Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
By the same token, an openly gay man cannot teach, care for, or otherwise meaningfully interact with children without being accused of being a pedophile or bared from the profession outright. They usually cannot work for religiously affiliated non-church businesses. They also cannot hold official status in most religious denominations, whether it be as a lay member or a full-on ordained member of the clergy, without concealing their orientation. They cannot even be open about it in their day to day lives in some parts of the country because they'll harmed or worse by locals. The religious and conservative see this as fine, so it's been up to the government and special interest groups to protect gay people from their own fellow Americans... and this is not a burden the religious face ether, as Christians aren't being tied to fence posts and being beaten to death for their beliefs.
Both groups are having their rights violated, but only one group sees actual violence done to them in the process. As long as this remains the case, it is clear which side has the moral high ground.[DOUBLEPOST=1453321302,1453321035][/DOUBLEPOST]
This is the absolute truth, however, and we need more of it. Democracy only works BECAUSE of compromise but it's been too long since any of us have had to sacrifice much of anything for a good cause.
GasBandit
Staff member
YOU TAKE THAT BACK YOU SON OF A I'm kidding.
I don't feel like that's a fair statement. I know -some- certainly do, but then I'd also say that those people aren't being very Jesus-like.
And that's also what makes me feel sketchy about religion. It's the people involved in it more than the belief system itself. I want to believe it's only a minority, but it's sadly a very loud and vocal minority that use religion to justify their hatreds. Anyone that truly believed what they were saying would want to hold compassion for their fellow man.
Edit: I also somehow thought I was in the religion thread.
Last edited:
Oh, it's false, is it? The Bush tax cuts didn't disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans and increase income inequality? Really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/
1. Drove the deficit : This chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows how the Bush tax cuts are likely to continue be a major driver of federal budget deficits 20 years after they were first passed. With Congress raising taxes on the wealthy on Tuesday, the effect on deficits will be somewhat less -- about $600 billion less than shown in this chart. Still, they will remain the largest component of deficits for the foreseeable future.
2. Fueled income inequality: This chart from the Congressional Research Service suggests that the Bush tax cuts, which significantly reduce top marginal tax rates and capital gains rates, helped widen income inequality in the 2000s. As the report says, “as the top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases — that is, income disparities increase.” This chart shows how the percentage of income flowing to the top 0.1 percent of earners increases as top tax rates decrease.
3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Tax Policy Center, showing the distributional breakdown of the Bush tax cuts before they were amended on Tuesday. Going forward, the top 1 percent of earners will benefit much less -- though still quite a bit.
4. Increased take-home pay for middle-class workers: While much of the perks from the Bush tax cuts flowed to the top, they also helped middle-class earners, who kept more of their earnings because of reduced tax rates. This was especially important in the last decade, since median wages stagnated, and it may be one reason why Democrats so readily pushed to extend most of the Bush tax cuts. This chart is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office. The red line shows the pre-tax average income of the middle quintile of income earners. As you can see, it is pretty flat in the 2000s. (Median income -- as opposed to average -- actually declined.) The blue line shows, however, that taxes were taking less money out of middle-class paychecks after the Bush tax cuts were put in place, offsetting some of the slow wage growth.
Hopefully this is just a thoughtless backhanded jab at the religious with regards to morality, rather than a value judgement about who is worthy of human rights.
It's not as nearly common as hate crimes due to sexual orientation, but violence against the religious is hardly "not a burden" nor can you claim it's not deadly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ence-committed-against-christians-in-the-u-s/
But this is a distraction from the point at hand, which I think we agree on, and that is that we need to come to solutions which satisfy human rights across the board, rather than allowing one side to remove rights from the other when the two appear to be in conflict.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, I meant that wasn't the reason for not passing a formal budget. Sorry, I should have been clearer on that. The Bush tax cuts were not concealed or obfuscated - rather to the contrary, they were trumpeted as part of the platform as was the drive to make them permanent (they partially expired in 2013). Conversely, the cost of the wars or the ACA was hardly their selling point.
I'm not actually sure if projected revenue is part of the budget that gets voted on - I'm inclined to say that it's just a spending budget that is being voted on, and thus the tax rate wouldn't be a factor in whether or not a budget gets created or passed, since the tax rates are not set as part of the budgeting process but through separate acts passed through the legislature on their own. Thus, not introducing or passing a budget would have no bearing on "revealing" the effects of the tax rate, and wouldn't be a factor.
GasBandit
Staff member
I wasn't trying to start a new argument about the effects of the bush tax cuts. I was trying to say that regardless of their effects, it would not have been "revealed" by the spending budget approval process, and thus would not have been a reason to conceal or obfuscate said spending budget.
If you want to read more into it than that, then be my guest.
So if my religion said that black people were horrible, it's ok for me to refuse to serve them? If the whole town is that religion, its ok to have a city where black people can't go to any stores? Because replace "black" with "gay" and thats what you're advocating.
GasBandit
Staff member
But! What the heck, if you wanna have that debate, let's have that debate. I'll address the article you quote by each of its 4 points.
The critical flaw in this chart is (aside from the syntax error of listing revenue that "should have" been there as part of the deficit) that it assumes that a tax increase would only result in a commensurate revenue increase with no other effects. That if you tax a million dollars at 35% and get $350,000, that you could, for example, tax that same million dollars at 90% (the upper tax rate in the 50s) and get $900,000. This, of course, ignores the economic dampening effect that taxes have. When you raise income taxes, you discourage economic activity that generates income. When you tax capital gains, you discourage investment. So trying to tax that $1 million at 90% might mean it won't be generated at all in the first place, or would be much smaller, or even more likely, would be generated in a foreign market instead.
Also bear in mind if the analysis of the avowedly liberal CBPP is valid to this debate, then so is that of the Heritage Foundation, its conservative opposite. Here the Heritage foundation shows that:
*Even after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues were above the historical average
*Nearly all the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline
*Capital Gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 cuts
*Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases
*The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts
and
*The rich are shouldering more of the tax burden.
Here's the chart in question:
The critical flaw in this chart is (aside from the syntax error of listing revenue that "should have" been there as part of the deficit) that it assumes that a tax increase would only result in a commensurate revenue increase with no other effects. That if you tax a million dollars at 35% and get $350,000, that you could, for example, tax that same million dollars at 90% (the upper tax rate in the 50s) and get $900,000. This, of course, ignores the economic dampening effect that taxes have. When you raise income taxes, you discourage economic activity that generates income. When you tax capital gains, you discourage investment. So trying to tax that $1 million at 90% might mean it won't be generated at all in the first place, or would be much smaller, or even more likely, would be generated in a foreign market instead.
Also bear in mind if the analysis of the avowedly liberal CBPP is valid to this debate, then so is that of the Heritage Foundation, its conservative opposite. Here the Heritage foundation shows that:
*Even after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues were above the historical average
*Nearly all the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline
*Capital Gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 cuts
*Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases
*The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts
and
*The rich are shouldering more of the tax burden.
Well, yes, that's how taxes and percentages work. If you lower taxes by 5%, someone who makes $300,000 a year will keep $15,000 and someone who makes $1,000,000 a year will keep $50,000. If you want to call that "widening income inequality favoring the top 1%" then, ok, sure, I guess. But bear in mind chart #4 is coming.
Isn't this just restating #2 again? Seems kind of intellectually dishonest to basically make the same point twice.
And here's the rub. The Bush tax cuts didn't "just" help the rich, they also helped the middle class - and not just by lowering their tax burden, but also by stimulating economic growth that gave the middle (and yes, the lower) class more opportunity for income. It's been said by many people many different ways, ranging from "a rising tide lifts all boats" to "I never got a job from a poor person." Tax cuts stimulate the economy, to a point. There may be some debate over where that point is, but as referenced in the article I linked from Heritage.org, when you let people keep more of their money, it makes the economy spin faster. Even rich people. Especially rich people.
I'm willing to grant that point.
Definitely not a judgement on human rights. I'm so far to the left that they are universal to me. I think I put that in a way I didn't intend to begin with and it came out malicious... it's more like "it's clear which is the most pressing governmental concern", especially since their really isn't anything the government can do about about people not wanting to frequent certain businesses or for them to ask for changes if they want continued patronage. Free hand of the market and all that. Even bringing the word morality into it was a mistake.
We don't even get to call violence based in sexual orientation a hate crime because sexual orientation isn't a protected class yet, though religion is. It's only a matter of time though because it's doubtful it would be denied if ever made it to the Supreme Court.
That's not what I'm advocating, and we've had this discussion enough times here that I don't see the point in going through the motions again.
Either you believe in everyone's human rights and you seek compromise where there are conflicts, or you believe in some people's human rights and not other people's.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is ramping up the attacks on the Sanders campaign, and naturally his poll numbers are.... climbing. According to the latest CNN/ORC poll, Sanders is up in Iowa by 8 points, 51 to 43, and in New Hampshire 60 to 33. While going on the offensive is probably the only option available to her campaign, it's a tough play when their opponent has a lot less dirt to dig up on him than she does. Her attacks aren't landing and they're making her look desperate (correctly).
And as long as Bernie refuses to attack, he has the higher ground. We might be seeing the birth of a new political strategy here: be an adorable grandpa, refuse to sink to the level of your enemies.
And yet Trump's numbers are holding strong...
Because all the Republicans are trying to eat themselves. It's also no surprise that conservatives generally favor strong, outspoken candidates.
GasBandit
Staff member
And really, he doesn't need to attack. Conservative media's doing all the attacking that possibly could be done, there. They're practically saying she's an accessory to rape now, for years of covering up for Bill's dalliances.
She knew what Cosby was doing?
GasBandit
Staff member
Hah, at this point, you know, she actually might have. I mean, who knows what she knows, the FBI's finding e-mails from her server even the legislators investigating her don't have high enough security clearance to see.
Considering just the stuff we know he's done, I wouldn't be surprised. That is one of the real problems I have with her feminist credibility: if she knew what Bill was doing, she had an obligation to stop it, even if it ruined her marriage and political career. That she didn't ether means she didn't know (which is unlikely), didn't care (possible), or valued her ambitions higher than her obligations to other women (likely). It's one of the key reasons I'm not voting for her in the primary.
I find it sicking that I may have to choose between a rapist enabler and an actual, cackling super villian next election, but that's the world we live in.
Well you could always show up to the polls and not continue to give your approval to a two party system.
You can go fuck yourself.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, like any other franchised restaurant, I'm sure there's bound to be a bad manager here or there, but for my own personal experience, all the Freebirds I've been to have been far superior to Chipotle, and far less pretentious.
