| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2008 04:48:51 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
We do not have poor here. Poor is what you see when you visit South America or Mexico or Sudan or Darfur. THAT is poor. Here we have public schooling for anyone who wants to go. Here we have public assistance to pay your utilities, help with your housing payment, and medicaid to pay for your health care.
|
So, you want to bring that kind of poverty here so you can put a few more bucks in your pocket?
Great. |
You know darn well that is not what I wrote, nor meant. Accountability. That is all. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 05:05:13 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A former Vice Presedential candidate for the Liberal Democrats, . . . |
I get annoyed with the "other" side using the word Liberal like it's a bad word or on undesirable trait. You used the term in an insulting way in many of your posts. I don't blame you specificaaly. It's been something that's been going on the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd for years. The thinking must be if we demonize the philosophy in general no will want to be a liberal, or something like that.
I've been a liberal for my whole adult life. I am proud of my liberal thinking and it guides my political and personal life. I don't want to be a conservative and frankly see no value in conservative thinking.
It's the Liberal ideas throughout history that have changed the world. If it weren't for liberals there never would have been an American revolution, the end of slavery, civil rights, to name a few.
Nobody ever did anything great being conservative.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 05:14:58 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I get annoyed with the "other" side using the word Liberal like it's a bad word or on undesirable trait. You used the term in an insulting way in many of your posts. |
It is pretty tiresome, especially when you consider the root of the word "liberal", and when the mantra of every administration usually includes the word "liberty".
It's also pretty stupid when you consider that here in Canada, the parties are actually offically called "Liberal" and "Conservative". I was very happy that here, we had a majority Liberal government for over a decade. Especially watching Hannity et. al. vent their spleens every time our government proposed looking into legalizing marijuana, opening another heroin injection site, or when they made same-sex marriage the law of the land. Good times. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 06:11:37 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Here we have public schooling for anyone who wants to go. Here we have public assistance to pay your utilities, help with your housing payment, and medicaid to pay for your health care. |
I'm confused - you want to do away with these so as to reduce the tax burden, right?
[quote-Flash]Spend 6 months in the maternity ward of any major city hospital (like Detroit, Washington DC, Chicago, LA) and see those that are birthing babies today. These kids don't have a chance. Not the kids being born nor the ones having them. This is the product of decades of socialist policy. [/quote]
Given that the US is one of the least socialist countries in the world, are you sure that this is the consequence of socialism?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 09:19:22 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
We do not have poor here. Poor is what you see when you visit South America or Mexico or Sudan or Darfur. THAT is poor. Here we have public schooling for anyone who wants to go. Here we have public assistance to pay your utilities, help with your housing payment, and medicaid to pay for your health care.
|
So, you want to bring that kind of poverty here so you can put a few more bucks in your pocket?
Great. |
You know darn well that is not what I wrote, nor meant. Accountability. That is all. |
What do you mean then? You've railed against your tax dollars going for a program that provides $3/day to feed another human being who otherwise would not eat. How is denying them the food they need to survive going to avoid starvation? Do you think that starving some of the poor to death will somehow provide incentive and opportunity for the rest of them to become productive members of society in your eyes?
Do you really believe that enough opportunity even exists today?
The simple fact is that were it not for those social programs you rail against, that kind of poverty is exactly what would happen. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:07:47 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I'm confused - you want to do away with these so as to reduce the tax burden, right? |
No.
My point is the administration of the taxes collected and the failed programs that result in multi-generational dependency, instead of helping those in need out of their condition. As evidence, I cite a multitude of major cities, all with several social programs designed to "help" those in need, and run by liberals, that never end the continued dependency, because there is not a consequence to continued dependency.
My further point is the impact that raising taxes has on the entire spectrum of a society and especially on the manufacturing sector which in many cases is adversely impacted with in turn dictates a downward spiral, thereby increasing a burden on social programs instead of decreasing it. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:11:04 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I get annoyed with the "other" side using the word Liberal like it's a bad word or on undesirable trait. You used the term in an insulting way in many of your posts. I don't blame you specificaaly. It's been something that's been going on the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd for years. The thinking must be if we demonize the philosophy in general no will want to be a liberal, or something like that. |
It is not personal to the person. It is intended to address the philosophy of leniency and permissiveness. The failure to hold accountable those who abuse the public support. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:28:05 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I get annoyed with the "other" side using the word Liberal like it's a bad word or on undesirable trait. You used the term in an insulting way in many of your posts. I don't blame you specificaaly. It's been something that's been going on the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd for years. The thinking must be if we demonize the philosophy in general no will want to be a liberal, or something like that. |
It is not personal to the person. It is intended to address the philosophy of leniency and permissiveness. The failure to hold accountable those who abuse the public support. |
I don't consider those to be liberal traits. And just because you and the radio talk show hosts repeat it a million times, doesn't make it so.
I've always marveled at the conservative's desire to tell liberals what it is they believe. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:45:09 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I get annoyed with the "other" side using the word Liberal like it's a bad word or on undesirable trait. You used the term in an insulting way in many of your posts. I don't blame you specificaaly. It's been something that's been going on the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd for years. The thinking must be if we demonize the philosophy in general no will want to be a liberal, or something like that. |
It is not personal to the person. It is intended to address the philosophy of leniency and permissiveness. The failure to hold accountable those who abuse the public support. |
As compared to say a philosophy of intolerance and prejudice ?
I just picked a couple of antonyms out of the dictionary to find the opposing ideas to those you quoted. Yes, its probably stupid, stereotypical and insulting, but that appears to be the theme for the thread.
Message edited by author 2008-03-12 12:31:28.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:58:16 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is intended to address the philosophy of leniency and permissiveness. The failure to hold accountable those who abuse the public support. |
I don't have the numbers at hand, but it would seem that there is far more "abuse of public support" by military contractors than by welfare recipients. Most cases of fraud have to do with corporations and involve millions, not a couple of benefit checks.
Let's take a case I just heard about today -- a medical products supply company was on the hook for a federal prosecution. The assigned US Attorney worked a deal to avoid criminal prosectution, by having a "monitor" assigned to see that they don't do it again. This attorney just happened to appoint his former boss, John Ashcroft, as the monitor, for a fee of $50 million.
$50 million will buy a lot of school lunches ... |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 12:18:21 PM · #61 |
| I think that the main problem is that both sides tend to demonize the other. This results in a negative connotation attached to both the words "liberal" and "conservative". In fact, both ways of thinking have their benefits in various social and economic aspects of society. It's when they are put to extremes without any use of moderation that they can become a detriment and do more harm than good. I for one am tired of hearing both words used as derogatory terms to describe politicians who deserve to be called something much worse. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 12:42:39 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is intended to address the philosophy of leniency and permissiveness. The failure to hold accountable those who abuse the public support. |
I don't have the numbers at hand, but it would seem that there is far more "abuse of public support" by military contractors than by welfare recipients. Most cases of fraud have to do with corporations and involve millions, not a couple of benefit checks.
Let's take a case I just heard about today -- a medical products supply company was on the hook for a federal prosecution. The assigned US Attorney worked a deal to avoid criminal prosectution, by having a "monitor" assigned to see that they don't do it again. This attorney just happened to appoint his former boss, John Ashcroft, as the monitor, for a fee of $50 million.
$50 million will buy a lot of school lunches ... |
That's small potatoes compared to the cost overruns and fraudulent billing from Halliburton/KBR on their no-bid contract in Bosnia. They bloated the contract cost by nearly $535 million over the original $1.7 billion contract.
$535 Million dollars would provide $3/day food stamps for a year to nearly half a million hungry Americans.
But, I'm sure conservatives would rather put that money in Dick Cheney's pocket. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 02:43:49 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My point is the administration of the taxes collected and the failed programs that result in multi-generational dependency, instead of helping those in need out of their condition. |
So you support the social policy of a welfare system but want to improve it in some undefined manner? How exactly?
Does it matter if the costs of administering your more precise system exceed the cost of paying people on a less sophisticated basis?
Or are you just shouting off about how things must get better *somehow* and leaving the tricky details up to someone else?
|
|
|
|
03/12/2008 04:31:22 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
My point is the administration of the taxes collected and the failed programs that result in multi-generational dependency, instead of helping those in need out of their condition. |
So you support the social policy of a welfare system but want to improve it in some undefined manner? How exactly?
Does it matter if the costs of administering your more precise system exceed the cost of paying people on a less sophisticated basis?
Or are you just shouting off about how things must get better *somehow* and leaving the tricky details up to someone else? |
No. I have written numerous mentions of very liberal goverened cities for decades and decades, admisistering liberal programs with the result being multi-generational dependency on the very programs that were intended to help and assist. That to me, is not help, but a failed policy. When policies fail, decade after decade, then either the policy, the administrators, or the recipients are at fault. Thus if nothing changes, then we will continue with more of the same, and that is exactly what we have in my state. With then addition of thousands of job losses, increased taxes on those still working and an ever increasing burden on them. Now, liberal proponents of Global Warming want to tax even further the industry that has left thousands dependent upon the few.
If the liberal policies of the Democrats are so wonderful, then why after decades and decades of democratic liberal tax and spend rule, are we (my state) in this mess? Because the policies don't work. And all the liberals can do is blame someone else (Bush/Cheney et el) when they (the democrats) have been the ones administering the local policies. Fix the policies by making folks accountable for the money received/spent. And don't maintain an ever dependent cycle of self perpetuation. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 06:09:51 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
My point is the administration of the taxes collected and the failed programs that result in multi-generational dependency, instead of helping those in need out of their condition. |
So you support the social policy of a welfare system but want to improve it in some undefined manner? How exactly?
Does it matter if the costs of administering your more precise system exceed the cost of paying people on a less sophisticated basis?
Or are you just shouting off about how things must get better *somehow* and leaving the tricky details up to someone else? |
No. I have written numerous mentions of very liberal goverened cities for decades and decades, admisistering liberal programs with the result being multi-generational dependency on the very programs that were intended to help and assist. That to me, is not help, but a failed policy. When policies fail, decade after decade, then either the policy, the administrators, or the recipients are at fault. Thus if nothing changes, then we will continue with more of the same, and that is exactly what we have in my state. With then addition of thousands of job losses, increased taxes on those still working and an ever increasing burden on them. Now, liberal proponents of Global Warming want to tax even further the industry that has left thousands dependent upon the few.
If the liberal policies of the Democrats are so wonderful, then why after decades and decades of democratic liberal tax and spend rule, are we (my state) in this mess? Because the policies don't work. And all the liberals can do is blame someone else (Bush/Cheney et el) when they (the democrats) have been the ones administering the local policies. Fix the policies by making folks accountable for the money received/spent. And don't maintain an ever dependent cycle of self perpetuation. |
Giving tax breaks to the richest Americans in order to help the poorest Americans has been wildly successful, right?
Tell you what, how about you and everyone else that voted Republican in the last 2 election cycles cover the $12 billion per month that this unilaterally declared war is costing the American tax payers and the rest of us will cover the stupid liberal food stamp program. Deal? |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 06:43:39 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I get annoyed with the "other" side using the word Liberal like it's a bad word or on undesirable trait. |
If you want to get that to stop just start using the word "reactionary". It's a good nega-word for conservatives.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2008 06:55:55 PM · #67 |
What I'd like to see is a level playing field...each candidate gets the same amount of money to manage their campaign with and let's see who can get creative to get their message out and not run out of money!!
The gross amount of money that has been spent to date on these campaign's (and this isn't even the general election)...could feed the children in our own country that are going to bed hungry tonight. That's incredibly sad.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2008 10:26:43 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by imagesbytlp:
What I'd like to see is a level playing field...each candidate gets the same amount of money to manage their campaign with and let's see who can get creative to get their message out and not run out of money!!
The gross amount of money that has been spent to date on these campaign's (and this isn't even the general election)...could feed the children in our own country that are going to bed hungry tonight. That's incredibly sad. |
While I'm not disagreeing at all, it puts it in perspective to realize that what Obama is raising per month (say $50 million) is 5/10,000ths of what our country collects in a year's revenue ($900 billion). If we can't feed the hungry children on $900 billion, I don't think money is the issue. I think it's competence and know-how. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:28:12 PM · #69 |
Cost of War - a video on youtube, just for the heck of it.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 01:28:15 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we can't feed the hungry children on $900 billion, I don't think money is the issue. I think it's competence and know-how. |
Or perhaps priorities? |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:41:08 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Giving tax breaks to the richest Americans in order to help the poorest Americans has been wildly successful, right? |
Who pays the tax? You write it as though it is bad for the very people who PAY THE TAX, to gat a tax break if one is deemed possible. Why wouldn't those who pay the money into the public treasury, get a reduction if one is due? This concept of what you earned is mine to spend is BS! You want some money - go make some. Go to the free public schools that we pay for. Stay in school. Get that education. Help yourself. Then maybe we can see about what else you might need. Keep the jobs in the community. Support your local community businesses. There are lots of things communities can do to help themselves. But placing additional tax burdens on those that live there to support those that siphon off the resources without contributing, ultimately results in cities that cannot support themselves.
We currently have a graduated system where those who earn more pay a higher percentage up to a maximum percentage. We could all pay zero tax income tax and just pay a use tax for goods and services - that way each person can control the tax they pay by selecting which goods and services they want to pay for. OR we could have a standard tax rate for all (say 10-12%) and congress must live within that amount - every year. No money left - then no program support.
Use tax or flat tax - both are options, but neither addresses the unsustainable spending and give aways that liberal's want to add. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:46:45 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Use tax or flat tax - both are options, but neither addresses the unsustainable spending and give aways that liberal's want to add. |
Nor does it address the war that conservatives charge to the national credit card to the tune of $12 Billion/month.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:55:48 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We could all pay zero tax income tax and just pay a use tax for goods and services [instead of the current system of] unsustainable spending... |
I see your point. The current liberal method of funding community services veritably guts the national treasury, surely sending the country on the road to ruin. Stupid libraries. Who reads these days anyway? If you use it, pay for it! Charge $5 a book to rent for a night! Whose idea was this "lending" library thing anyway? Want to send your kid to school? Pay for it! Pre-teens are slackers at the best of the times, and I doubt any parent would bother sending their lazy kid to school if they actually had to pay. Bums. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:57:00 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Giving tax breaks to the richest Americans in order to help the poorest Americans has been wildly successful, right? |
Who pays the tax? You write it as though it is bad for the very people who PAY THE TAX, to gat a tax break if one is deemed possible. Why wouldn't those who pay the money into the public treasury, get a reduction if one is due? This concept of what you earned is mine to spend is BS! You want some money - go make some. Go to the free public schools that we pay for. Stay in school. Get that education. Help yourself. Then maybe we can see about what else you might need. Keep the jobs in the community. Support your local community businesses. There are lots of things communities can do to help themselves. But placing additional tax burdens on those that live there to support those that siphon off the resources without contributing, ultimately results in cities that cannot support themselves.
We currently have a graduated system where those who earn more pay a higher percentage up to a maximum percentage. We could all pay zero tax income tax and just pay a use tax for goods and services - that way each person can control the tax they pay by selecting which goods and services they want to pay for. OR we could have a standard tax rate for all (say 10-12%) and congress must live within that amount - every year. No money left - then no program support.
Use tax or flat tax - both are options, but neither addresses the unsustainable spending and give aways that liberal's want to add. |
Believe it or not, I can agree with much of what you say. I take offense to the tone at times, but you make some interesting points. The snide adjectives to describe someone with a different opinion is what weakens your argument. If you have no respect for my point of view, why should I be interested in yours?
That said, not any one single event of the current administration can be identified as the problem with the mind set. Yes, tax cuts are good, everyone wants to pay lower taxes. As a liberal, I subscribe to a graduated tax system. Argue the merits if you want, but it's a legitimate stand to take. The more you make the more you are able to contribute.
But when Bush came out and tried to justify the current war, he said there are going to have to be sacrifices, so what does he do? declares the war, places huge funding requests for the war, then gives tax breaks only to the wealthiest.
You said in your post, "Why wouldn't those who pay the money into the public treasury, get a reduction if one is due?" (that is a direct quote)
Then explain how a reduction is due when we are deficit spending to finance the war? Where is the sacrifice Bush spoke of? Putting an "I support our troops" bumper sticker on your SUV isn't a sacrifice.
You spoke of your distaste for the "liberal hypocrisy" What about the hypocrisy of decrying deficit spending since the Reagan years yet justifying it to finance the tax cuts and the Iraq war? Don't you see a disconnect there?
$12 Billon per month for the Iraq war. Do the math.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:59:49 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Whose idea was this "lending" library thing anyway? |
Benjamin Franklin, a well-known radical and designer of our government. |
|
