How about this. Go to Zero-based budgetting. Instead of “Well, you’ll get what you used last year”, make them define every program and determine the merits.
Hey, this is going to be totally off topic, but when you have a message board that is called “Straight Dope” and you say you are “Recovering”, the banner ads give you a bunch of addition rehabilitation links…
I am fundamentally against requiring sacrifices by everyone at the snotty end on the economy, and none from the top end, so, no, that is unacceptable. It is a matter of fairness and balance.
Why don’t Republicans think everyone should share the pain? And why would Democrats be inclined to kowtow to Republicans who think compromise is a dirty word? Everybody should give up something. Democrats have demonstrated they are willing to make deep spending cuts, against their own political interests; what have Republicans done to reciprocate?
I say if they don’t yield on revenue, fuck 'em, let’s go to the brink. Republicans have much more to lose than Democrats; Democrats know that, and deep inside Republicans know that also.
Well, here;s the problem.
Bottom line. Government spends too much. Government spends more than they take in. And usually, when they get a tax increase, they usually increase spending. So, no, I want to see cuts long before ANYONE comes back here and tells me that we need to tax anyone any more.
I think taxes on the rich are probably inevitable, but I’ll be damned if I’ll go along with it until government has had to do what I’VE had to do in this recession- tighten the belt and spend more responsibly.
Why is the real solution to raise taxes on a group that makes less than 50% of the total income earned in the US? If I raise the marginal tax rate 1% on someone making $50,000 a year, I’ve gained $500. If I raise it .5% on someone making $1,000,000 I net $5,000. Right?
Not to mention that the $1M guy is probably going to miss that $5k a lot less than the 50K guy will miss the 500.
Then further debate between us is pointless, because I cannot support any deficit reduction that does not also include revenue enhancement. Full stop.
Neither of our positions are negotiable, because they are each based on diametrically opposed philosophies of government, as well as two unresolvable personal opinions.
Have a nice day.
Yes, that’s right, I can. And as I can, I refuse to cater to teaching the idea that the Earth is six thousand years old and man was created purely out of dust in the Garden of Eden. I will not cater to that any more than I would approve of teaching that the Earth is flat. That those two memes are incorrect is not a “point of view,” that is hard fact. So don’t even try to Obi-wan your way around it.
As for proving that God didn’t “have a role in” the creation of the universe… Google up the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative. You might find it interesting reading. Then again, you might not.
You keep on saying this.
This is the Dope.
Back it up.
There is no way in heck that Palin would win. First she seems highly uneducated when it comes to relying on history. She is a “showboat”, has no gravitas, and is a cheerleader for the conservative cause and not the middle. She is all over the map and is indecisive. The most telling character trait she has is “greed”. In my view she resigned as Alaska’s governor to make money and gain fame. She is nothing more than a “social gadfly” and I do not believe the majority of people in this great country believe that she has any ability to get this country on the right track.
One more time.
I personally don’t think Palin is actually in the running or planning to run.
But the things you cite as reasons why she ‘can’t’ win are typical elitist thinking. They don’t matter to most Americans. What matters to Americans right now is that the economy is a mess. They are looking for someone dynamic to fix it.
Palin is just “showboat” enough to convince them she could do that.
Now, all that said, we are really in the “fantasy football” stage of the nominating process right now. Bachmann and Palin are the base’s dream dates, but they m ight settle on Romney or Perry on the theory they are more “electable”.
The problem, of course, is that John McCain was supposed to be more electable than Huckabee. John Kerry was supposed to be more electable than Howard Dean. Walter Mondale was supposed to be more electable than Gary Hart.
Electable usually means, “We’re not enthusiastic about these guys, and you shouldn’t be, either.”
(waves hand) “These are not the Droids you’re looking for!”
Of course, nobody is advocating about teaching about the Garden of Eden or that the earth is six thousand years old. They are advocating that maybe there is evidence life is intelligently designed and that there might be a purpose behind it.
The current solution, has resulted in neither theory being taught, because no one wants the hassles of a kid standing up in the middle of class and spewing creationist talking points.
So as a result, it isn’t just that 55% believe the talking snake theory of the origin of life, it’s that so few people even understand evolution. A recent poll showed only 19% of adult Americans could define evolution and natural selection.
Then again, large percentages of Americans believe in UFO’s(39%), Ghosts(51%), and Bigfoot(18%).
so why not teach both, and then let people make up their own minds, because that’s pretty much what they are going to do anyway.
Why not teach them that 2+2=5 at the same time and let them make their minds up later which is right?
Fallacous argument and you know it.
I can prove 2+2 does not equal five.
I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, or that he didn’t guide evolution and neither can you.
Because they’re no equivalent. Evolution is science based on objective evidence. Intelligent design is a religious belief based on faith.
You can’t prove the God doesn’t guide gravity either. Maybe he’s pushing everything down. But mathematics, gravity, and evolution all work without God being necessary so God shouldn’t be added in to the subjects when they’re taught.
Not if God tells me 2+2=5. Prove that he didn’t.
Nobody’s arguing about God subtly guiding evolution, or whatever. The “Intelligent Design” folks might claim publicly that that’s their argument, but if you dig into what they say internally, or to their base, the only reason they want to get that in the schools is as a stepping stone towards their goal of 6000-year-old, Biblically literal, seven-day creationism. Which, while not exactly provably false, does require if it’s true that God is a damned dirty liar.
I must apologize for doubting Sarah’s smarts. Here is her daughter explaining how awesomely smart Sarah is and how awesome it would be for America if she became president.
I’m subscribed to most of the threads in this Election forum, and right now every thread is the same. Can we please keep the Palin thread about Palin, the Bachmann thread about Bachmann, etc?
Bottom line, taxes at lowest since the 1950s. Another bottom, in the 1950s businesses kicked in about 25 percent of the budget. It is now down to under 6. Bottom line taxes on the rich have been slashed over and over while their wealth grows and grows. Top 400 people have more wealth than bottom 150 million.
You need a bigger bottom.