American Politics / Current Events Thread

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

15 hours ago, Rhino said:

Most legitimate protests are peaceful. 

Yea, that's how we got our independence from Britain right? They just listened to us speak. 

[B.A. | 1,139]

19 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Really? How would it work? Destroy the Affordable Healthcare Act... Destroy programs that help poor/disabled people like welfare, etc...

They want poor and disabled people to die so they can save their money, because they only care about themselves. It's pretty obvious. It's all about money. Why help the poor/disabled/marginalized? They instead can keep their money. They are selfish. They would rather those people die and they keep their money.

I think that's a stretch.  Not being for certian social programs does not equal wanting people dead. I'm not going down to the homeless tent cities and inviting them to come live in my house, or giving them access to my bank account, that doesn't mean I want them all dead. I guess that means I'm selfish?

[Rhino | 105]

9 hours ago, B.A. said:

9 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Really? How would it work? Destroy the Affordable Healthcare Act... Destroy programs that help poor/disabled people like welfare, etc...

They want poor and disabled people to die so they can save their money, because they only care about themselves. It's pretty obvious. It's all about money. Why help the poor/disabled/marginalized? They instead can keep their money. They are selfish. They would rather those people die and they keep their money.

I think that's a stretch.  Not being for certian social programs does not equal wanting people dead. I'm not going down to the homeless tent cities and inviting them to come live in my house, or giving them access to my bank account, that doesn't mean I want them all dead. I guess that means I'm selfish?

A big stretch. His argument falls apart immediately. There are millions of poor and disabled Republicans. So the Republicans' master plan is to destroy programs that help disabled and poor people so that they can kill tons of poor and disabled Republicans and Democrats so that they the Republicans can save their money and so that Trump will win his reelection, got it. Makes perfect sense to me. 

Your argument also hinges on assuming Democrats aren't rich. Only rich Republicans could come up with such a diabolical plan. 

@B.A. you're just the worst. So selfish. How dare you not donate your money. How dare you kill the homeless. 

[Strange | 1,705]

Yikes, Trump’s comments on dead soldiers being losers/military being suckers.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

15 hours ago, Rhino said:

There are millions of poor and disabled Republicans

Those people don't understand how the world works. They are voting against their own best interests. I know tons of people like that around here. I know people on disability who vote for GOP candidates cause "MERICA!" and "build the wall!" when those same candidates would end social programs that help those people immediately if they could, destroying their income and livelihood. They are not educated enough to understand how things work.

16 hours ago, Rhino said:

they can kill

I never said they want to "kill" them. They just want them gone so they don't have to deal with them and help pay for their needs. Not their problem. 

16 hours ago, Rhino said:

that they the Republicans can save their money

Explain to me why most Republicans do not support the Affordable Care Act. Explain to me why most conservatives do not support "social" programs like welfare and disability. Provide valid reasons that have nothing to do with money.

It's. All. About. Money. 

If you don't think it is, you're fooling yourself. 

16 hours ago, Rhino said:

How dare you not donate your money. How dare you kill the homeless. 

A really stupid thing to say but please twist my words however you'd like to fit your narrative.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

Trump bans 'anti-American' diversity training

Just making things whiter and whiter. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

Kyle Rittenhouse and his militia defense ignores that private paramilitaries are illegal

 

 

[Rhino | 105]

4 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Those people don't understand how the world works. They are voting against their own best interests. I know tons of people like that around here. I know people on disability who vote for GOP candidates cause "MERICA!" and "build the wall!" when those same candidates would end social programs that help those people immediately if they could, destroying their income and livelihood. They are not educated enough to understand how things work.

I never said they want to "kill" them. They just want them gone so they don't have to deal with them and help pay for their needs. Not their problem. 

Explain to me why most Republicans do not support the Affordable Care Act. Explain to me why most conservatives do not support "social" programs like welfare and disability. Provide valid reasons that have nothing to do with money.

It's. All. About. Money. 

If you don't think it is, you're fooling yourself. 

A really stupid thing to say but please twist my words however you'd like to fit your narrative.

 

On 9/4/2020 at 10:27 AM, CodysGameRoom said:

Really? How would it work? Destroy the Affordable Healthcare Act... Destroy programs that help poor/disabled people like welfare, etc...

They want poor and disabled people to die so they can save their money, because they only care about themselves. It's pretty obvious. It's all about money. Why help the poor/disabled/marginalized? They instead can keep their money. They are selfish. They would rather those people die and they keep their money.

As the great officer Hops from Zootopia would say, "Actually it's your word against yours."

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

 

As the great officer Hops from Zootopia would say, "Actually it's your word against yours."

Explain to me how wanting someone to die is the same thing as killing them? Maybe work on your reading comprehension and then come back to the big boy thread.

Way to dodge my other questions, though.

[Rhino | 105]

44 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Explain to me how wanting someone to die is the same thing as killing them? Maybe work on your reading comprehension and then come back to the big boy thread.

Way to dodge my other questions, though.

I don't even know where to begin with your post and frankly it doesn't matter what I say. None of you take me seriously anyways. I can't speak for Republicans and why many don't support welfare and disability programs, but I can guess. My best guess is they feel people should earn their way through life and not be handed everything. I highly doubt it's because they want them to die as you suggest. 

You're saying taking away those programs leading to their deaths isn't an indirect way of killing them? Wanting someone to die doesn't mean you want to kill them but you're making it sound like they want to defund these programs, thus in a way kill these people by not giving them the stuff they need. 

I'll await your response. Not sure why I even bother responding sometimes lol.

[Kguillemette | 1,561]

9 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

explain to me why most Republicans do not support the Affordable Care Act. Explain to me why most conservatives do not support "social" programs like welfare and disability. Provide valid reasons that have nothing to do with money.

 

Philosophically, the idea is to limit social programs to encourage people to get off of them and to discourage people from staying on them for longer than necessary. Republicans support programs, just not to the extent that democrats do. Take WIC, for example. WIC is very helpful for new parents caught off guard by the expenses of child rearing. They provide $150 a month in groceries and formula give or take pending income to low income families until the child turns 5. So that's 5 years to figure out how to increase your income and manage your income to the point where you no longer need the assistance. And if by circumstance, you cannot feed your children properly beyond that, there are programs such as SNAP and Section 8 housing to help.

[Rob Bryant | 12]

11 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Those people don't understand how the world works. They are voting against their own best interests... They are not educated enough to understand how things work.

Sometimes people SEEM like they're voting against their own best interest, when they actually aren't. Some folks understand that, in some regards, man needs to be restrained. This is actually doctrine that goes back at least as far as Edmund Burke. I'm sure you could find this kind of thought WAY before that, too. Some people will take advantage of what they can, because it's pretty much human nature. But those that realize it may vote to have certain things undone, because it would actually benefit them in the long run. For instance, I could see someone voting for Trump because they feel like the extra unemployment money is hindering them from going back to work, since they are making more than they would there. They know the incentive, but don't like it.

The "don't understand how the world works," and calling folks uneducated is pretty lame to say.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

16 hours ago, Rhino said:

Not sure why I even bother responding sometimes

Yea, me either! LOL

14 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Philosophically, the idea is to limit social programs to encourage people to get off of them and to discourage people from staying on them for longer than necessary. Republicans support programs

I understand the philosophy. I'm speaking from my life experience. All the way back to high school here in Nebraska I can cite numerous examples of people saying they would gladly choose to end programs like that to save their own money. Selfish kids influenced by their selfish parents, who grow up to be selfish adults. I've seen the selfishness here. You can't tell me it's not the same elsewhere.

 

12 hours ago, Rob Bryant said:

I could see someone voting for Trump because they feel like the extra unemployment money is hindering them from going back to work, since they are making more than they would there. They know the incentive, but don't like it.

The "don't understand how the world works," and calling folks uneducated is pretty lame to say.

I'd call someone who made a choice on who to vote for based on one issue uneducated. 

You can call it lame, but it's the world I live in here in Nebraska and many other places too. Once again, I'm speaking from experiences, things I have seen and heard, in person, and in my local area. My cousin who draws social security disability (because he absolutely needs it to survive) voted for Trump because he said he was going to build a wall and keep America safe. They ABSOLUTELY take advantage of the poor/disadvantaged/uneducated by using fear tactics to distract them from issues that would be more important to them. No Mexican person is ever gonna cross the border and attack my cousin. But it's all he'd talk about. It's a non issue but it was the most important thing to him. It's manipulation.

So nah, I don't think it's lame to assume that a large majority of voters and uneducated about what their vote actually means. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by CodysGameRoom

[Rhino | 105]

8 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Yea, me either! LOL

I understand the philosophy. I'm speaking from my life experience. All the way back to high school here in Nebraska I can cite numerous examples of people saying they would gladly choose to end programs like that to save their own money. Selfish kids influenced by their selfish parents, who grow up to be selfish adults. I've seen the selfishness here. You can't tell me it's not the same elsewhere.

 

I'd call someone who made a choice on who to vote for based on one issue uneducated. 

You can call it lame, but it's the world I live in here in Nebraska and many other places too. Once again, I'm speaking from experiences, things I have seen and heard, in person, and in my local area. My cousin who draws social security disability (because he absolutely needs it to survive) voted for Trump because he said he was going to build a wall and keep America safe. They ABSOLUTELY take advantage of the poor/disadvantaged/uneducated by using fear tactics to distract them from issues that would be more important to them. No Mexican person is ever gonna cross the border and attack my cousin. But it's all he'd talk about. It's a non issue but it was the most important thing to him. It's manipulation.

So nah, I don't think it's lame to assume that a large majority of voters and uneducated about what their vote actually means. 

Both sides use fear tactics to sway voters. If you're dumb enough to fall for those tactics, that's on you. 

People often vote with their wallet. Some of it might be selfishness, but on the flip side, people could be legitimately concerned about not being able to afford any extra tax raises if they have to support more programs. Maybe they also really do just want some more money. Some might say that's not being selfish. Where do my taxes go? How do I  know they actually go towards what they're supposed to go towards. Furthermore, what if I don't agree with the program my taxes are going towards? Imagine if some of your tax dollars went towards supporting the KKK. You wanting to end that program to save yourself some money isn't being selfish. You're wanting to end it because it doesn't align with your beliefs and you don't want to support it. Yes before you put words in my mouth or anything, I realize supporting disability and social programs is not the same as supporting a hypothetical KKK program. The premise is still the same though. If I believe you should work your @ss off to make ends meet if you are physically able to work, instead of living off welfare, that's not me being selfish. That's me saying you should stop being lazy and living off the system. You know, earn your way through life. Stop complaining about everything and wanting everything handed to you. People can make ends meet with less money if they're smart with their finances. That's a completely different discussion though.

[Californication | 1,490]

22 hours ago, Rob Bryant said:

Sometimes people SEEM like they're voting against their own best interest, when they actually aren't. Some folks understand that, in some regards, man needs to be restrained. This is actually doctrine that goes back at least as far as Edmund Burke. I'm sure you could find this kind of thought WAY before that, too. Some people will take advantage of what they can, because it's pretty much human nature. But those that realize it may vote to have certain things undone, because it would actually benefit them in the long run. For instance, I could see someone voting for Trump because they feel like the extra unemployment money is hindering them from going back to work, since they are making more than they would there. They know the incentive, but don't like it.

The "don't understand how the world works," and calling folks uneducated is pretty lame to say.

If people would vote for Trump because they think extra unemployment is bad for people how do they feel about all the money Donald Trump and the Fed are pouring out to corporations.

And what you are saying is ignorant/uneducated because whether we are talking about food stamps or an unemployment plus, they grow the economy.

It is pretty dumb for people not to understand that just because they aren't the person getting the check that they aren't benefitting indirectly. 

Spending is already decreasing in the economy because of the reduction in unemployment. Business are bringing in less revenue. Permanent job losses are increasing. These reductions will begin in one industry and work their way backwards through the supply chain.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Californication

[Californication | 1,490]

23 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Philosophically, the idea is to limit social programs to encourage people to get off of them and to discourage people from staying on them for longer than necessary. Republicans support programs, just not to the extent that democrats do. Take WIC, for example. WIC is very helpful for new parents caught off guard by the expenses of child rearing. They provide $150 a month in groceries and formula give or take pending income to low income families until the child turns 5. So that's 5 years to figure out how to increase your income and manage your income to the point where you no longer need the assistance. And if by circumstance, you cannot feed your children properly beyond that, there are programs such as SNAP and Section 8 housing to help.

Wait a minute. You said "Republicans support programs just not to the extent Democrats do." 

The Republicans did a two trillion dollar tax cut for corporations. That might be bigger than all the U.S. social programs combined. And on top of that the Republican party is just pouring out money to all the big corporations.

Republicans like welfare. They just don't like giving welfare to the poor and middle class. Republicans give their welfare to the rich.

[Rhino | 105]

5 minutes ago, Californication said:

Wait a minute. You said "Republicans support programs just not to the extent Democrats do." 

The Republicans did a two trillion dollar tax cut for corporations. That might be bigger than all the U.S. social programs combined. And on top of that the Republican party is just pouring out money to all the big corporations.

Republicans like welfare. They just don't like giving welfare to the poor and middle class. Republicans give their welfare to the rich.

What about the $1200 they gave everyone who made what was it less than $100k? Then the extra $500 per kid you have too. What about all the extra unemployment benefits they've given out during the past 6 months? I can't remember any time in history where the U.S government has given out this much money to most of it's citizens this quickly. I realize part of it is Trump trying to prop up the economy until the election, but still, there's a crap ton of money that has been handed out since COVID-19 started, and not only to big corporations. 

[Californication | 1,490]

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

What about the $1200 they gave everyone who made what was it less than $100k? Then the extra $500 per kid you have too. What about all the extra unemployment benefits they've given out during the past 6 months? I can't remember any time in history where the U.S government has given out this much money to most of it's citizens this quickly. I realize part of it is Trump trying to prop up the economy until the election, but still, there's a crap ton of money that has been handed out since COVID-19 started, and not only to big corporations. 

The stimulus checks were $290 billion. The unemployment plus up was like $250 billion. I believe the last total I heard from the Fed spending was $7 trillion, but I will need to confirm. They gave us pocket change.

The reason that $540 billion makes such a big difference in the economy compared to the seven trillion is because most of the people they are giving it to can't afford to save it 

Most of the businesses that are receiving money from the Fed aren't investing it in their business because overall people aren't spending money. So even though the Fed is shoving it out the door, it is not stimulating the economy. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Californication

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

Here's what is going on in my neck of the woods:

 

[Rhino | 105]

17 hours ago, Californication said:

The stimulus checks were $290 billion. The unemployment plus up was like $250 billion. I believe the last total I heard from the Fed spending was $7 trillion, but I will need to confirm. They gave us pocket change.

The reason that $540 billion makes such a big difference in the economy compared to the seven trillion is because most of the people they are giving it to can't afford to save it 

Most of the businesses that are receiving money from the Fed aren't investing it in their business because overall people aren't spending money. So even though the Fed is shoving it out the door, it is not stimulating the economy. 

At least people got that much. Could've been $0. A lot of people I know spent it on really stupid stuff they don't need like eating out at nice places or buying TVs. If you let all these big companies fall, that'd be terrible for the economy overall. Once big companies fall, it's a trickle down effect and everything else fails. They need to help everyone and that's what they've done, admittedly disproportionately. 

 

5 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Here's what is going on in my neck of the woods:

 

Well that is disgusting and should not be tolerated. These kinds of people disgust me. Sadly I don't think anything will be done about the message on that truck.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

On 9/6/2020 at 9:48 PM, Californication said:

The Republicans did a two trillion dollar tax cut for corporations. That might be bigger than all the U.S. social programs combined. 

 

When a number like $2T gets quoted in relation to tax cuts or increases it is almost always over a 10 year period.

$200B/yr isn't chump change, but it's not as big as you're making it out to be.

[Californication | 1,490]

1 hour ago, arch_8ngel said:

When a number like $2T gets quoted in relation to tax cuts or increases it is almost always over a 10 year period.

$200B/yr isn't chump change, but it's not as big as you're making it out to be.

I think the estimate is 2.3 trillion over 10 years. And the cuts are actually larger than that because the reduction in the corporate income tax rate is permanent meaning after the ten years corporations will continue paying lower taxes. Trump reduced corporate taxable income to a flat 20%. And that is before deductions, many corporations are now paying 0% effective income tax. In 2018 Amazon made 11 Billion in profits and paid 0 income tax, TY Donald Trump.

My point is that $2 trillion for tax cuts for the rich and $7 trillion from the fed is 9 trillion dollars being expended mostly for the rich and corporations. The stimulus and unemployment plus is $540 Billion. 

The $540 billion is 6% of what the Republicans gave to corporations/rich. So to say that the Democrats are the party that give free hand outs is a joke at this point because Republicans programs are bigger examples of welfare/socialism than the Democrats have proposed.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

42 minutes ago, Californication said:

 And the cuts are actually larger than that because the reduction in the corporate income tax rate is permanent meaning after the ten years corporations will continue paying lower taxes.

Nothing is "permanent" with taxes or politics, you know that. 

[Californication | 1,490]

58 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Nothing is "permanent" with taxes or politics, you know that. 

It will not be easy to change the tax law back. Changing tax law against corporations is much harder than changing laws in their favor because they have so many representatives in congress. If the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency, you might see a partial roll back, but even that is uncertain because the conservative Democrats will line up with Republicans to fight it.

And on top of that the benefits of the tax decreases in future years is already being recognized now, that is the way tax accounting works. 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Californication

[Link | 2,768]

Somebody was offering Scott Adams as a smart reasonable guy that everybody should listen to...