If Tax cuts create jobs

[canndo]

Shouldn't the amount of pay a person gets be determined between the parties to the contract and only them? IE, the party DOING the work and the party that hired them?

Why would somebody want a THIRD party to determine how they will act and how much they will be compensated for it ? Telling others what they must do ? That's the same business model employed by pot prohibitionists isn't it ?

Why? suppose a group of people decided that no one was to sell houses in their region to blacks? How about a decision that loans were not to be made to blacks? Or jobs. What you wish for is that we bow to our darkest tendancies simply because you don't want anyone to "tell you what to do".

 

[beenthere]

You presume that the middle class owns no wealth?

Romeny has stated that he would sign a bill prohibitin abortions - so that one is not FOS
Romney has not stated he wants war with Iran but he has stated he is willing to use force to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons - so this statement is not quite FOS
The GOP is indeed supressing voter rights, regardless of your perceptions otherwise - that one is not FOS
Romney has never stated that he is opposed to equal pay for women and I have not seen any evidence that he opposes such a thing - so it may well be FOS

I suggest you keep up with your candidate so that you will know exactly what you are voting for Beenthere.

Canndo, you are so friking easy.

Please explain how Romney would take tax money from the middle class and redistribute it to the wealthy! And please don't change the debate.

Show me where Romney, as president wants to "ban" abortion and I'll concede that one.
Claiming "Romney want war" is no where close to him willing to use force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, please.

And the SCOTUS disagrees with you that requiring IDs to vote is suppressing voters rights, regardless of your ideals, so perhaps it is you that needs the brushing up!

 

[canndo]

Canndo, you are so friking easy.

Please explain how Romney would take tax money from the middle class and redistribute it to the wealthy! And please don't change the debate.

Show me where Romney, as president wants to "ban" abortion and I'll concede that one.
Claiming "Romney want war" is no where close to him willing to use force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, please.


Romney's/Ryan's tax plan will wind up doing just that, the results of that plan will raise the taxes for the middle class while lowering it for the upper classes.


And the SCOTUS disagrees with you that requiring IDs to vote is suppressing voters rights, regardless of your ideals, so perhaps it is you that needs the brushing up!

I saw Romney stating that were an anti-abortion bill to cross his desk, he would sign it.

SCOTUS does not disagree with me, all SCOTUS ruled on was the burden voter ID would place on the voter. They said nothing about changing voting hours. I am quite up on these things Beenthere, you don't seem interested in looking into it at all, rather you seem more content to simply deny. That is the way with the right, they do not produce evidence, they simply claim the evidence presented is not so.

I have asked you several times to present your evidence and you claim only that the onus is on me, even though I have presented such evidence.

 

[NLXSK1]

You are unfamiliar with this country's long history of unequal pay between men and women doing identical jobs NL?

No two people do identical jobs.

If someone can prove discrimination in court, so be it. However, I dont want government coming in and deciding what each person should make in a given job. And that is what it would have to do if you want to require fairness. So, every plumber would have to make exactly 45K so it is FAIR... And every teacher would have to make 40K so it is FAIR.

And we could have legislation rivaling the tax code to determine what job gets paid what and what the fair rate is.

We could double the number of lobbiests in Washington. What a GREAT idea!!!


No two jobs are exactly the same and no two people are exactly the same and I dont want a 3rd party going into private businesses and demanding that they pay X dollars for a certain job. That is Marxism.

 

[nontheist]

In two cases, nothiest, you evade the point. Romney does indeed wish to ban abortions, regardless of what the polls say, Romney does wish to do this.

The GOP suppressing voter rights is hardly bullshit, regardless, again, of how many Americans believe we should require ID. The two points do not relate and contrary to the naysayers here there is plenty of evidence that the GOP does indeed intend to suppress voting.

Now how exactly might you reverse a systemic disparity of pay between men and women?

Am I or are you? First of all I am not blinded by religion, I think clothes hanger birth control is a bit irresponsible but regardless it isn't my body so I can't say much. What I do see is the majority is now pro life and the numbers are increasing.

Voting ID, again majority (overwhelming) believe we need to protect our voting structure. No one is taking a right away we're just making sure illegals and thieves have a harder time stealing our vote period. Its protecting our vote, not suppressing.

This is a democracy, the people are suppose to have a say. Now may not like this but this is how it is, the people want IDs at the voting booth and more are pro-life. Do you want to gag them and ignore their wishes because they don't agree with the far left view?

 

[canndo]

No two people do identical jobs.

If someone can prove discrimination in court, so be it. However, I dont want government coming in and deciding what each person should make in a given job. And that is what it would have to do if you want to require fairness. So, every plumber would have to make exactly 45K so it is FAIR... And every teacher would have to make 40K so it is FAIR.

And we could have legislation rivaling the tax code to determine what job gets paid what and what the fair rate is.

We could double the number of lobbiests in Washington. What a GREAT idea!!!


No two jobs are exactly the same and no two people are exactly the same and I dont want a 3rd party going into private businesses and demanding that they pay X dollars for a certain job. That is Marxism.

No two people do identical jobs, except that women consistantly get shorter pay, statisticly this should not be, and yet it is, how do you explain it?

 

[canndo]

Am I or are you? First of all I am not blinded by religion, I think clothes hanger birth control is a bit irresponsible but regardless it isn't my body so I can't say much. What I do see is the majority is now pro life and the numbers are increasing.

Voting ID, again majority (overwhelming) believe we need to protect our voting structure. No one is taking a right away we're just making sure illegals and thieves have a harder time stealing our vote period. Its protecting our vote, not suppressing.

This is a democracy, the people are suppose to have a say. Now may not like this but this is how it is, the people want IDs at the voting booth and more are pro-life. Do you want to gag them and ignore their wishes because they don't agree with the far left view?

The original statement was that Romney wanted to make abortion illegal - majority opinion or not, he does indeed want abortions to be illegal

Voter ID does not protect "our vote". You seem to be relying on a consensus of unenlightened voters. Beyond that however, the statement was that the GOP was attempting to suppress the vote. Changes in voting hours does just that and has nothing to do with a majority of the population demanding voter ID. Furthermore, it is likely that those who wish for voter ID would be willing to enact it in such a short period of time that legitimate voters were denied their vote.

If the majority of the voters claimed that we should strike the 2nd amendment or gthe 1st, should we accede to those preferences?

 

[NLXSK1]

No two people do identical jobs, except that women consistantly get shorter pay, statisticly this should not be, and yet it is, how do you explain it?

How do you explain your need for government to fix every injustice on the planet?

A job is a contract between two people. Every woman working in America has agreed to do what she does for what she gets paid. I dont want the government coming in and further fucking with contract law.

Government's cannot fix everything. In fact, they make many things worse...

 

[canndo]

How do you explain your need for government to fix every injustice on the planet?

A job is a contract between two people. Every woman working in America has agreed to do what she does for what she gets paid. I dont want the government coming in and further fucking with contract law.

Government's cannot fix everything. In fact, they make many things worse...

Not what I asked. In a country where no two jobs are alike but everyone actually gets paid for their work, how is it that women get less as an average then men?

 

[nontheist]

The original statement was that Romney wanted to make abortion illegal - majority opinion or not, he does indeed want abortions to be illegal

Voter ID does not protect "our vote". You seem to be relying on a consensus of unenlightened voters. Beyond that however, the statement was that the GOP was attempting to suppress the vote. Changes in voting hours does just that and has nothing to do with a majority of the population demanding voter ID. Furthermore, it is likely that those who wish for voter ID would be willing to enact it in such a short period of time that legitimate voters were denied their vote.

If the majority of the voters claimed that we should strike the 2nd amendment or gthe 1st, should we accede to those preferences?

This has nothing to do with "rights" Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't see a right that allows you to kill humans/embryo or whatever or a right that says you do not have to prove who you say you are.

 

[canndo]

This has nothing to do with "rights" Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't see a right that allows you to kill humans/embryo or whatever or a right that says you do not have to prove who you say you are.

Are we really reduced to "dueling rights"? Because embryos are not persons, they have reduced "rights", even children have a subset of the rights of an adult. There is nothing about a right to kill a fetus but that has no bearing because there are a complete complement of rights for adults and an even more complete one for adult citizens. Fetuses are neither adults nor citizens. There is nothing in the constitution tha pertains to those who have not yet been born. I suspect you know this.

There is no right specified in the constitution that says you do not have to prove who you are but SOCTUS, in a series of vagrancy decisions affirms that you do indeed have that right.

 

[nontheist]

Are we really reduced to "dueling rights"? Because embryos are not persons, they have reduced "rights", even children have a subset of the rights of an adult. There is nothing about a right to kill a fetus but that has no bearing because there are a complete complement of rights for adults and an even more complete one for adult citizens. Fetuses are neither adults nor citizens. There is nothing in the constitution tha pertains to those who have not yet been born. I suspect you know this.

There is no right specified in the constitution that says you do not have to prove who you are but SOCTUS, in a series of vagrancy decisions affirms that you do indeed have that right.

Well you proved my point, abortions is not a right so if the majority votes against it what can one say? We have laws that say I can't smoke a joint but you're trying to defend clothes hangering an embryo? seriously?

SCOTUS did not say you do not have to prove your identity, just about every law enforcement agency will disagree with you. The same SCOTUS has already said that requiring a government ID to vote does not cause a burden.

 

[beenthere]

I saw Romney stating that were an anti-abortion bill to cross his desk, he would sign it.

SCOTUS does not disagree with me, all SCOTUS ruled on was the burden voter ID would place on the voter. They said nothing about changing voting hours. I am quite up on these things Beenthere, you don't seem interested in looking into it at all, rather you seem more content to simply deny. That is the way with the right, they do not produce evidence, they simply claim the evidence presented is not so.

I have asked you several times to present your evidence and you claim only that the onus is on me, even though I have presented such evidence.

You may very well be up on things my friend but that does not make your opinion, the right opinion.

BTW, were is that explanation of yours claiming Romney will be redistributing wealth from the middle class to the wealthy?

I know you meant to say the SCOTUS ruled that voter ID laws would NOT burden voters.

Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face.

As far as changing voters hours goes, if the Supreme Court weighed in and ruled against the military, the only burden would be on our men and women serving our country. You and I see this 360 degrees opposite, the military is given special privilege to vote early for several valid reasons. This privilege in no way burdens other voters, it certainly does not grant them the same privilege but in no way does it put a burden on them. Older citizens in many states are granted special voting rights, I do not consider their privilege to be a burden on my own right to vote, perhaps you do!

 

[canndo]

Well you proved my point, abortions is not a right so if the majority votes against it what can one say? We have laws that say I can't smoke a joint but you're trying to defend clothes hangering an embryo? seriously?

SCOTUS did not say you do not have to prove your identity, just about every law enforcement agency will disagree with you. The same SCOTUS has already said that requiring a government ID to vote does not cause a burden.

We could argue ID all day. Indeed, SCOTUS ruled - on ID. Now, had the ID folks come in 2009 and said "we think there is a problem and ID should be required", I would have no argument. But requiring ID of folks who are not particularly agile in the first place, in the perhaps millions, with likely lmited resources at the state level is more than a bit suspect. Requiring that they manage to do so on the eve of an election where the current president is absolutely hated by Republicans and the Republican candidate is acknowleged by Republicans themselves to be a weak candidate.

Add to this the fact that Republicans are doing the legislating for these IDs, add the fact that ALEC is promoting it and there is a single example of a Republican legislator submitting ALEC model legislations verbatum, including the ALEC header, and add to that that the folks who are most affected by this are Dems and add to that the fact that two Republican operatives came out and said that the purpose of voter ID was either to inhibit voters or to give the state to Romeny and I have a hell of a lot of reason to suspect the motives of voter ID proponents.

I am unsure of the most recent SCOTUS ruling on ID, but my last examination of the issue some years ago showed that SCOTUS determined that it was not incumbent upon a citizen to have to prove who he is or have any money in his posession.

 

[abandonconflict]

I coulda swore I killed the trickle down arguments months ago...

 

[beenthere]

I coulda swore I killed the trickle down arguments months ago...

I've yet to witness a leftie do that!

 

[canndo]

You may very well be up on things my friend but that does not make your opinion, the right opinion.

BTW, were is that explanation of yours claiming Romney will be redistributing wealth from the middle class to the wealthy?

I know you meant to say the SCOTUS ruled that voter ID laws would NOT burden voters.

Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face.

As far as changing voters hours goes, if the Supreme Court weighed in and ruled against the military, the only burden would be on our men and women serving our country. You and I see this 360 degrees opposite, the military is given special privilege to vote early for several valid reasons. This privilege in no way burdens other voters, it certainly does not grant them the same privilege but in no way does it put a burden on them. Older citizens in many states are granted special voting rights, I do not consider their privilege to be a burden on my own right to vote, perhaps you do!

Yes, SCOTUS ruled that the ID requirement did not unduely burden voters, did I say differently?
I read the ruling with great interest and followed all of the notations. I do not agree with their ruling but that case reached the end of the line and I am forced to accept it.

Now so far as hours go, I see you conveniently have it backwards. After the previous debacle, (now I may be wrong with the state) PA increased it's hours and instituted Sunday voting. Fine, it worked and aparently it worked well as they counted something like 98,000 voters taking advantage of the Sunday voting. The Military had the same number of hours and there was no problem there either.

We both know that those 98,000 were predominantly black Beenthere - they were congregations adjurning church to vote en masse from black districts.

Spin the clock forward and Obama wins, now Republican held legislature removes the early voting hours - you say to prevent fraud, yet that is pure conjecture, there is no evidence of fraud occuring during that time period, it could not be shown that there is possibly more fraud on a sunday than any other day, and Republicans themselves gave no such reason.

Got it? hours were enhances - Obama got elected, hours were reduced, for no apparent reason. After that, the hours were extended again - only this time, only to the Military. And you don't see anything fishy about any of that. So the military was not given a special dispensation, the population as a whole was, and then it was taken away - from a portion of them.


Beenthere. I know you vote Republican and probably always have. You are up in arms over a few possible intimidated voters in the Panther mess. You were livid that Gore attempted to exert specific and already enacted laws over Military absentee ballots - The law (if I recall) called for a cutoff date that those ballots may or may not have met but we were all outraged that anyone would be dissallowed their vote, even if the vote was late.

If these situations were reversed and your party was bearing the brunt of such actions I believe you would fly from one state of outrage to another. But in this case, you do not seem to care. I have not yet gotten myself to believe that you would actually support removing the vote from anyone just so your party would have a better chance of winning.

 

[Rob Roy]

Why? suppose a group of people decided that no one was to sell houses in their region to blacks? How about a decision that loans were not to be made to blacks? Or jobs. What you wish for is that we bow to our darkest tendancies simply because you don't want anyone to "tell you what to do".

Groups of people don't make decisions normally, individuals do. The example you use is the same as the government business model which implies "group think", the freedom model doesn't. The freedom model allows people to make their own choices in what they will do with their property, their body, their labor etc.

As far as people deciding not to sell their home to a particular individual, that's their right to enter into consensual agreements or not to enter into consensual agreements isn't it ? It seems rather stupid to me not to sell your home to a ready willing and able buyer based on race, but it also seems stupid to force people to associate that don't want to. Who would advocate forcing people to associate if one party or both don't want to? Should the price of a home also be set by a third party such as the government ?

You are the one bowing to dark tendencies, you are advocating "making" people behave a certain way as a standard, I'm not. I'm advocating freedom of association and consensual interactions.

As far as charges of "racism" , of course it is stupid, so please don't waste your time on that argument, I think we share that personal belief. The difference is you think it is acceptable to FORCE people to interact, I DON'T. If a person doesn't want to serve a person because they are Chinese for example, wouldn't it be better for the discriminating business person to suffer the consequences of their actions by having a competitor open a service across the street from them that WILL NOT discriminate? How long will the discriminator stay in business ?

Of course I don't want anybody to tell me what to do, nor do I wish to tell others what they MUST do.

 

[canndo]

I've yet to witness a leftie do that!

Come on Beenthere, you have to admit that you are incapbable of witnessing such a thing. You will continue to beieve that trickledown economics work until you see some direct and personal evidence that it does not.

 

[beenthere]

Yes, SCOTUS ruled that the ID requirement did not unduely burden voters, did I say differently?

You did, if I recall, you just stated the SCOTUS ruled on the matter.

I read the ruling with great interest and followed all of the notations. I do not agree with their ruling but that case reached the end of the line and I am forced to accept it.

Now so far as hours go, I see you conveniently have it backwards. After the previous debacle, (now I may be wrong with the state) PA increased it's hours and instituted Sunday voting. Fine, it worked and aparently it worked well as they counted something like 98,000 voters taking advantage of the Sunday voting. The Military had the same number of hours and there was no problem there either.

We both know that those 98,000 were predominantly black Beenthere - they were congregations adjurning church to vote en masse from black districts.

Spin the clock forward and Obama wins, now Republican held legislature removes the early voting hours - you say to prevent fraud, yet that is pure conjecture, there is no evidence of fraud occuring during that time period, it could not be shown that there is possibly more fraud on a sunday than any other day, and Republicans themselves gave no such reason.

Got it? hours were enhances - Obama got elected, hours were reduced, for no apparent reason. After that, the hours were extended again - only this time, only to the Military. And you don't see anything fishy about any of that. So the military was not given a special dispensation, the population as a whole was, and then it was taken away - from a portion of them.


Beenthere. I know you vote Republican and probably always have. You are up in arms over a few possible intimidated voters in the Panther mess. You were livid that Gore attempted to exert specific and already enacted laws over Military absentee ballots - The law (if I recall) called for a cutoff date that those ballots may or may not have met but we were all outraged that anyone would be dissallowed their vote, even if the vote was late.

If these situations were reversed and your party was bearing the brunt of such actions I believe you would fly from one state of outrage to another. But in this case, you do not seem to care. I have not yet gotten myself to believe that you would actually support removing the vote from anyone just so your party would have a better chance of winning.

What you consider conjecture, I take as fact. Please look up "Pennsylvania voter fraud history"
Another thing you fail to realize or mention is the fact that the entire military was given the privilege to vote early, not just the republicans in the military.