I am So Sick of Hearing That Raising Taxes is Bad For the Economy.

[Grayma]

Every time the government, usually the Republicans, cut taxes, the federal deficit goes up.

That's because the government refuses to cut spending.

In my own household, if I reduce my income but don't reduce my spending, the same thing happens.

 

[Grayma]

Democrats support more social welfare programs than conservatives do. Hm. Democrats complain less about taxes spent on programs that benefit Americans. It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country. Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.

Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?

Many Conservatives remind me a lot of a certain passage in the book "The Help" where white American women who treated their black maids as second class or worse were donating so generously to children in Africa.

Or, Democrats prefer to make other people pay to support their pet programs, but don't help people out themselves.
Conservatives do not agree those programs help Americans. I believe they are harmful.

It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country.

There is no evidence that this is true.

Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.

There is no evidence that church organizations do not spend money feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in their own countries. There is no evidence that individual conservatives don't do this. FYI, we have had homeless people live with us in our own home for months at a time, at least three different families, and a few singles. The singles were.... vets.

Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?

A hefty share? I doubt your figures, but it really doesn't matter. The point is not that there are no people left who still need help. It's that your comic book characterizations of people who differ from you politically are not well informed, not based on facts, and not really useful for a meaningful discussion.

You know, your argument is really with reality, as Brooks discovered. Conservatives personally give more to charity than liberals do. That's simply a fact. Nothing you have said has disproven Brooks' research.

There are probably perfectly legitimate reasons for that, as I said.

 

[DeafCaroline]

That's because the government refuses to cut spending.

In my own household, if I reduce my income but don't reduce my spending, the same thing happens.

How is Obama reducing income?

 

[DeafCaroline]

Or, Democrats prefer to make other people pay to support their pet programs, but don't help people out themselves.
Conservatives do not agree those programs help Americans. I believe they are harmful.



There is no evidence that this is true.


There is no evidence that church organizations do not spend money feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in their own countries. There is no evidence that individual conservatives don't do this. FYI, we have had homeless people live with us in our own home for months at a time, at least three different families, and a few singles. The singles were.... vets.



A hefty share? I doubt your figures, but it really doesn't matter. The point is not that there are no people left who still need help. It's that your comic book characterizations of people who differ from you politically are not well informed, not based on facts, and not really useful for a meaningful discussion.

You know, your argument is really with reality, as Brooks discovered. Conservatives personally give more to charity than liberals do. That's simply a fact. Nothing you have said has disproven Brooks' research.

There are probably perfectly legitimate reasons for that, as I said.

comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?

 

[Reba]

Democrats support more social welfare programs than conservatives do.

Support? As in, donate their money to?

Hm. Democrats complain less about taxes spent on programs that benefit Americans.

Whose money are they spending? Their own?

It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country.

What's wrong with helping both? Whose says that they help others abroad to the exclusion of helping those at home?

Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.

What are the numbers behind that statement? I know of lots of charities that are sponsored by churches that provide for the homeless, disabled, and poor in America.

Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?

The Republicans can't do it all by themselves.

Veterans shouldn't have to depend on charity for their battle-related aftercare. The military services and Veterans Administration are supposed to be responsible for that.

However, there are many charities that do provide services and housing for veterans. I donate to several of them myself.

Many Conservatives remind me a lot of a certain passage in the book "The Help" where white American women who treated their black maids as second class or worse were donating so generously to children in Africa.

Are you saying that conservatives are racist hypocrites?

 

[DeafCaroline]

Are you saying that conservatives are racist hypocrites?

some of them, yes. especially when they use the word "illegals".

 

[Reba]

How is Obama reducing income?

Grayma is comparing a family's income to the Federal government's revenue.

When a family's income goes down, they cut back on expenses.

When the Federal government's revenue goes down, it should cut back on expenses.

 

[TWA]

Two observations.

1) Individual anecdotal evidence means nothing in a debate like this.
2) Quibbling over specific words and semantics in an attempt to derail argument.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Grayma is comparing a family's income to the Federal government's revenue.

When a family's income goes down, they cut back on expenses.

When the Federal government's revenue goes down, it should cut back on expenses.

yes, i understand what she was comparing and was wondering exactly what she was referring to in terms of reduced income.

Obama did a lot of budget cuts and compared to Bush, he's spent way less than half. Bush spent 5.7 trillion. Obama spent 1.3 and with all the budget cuts, subtracted from that, his total expenditure is actually $983 billion.

and USA's national revenue has actually gone up, not down.

 

[Reba]

some of them, yes. especially when they use the word "illegals".

That's interesting since illegal aliens come in all races and ethnicities, some being the same races and ethnicities as American citizens. I thought the divide was between legal and illegal status, not between races since both statuses include all races.

The term "illegals" is slang and not proper English usage, in my opinion.

 

[TXgolfer]

yes, i understand what she was comparing and was wondering exactly what she was referring to in terms of reduced income.

Obama did a lot of budget cuts and compared to Bush, he's spent way less than half. Bush spent 5.7 trillion. Obama spent 1.3 and with all the budget cuts, subtracted from that, his total expenditure is actually $983 billion.

and USA's national revenue has actually gone up, not down.

What?

 

[DeafCaroline]

That's interesting since illegal aliens come in all races and ethnicities, some being the same races and ethnicities as American citizens. I thought the divide was between legal and illegal status, not between races since both statuses include all races.

The term "illegals" is slang and not proper English usage, in my opinion.

In my opinion, "illegals" is a slur.

 

[Doug5]

comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?

yep, and drug abuse is a symptom of ptsd. Theyre probably haunted by intrusive thoughts and self medicate to make them go away.

 

[Grayma]

How is Obama reducing income?

I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.

 

[kokonut]

I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Grayma]

comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?
]

No Carolyn, the name-calling you do is not respectful.
Differing from you is not the same as refusing to take the time to inform myself, and glossy propaganda pictures are not informed discussion.

My husband is a vet who served 20 years. My son-in-law is a vet who lost most of the hearing in one ear serving in Iraq. We have many, many vets among our friends, and some among our late friends.
I am far from, what was that name you called me? Oh, clueless. No. I am not.

You made a claim without a citation. I always doubt uncited claims, but as I pointed out, it was irrelevant (and really, a strange thing to pull out of the air and toss in the pot, as it had nothing to do with what we were discussing). It's irrelevant because my point of discussion is Brooks' research, which has nothing to do with homeless Vets.

Nowhere did I say that conservatives or Republicans have taken care of all of society's problems. Nowhere did I say there are no vets with problems.:


My points are:
You cannot honestly or accurately say that Republicans don't care about the poor, because the facts are that conservatives, including Republicans, donate more to the poor than liberals do. You have presented absolutely no counter-evidence that disproves Brooks' research, which is widely accepted even among liberals who have actually looked at it.

What you can say is that liberals prefer government programs for addressing social problems and conservatives don't. This is kind of like saying that boys have external plumbing and girls don't, as in, it's kind of self identifying. If you prefer government programs, that generally means you are liberal by definition. If you prefer private charity, that generally means you are conservative, by definition.

The real issue is *why*. The reasons why are probably as varied as the individuals. Reasons like, "Because anybody who doesn't like what I like politically is a selfish jerk and an idiot," well, those aren't reasons, are they? They're just naked, baseless assertions.

While dragging homeless Vets into the discussion is a distraction and a red herring, it is interesting to note what happens if we are to agree with you that the existence of homeless vets is proof of compassion or lack thereof. If that is true, we must lay that on the door of the Democrats, who controlled both House and Senate before a Democratic President was elected, and who controlled both for another year or two after he was elected. With that trifecta, there was nothing stopping them from doing anything they liked. Did they not solve the homeless vet problem because they lacked compassion?

Hint: I don't think so. But if they were Republicans, you would. Since they are Democrats, must be some other reason?

 

[kokonut]

I'll say this, Grayma, please give thanks to your hubby and SIL for their service. Just as I thank my brother and his son, and my sister who are vets, too.

 

[Grayma]

Two observations.

1) Individual anecdotal evidence means nothing in a debate like this.
2) Quibbling over specific words and semantics in an attempt to derail argument.

I am not sure what kind of debate this is.

I think individual anecdotes do mean something when, as I saw it, the debate is really about a particular stereotype, such as:
X political party hates the poor (or doesn't care about them or whatever).

Examples of members of that political party who do not fit that stereotype are useful, IMO.
I am not a Republican, much to my husband's chagrin. He is. He is the primary breadwinner in our family, and is deeply involved in all the charities I mentioned- the one giving wells to villages in Africa is his particular pet charity. So I think our individual anecdotes are antidotes to the baseless stereotype that I saw offered here.

I've seen anecdotes used in a similar way to counteract other claims or assumptions here on AD- claims about the reading level of deaf children, the benefits or lack thereof to various orally based methods, the use of ASL as a benefit to language development. These discussions are generally answered by both appeals to personal experience and research.

Brook's research showing that conservatives give more to the poor than liberal do is more than anecdotal, of course.

As for semantics, I do think words mean something. I am not a fan of Humpty Dumpty's approach.

 

[rolling7]

I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.

A different way to look at it is that when the governments income goes up the personal income of the taxpayers goes down.

 

[DeafCaroline]

All that private charity and yet if you look at a map of America's poor, the greatest concentrations are in the red states. Why export billions of dollars to the poor in other countries but turn your nose up at helping your fellow countryman? I dont understand that kind of reasoning at all.

Private charity is no guarantee the poor will have food in their stomach. If it was, there'd be no need for food stamps.

Secondly, let's say Republicans succeed is eliminating food stamps, what do you think is going to happen? Riots.

Republicans can talk about elminating food stamps all they want but guaranteed they never will actually do that. Are you kidding? There's be nationwide riots if that ever happened. Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said if Republicans ever tried to eliminate social/entitlement programs, their party would no longer exist.