Republican Presidental Debate Iowa

[Demosthenes11]

We were talking about unemployment at work yesterday, because 3 people I work with are getting laid off(including my boss). Turns out they have been able to find jobs pretty easily, so I started looking, and also found a ton of really decent/good jobs out there. So "unemployment" is people that got laid off, and are collecting unemployment, and not really looking for jobs? Seems like if they really were looking for jobs, they could find one pretty easily. I was kinda shocked cause all you hear about is how there are no jobs at all.

A year ago I spent 3 months looking for a job and it fucking sucked. Got a shit one eventually, then got the break of my life and now I work at a tech startup with connected people that could get me a job almost anywhere in the bay if something were to happen.

moral: i only have job security because I got fucking lucky. Without it, i'd probably still be working at a grocery store

[Plow]

Like who?

There's a reason why the republican strategists are working against Perry. If he gets the nomination, the D platform is, "Hey, look, another governor from Texas who's a hack. Remember how that went last time?"

The entire damn party? The entire field raised their hands to refusing any tax increase of any form. The dominant candidates are all extremely strongly in favor of huge levels of deregulation and cutting spending on the shit that actually matters while leaving the military untouched, and trickle down bullshit. Entire field is pro-life, anti-gay, anti-education, anti-anything that's not rich straight white people.

What's the difference between any of the major candidates and Bush? The fact that as far as we know no foreign dictators tried to kill any of their dads?

[Yabby]

I was even applying for jobs I was a bit overqualified for and didn't even get an email back saying they weren't interested.

My GF applied for a few jobs she was overqualified for, even saying she is willing to take a salary they would be ok with. The problem was always that they knew, that she could find something better when things started to recover.

[Headspace]

Idk about you guys but im still livid that 99.7 % of poor people own a refrigerator.

[test123]

The entire field raised their hands to refusing any tax increase of any form.

Because everytime in the past a 3:1 or 10:1 deal has been a total failure. Nothing has been cut but taxes has gone up. Read some history.

[Ragnus]

That seems to be more of a failure on Congress' behalf than proof that the concept fails. Look at it this way. By your logic if it was just cuts over time, so the country doesn't crash, then nothing would happen because the cuts would never happen. Therefore cuts don't work when it comes to trying to balance the budget.

[kuronosan]

Idk about you guys but im still livid that 99.7 % of poor people own a refrigerator.

Fuck that, I can't believe only 81% of them own Microwaves. Motherfuckers overspending on those $30 Wal-Mart models. LIVING BEYOND THEIR MEANS!!!!!

blah blah blah miserable failure blah

Most of the time a bill is passed that involves money or change, it's always "over time" and it's usually never proportional to the needs. What they mean by raising taxes is that taxes need to be raised on the richer, who are enjoying disproportional tax cuts as compared to their wealth. In short, the only real reason we are in this spending spree is because of military activity, which is the bulk of our spending right now. Don't let their golden tongues fool you into thinking government aid programs and welfare are what got us into this mess. The government has been spending irresponsibly and allowing media and corporations alike to brainwash our citizens into thinking that they're helping the country by spending all of their money and opening credit cards to get these wonderful modern-day conveniences.

Yea, it's stupid that people who complain about being poor have cellphones. What they don't mention is that having a cellphone is not the same thing as having a monthly plan or data access or anything else. Many of those "poor" who have "cellphones" have prepaid plans or cricket plans which are cheap, affordable, and give them basic ability to make phone calls. Know why? Mainstream shit like Verizon and AT&T are horribly overpriced and they know it.

Before people start assuming that spending cuts are the only way to fix the economy, they should probably think about the reason spending is such an issue now. Here's a clue: If you made $50,000 a year and spent $30,000 of it surviving and then you suddenly started making $25,000 a year... a short term solution would be to cut down your spending below $25,000 so that you could live within your means. The answer isn't to cut your pay to $20,000 a year to force you to spend less. The answer is to increase your revenue so that, by comparison, spending $30,000 a year is well within your means. Most of the time people get paid more, they will spend more. You get paid less, you tend to spend less. It's faulty logic to think that this is as simple as it gets, but it forces a hand of responsibility. If you increase taxes on the wealthy and spending simultaneously (in military fronts and other unnecessary parts of our infrastructure) then you allow the system to reach equilibrium much faster and with much more stability.

I'm not an economics major, but I am good with numbers (as I imagine most people who passed 6th grade algebra are). It's not as easy as just ideally saying "oh let's raise tax here and cut here" but it is a pretty simple fucking solution:

1) Expire Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
2) Provide incentive to do domestic business in the U.S., which may mean allowing some larger companies to leave so that smaller companies can thrive and take their place.
3) Cut military spending and pay government people what they are worth, not what they want.
4) Take GDP and reinvest it into the infrastructure to improve our roads, airports, public services, and health services.
5) Invest in techno-scientific research like we used to and push civilization forward. Shit, we spend more time bitching about the LHC than building one of our own.
6) Teach citizens to be responsible and encourage them to seek education instead of fame. Who the fuck cares about Jersey Shore?

[test123]

The solution is to have the same playing rules for everyone. If the Gov subsidize or give tax relief to your competitor then you are screwed. Wal-mart, McDonalds, big corporations have special rules which gives them an advantage in the market.

That and the transfer of wealth through the monetary system is what is causing the problems.

You don't treat the symptoms, you treat the disease. The disease is an unfair and broken monetary system infested with special interest groups.

[Demosthenes11]

shut the fuck up already jesus christ.

the solution is obviously to print mcbucks and waldollars for free trade on the open market

[Ragnus]

Who the fuck cares about Jersey Shore?

A lot of people I guess. Hell, they make almost double I do in one year PER EPISODE just to act like stereotyped jackasses. That's not even counting the endorsement deals, advertisements, and getting paid NOT to wear certain clothes.

[Qalbert]

Their stock dropped like 7-8 percent after that.

[Ragnus]

Well, I'm kinda glad/sad at that fact.

[Tyche]

The solution is to have the same playing rules for everyone. If the Gov subsidize or give tax relief to your competitor then you are screwed. Wal-mart, McDonalds, big corporations have special rules which gives them an advantage in the market.

That and the transfer of wealth through the monetary system is what is causing the problems.

You don't treat the symptoms, you treat the disease. The disease is an unfair and broken monetary system infested with special interest groups.

Are you trying to compare wal mart and small business to rich and poor people?

[kuronosan]

Um. Someone wanna translate this? I think it's trying to say that GOP wanted Tax Cuts to NOT expire, now they're saying they want payroll taxes to increase on the middle class:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.


The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn.


There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.


"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.


The debate is likely to boil up in coming weeks as a special bipartisan committee seeks big deficit reductions and weighs which tax cuts are sacrosanct.


At issue is a tax that the vast majority of workers pay, but many don't recognize because they don't read, or don't understand their pay stubs. Workers normally pay 6.2 percent of their wages toward a tax designated for Social Security. Their employer pays an equal amount, for a total of 12.4 percent per worker.

As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

[Salodin]

I hope that story gets more attention in the coming weeks...but we all know it wont.

[solanis]

wow, you guys ran wild while I was banned. the redistribution of wealth arguments are kind of sad. it's a huge relief to me that you will never get your hands on my money without my consent, though I have a lot of pity for the sense of marginalization you're expressing.

[Talint]

The entire damn party? The entire field raised their hands to refusing any tax increase of any form. The dominant candidates are all extremely strongly in favor of huge levels of deregulation and cutting spending on the shit that actually matters while leaving the military untouched, and trickle down bullshit. Entire field is pro-life, anti-gay, anti-education, anti-anything that's not rich straight white people.

What's the difference between any of the major candidates and Bush? The fact that as far as we know no foreign dictators tried to kill any of their dads?

You're missing my argument, or you're blatantly trying to ignore it.

My point is, picking Perry means that all the terrible things people hate about W. gives the Democrats an easy target, since the argument is the soundbyte: "Hey, look it's another W."

Not one of those republican candidates is saying that we need more George W. Bush, and with good reason: It's bad politics.

They're screaming for the same policies, yes. People won't make the connection (or, worse, they will and not care).

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think anyone is arguing for an expansion of services for the poor, solanis. There's no "pay more for welfare" or whatever. We're just looking for the best way to actually fund our current longstanding obligations. Saying it's "redistribution of wealth" is a little disingenuous.

[aurik]

Solanis, disingenuous?

Hard to believe, man. Hard to believe.

[solanis]

I don't think anyone is arguing for an expansion of services for the poor, solanis. There's no "pay more for welfare" or whatever. We're just looking for the best way to actually fund our current longstanding obligations. Saying it's "redistribution of wealth" is a little disingenuous.

the screams of "TAX THE RICH AND ENFORCE HIGHER WAGES FOR POOR PEEPUL AND INCREASE SOCIAL PROGRAMS" don't reek of redistribution at all, yea

there's no way to fund our longstanding obligations in any sort of short-term capacity. analling the rich will help but it won't fix it, sadly.