Comment by criley2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by criley2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No he didn't. The national Republican Party is outspoken about raising taxes on lower income people, in "broadening the base". In the election-year expose of Romney's secret fundraising speeches, we learned about "the 49%" of Americans who don't pay taxes. Well, we didn't learn about it, it's a very common trope for conservative politicians.

It's no secret that Republicans largely support "base broadening", as well as less-overt attacks on the finances of the poor like their CURRENT attempts to divorce the farm bill from food stamps, to further cut food stamps.

You're trying to enforce some politically correct echo chamber where a national political party isn't responsible for their votes and their policy.

Republicans are openly for raising taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans, are openly for decreasing wealth transfer like foodstamps, welfare and unemployment, and are openly for lowering (and abolishing) corporate taxes.

Those are their policies and it is utterly and totally fair to state that and reference it.

Yes he did.

Your comment and jellicle's comment are not quite the same thing.

Even then, you are painting some of the party's platform in a negative light without showing why exactly that is their platform to begin with nor why you consider them terrible ideas. Some of their reasons may be bad, but that doesn't mean all of their reasons are.

He didn't say these policies were bad, just that they were consistent. They're only bad if you disagree with them.

No he didn't say they were bad, he was just agreeing with the person that said they were bad. But I think it's fair to say that the tone of the discussion implies these two people feel negativity towards the GOP's platform without stating why.

Disagreeing with someone's idea doesn't inherently make that idea bad. People who have the notion that another person's idea is bad solely because they disagree with them with no other evidence is simply a shallow person.

GOP Platform: "I've got mine, f* you."

Leftist Platform: "I'm taking yours, f* you."

Yeah, this line of discussion is going to get us far.

Let me be more specific:

Who is blocking comprehensive reform of the banking sector (which arguably drove not only the US into a recession, but the world as a whole)? Republicans

Draconian anti-abortion laws? Republics

Raising student loan interest rates while keeping lending rates to banks near zero? Republicans

Supporting egregious amounts of defense department spending (The US spends more on defense then the next 10 countries COMBINED; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...)? Republicans

Blocking immigration reform? Republicans

Trying to prevent the implementation of universal healthcare? Republicans.

I could go on, but it would be pointless.

If only these issues were as clear-cut as you seem to think they are.

There is plenty of evidence that the risky loans associated with the home mortgage crisis were motivated by federal policies advocated by Democrats such as the implicit guarantees associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The student loan debacle is another example of unintended consequences of government loan subsidies and there is considerable evidence that those subsidies are simply captured by the colleges and universities when they raise their rates.

Regarding defense spending, it isn't a surprise that the US spends lots of defense since the US basically provides a national defense capability for itself and most of its close allies. There is certainly plenty of ways to be more efficient on defense spending but Congressional support for inefficient defense spending is hardly a Republican phenomena. It is a systemic problem.

Anyone who thinks that the ACA is the be-all-and-end-all of healthcare systems is delusional. It is a bureaucratic nightmare riddled with stupid incentives, accounting flim-flam, and ridiculous complexity. Add to that the completely reasonable thought that the more appropriate location for these services, if they are going to be provided, is the states.

Immigration reform: Unending posturing from Democrats who seem to want no limits to immigration and Republicans who seem to want no immigration at all. On top of that, I don't think the public knows what it wants (i.e. no real grassroots consensus)

Abortion: I'm not going there other than to say neither Republicans nor Democrats are uniform in their opinions on this topic.

My basic philosophy is that neither party is acquitting itself with much distinction these days. It is foolish to think that the flaws in our public policy are the fault of either party alone -- they are both complicit.

The issues are pretty clear cut, the issue is you're getting bogged down by political party labels that have little meaning. If someone performs a bunch deregulation that's not a "left" position no matter what party they claim to be in.

Maybe the reason they are blocking reform on the banking sector is because they feel it wouldn't be necessary if only the Executive branch would actually enforce the laws already on the books that apply?

Maybe the reason they oppose abortion laws is because they feel they are saving human lives who have no say in the matter?

Maybe the reason they support such amounts of military spending is because they feel it is the nation's responsibility to do its best to provide for a safe and secure world, including using the military for life-saving operations?

Maybe the reason they are blocking current immigration reform is because they disagree with the methodology being proposed that is possibly unfair to current citizens including the ones who immigrated here legally and followed the law to become citizens?

Maybe the reason they are trying to prevent implementation of universal healthcare is because they feel the current law is ripe with corruption, waste, fraud, eventual failure, and will in the end actually make things worse?

You are again one of these people going with the notion that since you disagree with the other people's ideas you get to assume that the ideas are somehow bad. Notice that in no way did you explain why these ideas are inherently bad, you simply disagree with them. You are perpetuating the fallacy that they are bad simply because you say they are while ignoring the possibilities that they have good reasons to think that way. Next thing on your agenda will be to ridicule them in some way to show your superiority over such backward-thinking people in a feeble attempt to convince us you are right without actually having to prove anything nor support your accusations.

You are again one of these people going with the notion that since you disagree with the other people's ideas you get to assume that the ideas are somehow bad. Notice that in no way did you explain why these ideas are inherently bad, you simply disagree with them. You are perpetuating the fallacy that they are bad simply because you say they are while ignoring the possibilities that they have good reasons to think that way. Next thing on your agenda will be to ridicule them in some way to show your superiority over such backward-thinking people in a feeble attempt to convince us you are right without actually having to prove anything nor support your accusations.

Not at all. Being young, I will simply wait until the older majority dies off. It happened with black rights. Its happening with gay marriage, and it will happen with other socials issues.

I've got nothing but time.

Yet again, I'm failing to see your explanation as to why the platform is bad. Nor do you even really attempt to counter the quote of my comment that you provide other than say "not at all". In fact, you ignore pretty much ignore everything I stated. You just continue with the snide comments that do not support your argument; they just stroke your ego and false sense of superiority.

If your ability to win a debate that involves deciding how society should function is based around outliving the people you simply disagree with then I foresee a sad future. Because one day the younger generation will follow your example to disagree with you and put your older self out to pasture as that stupid old person who doesn't know anything.

But I suppose they may be right.

By the way, read your history. Black rights didn't happen in the US because the older generation died off; a few brave souls of the generation that was in charge stepped up to make it happen. Some of them died for it so you should at least have some respect. At least they were able to make a valid argument as to why they were right and not fall back on meaningless talking points that made them feel smart.

Currently, I see gay rights moving forward without anyone waiting on people to die off. Your argument is not only comical, it doesn't exist.

I'm not going to debate why the republican's platform is bad, I'm just going to throw my opinion in that I believe it only serves a minority of the country.

I don't post here to stroke my ego. I could not care less what someone on Hacker News thinks of my ideas or perceptions, although I do enjoy quality discourse.

Go take a look at historical trends with regards to polling on gay marriage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

You can CLEARLY see how public sentiment towards gay marriage has changed over the last 10-15 years. Either this occurred because of people changing their belief structure (doubtful) or because people with one mindset aged out of the population.

Ah, having had a snide ad-hominem insult duly countered, retaliate with a series of non-sequitur malicious context-free imputations.

I'd say the real Leftist Platform is "there is no mine or yours, only ours". Everyone else is a faker ;)

"but instead I got a gratuitous, tired, over-used, boring, ad-hominem about Republicans that added nothing to conversation"

Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Taking half of earners' incomes with one hand and blocking ways to earn more with the other will NOT end well. I'm making a good buck, but at this rate of taxation I'm gonna have to resort to self-sufficiency homesteading with zero taxable income. Remember the goose & golden egg?

Totally not fair to present only the allegedly "bad" parts of a position without the good goals that necessitates it. Opening the paths to hiring more people is quite fairly coupled with telling the capable to stop sitting around collecting checks; if you're going to socialize health care payment, you'll need to stop giving companies reason to not have more than 49 employees.

Oh please, trickle down has never worked and the Republicans have always known this [1].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=0

> Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around.

Wow, you really do drink the trickle-down effect Kool-Aid.

You can't "spread the wealth" if there isn't any. Printing more money doesn't make more wealth, it just diffuses it more. If I stop working, you can't tax my now-nonexistent income.

I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around.

The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era.

You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around.

But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numbers of billionaires and record lows for the middle class.

I refuse your argument because the world around me clearly shows that our "wealth producers" have figured out how to depress labor costs and increase investor returns. Great for them, but that concept is 100% contrary to your "wealth producers spread wealth".

No, wealth producers rightfully squeeze labor costs and rightfully return the biggest amount of money to themselves, their boards, and their investors. That's not spreading wealth downwards, it's spreading laterally only.

This isn't something you need to believe or not believe. The stats are in, decades of trickle down have not had the intended effect and various sources have shown this.

It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the a fund can provide a steady, predictable return year after year with very little downside?

I think it's because many people don't separate a businessman from the business.

A businessman doesn't open more businesses when he has more money.

A businessman opens businesses when investors will pay and the market will support it.

Turns out, a businessman doesn't need his own money to start businesses, because without a market, there's no point of starting the business, and with a market, there is investment available to seize it.

A businessman will do those things, yes. A rich might generally won't (statistically speaking) beyond what ever business they already have, if any.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com