that will just make the education there worse. We'll end up with states that outlaw teaching evolution in schools and such, seeing how that almost happened multiple times in the past...

Yadda yadda separation of church and state, but it won't stop the states from removing material, rephrasing material, and doing other not very nice things.

Also, your second link is wrong.

Oops. I'll check my sources better next time.

The tax could apply only to those making a minimum income (mind you, depending on how low the tax got, this could be a very low threshold). Also, in this hypothetical situation, those unable to pay could ask for a exemption from the government. But, like now, the tax wouldn't apply to 100% of the populace. Homeless people don't people usually don't make enough to meet the current minimum for income taxes, for example.

I'm not an economist either, but I can't really see how this is going to work. The problem is that you're taxing the poor people more than the rich people. If both the rich and the poor have to pay the same amount of taxes, then the poor will be paying a higher percentage of their income to taxes (do the math if you want). The problem, of course, lies in that the poor people needs that money more than the rich people.

Money only means so much after a certain amount; when someone has enough money to buy an island, I honestly don't see how paying a bit more taxes is going to hurt that person.

Think of it this way: if your monthly allowance is $10, you would probably think twice about buying a magazine subscription that costs $5 a month, since you'll only have 50% of your allowance left after you bought the magazine. However, if you parents are super rich and generous and you have an allowance of $10,000 a month (these people actually exist and are more common than one'd think, sadly), then you really won't mind that measly $5.

But, again, the point is to make the tax small enough that the vast majority could pay it.

Which would still lead to some people being unable to pay it. Unless you make the tax infinitesimally small, which would make the amount of money gained from it too little to do anything of value.

The thing is that you're taxing people who can't afford to be taxed.

Smaller government especially for the entirety of the United States. What you're neglecting is the power of state governments. Remember, our thousands-of-miles-wide country is actually fifty sovereign states, each with their own government. When the country was founded, all the federal legislature was meant for was these things.

...I think I might actually support the South seceding. It would make the rest of America a better place.

Although it also means that we'll end up with a super fundamentalist country as neighbor. At least we won't have to pay them to not grow corn anymore.

 

[Ether's Bane]

http://forums.dragonflycave.com/showthread.php?p=418931#post418931

Sorry, but it had to be done.

On a related note, I mentioned this before - not only is this the most liberal forum I've ever seen, but the most respected members who hold the most clout here are also generally the furthest left (i.e. radical/almost-radical liberals). In fact, there are people who are quite far left here (myself included) that look conservative next to these people.

 

[Saith]

Welcome to the Liberal Socialist Republic of Teacodia! You must be new here.

This is just so irritating, you don't even know.
Seriously, it happens in every debate. Someone who's not very recognisable comes along, says something a little off, and someone always always responds with something along the lines of either 'everybody disagrees with you, therefore you're wrong' or 'lurk moar jackass'.
You did both.
Kudos.

Fake Edit: You did it twice in the same thread. Well done.

And on the whole 'affording' thing, I guess my stance is that if, after being taxed, someone can't afford their basic needs, they should be on welfare.
I don't see why the people who can afford it (let's say those who make £18k a year) should be treated differently in regards to how much they make. If they can all afford to pay the same rate, then they should be paying the same rate.
(This is also why I think that in a capitalist country, the only tax should be VAT. You're only paying taxes on what you use, so it kinda works out.)

 

[opaltiger]

I don't see why the people who can afford it (let's say those who make £18k a year) should be treated differently in regards to how much they make. If they can all afford to pay the same rate, then they should be paying the same rate.

How on earth is taxing one person 5% of their income and taxing another person 0.0000001% of their income at all fair?

 

[goldenquagsire]

(This is also why I think that in a capitalist country, the only tax should be VAT. You're only paying taxes on what you use, so it kinda works out.)

I don't think you fully understand what 'using' means.

Even if we were to cut almost every single function of the welfare state, there are things such as firefighting, policing, sanitation and transport infrastructure which, if not maintained, would lead to a total collapse of society. For example, without state-sponsored road maintenance programs the transport network would fall into utter disrepair, which means that the exchange of physical goods becomes impossible with all the implications that it entails. VAT simply wouldn't be enough to fund intervention on this level.

You can't have all the benefits of modern society without the taxation to support it.