Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election.
I don't think any logical thinking person wants this...... "the way it was before the election"?? Nah. Why? When we can make it better? But, the Dems are making things worse, that's for sure. I don't know how to convince someone from Canada or anyone else who doesn't see this, for that matter, but things DO have to change for the better. Even someone like Chris Matthews (aka Obama's Lapdog) is starting to come around......
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election.
I don't think any logical thinking person wants this...... "the way it was before the election"?? Nah. Why? When we can make it better? But, the Dems are making things worse, that's for sure. I don't know how to convince someone from Canada or anyone else who doesn't see this, for that matter, but things DO have to change for the better. Even someone like Chris Matthews (aka Obama's Lapdog) is starting to come around......
I am glad you said that lilwing. Because anybody who would want things to return to the way they were before the election, needs to give their heads a shake.
I have NEVER said that things were working properly in the U.S. right now, NEVER. What I have always come out against are statements about how things should return to the good ole days when O'bama and the democrats were not in office.
Unfortunately a lot of those scary practices and paranoid policies were a center point of the last administration. How come peole who generally support the Republicans are so loath to admit this? Kuzi will refer to it occassionally but most republican supporters just want to act like it never happened and don't want to discuss how to ensure it can't happen again in the future.
Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
You say this like the Republicans were in control before President Obama was elected, but if you will take a look at the previous page, you will see that the last several years of the Bush administration, when the economy fell into the proverbial crapper, there was only 1 Republican in control. Both houses of congress were controlled by the Democrats... I know it's easier to attack the Republicans because you disagree with them more, but to be honest, more liberal policies led to this melt down and are now prolonging it.
Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
You say this like the Republicans were in control before President Obama was elected, but if you will take a look at the previous page, you will see that the last several years of the Bush administration, when the economy fell into the proverbial crapper, there was only 1 Republican in control. Both houses of congress were controlled by the Democrats... I know it's easier to attack the Republicans because you disagree with them more, but to be honest, more liberal policies led to this melt down and are now prolonging it.
Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
You say this like the Republicans were in control before President Obama was elected, but if you will take a look at the previous page, you will see that the last several years of the Bush administration, when the economy fell into the proverbial crapper, there was only 1 Republican in control. Both houses of congress were controlled by the Democrats... I know it's easier to attack the Republicans because you disagree with them more, but to be honest, more liberal policies led to this melt down and are now prolonging it.
I do think many articles were given to you here on reasons for the meltdown/financial crisis, ect. You proceeded to discredit or refuse all of them with counter articles. There are two sides to every story...and then the truth. I do not think you and I will ever fully know the latter, and I think the sides we come from prevent any agreed upon truth to us. With those reasons...is it really worth it for me to try and convince you of something you know you hold an opinion on that you will not waiver from?
+1....but dont forget about fear, thats the #1 m.o.
of both sides actually. right now the democrats are trying to use fear against the republicans. ( you dont want to go back to BUSH do you? ) this is nothing new to either side.
what is new in this country is the arguments that are now happening that talk about the Constitution. its been a long time since the constitution was being argued and debated. i hear more talk of the constitution than i do of fear. i hear many discussing the constitution and then others say that it is "fear mongering" because they are afraid of change.
quite frankly, when the government controls, or is looking to control, so many aspects of our lives (from how much money they let us keep, to how we chose our health care, to how we get out energy, to how we make our cars, to who can and cannot get married, to how we get our student loans (only through the government now), to what we can do with our stuff after we die, ... the list goes on and on and on...) people have a right to be scared. when we, as a nation, cannot chose what we do and how we live our lives there is no longer liberty. and losing liberty is something i AM afraid of. so when we are debating the constitution, we are not trying to spread fear, we are trying to retain individual liberties and rights, because losing them is something you should be afraid of.
many within this country dont know what it is like to live in a dictatorship, or in a socialist country, or in a comunist country, or in a facist country. we have no comparison. the relative freedom of the US is all we know. we dont know just how bad those other policies are. those who have lived in countries like the USSR or East Germany have seen things happening in the US that are similar to things that happened there and show we are heading in that direction. and it scares the piss out of them. as well it should. the government taking control of everything ruined both of those countries and countless lives of those who dwelt within. are we actually close to that? no have we been moving in that direction? yes will we ever reach that point ? i hope not. ... and many people hope not either. this is the point where they have felt a stand needs to be made. i can respect that. to be honest, im surprised it wasnt sooner.
many within this country dont know what it is like to live in a dictatorship, or in a socialist country, or in a comunist country, or in a facist country. we have no comparison. the relative freedom of the US is all we know. we dont know just how bad those other policies are. those who have lived in countries like the USSR or East Germany have seen things happening in the US that are similar to things that happened there and show we are heading in that direction. and it scares the piss out of them. as well it should. the government taking control of everything ruined both of those countries and countless lives of those who dwelt within. are we actually close to that? no have we been moving in that direction? yes will we ever reach that point ? i hope not. ... and many people hope not either. this is the point where they have felt a stand needs to be made. i can respect that. to be honest, im surprised it wasnt sooner.
This is very true. However I would suggest that we in the free world are being taken closer and closer to a Facist or Dictatorial style of government rather then Socialism or
Communism.
We lose more rights all the time and it does not matter what style of government is in power. This has been going on for a long time, and IMO has been a work in progress, as a means to control an ever increasing, unhappy citizenship. But I see conspiracy's all over the place.
Facist is my opinion as well. "The New Right" as I call them display alot of the tenents of facism----some of which I will say I agree with. The ideas of a very strong leader, singular identity (aka minimalizing diversity), ending the idea of class (thus ignoring the lower classes and possible needs), hatred of liberalism, constant though of decline (ie the country as we know it is ending and needs to be taken back).....again some I can agree, some scare the $hit out of me. One difference is the religious side to the current New Right, but that still remains at odds with other factions of the New Right....however even they are working toward some type of compromise, to again secure that single national identity.
Facist is my opinion as well. "The New Right" as I call them display alot of the tenents of facism----some of which I will say I agree with. The ideas of a very strong leader, singular identity (aka minimalizing diversity), ending the idea of class (thus ignoring the lower classes and possible needs), hatred of liberalism, constant though of decline (ie the country as we know it is ending and needs to be taken back).....again some I can agree, some scare the $hit out of me. One difference is the religious side to the current New Right, but that still remains at odds with other factions of the New Right....however even they are working toward some type of compromise, to again secure that single national identity.
though i agree that the republicans have grown government quite a bit i cant say that i agree with your assessment of the "new right" (i also cant say i agree with the right but for discussion purposes...)
the ideas of a strong leader the right preaches currently only exist so that it can have a weak overall government. the concept is that a strong leader will get the government out of peoples lives (on a fiscal/regulatory (in relation to economics) scale). this is actually the exact opposite of fascism where, though the government does not own anything, it controls every aspect of a business from how much it can make, to how much it can produce, to how it can produce it, to how much they can sell it for. even the pay-scales are decided in a fascist government. this looks very similar to what the left is doing right now. we have a Pay Czar. we have regulations that are very close to the list in this very paragraph. the regulations on that list that dont exist now are either in the works or not that far fetched in the minds of many.
the concept of singular identity is actually nothing new. the US has been a "melting pot" for generations. even the left has been on board with this. im not sure what you mean by singular identity here. i mean, shouldnt all citizens of the US call themselves "americans" ? they are americans arent they? maybe i dont understand what you are getting at with this point.
the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help.
that in conjunction with the saying: "give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life" add up to an interesting series of thoughts.
the left in the US, generally speaking, has been in favor of social programs for about 100 years or so. the programs were designed to help people in tough times. this is a noble cause. But has it really helped? we still have poor people. so the program expands to try and help more people. somehow, we still have poor people. in fact, we have MORE poor people now than ever (according to some arguments made on the left)
the programs are clearly not solving the issue.
however, the left goes out in efforts to be elected and touts how many millions of people they have helped with these programs.
the problem is this: a very large percentage of people taking part of those programs are dependent on them. when the left says that the right is trying to take away the programs, the dependent people get scared because they will no longer get a hand out. the dependency class then will always vote for the democrat. the more we expand the government, the more people depend on them. we have reached that tipping point already. nearly half of the population dont pay taxes. do you think they care if the rich get taxed more? no, they dont. in fact, they want it because of the class warfare culture that exists.
the right is looking to create the situation where there are fewer people in need of government programs.
there are a few ways to do it. none of them are good on their own but when brought together they have a shot at working. these ideas are basic:
1) tax Us corporations less to fee up money for hiring, make it cheaper to do business in the US, and keep prices down on products they produce
2) make shorter stricter limits on how long one can stay on a government program. studies show that people look hardest for a job when their unemployment is about to run out.
3) Make the government programs in the style of "teach a man to fish" to encourage education and self improvement. make able bodied people work for their keep.
4) put an income tax (even if its a VERY low one) on everyone so that everyone has a horse in the race.
im sure there are others but for brevity's sake...
the programs that are in place now have created an entitlement mentality. everyone now wants something for nothing. the poor argue that they DESERVE money and assistance; that its the humane thing to do. ...and this mentality is spreading to the middle class. if it continues, the middle class will be dependent as well. that is, if they are not destroyed.
as far as "hatred of liberalism" goes, replace the word "liberalism" with "conseravitism" and you have the liberal's feelings for the conservatives. Neither side likes the other. that doenst make one side more Fascist than the other. thats politics.
"the country as we know it is ending and needs to be taken back"
the US is changing. clearly they feel it is for the worse.
again this is a part of politics
you dont agree with them.
i hardly think that people wanting the country to be "of the people, by the people for the people" instead of "of the Ivy league/corporate elite, by the duped, for the sake of retaining power" is fascist. I think it is actually quite the opposite.
again... do i agree with all of the concepts that the US political right throws out there? no
do they have some good ideas?
yes
do they live up to those ideas?
not always
is the US political-class-right in favor of big government?
probably
are the common people in favor of fascism?
no.
dont confuse the people of the country with the people in office.
Facist is my opinion as well. "The New Right" as I call them display alot of the tenents of facism----some of which I will say I agree with. The ideas of a very strong leader, singular identity (aka minimalizing diversity), ending the idea of class (thus ignoring the lower classes and possible needs), hatred of liberalism, constant though of decline (ie the country as we know it is ending and needs to be taken back).....again some I can agree, some scare the $hit out of me. One difference is the religious side to the current New Right, but that still remains at odds with other factions of the New Right....however even they are working toward some type of compromise, to again secure that single national identity.
though i agree that the republicans have grown government quite a bit i cant say that i agree with your assessment of the "new right" (i also cant say i agree with the right but for discussion purposes...)
the ideas of a strong leader the right preaches currently only exist so that it can have a weak overall government. the concept is that a strong leader will get the government out of peoples lives (on a fiscal/regulatory (in relation to economics) scale). this is actually the exact opposite of fascism where, though the government does not own anything, it controls every aspect of a business from how much it can make, to how much it can produce, to how it can produce it, to how much they can sell it for. even the pay-scales are decided in a fascist government. this looks very similar to what the left is doing right now. we have a Pay Czar. we have regulations that are very close to the list in this very paragraph. the regulations on that list that dont exist now are either in the works or not that far fetched in the minds of many.
the concept of singular identity is actually nothing new. the US has been a "melting pot" for generations. even the left has been on board with this. im not sure what you mean by singular identity here. i mean, shouldnt all citizens of the US call themselves "americans" ? they are americans arent they? maybe i dont understand what you are getting at with this point.
the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help.
that in conjunction with the saying: "give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life" add up to an interesting series of thoughts.
the left in the US, generally speaking, has been in favor of social programs for about 100 years or so. the programs were designed to help people in tough times. this is a noble cause. But has it really helped? we still have poor people. so the program expands to try and help more people. somehow, we still have poor people. in fact, we have MORE poor people now than ever (according to some arguments made on the left)
the programs are clearly not solving the issue.
however, the left goes out in efforts to be elected and touts how many millions of people they have helped with these programs.
the problem is this: a very large percentage of people taking part of those programs are dependent on them. when the left says that the right is trying to take away the programs, the dependent people get scared because they will no longer get a hand out. the dependency class then will always vote for the democrat. the more we expand the government, the more people depend on them. we have reached that tipping point already. nearly half of the population dont pay taxes. do you think they care if the rich get taxed more? no, they dont. in fact, they want it because of the class warfare culture that exists.
the right is looking to create the situation where there are fewer people in need of government programs.
there are a few ways to do it. none of them are good on their own but when brought together they have a shot at working. these ideas are basic:
1) tax Us corporations less to fee up money for hiring, make it cheaper to do business in the US, and keep prices down on products they produce
2) make shorter stricter limits on how long one can stay on a government program. studies show that people look hardest for a job when their unemployment is about to run out.
3) Make the government programs in the style of "teach a man to fish" to encourage education and self improvement. make able bodied people work for their keep.
4) put an income tax (even if its a VERY low one) on everyone so that everyone has a horse in the race.
im sure there are others but for brevity's sake...
the programs that are in place now have created an entitlement mentality. everyone now wants something for nothing. the poor argue that they DESERVE money and assistance; that its the humane thing to do. ...and this mentality is spreading to the middle class. if it continues, the middle class will be dependent as well. that is, if they are not destroyed.
as far as "hatred of liberalism" goes, replace the word "liberalism" with "conseravitism" and you have the liberal's feelings for the conservatives. Neither side likes the other. that doenst make one side more Fascist than the other. thats politics.
"the country as we know it is ending and needs to be taken back"
the US is changing. clearly they feel it is for the worse.
again this is a part of politics
you dont agree with them.
i hardly think that people wanting the country to be "of the people, by the people for the people" instead of "of the Ivy league/corporate elite, by the duped, for the sake of retaining power" is fascist. I think it is actually quite the opposite.
again... do i agree with all of the concepts that the US political right throws out there? no
do they have some good ideas?
yes
do they live up to those ideas?
not always
is the US political-class-right in favor of big government?
probably
are the common people in favor of fascism?
no.
dont confuse the people of the country with the people in office.
Wow, that was a mouthfull eh? who was confusing what the common people want? Who said they wanted a facsist government? Did you read a post that I missed?
Can you say where you read the liitle quip you added? This one... "a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help".
I have NEVER heard it before, but talk about an offensive comment. All that is missing is a cape for those defenders of society (the right) to wear so we all know who the good guy's are. Kuzi this is below you.
Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
You say this like the Republicans were in control before President Obama was elected, but if you will take a look at the previous page, you will see that the last several years of the Bush administration, when the economy fell into the proverbial crapper, there was only 1 Republican in control. Both houses of congress were controlled by the Democrats... I know it's easier to attack the Republicans because you disagree with them more, but to be honest, more liberal policies led to this melt down and are now prolonging it.
YOU LIE!
Prove it... Nobody else has been able to.
Concerning Republicans sharing responsibility for this mess, I'd like to refer you to the letter published by Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party, September 24, 2010, indicating that the Republicans owe an apology, not a pledge. I'm no good at links, but I think you can find this at info@lp.org. An opinion from another source than the so-called "liberals". Of course, it may be a mistake on my part to resurrect this thread.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
what i got out of vulchors statement was that republicans wanted big government and it was shaping up to be fascism. my point was that only the elite in the republican party seem to want that bigger government, not the people. there was probably a clearer way to say that on my part.
laker1963:
Who said they wanted a facsist government?
nobody did. i was using that statement to point out the difference between the ruling class and the people i hope that clears it up a tiny bit.
laker1963:
Did you read a post that I missed?
probably not. i have a habit of not tapping out a post in order. this probably got pushed to a spot that made less sense than it would have elsewhere, causing confusion.
laker1963:
Can you say where you read the liitle quip you added? This one... "a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help".
I have NEVER heard it before, but talk about an offensive comment. All that is missing is a cape for those defenders of society (the right) to wear so we all know who the good guy's are. Kuzi this is below you.
i said it was an interesting concept.
...and this is clearly taken from someone from the conservative point of view.
i think this holds a bit of merit. not too much... but a bit.
i have seen democrats in the past say things along the lines of "welfare has helped millions" touting the program. from there it isnt such a long leap to the above saying. the concept here is that if those people didnt need help welfare wouldnt be needed.
im not the one that came up with it. i was simply stating that it was worth some time thinking about.
talk about an offensive comment?
... thats funny.
all the offensive comments in this thread and the one that offends you and you point out is the one that is made on the conservative side. ... not a single one of the blatantly sarcastic and mean spirited comments made from those expressing the point of view you hold closer to your heart got any note.
funny thing is, i never said i endorsed the statement. i just said it was interesting and that some interesting thoughts stemmed from it. then i expounded on some of the thoughts. i can argue the conservative side on many things even though i am not a conservative.
clearly you, and many others cannot handle that. you should know im not trying to offend but when you get offended by challenging opinions, well, i have nothing left for you.
in life we dont all have to always play it safe; and sometimes we spill some milk along the way.
im sure that offends the cows.
im sick and tired of people being "offended" about every last thing.
im done playing that game.
if you want to talk about how that statement and everything after it is untrue and point out why, ill be glad to talk about it. if you want to change the subject and tell my how offensive it is... then i have nothing for you.
these political threads used to be interesting to me. we could all talk and argue ideas (some of those we didnt even agree with) and explore thoughts. as of late it has turned into "who gets offended first" its sick. how can we explore difficult concepts if we cannot point them out? i did not point it out in a sarcastic way. i did not say it was true i did not claim that anyone on this board made that statement. i did say in that post that it was for "discussion purposes only" i pointed out that i heard that in the past, and when mixed with other thoughts in my head, came up with a line of thought that i found interesting. then i printed it here only to be told that the concept (not how i was saying it) was offensive.
there is no point in posting in the political threads anymore.
So this is a graph that indicates what income level will pay if the tax rates which the republicans slid through congress with reconciliation that were scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. there's no tax hike, they will just go back to what they were before Bush did his magic for the rich.
not quite sure how thats a problem. people keep their money. so long as they got it without violating the rights of others i have no problem with the concept of that graph.
what do you have against the non-rights-violating rich?
Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
You say this like the Republicans were in control before President Obama was elected, but if you will take a look at the previous page, you will see that the last several years of the Bush administration, when the economy fell into the proverbial crapper, there was only 1 Republican in control. Both houses of congress were controlled by the Democrats... I know it's easier to attack the Republicans because you disagree with them more, but to be honest, more liberal policies led to this melt down and are now prolonging it.
YOU LIE!
Prove it... Nobody else has been able to.
Concerning Republicans sharing responsibility for this mess, I'd like to refer you to the letter published by Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party, September 24, 2010, indicating that the Republicans owe an apology, not a pledge. I'm no good at links, but I think you can find this at info@lp.org. An opinion from another source than the so-called "liberals". Of course, it may be a mistake on my part to resurrect this thread.
No, you missed the point of my post entirely. I'm not saying Republicans don't share the blame because god knows they do. Moderate conservatives like President Bush, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snow, and a host of others are as much to blame as anyone. My point was to blame the Republicans for being in power was incorrect. The Democrats have held a majority in both houses of congress for several years.
not quite sure how thats a problem. people keep their money. so long as they got it without violating the rights of others i have no problem with the concept of that graph.
what do you have against the non-rights-violating rich?
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
Yup, a lot of folks in the US are hoping for the same thing. Put that country back on the right track the way it was before the last election. The Republican's, really know how to run a country, wars and the economy. Good days.
You say this like the Republicans were in control before President Obama was elected, but if you will take a look at the previous page, you will see that the last several years of the Bush administration, when the economy fell into the proverbial crapper, there was only 1 Republican in control. Both houses of congress were controlled by the Democrats... I know it's easier to attack the Republicans because you disagree with them more, but to be honest, more liberal policies led to this melt down and are now prolonging it.
YOU LIE!
Prove it... Nobody else has been able to.
Concerning Republicans sharing responsibility for this mess, I'd like to refer you to the letter published by Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party, September 24, 2010, indicating that the Republicans owe an apology, not a pledge. I'm no good at links, but I think you can find this at info@lp.org. An opinion from another source than the so-called "liberals". Of course, it may be a mistake on my part to resurrect this thread.
No, you missed the point of my post entirely. I'm not saying Republicans don't share the blame because god knows they do. Moderate conservatives like President Bush, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snow, and a host of others are as much to blame as anyone. My point was to blame the Republicans for being in power was incorrect. The Democrats have held a majority in both houses of congress for several years.
Your right about Dem's holding the majority, though sadly not all dems are on board. there's a good 5-7 of them that are what one could call bribed, or so in bed with the industry they vote for them all the time. Since there is a super majority 60 votes are needed and with that almost nothing gets passed that isn't peddled and watered down.
not quite sure how thats a problem. people keep their money. so long as they got it without violating the rights of others i have no problem with the concept of that graph.
what do you have against the non-rights-violating rich?
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
How is the government giving them more money through lower taxes? That is allowing them to keep their own money, not "giving them more money off the backs of the commons." Bailing out failing companies with tax payer money would fit that description, but not tax cuts...
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
actually, the founders were rich white guys trying to hold on to their slaves and money.
if its the corruption you are talking about, then see my next comment.
phobicsquirrel:
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
did you miss the part in my question where i said "non-rights-violating rich?" i think you did. if they are actually stealing then i have a problem with it. if they are not, then i have no problem at all with that graph. you keep saying the rich steal from the poor. for the most part, they do not. there are no rights being violated. if they want to keep getting richer... fine. let them as long as they dont violate the rights of others.
most rich people keep getting richer by investing wisely, running businesses well, and making good decisions. they do not do it through slavery, theft, or whatever you think it is they are doing. getting a tax cut is not "stealing from the poor" it it letting them keep their money that they worked hard for.
not quite sure how thats a problem. people keep their money. so long as they got it without violating the rights of others i have no problem with the concept of that graph.
what do you have against the non-rights-violating rich?
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
How is the government giving them more money through lower taxes? That is allowing them to keep their own money, not "giving them more money off the backs of the commons." Bailing out failing companies with tax payer money would fit that description, but not tax cuts...
You do realize that our nation won't work without taxes? The tax rate in the 70's was around 75 percent over a million or something.
not quite sure how thats a problem. people keep their money. so long as they got it without violating the rights of others i have no problem with the concept of that graph.
what do you have against the non-rights-violating rich?
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
How is the government giving them more money through lower taxes? That is allowing them to keep their own money, not "giving them more money off the backs of the commons." Bailing out failing companies with tax payer money would fit that description, but not tax cuts...
You do realize that our nation won't work without taxes? The tax rate in the 70's was around 75 percent over a million or something.
No sh*t?? So no taxes are being paid right now because of the Bush tax cuts? HOLY SH*T!! Thats news to me, and thousands of economic websites out there... There are taxes being paid, and that wasn't my point at all. How is letting someone keep more of their own money "stealing from the commons." I'm asking a serious question and you send back some sarcastic comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand...
if the corporate tax rate here wasnt the highest in the world this really wouldnt be an issue would it? then we wouldnt be shipping jobs overseas where it is cheaper to do business.
this was a bi-partisan effort not to raise taxes. the democrats right now dont need a single republican to do anything. they have control over the house, the senate, and the presidency.
want more jobs here? lower the government imposed cost of doing business (taxes) here.
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
actually, the founders were rich white guys trying to hold on to their slaves and money.
if its the corruption you are talking about, then see my next comment.
phobicsquirrel:
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
did you miss the part in my question where i said "non-rights-violating rich?" i think you did. if they are actually stealing then i have a problem with it. if they are not, then i have no problem at all with that graph. you keep saying the rich steal from the poor. for the most part, they do not. there are no rights being violated. if they want to keep getting richer... fine. let them as long as they dont violate the rights of others.
most rich people keep getting richer by investing wisely, running businesses well, and making good decisions. they do not do it through slavery, theft, or whatever you think it is they are doing. getting a tax cut is not "stealing from the poor" it it letting them keep their money that they worked hard for.
lol, yeah you are right about the plantation owners and such..
See this is where I think we differ on this..
Most of the very rich people in this country got their money from inheritance and or rigging the system. The Bailout what was done before Obama took office was done to save huge banks (many of whom are trans-national). These banks took our tax dollars to save them from going under thus they got paid for F'ing up and even gave themselves bonus's with our money. As well as they bought more banks to make themselves even bigger, never mind about moving credit to people. You see it's not as simple as, oh he earns 1million dollars he is owed all his money. It's that he is taxed lower than somone who makes much less, as Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more in taxes.
It's more of the behind the scenes. You've seen movies where say a mobster is paying of judges and congress to allow him to get away with being against the law. Well think of this in a much larger scale. Many of these people who operate the biggest business's in the world are these people. From BP to Shell, to Halibertan and the cigerette companies. They have so much money that they are able to litterly make what they do legal even when it isn't. The crap wall street has pulled for some time by making bets on bets on bets on what ever.. From Oil companies spilling oil and chemicals causing huge harm and breaking many laws but only having to pay a small amount and getting away with something that would land a citzen in jail. Even to them being able to use un limited amounts of money to fund elections even out of state. The top elite own this country. Dem's/Rep's, it doesn't matter much however at least there are a handful of dems that stand up to them.
No I don't know if every republican is this way but I go off what votes are cast and for the last 2 years, well almost two years they have voted against pretty much anything that would put any dents into the corporate elite.
Cash for Clunkers - eh, yeah but the ONLY AMERICAN was stripped out
Bail Outs for Big Banks - yeah
Loan to keep US Auto Plants open - no, can't do that
Unemployment benefits - no, no, no - their lazy
Breaking Tax incentives to move US jobs out of country - NO
Huge Tax breaks for small business - NO and then they go out and sell that they are for them and obama isn't...
Environment - hell no, nothing can impede big oil
BP disaster having to pay - no 20 billion dollars is a hold up, and those drilling contracts need to be reinstated, who cares about our water
Gay/Civil Rights - eh, it'll hurt the military
infrastructure bills - HELL NO, workers don't need money
Tax Cuts - only if super rich people get it too!
health care - oh, well we get govt healthcare, but the people don't need it, our friends in the insurance industry are making too much money with it.
What I'm trying to get at is this, MONEY is owning our lives and our govt. What do think life would be like if corporations and the super rich didn't influence our govt and lives? Well that would never happen but what if? I mean I'm sure we would have better air, better forms of technology, less sickness, better education, longer lives, and a better environment. I don't advocate taking any money from people to give to others, but I have to say, when people have to work 2 jobs and still make below the poverty line something is wrong. Not everyone will be rich, nor should they be. But what there should be is something to say, well I make enough to support my family and have a decent life. However when this countries wages have stalled for some 30 years and the super rich gets richer something is severely wrong. And why this is, the money in govt given by the super rich is. What is a millionaire going to do with an extra 100,00? or a billionaire with 1,000,000 they get off the top? nothing really. What is a guy like me that makes under 100,000 a year going to do with an extra couple of gran? A lot more. We live in a economy driven on consumption, however the middle class has given all it's got and more, and now credit is likely or already has gone. If anyone needs money to spend it's the middle class, otherwise the 2 percent at the top won't have what they have for long.
Comments
I have NEVER said that things were working properly in the U.S. right now, NEVER. What I have always come out against are statements about how things should return to the good ole days when O'bama and the democrats were not in office.
Unfortunately a lot of those scary practices and paranoid policies were a center point of the last administration. How come peole who generally support the Republicans are so loath to admit this? Kuzi will refer to it occassionally but most republican supporters just want to act like it never happened and don't want to discuss how to ensure it can't happen again in the future.
this is nothing new to either side.
what is new in this country is the arguments that are now happening that talk about the Constitution.
its been a long time since the constitution was being argued and debated. i hear more talk of the constitution than i do of fear. i hear many discussing the constitution and then others say that it is "fear mongering" because they are afraid of change.
quite frankly, when the government controls, or is looking to control, so many aspects of our lives (from how much money they let us keep, to how we chose our health care, to how we get out energy, to how we make our cars, to who can and cannot get married, to how we get our student loans (only through the government now), to what we can do with our stuff after we die, ... the list goes on and on and on...) people have a right to be scared. when we, as a nation, cannot chose what we do and how we live our lives there is no longer liberty. and losing liberty is something i AM afraid of. so when we are debating the constitution, we are not trying to spread fear, we are trying to retain individual liberties and rights, because losing them is something you should be afraid of.
many within this country dont know what it is like to live in a dictatorship, or in a socialist country, or in a comunist country, or in a facist country. we have no comparison. the relative freedom of the US is all we know. we dont know just how bad those other policies are. those who have lived in countries like the USSR or East Germany have seen things happening in the US that are similar to things that happened there and show we are heading in that direction. and it scares the piss out of them. as well it should.
the government taking control of everything ruined both of those countries and countless lives of those who dwelt within. are we actually close to that?
no
have we been moving in that direction?
yes
will we ever reach that point ?
i hope not.
... and many people hope not either. this is the point where they have felt a stand needs to be made.
i can respect that.
to be honest, im surprised it wasnt sooner.
We lose more rights all the time and it does not matter what style of government is in power. This has been going on for a long time, and IMO has been a work in progress, as a means to control an ever increasing, unhappy citizenship. But I see conspiracy's all over the place.
the ideas of a strong leader the right preaches currently only exist so that it can have a weak overall government. the concept is that a strong leader will get the government out of peoples lives (on a fiscal/regulatory (in relation to economics) scale). this is actually the exact opposite of fascism where, though the government does not own anything, it controls every aspect of a business from how much it can make, to how much it can produce, to how it can produce it, to how much they can sell it for. even the pay-scales are decided in a fascist government. this looks very similar to what the left is doing right now. we have a Pay Czar. we have regulations that are very close to the list in this very paragraph. the regulations on that list that dont exist now are either in the works or not that far fetched in the minds of many.
the concept of singular identity is actually nothing new. the US has been a "melting pot" for generations. even the left has been on board with this. im not sure what you mean by singular identity here.
i mean, shouldnt all citizens of the US call themselves "americans" ? they are americans arent they? maybe i dont understand what you are getting at with this point.
the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help.
that in conjunction with the saying: "give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life" add up to an interesting series of thoughts.
the left in the US, generally speaking, has been in favor of social programs for about 100 years or so. the programs were designed to help people in tough times. this is a noble cause. But has it really helped? we still have poor people. so the program expands to try and help more people. somehow, we still have poor people. in fact, we have MORE poor people now than ever (according to some arguments made on the left)
the programs are clearly not solving the issue.
however, the left goes out in efforts to be elected and touts how many millions of people they have helped with these programs.
the problem is this: a very large percentage of people taking part of those programs are dependent on them. when the left says that the right is trying to take away the programs, the dependent people get scared because they will no longer get a hand out. the dependency class then will always vote for the democrat. the more we expand the government, the more people depend on them. we have reached that tipping point already. nearly half of the population dont pay taxes. do you think they care if the rich get taxed more? no, they dont. in fact, they want it because of the class warfare culture that exists.
the right is looking to create the situation where there are fewer people in need of government programs.
there are a few ways to do it. none of them are good on their own but when brought together they have a shot at working. these ideas are basic:
1) tax Us corporations less to fee up money for hiring, make it cheaper to do business in the US, and keep prices down on products they produce
2) make shorter stricter limits on how long one can stay on a government program. studies show that people look hardest for a job when their unemployment is about to run out.
3) Make the government programs in the style of "teach a man to fish" to encourage education and self improvement. make able bodied people work for their keep. 4) put an income tax (even if its a VERY low one) on everyone so that everyone has a horse in the race.
im sure there are others but for brevity's sake...
the programs that are in place now have created an entitlement mentality. everyone now wants something for nothing. the poor argue that they DESERVE money and assistance; that its the humane thing to do.
...and this mentality is spreading to the middle class. if it continues, the middle class will be dependent as well. that is, if they are not destroyed.
as far as "hatred of liberalism" goes, replace the word "liberalism" with "conseravitism" and you have the liberal's feelings for the conservatives. Neither side likes the other. that doenst make one side more Fascist than the other. thats politics.
"the country as we know it is ending and needs to be taken back"
the US is changing. clearly they feel it is for the worse.
again this is a part of politics
you dont agree with them.
i hardly think that people wanting the country to be "of the people, by the people for the people"
instead of
"of the Ivy league/corporate elite, by the duped, for the sake of retaining power" is fascist. I think it is actually quite the opposite.
again...
do i agree with all of the concepts that the US political right throws out there?
no
do they have some good ideas?
yes
do they live up to those ideas?
not always
is the US political-class-right in favor of big government?
probably
are the common people in favor of fascism?
no.
dont confuse the people of the country with the people in office.
Can you say where you read the liitle quip you added? This one... "a concept that i found interesting was this: the Left define success based on how many people they have helped. the right defines success by how many people dont need help".
I have NEVER heard it before, but talk about an offensive comment. All that is missing is a cape for those defenders of society (the right) to wear so we all know who the good guy's are. Kuzi this is below you.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
my point was that only the elite in the republican party seem to want that bigger government, not the people. there was probably a clearer way to say that on my part. nobody did. i was using that statement to point out the difference between the ruling class and the people
i hope that clears it up a tiny bit. probably not. i have a habit of not tapping out a post in order. this probably got pushed to a spot that made less sense than it would have elsewhere, causing confusion. i said it was an interesting concept.
...and this is clearly taken from someone from the conservative point of view.
i think this holds a bit of merit. not too much... but a bit.
i have seen democrats in the past say things along the lines of "welfare has helped millions" touting the program. from there it isnt such a long leap to the above saying.
the concept here is that if those people didnt need help welfare wouldnt be needed.
im not the one that came up with it. i was simply stating that it was worth some time thinking about.
talk about an offensive comment?
... thats funny.
all the offensive comments in this thread and the one that offends you and you point out is the one that is made on the conservative side. ... not a single one of the blatantly sarcastic and mean spirited comments made from those expressing the point of view you hold closer to your heart got any note.
funny thing is, i never said i endorsed the statement. i just said it was interesting and that some interesting thoughts stemmed from it. then i expounded on some of the thoughts. i can argue the conservative side on many things even though i am not a conservative.
clearly you, and many others cannot handle that. you should know im not trying to offend but when you get offended by challenging opinions, well, i have nothing left for you.
in life we dont all have to always play it safe; and sometimes we spill some milk along the way.
im sure that offends the cows.
im sick and tired of people being "offended" about every last thing.
im done playing that game.
if you want to talk about how that statement and everything after it is untrue and point out why, ill be glad to talk about it. if you want to change the subject and tell my how offensive it is...
then i have nothing for you.
these political threads used to be interesting to me. we could all talk and argue ideas (some of those we didnt even agree with) and explore thoughts.
as of late it has turned into "who gets offended first"
its sick.
how can we explore difficult concepts if we cannot point them out?
i did not point it out in a sarcastic way.
i did not say it was true
i did not claim that anyone on this board made that statement.
i did say in that post that it was for "discussion purposes only"
i pointed out that i heard that in the past, and when mixed with other thoughts in my head, came up with a line of thought that i found interesting. then i printed it here only to be told that the concept (not how i was saying it) was offensive.
there is no point in posting in the political threads anymore.
So this is a graph that indicates what income level will pay if the tax rates which the republicans slid through congress with reconciliation that were scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. there's no tax hike, they will just go back to what they were before Bush did his magic for the rich.
people keep their money.
so long as they got it without violating the rights of others i have no problem with the concept of that graph.
what do you have against the non-rights-violating rich?
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/28/143248/149 5 of the normal dems who F' everything up along with the entire GOP votes to keep tax cuts and incentives to business's who take US jobs over seas.
actually, the founders were rich white guys trying to hold on to their slaves and money.
if its the corruption you are talking about, then see my next comment.
did you miss the part in my question where i said "non-rights-violating rich?"
i think you did.
if they are actually stealing then i have a problem with it. if they are not, then i have no problem at all with that graph. you keep saying the rich steal from the poor. for the most part, they do not. there are no rights being violated. if they want to keep getting richer... fine. let them as long as they dont violate the rights of others.
most rich people keep getting richer by investing wisely, running businesses well, and making good decisions. they do not do it through slavery, theft, or whatever you think it is they are doing.
getting a tax cut is not "stealing from the poor" it it letting them keep their money that they worked hard for.
this was a bi-partisan effort not to raise taxes.
the democrats right now dont need a single republican to do anything. they have control over the house, the senate, and the presidency.
want more jobs here?
lower the government imposed cost of doing business (taxes) here.
im not sure if i want our government to "work" if all they do is take my money and violate my rights.
lower taxes, keep the government weak.
i must hate myself.
See this is where I think we differ on this..
Most of the very rich people in this country got their money from inheritance and or rigging the system. The Bailout what was done before Obama took office was done to save huge banks (many of whom are trans-national). These banks took our tax dollars to save them from going under thus they got paid for F'ing up and even gave themselves bonus's with our money. As well as they bought more banks to make themselves even bigger, never mind about moving credit to people. You see it's not as simple as, oh he earns 1million dollars he is owed all his money. It's that he is taxed lower than somone who makes much less, as Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more in taxes.
It's more of the behind the scenes. You've seen movies where say a mobster is paying of judges and congress to allow him to get away with being against the law. Well think of this in a much larger scale. Many of these people who operate the biggest business's in the world are these people. From BP to Shell, to Halibertan and the cigerette companies. They have so much money that they are able to litterly make what they do legal even when it isn't. The crap wall street has pulled for some time by making bets on bets on bets on what ever.. From Oil companies spilling oil and chemicals causing huge harm and breaking many laws but only having to pay a small amount and getting away with something that would land a citzen in jail. Even to them being able to use un limited amounts of money to fund elections even out of state. The top elite own this country. Dem's/Rep's, it doesn't matter much however at least there are a handful of dems that stand up to them.
No I don't know if every republican is this way but I go off what votes are cast and for the last 2 years, well almost two years they have voted against pretty much anything that would put any dents into the corporate elite. Cash for Clunkers - eh, yeah but the ONLY AMERICAN was stripped out Bail Outs for Big Banks - yeah Loan to keep US Auto Plants open - no, can't do that Unemployment benefits - no, no, no - their lazy Breaking Tax incentives to move US jobs out of country - NO Huge Tax breaks for small business - NO and then they go out and sell that they are for them and obama isn't... Environment - hell no, nothing can impede big oil BP disaster having to pay - no 20 billion dollars is a hold up, and those drilling contracts need to be reinstated, who cares about our water Gay/Civil Rights - eh, it'll hurt the military infrastructure bills - HELL NO, workers don't need money Tax Cuts - only if super rich people get it too! health care - oh, well we get govt healthcare, but the people don't need it, our friends in the insurance industry are making too much money with it.
What I'm trying to get at is this, MONEY is owning our lives and our govt. What do think life would be like if corporations and the super rich didn't influence our govt and lives? Well that would never happen but what if? I mean I'm sure we would have better air, better forms of technology, less sickness, better education, longer lives, and a better environment. I don't advocate taking any money from people to give to others, but I have to say, when people have to work 2 jobs and still make below the poverty line something is wrong. Not everyone will be rich, nor should they be. But what there should be is something to say, well I make enough to support my family and have a decent life. However when this countries wages have stalled for some 30 years and the super rich gets richer something is severely wrong. And why this is, the money in govt given by the super rich is. What is a millionaire going to do with an extra 100,00? or a billionaire with 1,000,000 they get off the top? nothing really. What is a guy like me that makes under 100,000 a year going to do with an extra couple of gran? A lot more. We live in a economy driven on consumption, however the middle class has given all it's got and more, and now credit is likely or already has gone. If anyone needs money to spend it's the middle class, otherwise the 2 percent at the top won't have what they have for long.