The ..2012.... Political thread
-
[quote="mustangsally10"]
jaipur:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Altanon:
I wouldn't mind seeing US go back to the Eisenhower-Era Tax rates.
I wouldn't mind it either. Tax rates for the rich under Eisenhower were higher than those proposed by Obama. He also created the greatest federal economic stimulus with the federal highway system since FDR. He was against corporatism and he would be a democrat today...the republicans today would throw him out. hehe...Andy is doubling down with the stupid
Naaa - you just don't want to hear it, so you go for insults You are not so hard to figure out ... You (attempt to) insult everyone to whom you disagree in this thread
I don't disagree with you there is nothing to disagree with. You never discuss issues because you don't know anything about them. You put up posts that have nothing to do with the issues (what matters). You really don't even know what I'm talking about now. It's people like you who got the US into the situation it is now by now knowing anything about the issues...you vote based on crap you read in the national inquirer or whatever junk you read.. Unless you're a multimillionaire you ought to be kissing Obamas feet because he is helping your life everyday with the work he and the democrats are doing. I doubt you even understood what I just wrote.
Why do you constantly demonize "the rich" in your postings?
They have more than sally that's why This is another bush hater who believes that he along with republicans "created this situation". This situation was created by both democrat and republican policies ....simple as that.
You know nothing about me...Sally does very well. People like you can't comprehend when someone cares about the lives of others even when it doesn't benefit their own. It's called compassion. Democrats generally have it republicans don't...their policies are very clear about that. People who say that they are in the middle but don't have compassion are generally republicans in disguise. I would be embarrassed to admit it too. [/quote You are completely wrong on this point: Republicans (and conservatives, and wealthy people and whoever else you like to demonize) are generally compassionate about their fellow humn beings. You want proof? There are numerous studies that have shown that conservatives are far more generous in their charitable giving the liberals. So please open your eyes to the goodness in your fellow human beings and try to get over some of your ignorant biases.
-
[quote="EADG"]
mustangsally10:
jaipur:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Altanon:
I wouldn't mind seeing US go back to the Eisenhower-Era Tax rates.
I wouldn't mind it either. Tax rates for the rich under Eisenhower were higher than those proposed by Obama. He also created the greatest federal economic stimulus with the federal highway system since FDR. He was against corporatism and he would be a democrat today...the republicans today would throw him out. hehe...Andy is doubling down with the stupid
Naaa - you just don't want to hear it, so you go for insults You are not so hard to figure out ... You (attempt to) insult everyone to whom you disagree in this thread
I don't disagree with you there is nothing to disagree with. You never discuss issues because you don't know anything about them. You put up posts that have nothing to do with the issues (what matters). You really don't even know what I'm talking about now. It's people like you who got the US into the situation it is now by now knowing anything about the issues...you vote based on crap you read in the national inquirer or whatever junk you read.. Unless you're a multimillionaire you ought to be kissing Obamas feet because he is helping your life everyday with the work he and the democrats are doing. I doubt you even understood what I just wrote.
Why do you constantly demonize "the rich" in your postings?
They have more than sally that's why This is another bush hater who believes that he along with republicans "created this situation". This situation was created by both democrat and republican policies ....simple as that.
You know nothing about me...Sally does very well. People like you can't comprehend when someone cares about the lives of others even when it doesn't benefit their own. It's called compassion. Democrats generally have it republicans don't...their policies are very clear about that. People who say that they are in the middle but don't have compassion are generally republicans in disguise. I would be embarrassed to admit it too. [/quote You are completely wrong on this point: Republicans (and conservatives, and wealthy people and whoever else you like to demonize) are generally compassionate about their fellow humn beings. You want proof? There are numerous studies that have shown that conservatives are far more generous in their charitable giving the liberals. So please open your eyes to the goodness in your fellow human beings and try to get over some of your ignorant biases.
You prove my point and easily too That is what repubs/conservatives always say that they give so much to charity. Well, of course they get TAX BREAKS! What I said above is that the democratic policies favor working people. It's common knowledge that republican policies favor the rich. Their precious tax cuts for the rich and corporations which leave the middle class paying for everything. And then their love of small or no government so that they cut services for those who need them. It is really laughable that you are defending them Repubs don't care about anyone but themselves and the repub. followers who do not benefit from the repub policies are just sadly manipulated and uninformed. Policies are what define the party I wonder which you are one of the ones who benefit from the policies that have destroyed the lives of so many or one of those who ignorantly support those policies even though it hurts their own lives.
-
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
The indians are restless on this reservation The nonsense of deficits....there are "two" kinds, boys and girls...structural (that has existed for umpty dump years....known as social security, medicare) to which grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay) and budget deficits (unemployment). As long as Congress keeps jerking around regarding the Bush tax cuts, businesses CANNOT hire. Because when those cuts expire, companies will need the cash they are currently stashing to pay them This is not about democrats or republican philosophy....it's about where all of us (meaning myself, the wife and others I know) are....it is a little of both......us folks in the center
So, if liberal philosophy is the leftwing philosophy...and republicanism is right hand philosophy...and democracy is the middle and mediating point of view that it always has been..........how does... halfway between the near right and the far right..........become the center? ...it's no wonder that working people are sadly laughing at you....
Working people didn't laugh at Bill Clinton or Tony Blair....both of whom governed from the center. It's no wonder people actually laugh at you instead as that simple fact never occurred to you. It is us folks in the center that swing elections. Not the extremes on either end.
So, "you are" a Democrat! ps...please take it easy on the indians...they gave a lot more to this country than you did! :
-
[quote="mustangsally10"]
EADG:
mustangsally10:
jaipur:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Altanon:
I wouldn't mind seeing US go back to the Eisenhower-Era Tax rates.
I wouldn't mind it either. Tax rates for the rich under Eisenhower were higher than those proposed by Obama. He also created the greatest federal economic stimulus with the federal highway system since FDR. He was against corporatism and he would be a democrat today...the republicans today would throw him out. hehe...Andy is doubling down with the stupid
Naaa - you just don't want to hear it, so you go for insults You are not so hard to figure out ... You (attempt to) insult everyone to whom you disagree in this thread
I don't disagree with you there is nothing to disagree with. You never discuss issues because you don't know anything about them. You put up posts that have nothing to do with the issues (what matters). You really don't even know what I'm talking about now. It's people like you who got the US into the situation it is now by now knowing anything about the issues...you vote based on crap you read in the national inquirer or whatever junk you read.. Unless you're a multimillionaire you ought to be kissing Obamas feet because he is helping your life everyday with the work he and the democrats are doing. I doubt you even understood what I just wrote.
Why do you constantly demonize "the rich" in your postings?
They have more than sally that's why This is another bush hater who believes that he along with republicans "created this situation". This situation was created by both democrat and republican policies ....simple as that.
You know nothing about me...Sally does very well. People like you can't comprehend when someone cares about the lives of others even when it doesn't benefit their own. It's called compassion. Democrats generally have it republicans don't...their policies are very clear about that. People who say that they are in the middle but don't have compassion are generally republicans in disguise. I would be embarrassed to admit it too. [/quote You are completely wrong on this point: Republicans (and conservatives, and wealthy people and whoever else you like to demonize) are generally compassionate about their fellow humn beings. You want proof? There are numerous studies that have shown that conservatives are far more generous in their charitable giving the liberals. So please open your eyes to the goodness in your fellow human beings and try to get over some of your ignorant biases.
You prove my point and easily too That is what repubs/conservatives always say that they give so much to charity. Well, of course they get TAX BREAKS! What I said above is that the democratic policies favor working people. It's common knowledge that republican policies favor the rich. Their precious tax cuts for the rich and corporations which leave the middle class paying for everything. And then their love of small or no government so that they cut services for those who need them. It is really laughable that you are defending them Repubs don't care about anyone but themselves and the repub. followers who do not benefit from the repub policies are just sadly manipulated and uninformed. Policies are what define the party I wonder which you are one of the ones who benefit from the policies that have destroyed the lives of so many or one of those who ignorantly support those policies even though it hurts their own lives.
I am not going to waste my time dicussing this with you, but a couple of points: 1) republicans believe in small government because government is a notoriously inefficient, corruption-prone means of achieving social goals so they believe in minimizing the scope of the social goals that government is mandated to address. 2) in keeping with this philosphy, they tend to give more money to other types of institutions that address the social goals that they believe should be outside the scope of government. As far as tax breaks for donations, do you actually pay taxes? if you do, you will understand that tax deductions still leave the donor net out of pocket a substantial amount of money -- especially upper bracket earners for whom tax deductions are subject to cutbacks
-
EADG:
...I am not going to waste my time dicussing this with you, but a couple of points: 1) republicans believe in small government because government is a notoriously inefficient, corruption-prone means of achieving social goals so they believe in minimizing the scope of the social goals that government is mandated to address. 2) in keeping with this philosphy, they tend to give more money to other types of institutions that address the social goals that they believe should be outside the scope of government. As far as tax breaks for donations, do you actually pay taxes? if you do, you will understand that tax deductions still leave the donor net out of pocket a substantial amount of money -- especially upper bracket earners for whom tax deductions are subject to cutbacks
Perhaps you can explain, then, why The Government grew more under The Usurper Bush (a Republican) than any other President in History - even FDR! The problem we have is that Democrat and Republican are Political Philosophies which no modern Politician actually observes or follows - they do no more than pay Lip-Service. For example, the above exponential growth of Government under a Republican, and the elimination of Welfare as we'd known it under a Democrat (Clinton.) Or, how about Clinton's NAFTA? Is there any fool left who thinks NAFTA helped the Working People? No, these Politicians stand up and mouth the words, but they never intend to actually follow them. Instead, they do the will of their true masters: the Rich and Powerful Elite. To reiterate: by the time We The People ever even hear of a potential Candidate, they are already owned lock, stock and barrel by Big Money, and regardless of the words they say or the promises they make, they will do exactly what the RaPE tells them to do. There is nothing wrong with believing in the Democrat or Republican Ideologies, but it is beyond foolish to believe that ANY Politician is actually going to follow either one.
-
Altanon:
EADG:
...I am not going to waste my time dicussing this with you, but a couple of points: 1) republicans believe in small government because government is a notoriously inefficient, corruption-prone means of achieving social goals so they believe in minimizing the scope of the social goals that government is mandated to address. 2) in keeping with this philosphy, they tend to give more money to other types of institutions that address the social goals that they believe should be outside the scope of government. As far as tax breaks for donations, do you actually pay taxes? if you do, you will understand that tax deductions still leave the donor net out of pocket a substantial amount of money -- especially upper bracket earners for whom tax deductions are subject to cutbacks
Perhaps you can explain, then, why The Government grew more under The Usurper Bush (a Republican) than any other President in History - even FDR! The problem we have is that Democrat and Republican are Political Philosophies which no modern Politician actually observes or follows - they do no more than pay Lip-Service. For example, the above exponential growth of Government under a Republican, and the elimination of Welfare as we'd known it under a Democrat (Clinton.) Or, how about Clinton's NAFTA? Is there any fool left who thinks NAFTA helped the Working People? No, these Politicians stand up and mouth the words, but they never intend to actually follow them. Instead, they do the will of their true masters: the Rich and Powerful Elite. To reiterate: by the time We The People ever even hear of a potential Candidate, they are already owned lock, stock and barrel by Big Money, and regardless of the words they say or the promises they make, they will do exactly what the RaPE tells them to do. There is nothing wrong with believing in the Democrat or Republican Ideologies, but it is beyond foolish to believe that ANY Politician is actually going to follow either one.
Actually, under Bush, federal spending grew from 18.2% of GDP in '00 to 20.7% in '08. That 20.7% is slightly less than the historical average since the mid-70s. (Under Clinton it they went from 22.1% in '92 to 18.2% -- he's the only president to achieve a meaningful reduction in federal spending as a % of GDP). So the reasons for the federal budget grew more under Bush than under other presidents is because 1) the GDP continues to grow over time, 3) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost a lot of money and 4) the cost of social spending programs continue to grow. By the way, your comparing Bush's budget to FDR's spending is a red herring, which I have to assume is deliberate -- the GDP of the United States when Bush entered office was well over 100x the size of the GDP when FDR entered office, so you can't possibly compare the dollar amounts of the federal budget in the FDR era with the Bush era. (The growth of government as a % of GDP under FDR, even before the US got into World War II, was unlike anything before or since -- receipts went from 2.8% in '32 to 7.6% in '41. We went from minimal federal spending to a small amount by current standards, but the government nearly tripled in size in nine years. Note that i am excluding the war years when federal spending peaked at over 40% of GDP, but not due to FDR's domestic agenda.) As far as Bush's handling of the economy, i think he did a bad job. I'm not a republican but i know quite a few of them and most of the Republicans i know are fiscal conservatives and they didn't like Bush's fiscal policies either. The federal debt is a long term problem. If we can't work our way out from under it via gains in productivity per worker (which is certainly possible given the recent history of manfacturing technology, but why take that chance) and/or continued immigration (which has other issues associated with it) the only way out is inflation, which is never good. The rest of your message was just your usual screed, which I always find entertaining.
-
SurSteven:
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
The indians are restless on this reservation The nonsense of deficits....there are "two" kinds, boys and girls...structural (that has existed for umpty dump years....known as social security, medicare) to which grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay) and budget deficits (unemployment). As long as Congress keeps jerking around regarding the Bush tax cuts, businesses CANNOT hire. Because when those cuts expire, companies will need the cash they are currently stashing to pay them This is not about democrats or republican philosophy....it's about where all of us (meaning myself, the wife and others I know) are....it is a little of both......us folks in the center
So, if liberal philosophy is the leftwing philosophy...and republicanism is right hand philosophy...and democracy is the middle and mediating point of view that it always has been..........how does... halfway between the near right and the far right..........become the center? ...it's no wonder that working people are sadly laughing at you....
Working people didn't laugh at Bill Clinton or Tony Blair....both of whom governed from the center. It's no wonder people actually laugh at you instead as that simple fact never occurred to you. It is us folks in the center that swing elections. Not the extremes on either end.
So, "you are" a Democrat! No I am not a democrat or a republican. One more time and do try and read for comprehension: Clinton and Blair governed from the center (neither democrat or republican, nor labor or conservative). ps...please take it easy on the indians...they gave a lot more to this country than you did! :
Yes, where would we be without casinos??
-
Don't think it's productivity, eadg.....that is quite high and has been for a bit even before 2007. Social security is a bit more fixable than medicare
-
jaipur:
Don't think it's productivity, eadg.....that is quite high and has been for a bit even before 2007. Social security is a bit more fixable than medicare
You may be right about the relative complexity of social security vs medicare. Either way, it seems like congress won't force any major change to either until we reach a point where the votes and contributions of the younger generation outnumber those of the older generation, and then the political logic for some deep cuts in both programs will become irresistable and it will happen and it won't be pretty. My point about productivity is that the cost of nearly everything is getting cheaper, and technology of one kind or another is behind most of that. (To preemp a comment about WalMart and third world sweatshops being the real reason the cost of goods has stayed so low, that is true for some goods but that is driven in part by technology too, in the form of supply chain management, etc.) The US economy has had a large bubble of productive workers (the baby boom generation) supporting a smaller generation of consumptive retirees, but that is going to invert at some point and the younger generation is going to get stuck supporting a disproportionately large retired class AND paying off the big federal debt. They can't possibly do that without accepting a lower standard of living for themselves, which seems unlikely, unless we get way more productivity per worker (and the younger generation won't give up a share of those productivity gains without a fight, but at least they can generate them there will be something to fight over) or population growth through immigration (and the US will become like a club where you're welcome to join if you can make the cut, but as your prize you get stuck with your share of the debt that the current members have run up). If neither of those things happens, we become like Italy or Japan with an aging population, a stagnant economy, too much debt (in Italy's case) and pretty dreary future for everyone.
-
[quote="EADG"]
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
jaipur:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Altanon:
I wouldn't mind seeing US go back to the Eisenhower-Era Tax rates.
I wouldn't mind it either. Tax rates for the rich under Eisenhower were higher than those proposed by Obama. He also created the greatest federal economic stimulus with the federal highway system since FDR. He was against corporatism and he would be a democrat today...the republicans today would throw him out. hehe...Andy is doubling down with the stupid
Naaa - you just don't want to hear it, so you go for insults You are not so hard to figure out ... You (attempt to) insult everyone to whom you disagree in this thread
I don't disagree with you there is nothing to disagree with. You never discuss issues because you don't know anything about them. You put up posts that have nothing to do with the issues (what matters). You really don't even know what I'm talking about now. It's people like you who got the US into the situation it is now by now knowing anything about the issues...you vote based on crap you read in the national inquirer or whatever junk you read.. Unless you're a multimillionaire you ought to be kissing Obamas feet because he is helping your life everyday with the work he and the democrats are doing. I doubt you even understood what I just wrote.
Why do you constantly demonize "the rich" in your postings?
They have more than sally that's why This is another bush hater who believes that he along with republicans "created this situation". This situation was created by both democrat and republican policies ....simple as that.
You know nothing about me...Sally does very well. People like you can't comprehend when someone cares about the lives of others even when it doesn't benefit their own. It's called compassion. Democrats generally have it republicans don't...their policies are very clear about that. People who say that they are in the middle but don't have compassion are generally republicans in disguise. I would be embarrassed to admit it too. [/quote You are completely wrong on this point: Republicans (and conservatives, and wealthy people and whoever else you like to demonize) are generally compassionate about their fellow humn beings. You want proof? There are numerous studies that have shown that conservatives are far more generous in their charitable giving the liberals. So please open your eyes to the goodness in your fellow human beings and try to get over some of your ignorant biases.
You prove my point and easily too That is what repubs/conservatives always say that they give so much to charity. Well, of course they get TAX BREAKS! What I said above is that the democratic policies favor working people. It's common knowledge that republican policies favor the rich. Their precious tax cuts for the rich and corporations which leave the middle class paying for everything. And then their love of small or no government so that they cut services for those who need them. It is really laughable that you are defending them Repubs don't care about anyone but themselves and the repub. followers who do not benefit from the repub policies are just sadly manipulated and uninformed. Policies are what define the party I wonder which you are one of the ones who benefit from the policies that have destroyed the lives of so many or one of those who ignorantly support those policies even though it hurts their own lives.
I am not going to waste my time dicussing this with you, but a couple of points: 1) republicans believe in small government because government is a notoriously inefficient, corruption-prone means of achieving social goals so they believe in minimizing the scope of the social goals that government is mandated to address. 2) in keeping with this philosphy, they tend to give more money to other types of institutions that address the social goals that they believe should be outside the scope of government. As far as tax breaks for donations, do you actually pay taxes? if you do, you will understand that tax deductions still leave the donor net out of pocket a substantial amount of money -- especially upper bracket earners for whom tax deductions are subject to cutbacks
you are comparing the corruption and inefficientcy of the govt. to the private sector in the wake of the BP disaster the disaster made transparent the decision making in a profit making entity cutting corners on safety for the bottom line. And in minimizing the social goals that govt. addresses you are referred to protection of all individual rights At least you are being honest...private enterprise doesn't give a damn about individual rights FOR ALL and neither do the republicans. Of course you don't want to discuss with me...it really makes you lay bare your ideology of selfishness and greed.
-
[quote="EADG"]
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
jaipur:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Altanon:
I wouldn't mind seeing US go back to the Eisenhower-Era Tax rates.
I wouldn't mind it either. Tax rates for the rich under Eisenhower were higher than those proposed by Obama. He also created the greatest federal economic stimulus with the federal highway system since FDR. He was against corporatism and he would be a democrat today...the republicans today would throw him out. hehe...Andy is doubling down with the stupid
Naaa - you just don't want to hear it, so you go for insults You are not so hard to figure out ... You (attempt to) insult everyone to whom you disagree in this thread
I don't disagree with you there is nothing to disagree with. You never discuss issues because you don't know anything about them. You put up posts that have nothing to do with the issues (what matters). You really don't even know what I'm talking about now. It's people like you who got the US into the situation it is now by now knowing anything about the issues...you vote based on crap you read in the national inquirer or whatever junk you read.. Unless you're a multimillionaire you ought to be kissing Obamas feet because he is helping your life everyday with the work he and the democrats are doing. I doubt you even understood what I just wrote.
Why do you constantly demonize "the rich" in your postings?
They have more than sally that's why This is another bush hater who believes that he along with republicans "created this situation". This situation was created by both democrat and republican policies ....simple as that.
You know nothing about me...Sally does very well. People like you can't comprehend when someone cares about the lives of others even when it doesn't benefit their own. It's called compassion. Democrats generally have it republicans don't...their policies are very clear about that. People who say that they are in the middle but don't have compassion are generally republicans in disguise. I would be embarrassed to admit it too. [/quote You are completely wrong on this point: Republicans (and conservatives, and wealthy people and whoever else you like to demonize) are generally compassionate about their fellow humn beings. You want proof? There are numerous studies that have shown that conservatives are far more generous in their charitable giving the liberals. So please open your eyes to the goodness in your fellow human beings and try to get over some of your ignorant biases.
You prove my point and easily too That is what repubs/conservatives always say that they give so much to charity. Well, of course they get TAX BREAKS! What I said above is that the democratic policies favor working people. It's common knowledge that republican policies favor the rich. Their precious tax cuts for the rich and corporations which leave the middle class paying for everything. And then their love of small or no government so that they cut services for those who need them. It is really laughable that you are defending them Repubs don't care about anyone but themselves and the repub. followers who do not benefit from the repub policies are just sadly manipulated and uninformed. Policies are what define the party I wonder which you are one of the ones who benefit from the policies that have destroyed the lives of so many or one of those who ignorantly support those policies even though it hurts their own lives.
I am not going to waste my time dicussing this with you, but a couple of points: 1) republicans believe in small government because government is a notoriously inefficient, corruption-prone means of achieving social goals so they believe in minimizing the scope of the social goals that government is mandated to address. 2) in keeping with this philosphy, they tend to give more money to other types of institutions that address the social goals that they believe should be outside the scope of government. As far as tax breaks for donations, do you actually pay taxes? if you do, you will understand that tax deductions still leave the donor net out of pocket a substantial amount of money -- especially upper bracket earners for whom tax deductions are subject to cutbacks
you are comparing the corruption and inefficientcy of the govt. to the private sector in the wake of the BP disaster the disaster made transparent the decision making in a profit making entity cutting corners on safety for the bottom line. And in minimizing the social goals that govt. addresses you are referring to protection of all individual rights At least you are being honest...private enterprise doesn't give a damn about individual rights FOR ALL and neither do the republicans. Of course you don't want to discuss with me...it really makes you lay bare your ideology of selfishness and greed.
-
[quote="mustangsally10"]
EADG:
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
jaipur:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Altanon:
I wouldn't mind seeing US go back to the Eisenhower-Era Tax rates.
I wouldn't mind it either. Tax rates for the rich under Eisenhower were higher than those proposed by Obama. He also created the greatest federal economic stimulus with the federal highway system since FDR. He was against corporatism and he would be a democrat today...the republicans today would throw him out. hehe...Andy is doubling down with the stupid
Naaa - you just don't want to hear it, so you go for insults You are not so hard to figure out ... You (attempt to) insult everyone to whom you disagree in this thread
I don't disagree with you there is nothing to disagree with. You never discuss issues because you don't know anything about them. You put up posts that have nothing to do with the issues (what matters). You really don't even know what I'm talking about now. It's people like you who got the US into the situation it is now by now knowing anything about the issues...you vote based on crap you read in the national inquirer or whatever junk you read.. Unless you're a multimillionaire you ought to be kissing Obamas feet because he is helping your life everyday with the work he and the democrats are doing. I doubt you even understood what I just wrote.
Why do you constantly demonize "the rich" in your postings?
They have more than sally that's why This is another bush hater who believes that he along with republicans "created this situation". This situation was created by both democrat and republican policies ....simple as that.
You know nothing about me...Sally does very well. People like you can't comprehend when someone cares about the lives of others even when it doesn't benefit their own. It's called compassion. Democrats generally have it republicans don't...their policies are very clear about that. People who say that they are in the middle but don't have compassion are generally republicans in disguise. I would be embarrassed to admit it too. [/quote You are completely wrong on this point: Republicans (and conservatives, and wealthy people and whoever else you like to demonize) are generally compassionate about their fellow humn beings. You want proof? There are numerous studies that have shown that conservatives are far more generous in their charitable giving the liberals. So please open your eyes to the goodness in your fellow human beings and try to get over some of your ignorant biases.
You prove my point and easily too That is what repubs/conservatives always say that they give so much to charity. Well, of course they get TAX BREAKS! What I said above is that the democratic policies favor working people. It's common knowledge that republican policies favor the rich. Their precious tax cuts for the rich and corporations which leave the middle class paying for everything. And then their love of small or no government so that they cut services for those who need them. It is really laughable that you are defending them Repubs don't care about anyone but themselves and the repub. followers who do not benefit from the repub policies are just sadly manipulated and uninformed. Policies are what define the party I wonder which you are one of the ones who benefit from the policies that have destroyed the lives of so many or one of those who ignorantly support those policies even though it hurts their own lives.
I am not going to waste my time dicussing this with you, but a couple of points: 1) republicans believe in small government because government is a notoriously inefficient, corruption-prone means of achieving social goals so they believe in minimizing the scope of the social goals that government is mandated to address. 2) in keeping with this philosphy, they tend to give more money to other types of institutions that address the social goals that they believe should be outside the scope of government. As far as tax breaks for donations, do you actually pay taxes? if you do, you will understand that tax deductions still leave the donor net out of pocket a substantial amount of money -- especially upper bracket earners for whom tax deductions are subject to cutbacks
you are comparing the corruption and inefficientcy of the govt. to the private sector in the wake of the BP disaster the disaster made transparent the decision making in a profit making entity cutting corners on safety for the bottom line. And in minimizing the social goals that govt. addresses you are referring to protection of all individual rights At least you are being honest...private enterprise doesn't give a damn about individual rights FOR ALL and neither do the republicans. Of course you don't want to discuss with me...it really makes you lay bare your ideology of selfishness and greed.
- What in the world does BP have to do with privately run philanthopic foundations? I'm comparing the federal government to [fill in the name of your favorite charity, if you have one]. 2) Who said anything about individual rights? I'm all for them, and most conservatives I know believe very strongly in individual rights. But there is a difference between individual rights and government largesse, and where to balance those two is one of the main philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. This true for both Democrats and Republicans -- it's just that there are more conservatives in the Republican party, proportionally, so the party tends to pursue conservatives social agendas. 3) I have an ideology of selfishness and greed? Believe me, of the many thousands of people i've met in my life -- in all walks of life -- i doubt that you would find one who would describe me as selfish or greedy. I would take that as an insult, except you don't even know me so once again you're making a statement with absolutely no basis in fact. Which is the real reason I won't argue with you.
-
EADG:
- What in the world does BP have to do with privately run philanthopic foundations? I'm comparing the federal government to [fill in the name of your favorite charity, if you have one]. 2) Who said anything about individual rights? I'm all for them, and most conservatives I know believe very strongly in individual rights. But there is a difference between individual rights and government largesse, and where to balance those two is one of the main philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. This true for both Democrats and Republicans -- it's just that there are more conservatives in the Republican party, proportionally, so the party tends to pursue conservatives social agendas. 3) I have an ideology of selfishness and greed? Believe me, of the many thousands of people i've met in my life -- in all walks of life -- i doubt that you would find one who would describe me as selfish or greedy. I would take that as an insult, except you don't even know me so once again you're making a statement with absolutely no basis in fact. Which is the real reason I won't argue with you.
EADG, you are an island of reason in the sea of sophistry that makes up most of this thread.
-
keithmestl:
EADG:
- What in the world does BP have to do with privately run philanthopic foundations? I'm comparing the federal government to [fill in the name of your favorite charity, if you have one]. 2) Who said anything about individual rights? I'm all for them, and most conservatives I know believe very strongly in individual rights. But there is a difference between individual rights and government largesse, and where to balance those two is one of the main philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. This true for both Democrats and Republicans -- it's just that there are more conservatives in the Republican party, proportionally, so the party tends to pursue conservatives social agendas. 3) I have an ideology of selfishness and greed? Believe me, of the many thousands of people i've met in my life -- in all walks of life -- i doubt that you would find one who would describe me as selfish or greedy. I would take that as an insult, except you don't even know me so once again you're making a statement with absolutely no basis in fact. Which is the real reason I won't argue with you.
EADG, you are an island of reason in the sea of sophistry that makes up most of this thread.
Thanks. i think you'll be seeing less of me on this thread. I'm pretty busy and this is beginning to feel like a waste of time. But i'm glad you appreciated my contributions.
-
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
The indians are restless on this reservation The nonsense of deficits....there are "two" kinds, boys and girls...structural (that has existed for umpty dump years....known as social security, medicare) to which grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay) and budget deficits (unemployment). As long as Congress keeps jerking around regarding the Bush tax cuts, businesses CANNOT hire. Because when those cuts expire, companies will need the cash they are currently stashing to pay them This is not about democrats or republican philosophy....it's about where all of us (meaning myself, the wife and others I know) are....it is a little of both......us folks in the center
So, if liberal philosophy is the leftwing philosophy...and republicanism is right hand philosophy...and democracy is the middle and mediating point of view that it always has been..........how does... halfway between the near right and the far right..........become the center? ...it's no wonder that working people are sadly laughing at you....
Working people didn't laugh at Bill Clinton or Tony Blair....both of whom governed from the center. It's no wonder people actually laugh at you instead as that simple fact never occurred to you. It is us folks in the center that swing elections. Not the extremes on either end.
So, "you are" a Democrat! No I am not a democrat or a republican. One more time and do try and read for comprehension: Clinton and Blair governed from the center (neither democrat or republican, nor labor or conservative). ps...please take it easy on the indians...they gave a lot more to this country than you did! :
Yes, where would we be without casinos??
How ignorant. When was the last time you talked to Native Americans and called them indians? When was the last time you read about their various rich history and culture? They don't lose sight of who they are, where they came from like Americans have.
-
keithmestl:
The_Fool:
A man stands with a hammer pounding holes in the walls. Beating out the pipes that run through the house and crashing holes in the stairs that lead to many rooms upstairs. He lets out a satisfied grunt. There is still so much work to do...
That's a great analogy, and very appropriate! I can see November from my house.
Strangely, so can I. Fortunately, or unfortunately for you, Obama will still be in office and my State will get a good governor (a rerun governor but he was good the first time around).
-
beatlechick:
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
The indians are restless on this reservation The nonsense of deficits....there are "two" kinds, boys and girls...structural (that has existed for umpty dump years....known as social security, medicare) to which grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay) and budget deficits (unemployment). As long as Congress keeps jerking around regarding the Bush tax cuts, businesses CANNOT hire. Because when those cuts expire, companies will need the cash they are currently stashing to pay them This is not about democrats or republican philosophy....it's about where all of us (meaning myself, the wife and others I know) are....it is a little of both......us folks in the center
So, if liberal philosophy is the leftwing philosophy...and republicanism is right hand philosophy...and democracy is the middle and mediating point of view that it always has been..........how does... halfway between the near right and the far right..........become the center? ...it's no wonder that working people are sadly laughing at you....
Working people didn't laugh at Bill Clinton or Tony Blair....both of whom governed from the center. It's no wonder people actually laugh at you instead as that simple fact never occurred to you. It is us folks in the center that swing elections. Not the extremes on either end.
So, "you are" a Democrat! No I am not a democrat or a republican. One more time and do try and read for comprehension: Clinton and Blair governed from the center (neither democrat or republican, nor labor or conservative). ps...please take it easy on the indians...they gave a lot more to this country than you did! :
Yes, where would we be without casinos??
How ignorant. When was the last time you talked to Native Americans and called them indians? When was the last time you read about their various rich history and culture? They don't lose sight of who they are, where they came from like Americans have.
My father in law came from the Wampanoag tribe here in new england. You know the ones that had thanksgiving with the white pilgrims. He didn't mind being called an indian. Native American wasn't part of the vocabulary back then. No need to be so morally indignant or jump to conclusions when there isn't one.
-
EADG:
jaipur:
Don't think it's productivity, eadg.....that is quite high and has been for a bit even before 2007. Social security is a bit more fixable than medicare
You may be right about the relative complexity of social security vs medicare. Either way, it seems like congress won't force any major change to either until we reach a point where the votes and contributions of the younger generation outnumber those of the older generation, and then the political logic for some deep cuts in both programs will become irresistable and it will happen and it won't be pretty. Hmmm.....I don't know about that yet. Social Security has a surplus currently. Plus the old geezers are the ones that vote....at least more consistently than the younger folks. The older generation is benefiting from living longer that wasn't part of either program...who knew?? My point about productivity is that the cost of nearly everything is getting cheaper, and technology of one kind or another is behind most of that. (To preemp a comment about WalMart and third world sweatshops being the real reason the cost of goods has stayed so low, that is true for some goods but that is driven in part by technology too, in the form of supply chain management, etc.) The US economy has had a large bubble of productive workers (the baby boom generation) supporting a smaller generation of consumptive retirees, but that is going to invert at some point and the younger generation is going to get stuck supporting a disproportionately large retired class AND paying off the big federal debt. They can't possibly do that without accepting a lower standard of living for themselves, which seems unlikely, unless we get way more productivity per worker (and the younger generation won't give up a share of those productivity gains without a fight, but at least they can generate them there will be something to fight over) or population growth through immigration (and the US will become like a club where you're welcome to join if you can make the cut, but as your prize you get stuck with your share of the debt that the current members have run up). If neither of those things happens, we become like Italy or Japan with an aging population, a stagnant economy, too much debt (in Italy's case) and pretty dreary future for everyone.
**Keep in mind though, that there are quite a large number of old geezers who aren't actually retiring....they are still a productive part of the equation now when that wasn't the case many years ago (meaning they are still earning income most likely part time in their 70s). Also, the folks currently in their sixties aren't living entirely on their retirement income either. Personally, I don't see where the younger generation will be doing all of the heavy lifting in the economy...true, a good share but not all ,simply because the numbers are against them.....more of us then them. Hence, as long as geezers can generate some income they can still contribute and not put all the burden on the smaller, younger folks behind them. You are absolutely spot on regarding technology btw though I am not as pessimistic about the future. good one eadg :**wink:
-
jaipur:
EADG:
jaipur:
Don't think it's productivity, eadg.....that is quite high and has been for a bit even before 2007. Social security is a bit more fixable than medicare
You may be right about the relative complexity of social security vs medicare. Either way, it seems like congress won't force any major change to either until we reach a point where the votes and contributions of the younger generation outnumber those of the older generation, and then the political logic for some deep cuts in both programs will become irresistable and it will happen and it won't be pretty. Hmmm.....I don't know about that yet. Social Security has a surplus currently. Plus the old geezers are the ones that vote....at least more consistently than the younger folks. The older generation is benefiting from living longer that wasn't part of either program...who knew?? My point about productivity is that the cost of nearly everything is getting cheaper, and technology of one kind or another is behind most of that. (To preemp a comment about WalMart and third world sweatshops being the real reason the cost of goods has stayed so low, that is true for some goods but that is driven in part by technology too, in the form of supply chain management, etc.) The US economy has had a large bubble of productive workers (the baby boom generation) supporting a smaller generation of consumptive retirees, but that is going to invert at some point and the younger generation is going to get stuck supporting a disproportionately large retired class AND paying off the big federal debt. They can't possibly do that without accepting a lower standard of living for themselves, which seems unlikely, unless we get way more productivity per worker (and the younger generation won't give up a share of those productivity gains without a fight, but at least they can generate them there will be something to fight over) or population growth through immigration (and the US will become like a club where you're welcome to join if you can make the cut, but as your prize you get stuck with your share of the debt that the current members have run up). If neither of those things happens, we become like Italy or Japan with an aging population, a stagnant economy, too much debt (in Italy's case) and pretty dreary future for everyone.
**Keep in mind though, that there are quite a large number of old geezers who aren't actually retiring....they are still a productive part of the equation now when that wasn't the case many years ago (meaning they are still earning income most likely part time in their 70s). Also, the folks currently in their sixties aren't living entirely on their retirement income either. Personally, I don't see where the younger generation will be doing all of the heavy lifting in the economy...true, a good share but not all ,simply because the numbers are against them.....more of us then them. Hence, as long as geezers can generate some income they can still contribute and not put all the burden on the smaller, younger folks behind them. You are absolutely spot on regarding technology btw though I am not as pessimistic about the future. good one eadg :**wink:
You make some good points. In light of all that, I will keep an optimistic outlook. Thanks, dude/girlfriend (whichever it may be).
-
jaipur:
beatlechick:
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
SurSteven:
jaipur:
The indians are restless on this reservation The nonsense of deficits....there are "two" kinds, boys and girls...structural (that has existed for umpty dump years....known as social security, medicare) to which grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay) and budget deficits (unemployment). As long as Congress keeps jerking around regarding the Bush tax cuts, businesses CANNOT hire. Because when those cuts expire, companies will need the cash they are currently stashing to pay them This is not about democrats or republican philosophy....it's about where all of us (meaning myself, the wife and others I know) are....it is a little of both......us folks in the center
So, if liberal philosophy is the leftwing philosophy...and republicanism is right hand philosophy...and democracy is the middle and mediating point of view that it always has been..........how does... halfway between the near right and the far right..........become the center? ...it's no wonder that working people are sadly laughing at you....
Working people didn't laugh at Bill Clinton or Tony Blair....both of whom governed from the center. It's no wonder people actually laugh at you instead as that simple fact never occurred to you. It is us folks in the center that swing elections. Not the extremes on either end.
So, "you are" a Democrat! No I am not a democrat or a republican. One more time and do try and read for comprehension: Clinton and Blair governed from the center (neither democrat or republican, nor labor or conservative). ps...please take it easy on the indians...they gave a lot more to this country than you did! :
Yes, where would we be without casinos??
How ignorant. When was the last time you talked to Native Americans and called them indians? When was the last time you read about their various rich history and culture? They don't lose sight of who they are, where they came from like Americans have.
My father in law came from the Wampanoag tribe here in new england. You know the ones that had thanksgiving with the white pilgrims. He didn't mind being called an indian. Native American wasn't part of the vocabulary back then. No need to be so morally indignant or jump to conclusions when there isn't one.
The number of american indians holding political office in this...rightfully...democratic country is staggering.