Fiscal Responsibility

[Sarvis]

Seeing a couple articles today that Republicans added $1 Trillion to the deficit on their first day in the house. That's Democrat estimates based on their calculations of what tax cuts and other things will cost, but while poking around I saw this and thought it was relevant and hilarious:



So any thoughts on why the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" is trying to cut revenue while we're in debt and already spending more than we make?

[Teflor Lyorian]

You can't add to the deficit until you spend the money. Furthermore, reducing the deficit by stealing from the pockets and paychecks of American workers isn't exactly a solution.

Finally, tax cuts got us out of a recession in the 80's. Fact. (or, at least, we got out of the recession, and there were massive tax cuts timed just about where you'd want to credit them for the change)

[kiryan]

its going to cost 250 billion to eliminate healthcare reform... Do you honestly believe that? You can't expand medicare/medicaid, expand government regulation, expand services (exchanges), expand electronic medical record and claim its going to reduce costs. Also, you cant use 10 years of taxes to support 6 years of services, double count savings and score in a reduction in costs of 30% from the "doctor fix" and claim its deficit reducing. Well actually you can because thats how the CBO scores things, but no sane person can say this.

They want to make the bush tax cuts permanent is the other 700 billion. So let me ask you, do you want the taxes on the middle class to go up? Letting the tax cuts for the rich adds more to the deficit, but would you call it fiscally responsible to repeal just the tax cuts for the middle class? At the end of the day, the problem is spending. You can argue that its the tax cuts that have been in place for 10 years now adding to the deficit, but the real problem is entitlement spending and the wars.. and everyone knows that despite the cheap political points your trying to score.

[Sarvis]

its going to cost 250 billion to eliminate healthcare reform... Do you honestly believe that? You can't expand medicare/medicaid, expand government regulation, expand services (exchanges), expand electronic medical record and claim its going to reduce costs. Also, you cant use 10 years of taxes to support 6 years of services, double count savings and score in a reduction in costs of 30% from the "doctor fix" and claim its deficit reducing. Well actually you can because thats how the CBO scores things, but no sane person can say this.

Almost exactly the wording I saw in one of the articles about this...

But no, you're an independent thinker.

They want to make the bush tax cuts permanent is the other 700 billion. So let me ask you, do you want the taxes on the middle class to go up? Letting the tax cuts for the rich adds more to the deficit, but would you call it fiscally responsible to repeal the tax cuts for the middle class? At the end of the day, the problem is spending. You can argue that its the tax cuts that have been in place for 10 years now, but the problem is entitlement spending and the wars.

At least you admit to the wars being part of the problem. I'd be ok with expired tax cuts on the middle class and wealthy, but not on the poor. They kind of need the cash.

So are the Republicans proposing any actual spending cuts, or just trying to repeal Obamacare to score some kind of political points?

[kiryan]

What can I say, truth is truth and great minds think alike.

the poor don't pay taxes Sarvis. They get free money from the government.

I know they are going to try to repeal healthcare, that will save the US trillions in the long term.

I've heard that they want to defund NPR, theres some savings =)

I've heard they are using some sort of arcane budget rule to arbitrarily set a cap on the budget which will roll back the funding increases Obama oversaw in 2009.

I've heard they want to repeal "job killing" regulation. That will obviously save some government time and money not having to monitor and regulate that.

There are new house rules that say if you cut money, it gets saved, not allocated to a different program or put back in the pot to spend.

[Corth]

Umm, last I heard the tax extension were passed by the vote of a (then) majority Democrat house, a majority Democrat Senate, and signed by a Democrat president. So why exactly is this being characterized as a Republican tax cut? It actually isn't a tax cut at all - rather an extension of the existing rates. And the only difference here between the Republicans and the Democrats were the the Dems were split on extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, whereas the Republicans wanted to extend them for everyone.

That all being said, it's the height of lunacy to increase spending and decrease tax revenue when we are already running at a huge deficit.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Sometimes, saving 2 trillion dollars DOES 'cost' 250 billion.

[Ragorn]

How much did it cost to hold up Congress for 90 minutes while they read the Constitution on their first day?

[Ragorn]

So why exactly is this being characterized as a Republican tax cut?

Because the Republicans in Congress literally sent a letter to President Obama saying "either you pass this, or we systematically vote against every Democratic initiative until it passes, regardless of content."

[Corth]

Aww the poor majority party can't get anything done. *roll*

Remember - this all happened while the Democrats had the entire legislative and executive branch. Hell, the Republicans couldn't stop universal healthcare but you are saying their mere threat in this case, while still the minority party, was enough to force complete capitulation from the Dems? That would be awfully impressive.

Or we could just give the truthful answer - there were enough dems against raising taxes on the rich that even if Obama wanted to try and force it through he couldn't have done it.

[Kindi]

democrats have proven for the last two decades that they're incapable of rallying together. i'm surprised you think the Republicans are so weak as to not be able to pull of something like blocking legislation even with a strict minority

[Corth]

They couldn't do it with Healthcare right? Granted the Dems pulled some weird ass procedural trick out of the hat to get the legislation passed even though they didn't have the numbers in the Senate. But I digress - the Republicans could have easily threatened to vote as a block against all Dem legislation as a result of that move. But they didn't. So you are saying that public healthcare, which is anethema to Republicans, get's a pass, but with the tax debate they were going to hold the line? It's a silly argument. What happened, again, is that plenty of the Dems were on the Republican's side on that one. So ultimately Obama made a deal to keep the tax rates in exchange for extended unemployment. Everyone was a little happy and a little sad.

[Kindi]

The public option was dropped so it's health insurance lobby care. And I thought lots of what made it into the final bill was stuff republicans had in their plans for years until the democrats started agreeing?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Admittedly, It's only 90% Obamacare the other 10% is shadowy, backdoor, double dealing-care.

No, wait, that's probably still 99% Obamacare.

[Ragorn]

I think the Democrats are too pussy to get things done the way they need to, and the Republicans are acutely aware.

The Republicans have no problem voting 100% down the party line, in both houses of Congress. They've been doing it pretty consistently for two years. In most cases, when a bill comes up, a couple votes on either side bleed over the line for various reasons. The Democrats constantly bled votes when they held the House in 2006. Bush and the Republicans treated the Democrats as little more than a speedbump. The Democrats had no strong leadership and there was no party unity in the House, so the Republicans just blew anything they wanted straight through Congress. The Democrats held press releases touting their "cooperation" and "willingness to act on bi-partisan legislation," but it was just rectal smoke rings. Truth is, they just didn't have the political strength to get anything done.

Honestly, George Bush did more to secure the Democratic supermajority in 2008 than anyone in the Democratic Party did. America was ready for something different... anything. Obama promised it, the Democrats took office, and then they spent two years getting bullied by the routed Republicans in Congress. In the last Congress, the Republicans were astonishingly consistent with their votes. They bled a couple Democrats over, and all 40 Republicans voted in solidarity. They were able to shoot down a great number of bills just by grabbing Lieberman's attention and counting on him for the 41st vote to break the supermajority. As the kids today would say, it was super effective. The Democrats looked completelely impotent. They had the strongest majority in the Senate in decades, but they were still perfectly willing to gut their own bills just to try to garner some Republican support that rarely materialized.

The tax cut legislation is just more of the same. The Republicans know that all they have to do is stonewall, because the Democrats don't know what to do when that happens. The Democrats in Congress are such pussies... when they get stonewalled, they back down. They capitulate. They backpedal. Then they finally draft a bill that gives the Republicans everything they want... the Republicans sign it... and then they go on Fox News blasting the bill as a socialist platform that the Democrats are using to take over America. Honestly, it's god damn infuriating :) When Republican Senators filibuster a bill designed to provide health care to 9/11 first responders, Harry Reid should go on television shouting them down as traitors, liars, hypocrites, and thieves. Instead... nothing. NOTHING. The Democrats get all these political slam-dunks, and they're utterly inept at capitalizing on them. Every time they go on television, they look beaten. Surprised, confused... every one of them looks like Forrest Gump on his first date.

When Democrats have a brilliant piece of legislation, they call it HR 14839: The Air Purity Improvement Initiative, and some Republican starts screaming about how Obama wants to regulate how you breathe. And then major news outlets start referring to it as the Socialized Air Bill, and the bill fails. When the Republicans want to pass something, they call it the REPEAL THE JOB KILLING OBAMACARE PACKAGE Act, and the Democrats fall over each other helping them pass it.

It makes me sad, but the Republicans are winning politics right now. And have been for the last ten years. They're just better at it because they're not afraid to lie, cheat, and steal. They're not afraid to name a bill the exact opposite of what it does, and call anyone who votes against it a Nazi sympathizer. The Democrats haven't figured out how to cope with these tactics yet.

[Corth]

If you are correct, then why haven't the Dems simply called them out? They could refuse to compromise on the tax cut and the taxes would have automatically increased for everyone. And when people got pissed off about it they could have pointed the finger at the Republicans and said they refused to budge. And then on every subsequent bill that the Republicans refused to budge on they could have called them out. Something along the lines of, "The Republicans continue to neglect the people's business in order to carry out their petty threats and revenge".

The problem here, Ragorn, is that the Republicans are indeed the party of 'no' because they are the party of limited government. Every move by the administration has been to try and expand government's role, so of course the Republicans will be put in a position where they are simply trying to block anything from happening. They are... being Republicans! And the further problem (for Dems), is that this is a center-right country and although Obama was elected essentially as a reaction to GWB, he has attempted to go way past his mandate and has lost the electorate - as seen in the most recent mid term elections.

[Sarvis]

If you are correct, then why haven't the Dems simply called them out? They could refuse to compromise on the tax cut and the taxes would have automatically increased for everyone. And when people got pissed off about it they could have pointed the finger at the Republicans and said they refused to budge. And then on every subsequent bill that the Republicans refused to budge on they could have called them out. Something along the lines of, "The Republicans continue to neglect the people's business in order to carry out their petty threats and revenge".

The problem here, Ragorn, is that the Republicans are indeed the party of 'no' because they are the party of limited government. Every move by the administration has been to try and expand government's role, so of course the Republicans will be put in a position where they are simply trying to block anything from happening. They are... being Republicans! And the further problem (for Dems), is that this is a center-right country and although Obama was elected essentially as a reaction to GWB, he has attempted to go way past his mandate and has lost the electorate - as seen in the most recent mid term elections.

The party of limited government who keeps creating new departments and wants to legislate morality. Right.

[Ragorn]

If you are correct, then why haven't the Dems simply called them out? They could refuse to compromise on the tax cut and the taxes would have automatically increased for everyone. And when people got pissed off about it they could have pointed the finger at the Republicans and said they refused to budge. And then on every subsequent bill that the Republicans refused to budge on they could have called them out. Something along the lines of, "The Republicans continue to neglect the people's business in order to carry out their petty threats and revenge".

Because the Democrats in office right now don't understand how to play the politics. They think that America will respond positively to compromise, unification, and capitulation. Every time the Republicans make demands, the Democrats compromise. And they think they come out the heroes for reaching across the aisle and working together to find a solution to the country's problems.

The problem is, they don't get it. They don't understand that what they're doing is capitulating to a party that turns around and paints them as the enemy anyway. The Democrats are looking for policy, the Republicans are looking for power. And because you can't make policy without power, the Republicans are going to win it back and the Democrats are going to be right back where they were in 1998 and 2006... powerless majorities being yanked around by the Republicans.

The problem here, Ragorn, is that the Republicans are indeed the party of 'no' because they are the party of limited government.

No, fail. We just had a thread about this. The Republicans haven't been the party of limited government for 40 years. The modern day Republican party is the party of warrantless wiretapping and extradition, waterboarding, airport security theater, expansion of the powers of the executive branch, signing statements, line-item vetos, expansion of the TSA and NSA, collusion with private industry to record internet traffic, record defense spending, pork contracts with Halliburton and Blackwater, record deficits and debt, auto maker bailouts, and unilateral military action on the world stage. The Republicans aren't saying no because they suddenly found the fiscal responsibility that they lost in the White House basement in 2000. They're saying no because they're hoping to wait out Obama's turn in office so they can resume spending your tax money the way they want to, not the way the American public wants to.

I'd vote for the party of small government. Anyone know what happened to them?

[Corth]

You are describing the GWB administration - which was an abhorent disaster - capped off perfectly by the atrocious bailouts he implemented. You won't find a defense of that here.

And yes we did just have a thread - where I demonstrated that red states tend to have lower taxes than blue states, and also relatively higher migration. Hence the reason that all those congressional seats just shifted from blue states to red states. You did make a good rebuttal: That the red states tend to get back more from the Federal government than they contribute. But I would hardly say that any consensus was reached in that thread. My position remains that the Republicans are the party of limited government, with their reputation unfortunately besmirched by idiots like GWB.

[Kindi]

congress has way more power than the president when it comes to spending and size of govt

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

The Republicans haven't been the party of limited government for 40 years. The modern day Republican party is the party of warrantless wiretapping and extradition, waterboarding, airport security theater, expansion of the powers of the executive branch, signing statements, line-item vetos, expansion of the TSA and NSA, collusion with private industry to record internet traffic, record defense spending, pork contracts with Halliburton and Blackwater, record deficits and debt, auto maker bailouts, and unilateral military action on the world stage.

I'd vote for the party of small government. Anyone know what happened to them?

I actually agree with most of what Ragorn said. But, that's the part of the Tea Party I really like...they had no shame immediately attacking the Republican party for 100% forgetting their economic (and sometimes social) Conservative side. They just need to clean out some of the crazies, and we're good.

[Teflor Lyorian]

The Republicans haven't been the party of limited government for 40 years. The modern day Republican party is the party of warrantless wiretapping and extradition, waterboarding, airport security theater, expansion of the powers of the executive branch, signing statements, line-item vetos, expansion of the TSA and NSA, collusion with private industry to record internet traffic, record defense spending, pork contracts with Halliburton and Blackwater, record deficits and debt, auto maker bailouts, and unilateral military action on the world stage.

I'd vote for the party of small government. Anyone know what happened to them?

I actually agree with most of what Ragorn said. But, that's the part of the Tea Party I really like...they had no shame immediately attacking the Republican party for 100% forgetting their economic (and sometimes social) Conservative side. They just need to clean out some of the crazies, and we're good.

I would believe it, except Obama has expanded upon every one of those things Ragorn mentioned. Face it. Security theater, warrantless government invasion of privacy, Guantanamo Bay, spilled pork? All bi-partisan.

[Ragorn]

I would believe it, except Obama has expanded upon every one of those things Ragorn mentioned. Face it. Security theater, warrantless government invasion of privacy, Guantanamo Bay, spilled pork? All bi-partisan.

That may be true, but it's beside the point. What we're talking about right now is whether the Republican party is the "party of small government." It doesn't matter if the Democrats do it too, or they do it worse, or they do it differently. The point at hand: Do Republicans favor small government, or not?

One I forgot: The War on Drugs, which started with Nancy Reagan and led to America's admittedly draconican legal framework around minor drug possession crimes.

The Libertarians are the closest thing we have right now to a small-government party. I wish they'd put up a candidate worth voting for... someone who has no intention of legislating my morality, getting involved in who I'm allowed to marry, keeps his hands off my internet traffic, and doesn't shovel billions of tax dollars at the company he quit to run for office. I'd vote for that guy.

For a while, I thought John McCain might BE that guy. In 2007, I considered John McCain to be the Republican candidate I'd be most likely to vote for. Then he took a turn for the right, flip-flopped on the morality issues, suddenly went pro-life and anti-gay, and he lost me.

[Corth]

Ragorn - those are great attributes in a Liberatrian. Certainly someone I would vote for. But you realize also that Libertarians would dismantle much of the Federal beaurocracy, get rid of so-called 'progressive' tax structures, and generally seek to allow the free market to operate unhindered, right?

[Sarvis]

Ragorn - those are great attributes in a Liberatrian. Certainly someone I would vote for. But you realize also that Libertarians would dismantle much of the Federal beaurocracy, get rid of so-called 'progressive' tax structures, and generally seek to allow the free market to operate unhindered, right?

Dismantling some beaurocracy would be fine. The other things... well...

[Ragorn]

Ragorn - those are great attributes in a Liberatrian. Certainly someone I would vote for. But you realize also that Libertarians would dismantle much of the Federal beaurocracy, get rid of so-called 'progressive' tax structures, and generally seek to allow the free market to operate unhindered, right?

I'm ok with that too. I think BAC should have been allowed to fail. I support progressive tax structures, but not to the point where it's a dealbreaker in a candidate. Likewise, I support universal health care, and I would oppose its repeal... but I wish we'd picked a different issue to focus on for the last two years.

The sticky point I have with Libertarians is, I'm afraid they're going to under-regulate industry. The free market is a powerful influence, but we have anti-trust legislation for a reason. Given unlimited freedom, business will do what's best for business. And as that behavior reaches its logical conclusion, business starts doing what's best for business to the detriment of everyone else. I believe government regulation is crucial to keep industry from reaching that point. Yes, corporations should be allowed to practice relatively unhindered... but at the same time, we need to prevent food manufacturers from adding preservatives to baby food that is toxic to babies. The free market would eventually put pressure on such a company to change its business model, but the cost of waiting for the market to self-regulate is too high.

Without seeing many Libertarians in high elected offices, I'm not sure how far your typical Libertarian would go toward keeping razor blades out of my baby's food ;)

[Teflor Lyorian]

For a while, I thought John McCain might BE that guy. In 2007, I considered John McCain to be the Republican candidate I'd be most likely to vote for. Then he took a turn for the right, flip-flopped on the morality issues, suddenly went pro-life and anti-gay, and he lost me.

Anti-gay is an interesting label. Sure he's fighting what they want, but government authorities are always fighting what people want. If you deny people unlimited health care, are you suddenly anti-health? If you deny unions absolute power to decide which shops are unionized and which ones are not - are you anti-union?

At what point are people just making decisions about government that are effective policy? And at which point are they anti-something? And why do we let lobbyists and advocates determine when they've hit that point?

[Ragorn]

For a while, I thought John McCain might BE that guy. In 2007, I considered John McCain to be the Republican candidate I'd be most likely to vote for. Then he took a turn for the right, flip-flopped on the morality issues, suddenly went pro-life and anti-gay, and he lost me.

Anti-gay is an interesting label. Sure he's fighting what they want, but government authorities are always fighting what people want. If you deny people unlimited health care, are you suddenly anti-health? If you deny unions absolute power to decide which shops are unionized and which ones are not - are you anti-union?

At what point are people just making decisions about government that are effective policy? And at which point are they anti-something? And why do we let lobbyists and advocates determine when they've hit that point?

I should have said "anti-gay marriage." I apologize for mislabeling McCain's views.

McCain's view on homosexuality is more nuanced than that of most Republicans. He supported the amendment to Arizona's constitution banning gay marriage... he opposed the amendment at the national level, but his objection was an issue of states rights (states should decide, not the federal government) and not civil rights. He's obviously against civil rights for gays, but he seems to be content to follow the will of the people rather than asserting his own agenda ON the people. That's one of the reasons I respected him when I was looking at Republican primary candidates.

And yes... I think if you favor a constitutional amendment denying certain people access to health care, then it's fair to label you as being "against universal health care." If you favor a constitutional amendment prohibiting black people from voting... at that point, maybe you are anti-black? I think that might be a fair label. I'm not sure where to draw the line. I do know, if you declare homosexuality a sin because your religion says so, then you earn the anti-gay label.

[Teflor Lyorian]

I should have said "anti-gay marriage." I apologize for mislabeling McCain's views.

Oh, no, I wasn't criticizing you at all, it's just interesting what happened to labels in political discussion in the United States. I got rambly.

And yes... I think if you favor a constitutional amendment denying certain people access to health care, then it's fair to label you as being "against universal health care."

There is one problem here called limitation of resources. There is not an unlimited amount of just about anything (or even a sufficient amount). At some point, decisions by SOMEONE have to be made on who gets what. I'd rather that SOMEONE be the people or the patient (through their accumulation of resources over a lifetime or personal choice to have certain levels of insurance) and not the government.

[Ragorn]

And yes... I think if you favor a constitutional amendment denying certain people access to health care, then it's fair to label you as being "against universal health care."

There is one problem here called limitation of resources. There is not an unlimited amount of just about anything (or even a sufficient amount). At some point, decisions by SOMEONE have to be made on who gets what. I'd rather that SOMEONE be the people or the patient (through their accumulation of resources over a lifetime or personal choice to have certain levels of insurance) and not the government.

Yes, but going back to the original question, "marriage" is an unlimited resource. Saying you're against "unlimited free health care" is not the same as being "anti-health care," no. But nobody opposes gay marraige because they're concerned about the distribution of resources.

[Teflor Lyorian]

And yes... I think if you favor a constitutional amendment denying certain people access to health care, then it's fair to label you as being "against universal health care."

There is one problem here called limitation of resources. There is not an unlimited amount of just about anything (or even a sufficient amount). At some point, decisions by SOMEONE have to be made on who gets what. I'd rather that SOMEONE be the people or the patient (through their accumulation of resources over a lifetime or personal choice to have certain levels of insurance) and not the government.

Yes, but going back to the original question, "marriage" is an unlimited resource. Saying you're against "unlimited free health care" is not the same as being "anti-health care," no. But nobody opposes gay marraige because they're concerned about the distribution of resources.

Are they opposing gay marriage, or are they opposing the government's recognition of gay marriage as being both equal and deserving of the resources given to standard marriage? You're allowed any religious ceremony (that doesn't break criminal laws) - if a church wants to marry gays, they're married.

Gay marriage is not banned anywhere in this country. What gay marriage is barred from is recognition as having the same privileges, the same resources given to or expended upon straight marriage.

[Ragorn]

Are they opposing gay marriage, or are they opposing the government's recognition of gay marriage as being both equal and deserving of the resources given to standard marriage? You're allowed any religious ceremony (that doesn't break criminal laws) - if a church wants to marry gays, they're married.

Gay marriage is not banned anywhere in this country. What gay marriage is barred from is recognition as having the same privileges, the same resources given to or expended upon straight marriage.

Not only do I not understand the semantic different you're trying to make, I don't understand WHY you're trying to make it in the first place. I'm not really interested in dicing up the word "marriage" and trying to make the argument into a technicality.

[kiryan]

What would the left say if I started describing myself as transgender gay because I claim that I'm a woman trapped in a man's body who likes women?

I suspect they would cast a very suspicious if not accustatory light on me rather than support me as being "gay" or "transgender."

Marriage proponents view the gay use of marriage as a perversion of the idea. Gays may want to redefine marriage, but it has been previously defined and they want to change that. I'm in support of civil unions granting many "marriage" benefits, but much less supportive of gay marriage.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Are they opposing gay marriage, or are they opposing the government's recognition of gay marriage as being both equal and deserving of the resources given to standard marriage? You're allowed any religious ceremony (that doesn't break criminal laws) - if a church wants to marry gays, they're married.

Gay marriage is not banned anywhere in this country. What gay marriage is barred from is recognition as having the same privileges, the same resources given to or expended upon straight marriage.

Not only do I not understand the semantic different you're trying to make, I don't understand WHY you're trying to make it in the first place. I'm not really interested in dicing up the word "marriage" and trying to make the argument into a technicality.

The semantic difference is that the state expends resources, grants unusual rights and protections, and has an expense associated with recognized marriage. You said that marriage is an 'unlimited resource.' State-recognized marriage is not.

[Sarvis]

What would the left say if I started describing myself as transgender gay because I claim that I'm a woman trapped in a man's body who likes women?

I don't have the slightest clue what point you are trying to make with that.

But I'm not sure I'd be surprised if it were true.

[Teflor Lyorian]

What would the left say if I started describing myself as transgender gay because I claim that I'm a woman trapped in a man's body who likes women?

I don't have the slightest clue what point you are trying to make with that.

But I'm not sure I'd be surprised if it were true.

Kiryan is pointing out the difference between scientific determination and self or "fanciful" determination of gender.

[Ragorn]

What would the left say if I started describing myself as transgender gay because I claim that I'm a woman trapped in a man's body who likes women?

We'd laugh because we've all made the same joke at least once. If you're serious about it though, I can suggest some LGBT groups you can sign up for. You'd get some suspicion, mostly because LGBT individuals have lived most of their lives being persecuted by straight white Christians. But if you're serious about it, you'd find a lot of support. You might start by investigating the gender-spectrum community, people who don't believe that sexual identity is as clear cut as male vs. female.

I know a couple folks, I could give you some good references :)

The semantic difference is that the state expends resources, grants unusual rights and protections, and has an expense associated with recognized marriage. You said that marriage is an 'unlimited resource.' State-recognized marriage is not.

While you are again technically correct that the state expends a nonzero amount of resources to recognize a marriage between two people, trying to frame the gay marriage argument on economic grounds severely hurts your case. Sexual orientation is a protected class, and as such, it is illegal to deny state-appropriated resources to an individual based on sexual orientation. Can't kick a kid out of public school for being gay.

To summarize, you can't ban gay marriage because your state can't afford to extend marriage benefits to homosexuals, if your state continues to allow heterosexuals unrestricted freedom to marry. That's clear-cut discrimination based on a protected class, and would get shot down immediately.

[Teflor Lyorian]

While you are again technically correct that the state expends a nonzero amount of resources to recognize a marriage between two people, trying to frame the gay marriage argument on economic grounds severely hurts your case. Sexual orientation is a protected class, and as such, it is illegal to deny state-appropriated resources to an individual based on sexual orientation. Can't kick a kid out of public school for being gay.

It actually does nothing to harm my case, both because it's a completely separate argument (certainly, not my only one, do you even know what I'm arguing for/about?) AND particularly because marriage is a relationship and not an individual. The state does not have to recognize any self-determined relationships aside from the very few that the state has legislated that it must recognize itself.

Furthermore, my resources argument was directed initially only at what I quoted from what you said about health care. However, it's also true for the marriage issue.

To summarize, you can't ban gay marriage because your state can't afford to extend marriage benefits to homosexuals, if your state continues to allow heterosexuals unrestricted freedom to marry. That's clear-cut discrimination based on a protected class, and would get shot down immediately.

No, it's not. Homosexuals have the right to have their marriage to someone of the opposite sex recognized by the state. As such, they are not being individually discriminated against in terms of having their rights preserved.

[kiryan]

To put Teflor's point another way (don't necessarily agree)

Am I being discriminated against by being barred from using a woman's bathroom on the basis of my gender?

Gays are not being discriminated against by gender in terms of marriage because they can marry a person of the opposite sex.

[Ragorn]

Am I being discriminated against by being barred from using a woman's bathroom on the basis of my gender?

I'm not sure. Were black people being discriminated against by being barred from using white peoples' water fountains on the basis of their race?

[Ragorn]

do you even know what I'm arguing for/about?

No, I have no idea. My point was "McCain is anti-gay marriage." What exactly is the point you're driving toward?

[Teflor Lyorian]

do you even know what I'm arguing for/about?

No, I have no idea. My point was "McCain is anti-gay marriage." What exactly is the point you're driving toward?

I don't believe McCain's votes or public statements make him anti-gay marriage because that implies more than what I think McCain is against.

I believe, based on what I've seen from McCain's statements and votes, that McCain's views are slightly more nuanced in that he's against the state recognition of gay marriage as being the same as traditional marriage.

[Ragorn]

And that's my definition of "anti-gay marriage," so I think we're back at square one?

[Teflor Lyorian]

And that's my definition of "anti-gay marriage," so I think we're back at square one?

Your definition is overly encompassing and dishonest. Your use of the label implies that McCain is against more than just equality between same sex marriages and opposite sex marriages.

[Ragorn]

And that's my definition of "anti-gay marriage," so I think we're back at square one?

Your definition is overly encompassing and dishonest. Your use of the label implies that McCain is against more than just equality between same sex marriages and opposite sex marriages.

"Gay marriage" is the idea that homosexuals should be able to enter into legally binding unions with all the rights and priviledges of a heterosexual couple. Does McCain support it?

No?

Then he's anti-gay marriage. I don't understand why you'd call that a dishonest defintion. And honestly, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs about it.

[Teflor Lyorian]

And that's my definition of "anti-gay marriage," so I think we're back at square one?

Your definition is overly encompassing and dishonest. Your use of the label implies that McCain is against more than just equality between same sex marriages and opposite sex marriages.

"Gay marriage" is the idea that homosexuals should be able to enter into legally binding unions with all the rights and priviledges of a heterosexual couple. Does McCain support it?

No?

Then he's anti-gay marriage. I don't understand why you'd call that a dishonest defintion. And honestly, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs about it.

You've overloaded the meaning of the phrase "gay marriage" in such a way that no honest intellectual discussion can take place on the subject. In this case, you are contributing to a dishonest atmosphere where politics is more about mis-named labels than about actual intellectual discourse.

In this case, the hair that's being split is the fine line between honest debate of the merits, and the drive by advocates and lobbyists to be able to say that someone is against far more than they actually are. That you used "anti-gay" at all should have been the first clue that the label was dishonest.

[Ragorn]

Does McCain support gay marriage?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Does McCain support gay marriage?

Good question. I'm not sure what McCain's personal feelings or actions are about a marriage between gays. All that I know for a fact is that he doesn't publically support the government recognition of marriages between gay partners as being the same as marriages between a man and a woman.

[Ragorn]

Does McCain support gay marriage?

Good question. I'm not sure what McCain's personal feelings or actions are about a marriage between gays. All that I know for a fact is that he doesn't publically support the government recognition of marriages between gay partners as being the same as marriages between a man and a woman.

McCain announced his support last week for the California ballot measure, known as Prop. 8. “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona,” he said.

Can we please be done here?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Does McCain support gay marriage?

Good question. I'm not sure what McCain's personal feelings or actions are about a marriage between gays. All that I know for a fact is that he doesn't publically support the government recognition of marriages between gay partners as being the same as marriages between a man and a woman.

McCain announced his support last week for the California ballot measure, known as Prop. 8. “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona,” he said.

Can we please be done here?

Then he took a turn for the right, flip-flopped on the morality issues, suddenly went pro-life and anti-gay, and he lost me.

Are we done? At some point you said he was against everything gay. Supporting Prop 8 is about civil marriage. McCain is clearly "anti gay civil marriage," (and that's still an overly-inflammatory term, there's no reason to put anti and gay together unless you're implying that he's against the gays) but you had originally painted quite a broad picture.