Comparing where the candidates stand on religion.

[Reforged]

http://youtu.be/rAeGG5BslIg

Can I just point out he looks like a pedophillic wizard in this video?
Too late, I just did it.

[Whateverist]

False. There are enormous differences. Watch the tapes of what the candidates actually say. About atheists and the place of religion in public life there are HUGE differences contrary to what blowhard man would have you believe.

(Yeah a quarter of the tape is sometimes enough. It was painful watching the rest. Have you watched either of the two I posted? If not, I'm still ahead.)

Man the point really did go over your head in that video.

And no, I'm not watching your videos, because they're besides the point that flew over your temple.

Well you just keep faith with what you believe then. Blowhard man says there is no appreciable differences between the candidates in terms of their approach to religion. (Apparently you missed this point.) The videos I produced show that to be utter bullshit.

The conservatives among us are motivated to portray that difference as insignificant because they want no or low taxes and minimal government intrusion. Perhaps you just like what Penn says or the what he says about other things or perhaps you embrace his libertarian outlook as well. I don't.

[cratehorus]

False

http://mattbruenig.com/2012/02/06/corpor...cord-high/

Sorry, I must have been ill when it was decided that "record low" was synonymous to "not too high". Also when "taxes" in general and "corporate taxes" were made the same thing.

Taxes being too high should depend on whether there is any absurd amounts of spending by the government, and whether the government could function properly without that money. In the case of the US, I'd point to three obvious areas of overspending:

1) The military.
2) The intelligence services.
3) The TSA.

I honestly don't think it would be impossible for a government to work off a budget equal to 10% of the taxable income of the country.

taxes revenue is at record lows



http://www.poisonyourmind.com/2012/06/in...by-charts/

[TaraJo]

Sorry, I must have been ill when it was decided that "record low" was synonymous to "not too high". Also when "taxes" in general and "corporate taxes" were made the same thing.

Taxes being too high should depend on whether there is any absurd amounts of spending by the government, and whether the government could function properly without that money. In the case of the US, I'd point to three obvious areas of overspending:

1) The military.
2) The intelligence services.
3) The TSA.

I honestly don't think it would be impossible for a government to work off a budget equal to 10% of the taxable income of the country.

taxes revenue is at record lows



http://www.poisonyourmind.com/2012/06/in...by-charts/

This is correct. It's also worth noting that the government has always been more than willing to spend, spend, spend, whether they have the tax revenues to cover it or not.

I think there's several more levels of government waste that should be looked at. Government officials are so more than willing to vote big, expensive perks for themselves. There's also a lot of government owned properties, from homes to commercial properties, and they're just sitting there with us paying for upkeep even though they're abandoned. Surely the government can find a way to use those that can be profitable? Heck, there are 50,000 houses the government owns that are empty; all we have to do is rent each of those out for $500 a month and that's three hundred million dollars coming back to tax payers.

My government income issues revolve around four ideas:

Simplify the tax code by lowering base tax rates but eliminating tax loopholes (and cracking down on churches that cross the line between church and state).

Cut government waste, prevent government officials/offices from frivolous overspending on themselves. This would also tighten up the purse strings from congress so they can't keep voting to give themselves more and more garbage.

Eliminate unneeded programs from the budget and prevent wasteful spending on programs that are needed. Military, for example, is needed but we vastly overspend on it.

Eliminate corporate welfare. If we're going to rely on free market, we need to do that and not rely on an artificial free market insured and supported by tax payers.

[Darth]

It's like you hadn't even read his post crate. He'd already talked about it being a record low...
Record low doesn't mean low enough, it clearly has room to go a lot lower, so long as you are wasting money on bullshit, it's immoral to forcibly take money from people to pay for more bullshit.

(oh, and that graph is just federal tax, it wouldn't take into account the essentially hidden tax that is inflation, it doesn't appear to be the record at all if that graph is right and also, correct me if I'm wrong, but does your source not say that it's projected to shoot up over 20%, or at least back to near 18%?)

Edit: hey, Tara said some of the same stuff I did =P and point's I'd not thought to mention . And some points I definitely agree with. Absolutely, end corporatism.

[cratehorus]

It's like you hadn't even read his post crate. He'd already talked about it being a record low...
Record low doesn't mean low enough, it clearly has room to go a lot lower, so long as you are wasting money on bullshit, it's immoral to forcibly take money from people to pay for more bullshit.

(oh, and that graph is just federal tax, it wouldn't take into account the essentially hidden tax that is inflation, it doesn't appear to be the record at all if that graph is right and also, correct me if I'm wrong, but does your source not say that it's projected to shoot up over 20%, or at least back to near 18%?)

Edit: hey, Tara said some of the same stuff I did =P.

yeah but you and tiberius want to abolish Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, and that's a different argument.

[Tiberius]

taxes revenue is at record lows...

Did you even read my post?

I'll spell it out for you in simple terms:

Record low taxes does not mean they cannot or should not go lower. I say 14.8% is still too high. I say anyone who pays over 10% tax is paying a tax that is too high.

The government overspends because it can. It doesn't have anyone to answer to because of the way elections are held. The entire system is corrupt. I honestly do not see how a government could not operate on a 10% flat rate income tax for people earning over a specific amount, or (alternatively) a flat rate spending tax on everyone's expenses.

People need to get out of the mindset that more money to the government is a necessarily good thing. It's not, and that can be demonstrated to be the case by looking at the ridiculous amount of spending they do. Sure, the government do a load of great things. They also do a whole host of crappy things, and unfortunately they often tend to cost the most.

[cratehorus]

taxes revenue is at record lows...

Did you even read my post?

I'll spell it out for you in simple terms:

Record low taxes does not mean they cannot or should not go lower. I say 14.8% is still too high. I say anyone who pays over 10% tax is paying a tax that is too high.

The government overspends because it can. It doesn't have anyone to answer to because of the way elections are held. The entire system is corrupt. I honestly do not see how a government could not operate on a 10% flat rate income tax for people earning over a specific amount, or (alternatively) a flat rate spending tax on everyone's expenses.

People need to get out of the mindset that more money to the government is a necessarily good thing. It's not, and that can be demonstrated to be the case by looking at the ridiculous amount of spending they do. Sure, the government do a load of great things. They also do a whole host of crappy things, and unfortunately they often tend to cost the most.

you're just saying we should abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

[Napoléon]

you're just saying we should abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

What a fucking ridiculous leap you just made, this is actually worthy of hall of shame material IMO.

---

Well you just keep faith with what you believe then. Blowhard man says there is no appreciable differences between the candidates in terms of their approach to religion.

I'll clarify one more time so you might get it.

What he said about either candidate with regards to their religious stance is irrelevant to the actual point he was making.

In actuality the presidential candidate can be whatever they wish, so long as the label themself a christian.

THE POINT:

American presidential candidates must call themselves christian. Otherwise there is more chance of a pig flying than them winning.


What you're saying with regards to who is or is not more christian, or the differences between them is not in any way diminishing Penn's overall point.

Sure, he may be wrong, there may be applicable differences, but what he was saying was that they don't bloody matter. So long as they call themselves christian.

In effect he has the exact same mindset as you when you say you would rather have a christian who is good at the job than an atheist who is awful. Why? Oh that's right, because he made the point that the label they choose to give themselves is actually completely irrelevant to getting the job done.


You get it now? Is it really that hard to understand? I put all the important bits in bold so you might more easily identify them.

[cratehorus]

What a fucking ridiculous leap you just made, this is actually worthy of hall of shame material IMO.

I disagree...