|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|08-04-2012 05:25 AM|
Originally Posted by kushman View Post
I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative. I voted for John Kerry because Bush is no conservative and I thought his going into Iraq was a huge mistake and I hated the decision.
So take your assumptions and shove it!
Let me ask you this. In his speech where he said "You didn't build that" Barack Obama said, the people who were successful did not do so because they are smart, or they were hardworking. Here are his words.
Again, I'm not against raising some taxes. I think we should raise them all across the board. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. All of them. So I'm not saying, we need to coddle the rich or the successful. Trust me, they can handle the minor increase in taxes. If we are going to raise taxes, we need to raise all of them. We need to broaden the tax base. Raising taxes only on the rich will only yield about $5 billion a year. That's not going to get anything accomplished.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of what Obama tried to say. The fundamental difference between what Conservatives want and what Liberals want is the amount of gov.t interference in our affairs. Are things better today than yesterday? Govt. has their hand in more things today than 1, 5, 20, 30, 40 years ago. Are things really better? They fucked shit up, and we want them to be more involved? Govt. is necessary. They have functions that only govt. can provide. Public safety, national defense, regulation of the commerce. That is great. Only they can handle that, nobody disputes that.
But ever since the Great Depression have things gotten better with Gov.t intervention? Have they eliminated or even smoothed out recessions? No. Since they've jumped into education with the DOE have our test scores improved? No, we spend much, much more than we did before the DOE but our children's test scores have remained stagnant for 50 years. Since they started the Department of Energy has our energy independence increased? Nope.
I'm not an anarchist. We're all for good, efficient govt. We just differ on how much gov't there should be.
The top 20% of earners, pay 70% of all taxes. So when anyone tells you the upper class isn't paying enough, they're bullshitting you.
Govt. provides very useful services, and yes the Rich has taken advantage of it, and yes they pay for it. As you can see, the bottom 60% of tax payers pay much less in taxes than their share of total income. And that's not wrong. That's fair. But to say the top 20% hasn't paid their fair share is ludicrous. They pay 70% of all taxes collected. Whether we want them to pay more, well that's a worthy discussion. But what we cannot say is they haven't paid a reasonable or fair share. They pay 70% already. What's fair. 99%? Maybe..
EDIT: Eh, it's 3 am and I'm drunk. Ignore all that shit I just wrote above, I'm not fooling anyone. Democrats and Republicans all suck, they take care of themselves, and we all get fucked. That's just the way it is.
|08-04-2012 05:16 AM|
Originally Posted by lucasdg View Post
That's the nature of the beast. Bill Clinton attempted to ram through his liberal agenda. And then the country turned on him, and voted in the first Republican congress in decades. So he moved to the center, and some liberals will claim Clinton moved to the right. Remember, it was Clinton who deregulated the financial industry and it was Clinton who declared, "The era of Big Government is over."
People blame Bush for deregulation but the big deregs happened under Clinton.
Bush is perceived to be a far right radical but he was as liberal as ever. He expanded govt. involvement in education with No Child Left Behind. He expanded the medicare prescription program by hundreds of billions.
The fact of the matter is, once someone becomes President, the realities of the position takes hold. Obama tried to run the leftist agenda for just a bit. He dipped his toes in the water. During the midst of the great recession he tried to pass Cap and Trade. It died in the Senate, but passed the House. He took so much heat for that, the stimulus, and eventually ACA/Healthcare, he stopped. It almost mirrors Clinton's first two years. Democrats got clobbered both times in the midterms.
My point is, Obama did have a radical upbringing, even if he does not govern that way now. The GOP is accused of becoming more radical, yet moderates keep getting elected. I'm just saying, what people are saying is happening, doesn't flesh out in reality. If the GOp shifted far right, why did a far right candidate not get nominated? It just isn't true. The Tea Party has succeeded in getting the Republicans to act more like Republicans, because the Republicans of the last few years have acted like Democrats (expanding govt and deficits), but as a whole, the GOP is right where they've been. Electing weaklings like Romney.
As you can tell I'm not a fan of Romney. He's the worst of McCain and Jon Kerry rolled into on.
|08-03-2012 10:30 AM|
Originally Posted by HoboMaster View Post
|08-03-2012 10:20 AM|
Originally Posted by kushman View Post
Not saying I want government to solve all of our problems or that it works perfectly, but people forget how intrinsic it is to the functioning of a complex system simply because it is fairly transparent.
All I can say is think back to the time before the U.S Government had a big part in everyday life. It was mild chaos with little to no accountability between people and Wild-Wild-West antics abound.
Maybe some people want that, and that's fine, but that's not me.
|08-03-2012 08:50 AM|
|kushman||Nice try jdang, but that picture fails to address the other 95% of the argument, and you somehow think you proved me wrong. For anyone watching, this is what it's like trying to debate the republicans in America these days. And I guess since they have roads in North Korea that invalidates the fact that they enable us to conduct business on a daily basis, that makes sense.|
|08-03-2012 03:14 AM|
Originally Posted by jdang307 View Post
|08-03-2012 03:00 AM|
|08-03-2012 02:57 AM|
Originally Posted by ShredLife View Post
Even liberals who critiqued the book did not disagree with his findings. They argued that the religious aspect of giving skewed the results and if you removed them, it would be more equal. But they did not question his study of 10 different datasets.
And it makes perfect sense. Liberals think govt. should be the ones to take care of the needy. Hence - higher taxes. Nobody is saying Liberals are less compassionate. They just think govt. will do it for them.
Welfare by the way is 12% of the Federal Budget. Pensions for workers is 22%.
|08-03-2012 02:52 AM|
Originally Posted by Nolefan2011 View Post
Sorry, couldn't help it.
|08-03-2012 02:34 AM|
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
I actually think we should raise taxes. yeah, a fiscal con like myself. But we need to raise them on everyone. Not just the rich. The tax hike that Obama and the Democrats propose right now is projected to raise $5 billion a year.
Yes, I said $5 billion a year.
I think of Obama and most Dems as another S word. Statist. That word should really become more popular as it describes him and many other Dems very aptly.
Jesus was about helping thy neighbor in need. That is not socialism. Socialism is about thy neighbor and everyone else owning everything.That's it. Nothing about helping they neighbor. Communism is about everyone being equal. So it's not helping thy neighbor either. You don't need that in communism because everyone is supposed to be equal in wealth (yeah that worked out well).
Jesus was about generosity. Picking your fellow citizen up when they are down.
Socialism/marxism/communism wants to get rid of that altogether. In abandoning the exploitative capitalist system, in Marx case the Communists would aid the proletariats in overthrowing the bourgueosie (too lazy to look up spelling) and creating a classless society. Socialism is a step in between the revolution and true communism (that's just one definition of Socialism of course).
In a sense, both Jesus and socialism/marxism/communism all share an altruistic goal. However, Jesus was concerned with empathy. Socialism et. al demand equality. And they will demand it with the end of the barrel of a gun.
Jesus never envisioned or espoused a classless society, with everyone being equal. He supposedly said, render unto Caesar which is Caesar's, render unto God which is God's. The meaning of that phrase is much more complex than the popular media uses it for, but it illustrates a point. Caesar as emperor. Submit to Caesar which is Caesars. Under Socialism there is no Emperor. Society itself is leader.
Now, if we're talking about Jesus being a European style Socialist? Basically Social Democrat? The only thing the two have in common maybe, and this is huge maybe, is empathy but then that would imply Republicans don't have empathy. Which isn't true but that is up for debate and I see that as more of a compelling discussion (even if I don't agree).
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|