To you "fiscal conservatives" who are so afraid of

[Arkansas]

Are all 'rich' people Republicans? Don't Dems have money too?
I'll readily argue that most, if not all, of the wealthy are indeed fiscal conservatives. People that have wealth and lose it are irresponsible morons. Maintaining and growing wealth is a very difficult discipline that requires conservative financial thinking.

But again I ask, why do people assume that being 'rich' is a Republican problem?
I'd like to hear what the wealthy Democrats have to say. And perhaps more importantly, I'd like to hear what the socio-political whiners have to say about all the wealthy Democrats. Hhm?


later~

[Saint John]

Historically, lowering taxes increases revenue. This includes the last round of "Bush" tax cuts.

I'm all for helping the human race and all for paying my fair share. But if I look at it realistically and it's clearly evident that lowering taxes really does raise federal revenue, then I don't know why people continue to fight about it.

Because the Dems can't control people if they are free to spend their own money the way they like. They believe that people don't know how to properly control their own money and have openly said so. The Dems believe they need to tax the money first and then redistribute as they see fit for the common good. They are afraid of individualism as it conflicts with their idea of socialism. The more people are set free, the more they like it and the Dems can't have that. It's really that simple.

True, very true. The "redistribution of wealth" also increases dependency, too. Which is why these impoverished fuck heads actually have the audacity to demand even more!!! There are only a handful of good social programs of the hundreds offered. This is by far the easiest country to be well off in. But it's also the easiest to be a lazy shit head.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Which is why these impoverished fuck heads actually have the audacity to demand even more!!!

Actually under socialism "the impoverished fuck heads" often dont want to demand more , but are stuck in a viscious circle where they have to .

After all if everyone gets taxed 30- 40% or in some countries 60-70% out of their earnings: that means you have no money of your own to save for retirement so you demand social security, no money for health care so you have to demand medicare, no money for child care so you have to demand state sponsored nurseries. Sadly what is given to you is half quality - hospitials where you get sicker, social security which is bankrupt, so you have to whine even more

Its a system of slavery , once youre locked in youre fucked, the chains get tighter and tighter...

[Rip Rokken]

Are all 'rich' people Republicans? Don't Dems have money too?

I've actually heard the Democratic Party described as the "New Party of the Rich" awhile back. Somewhere there has to be a chart or graph contrasting how much these people are worth compared to the Repubs.

Biggest thing I can't stand about politicians in general is they ensure they get theirs, while trying to do their best to keep us from getting ours.

[FishinMagician]

Easy folks....the politics here is getting a bit much - especially when there is a POLITICAL FORUM. Yes?

Agreed - maybe a couple every now and then but there has been a ton lately.

well there is a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION coming up

[Arkansas]

Interesting site & test... http://www.politicalcompass.org/index


later~

[Ehwmatt]

I'm a conservative student at a pretty liberal school and I get my fill of overzealous liberal students and professors. However, with that being said, and without getting into the dirty specifics, I do see where some of the liberals are coming from. I don't know if it's hubris, neglect, sadism, whatever, but the Republicans of recent years have been acting increasingly foolish when it comes to social welfare/"human issues."

The GOP needs to show more concern for the public at large, show more concern for those who might need a little government help. I'd be the last person to endorse universal healthcare and other extreme issues, but my party really needs to understand there are people who need help. The GOP should build a platform where its willing to dole out some help (perhaps not as much as Democrats purport to), but also stick to its guns and make much of the help conditional - give the receivers some kind of incentive to "pull themselves up" in that great American "tradition." How to do this I don't know, I'm a 21-year old student, not a policymaker. But it's clear that America is tiring of "selfish and unsympathetic" GOP platforms and a strong wind of change is certainly blowing if the GOP doesn't clean itself up.

[Ehwmatt]

Are all 'rich' people Republicans? Don't Dems have money too?
I'll readily argue that most, if not all, of the wealthy are indeed fiscal conservatives. People that have wealth and lose it are irresponsible morons. Maintaining and growing wealth is a very difficult discipline that requires conservative financial thinking.

But again I ask, why do people assume that being 'rich' is a Republican problem?
I'd like to hear what the wealthy Democrats have to say. And perhaps more importantly, I'd like to hear what the socio-political whiners have to say about all the wealthy Democrats. Hhm?


later~

A point I think about often. One of the chief reasons I think that Kerry/Edwards lost four years ago too, even though by that time Dubya was already the butt of every late night talk show joke and Michael Moore documentary. They're sitting there preaching about the wealthiest 1% and such, but they're part of it. Plus, look at how Edwards made his money... I don't think America would ever trust someone like that.

[strangegrey]

........

[strangegrey]

........

[conversationpc]

A graduated income tax is a cornerstone of Marxist tax theory.

Hardly. A progressive tax rate actually helps to stave off depressions. I guarantee you, without a progressive tax rate, we would have been thrust into massive recessions/depressions at least twice, following the great depression in the 30s. Getting ourselves out of another great depression or two would've been far more difficult a task than simply "jump starting" the economy with some Bush-esque tax cuts, some irresponsible interest rate games and trade shenanagans. Bush and previous presidents have been able to play a few monetary (and in some cases, fiscal)policy games with some pressure to the fed...in order to bump us out of past recessions. Truly impossible if we were in the middle of anoter massive depression.

The progressive income tax, in itself isnt the problem. The problem is that the brackets need to be redefined to better suit our current income dispersion.

Whatever you call it, a "progressive" tax rate is, in effect, a redistribution of wealth. That's the cornerstone of Marxist economic theory. If you take more from the "wealthy" to give to the poor in the form of either government programs or some other economic benefit to them, that's Marxist no matter what semantics are used to describe it.

[RossValoryRocks]

A graduated income tax is a cornerstone of Marxist tax theory.

Hardly. A progressive tax rate actually helps to stave off depressions. I guarantee you, without a progressive tax rate, we would have been thrust into massive recessions/depressions at least twice, following the great depression in the 30s. Getting ourselves out of another great depression or two would've been far more difficult a task than simply "jump starting" the economy with some Bush-esque tax cuts, some irresponsible interest rate games and trade shenanagans. Bush and previous presidents have been able to play a few monetary (and in some cases, fiscal)policy games with some pressure to the fed...in order to bump us out of past recessions. Truly impossible if we were in the middle of anoter massive depression.

The progressive income tax, in itself isnt the problem. The problem is that the brackets need to be redefined to better suit our current income dispersion.

Obviously you never read Marx. It is one of the corner stones of his theory. Tax the rich and redistribute the wealth.

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

You also don't know too much about tax theory. You cannot...EVER...tax a country into properity. When you take money out of the hands of the people, yes even the rich people, you remove liquidity from the free market economy and THAT is what causes the economy to slow down, further crimping the amount of money flowing into the government.

[Rockindeano]

Easy folks....the politics here is getting a bit much - especially when there is a POLITICAL FORUM. Yes?

This election is the most important election in history, and if I need to remind you, it affects YOU and your country too.

As for the political forum, you really expect us to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the front page? Dude, check yourself.

[Rockindeano]

You also don't know too much about tax theory. You cannot...EVER...tax a country into properity. When you take money out of the hands of the people, yes even the rich people, you remove liquidity from the free market economy and THAT is what causes the economy to slow down, further crimping the amount of money flowing into the government.

Really? Um, I need to let you in on a little secret Mr. Obama voter-

Bill Clinton DID tax the country in the 90's, heavily, and we were never richer, paid down the defecit, and we even had a budget SURPLUS. All the work he did, and it's not refutable, it was indeed great, was erased by a retard in 3 years.

A lie, a bullshit war, and tax cuts for the rich. Even your junior college econ students know you never give tax cuts in time of war.

How about a standing O for W!

As Monker said last night, we should be very very thankful of Mr Bush.

He set the GOP back 30 years, gave Congress away to the Dems and is fixing to also give away the most important address in the world.

Thank you God for George W Bush!

PS- Thank Heaven that fucker couldn't change out the High Court enough, and we still have Roe on the books.

[RossValoryRocks]

Really? Um, I need to let you in on a little secret Mr. Obama voter-

Bill Clinton DID tax the country in the 90's, heavily, and we were never richer, paid down the defecit, and we even had a budget SURPLUS. All the work he did, and it's not refutable, it was indeed great, was erased by a retard in 3 years

Yes he did raise taxes immediately upon assuming office, with a democratically controlled congress...it brought the economy almost to a halt.

The republicans in 1994, 1996 and 1998 eased taxes, and THAT is when the economy took off. It had nothing to do with Clinton's tax raising in 1993. It almost lost him the 1996 election, but the republicans did too good a job and with the economy humming he won.

So if you are going to paint history here, paint the whole picture. It was true fiscal conservatives in 1994 who cut taxes and SPENDING who made the economy sail. NOT CLINTON.

Those are facts. You are just pushing revisionist History there.

Bush is no fiscal conservative, I have said REPEATEDLY to you, face to face Dean that I cannot stand Bush's spending policies or those of the former congress.

I agree on his tax policy, and I agree on the war, oh yeah...so did you idols Hillary and Bill.

Most of the other stuff I disagree with the President on.

So let me ask you Dean...how hard is it to walk and talk with that double penetration from Bill and Hillary going on??? I mean Bills cock is so far down your throat I thought you were Monica there for a second.???

[ohsherrie]

Are all 'rich' people Republicans? Don't Dems have money too?
I'll readily argue that most, if not all, of the wealthy are indeed fiscal conservatives. People that have wealth and lose it are irresponsible morons. Maintaining and growing wealth is a very difficult discipline that requires conservative financial thinking.

But again I ask, why do people assume that being 'rich' is a Republican problem?
I'd like to hear what the wealthy Democrats have to say. And perhaps more importantly, I'd like to hear what the socio-political whiners have to say about all the wealthy Democrats. Hhm?


later~

What exactly is a socio-political whiner?

Is that someone who thinks that if trillions of dollars are being spent by this government, at least some of it could be much better spent assuring that economic conditions are such that equitable employment opportunities exist for the 3 million citizens who had living wage jobs, retirement funds, and health care benefits before their companies were paid out of those trillions to move their jobs out of this country?

I guess that makes me one then. I'm not asking for handouts and neither are they. I'm asking for a government that is truly of, by, and for ALL the people. I thought everybody else had the right to that. It appears though that that particular right is allocated according to how much money one earns to pay taxes on.

I don't know of many people who wouldn't rather live on what's left after paying 30% in taxes on $100,000 than 15% on $30,000 and in most of the situations that currently exist due to plant closings, it's not how hard or how many hours they worked that made the difference.

Those $30,000 jobs are all that are left to millions of people who've lost their jobs so corporate officers can make millions, and our government facilitated that.

If trying make people realize the reality of that makes me a socio-political whiner, then I'll wear it like a badge of honor.

Oh and I don't give a damn what the party affiliations are for those people who lost their jobs or those CEOs who benefitted from it. This was done by the Bush administration and he's republican.

It also happens to be most of the conservatives on here(whether republican or not) who seem to think those people are responsible for their own hardships, and this government shouldn't be held responsible for any part of it. These people should work three minimum wage jobs, sell their homes, buy a trailer, sell their cars, buy a clunker, buy their clothes at Goodwill, eat spam and dried beans and then hopefully they can afford to pay for private health insurance. Afterall, that's all they deserve for losing their jobs in areas of the country where there aren't any others.

For some reason they seem to think that they would have to pay more in taxes if the government spent their tax dollars in a different way rather than paying it to companies to move American jobs to China and Mexico and at the same time eliminating taxes that were be paid on higher earnings by the middle class here.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

It also happens to be most of the conservatives on here(whether republican or not) who seem to think those people are responsible for their own hardships, and this government shouldn't be held responsible for any part of it.

No we don't.

We think that people who through no fault of their own- and theres lots of them- stumble into hardship should get help from the government. Im all for things like unemployment insurance, enforcing the laws in order to punish corporate crooks, etc.

We just believe that "permament" government help only causes more suffering in the end.

We also think that when possible private charity is more effective, as those organsiations that help dont have to get tangled up in masses of regulation and red tape and can act effectively and locally. Those organisations need to be empowered by government not held back and regulated like they are today. Furthermore we think the most compassionate way of helping people is to do what really helps the most people - creating a climate where people can work , build and invest thereby helping others. Nothing hard hearted about it.

Sorry it hasnt been happening the last few years- but as I said Bush aint no conservative, hes a liberal Democrat.

[conversationpc]

It also happens to be most of the conservatives on here(whether republican or not) who seem to think those people are responsible for their own hardships, and this government shouldn't be held responsible for any part of it. These people should work three minimum wage jobs, sell their homes, buy a trailer, sell their cars, buy a clunker, buy their clothes at Goodwill, eat spam and dried beans and then hopefully they can afford to pay for private health insurance. Afterall, that's all they deserve for losing their jobs in areas of the country where there aren't any others.

[conversationpc]

It also happens to be most of the conservatives on here(whether republican or not) who seem to think those people are responsible for their own hardships, and this government shouldn't be held responsible for any part of it.

No we don't.

We think that people who through no fault of their own- and theres lots of them- stumble into hardship should get help from the government. Im all for things like unemployment insurance, enforcing the laws in order to punish corporate crooks, etc.

We just believe that "permament" government help only causes more suffering in the end.

We also think that when possible private charity is more effective, as those organsiations that help dont have to get tangled up in masses of regulation and red tape and can act effectively and locally Those organisatons need to be empowered by government not held back and regulated like they are today. Furthermore we think the most compassionate way of helping people is to do what really helps the most people - creating a climate where people can work , build and invest thereby helping others. Nothing hard hearted about it.

Sorry it hasnt been happening the last few years- but as I said Bush aint no conservative, hes a liberal Democrat.

[ohsherrie]

And for ohsherrie.....

Bill Clinton was right about something,..... however I think he had his fingers crossed when he said it....

"We need real welfare reform.... I recommend, number one, that you
require people to take jobs."

--Bill Clinton May 6, 1992.

Where on here have you ever read where I was asking for or recommending welfare? If you're going to address posts to me, or quote any selections from my posts, go back and find all of my posts on socio/polical subject and do a little research on where I actually stand on those issues.

Until you do, I won't dignify your comments with a response because you're obviously blowing them out your ass.

[conversationpc]

Where on here have you ever read where I was asking for or recommending welfare? If you're going to address posts to me, or quote any selections from my posts, go back and find all of my posts on socio/polical subject and do a little research on where I actually stand on those issues.

Until you do, I won't dignify your comments with a response because you're obviously blowing them out your ass.

Sounds like what you need to do when you claim that we conservatives don't care about the poor, want old people to die, orphans to starve, etc. Take your own advice, please.

[RossValoryRocks]

I don't know of many people who wouldn't rather live on what's left after paying 30% in taxes on $100,000 than 15% on $30,000 and in most of the situations that currently exist due to plant closings, it's not how hard or how many hours they worked that made the difference.

Those $30,000 jobs are all that are left to millions of people who've lost their jobs so corporate officers can make millions, and our government facilitated that.

Federal income taxes on $30000 are $2290/year as a single person with no dependents, 7.633%. A Married family with one child pays $231 Dollars, or .77%.

http://www.1040.com/site/TaxTools/Feder ... fault.aspx

You have no clue...no facts...and are not reduced to making shit up.

Oh and I don't give a damn what the party affiliations are for those people who lost their jobs or those CEOs who benefitted from it. This was done by the Bush administration and he's republican.

Bullshit...NAFTA was a Clinton legacy. In fact ALL presidents of BOTH parties have signed corporate tax cuts.

It also happens to be most of the conservatives on here(whether republican or not) who seem to think those people are responsible for their own hardships, and this government shouldn't be held responsible for any part of it. These people should work three minimum wage jobs, sell their homes, buy a trailer, sell their cars, buy a clunker, buy their clothes at Goodwill, eat spam and dried beans and then hopefully they can afford to pay for private health insurance. Afterall, that's all they deserve for losing their jobs in areas of the country where there aren't any others.

When I lost my job with IBM that is exactly what I did...and I pulled myself up by the boot straps and did it without asking the government for a thing other than unemployment, which I paid into, and is an appropriate safety net.

For some reason they seem to think that they would have to pay more in taxes if the government spent their tax dollars in a different way rather than paying it to companies to move American jobs to China and Mexico and at the same time eliminating taxes that were be paid on higher earnings by the middle class here.

Perhaps you could provide some cited examples, oh wait you won't find any because NO law has passed at anytime that paid companies to move jobs overseas, that is a fallacy.

[RossValoryRocks]

Until you do, I won't dignify your comments with a response because you're obviously blowing them out your ass.

I call foul here...you are running away because you have no cohesive argument or facts to back up your beliefs, so you are running away.

You ALMOST never cite anything to back yourself up. Maybe if you did we would take you more seriously, well that and stop blaming EVERYTHING on the President. Not EVERYTHING is his fault, not even close. Economically a President can do very little to affect things.

[Rockindeano]

LOL

Abolish Liberalism?

Liberalism is much much better than Conservatism.

You folks keep up the lie games.

I find it hysterical, that my views, are shared with the overwhelming view of the nation.

The defeat of the republican party, from top to bottom, is so sweet.

[conversationpc]

I find it hysterical, that my views, are shared with the overwhelming view of the nation.

The defeat of the republican party, from top to bottom, is so sweet.

Most of the country is somewhere in the middle, from middle-left to middle right, not where your views are nor even mine, for that matter.

BTW, who gives a flying bat crap if the Republican party is defeated? They deserve whatever they get, as will the Democrats after people get sick of them being in power after the next four years.

[RossValoryRocks]

LOL

Abolish Liberalism?

Liberalism is much much better than Conservatism.

You folks keep up the lie games.

I find it hysterical, that my views, are shared with the overwhelming view of the nation.

The defeat of the republican party, from top to bottom, is so sweet.

How subjective...how precisely is Liberalism better than Conservatism??? Where are your facts???? Supporting evidence???

Actually the country is VASTLY more conservative than Liberal.

If you take a poll and don't ask leading questions you will find that out.

[ohsherrie]

It also happens to be most of the conservatives on here(whether republican or not) who seem to think those people are responsible for their own hardships, and this government shouldn't be held responsible for any part of it.

No we don't.

We think that people who through no fault of their own- and theres lots of them- stumble into hardship should get help from the government. Im all for things like unemployment insurance, enforcing the laws in order to punish corporate crooks, etc.

We just believe that "permament" government help only causes more suffering in the end.

We also think that when possible private charity is more effective, as those organsiations that help dont have to get tangled up in masses of regulation and red tape and can act effectively and locally Those organisatons need to be empowered by government not held back and regulated like they are today. Furthermore we think the most compassionate way of helping people is to do what really helps the most people - creating a climate where people can work , build and invest thereby helping others. Nothing hard hearted about it.

Sorry it hasnt been happening the last few years- but as I said Bush aint no conservative, hes a liberal Democrat.

Well then why did you think we were in such disagreement on this subject? If the two of you didn't fit the description then the post wasn't directed at you.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is the "charity" part. I'm not advocating welfare or charity. I never have been. I don't want any permanent government subsidies. There may need to be some emergency measures taken short term to stop the welfare rolls from becoming even bigger because of the lack of living wage jobs, but that shouldn't become the norm or the solution of choice.

I want people to realize that this government has got to quit manipulating the economy to benefit the upper 1-5% at the expense of the middle class workers. They claim they're strengthening the economy, but all they're strengthening are the faulty economic indicators they use to evaluate their economic performance.

I won't go into the long explanation again about how this is not only destroying the livelihoods of the families who have lost their jobs, but also erodes the foundation of the economy. I did that once but people either didn't read it or didn't understand it because some seem to think those upper 1-5% are all that are needed to strengthen the economy.

The points that I've been trying for weeks to make on here are that the corporate subsidies and tax cuts to companies moving operations out of this country have to stop. That money has to be put into businesses that stay in this country and are trying to start in this country so that they can employ, pay a living wage, and provide retirement and health care benefits to the working people of this country. They only need to do that until the earnings gap starts to look a little more equitable and the middle class is back on it's feet. Then they need to get the hell out of the ecomonic manipulation business.

They also need to quit legislating to the benefit of their damned special interest insurance companies. No American citizen should be financially unable to provide health insurance for their family so that CEOs of insurance companies can earn billions. It's not free enterprise when the government is facilitating the inequity through legislation and tax breaks that benefit the corporate execs.

If Universal healthcare is so terribly frightening to so many(even though it's the corporate Insurance and Health care industry execs that are seeding that unreasonable fear for their own benefit) then this government has to even the playing field there too before getting the hell out of it. If a human being dies because he can't afford healthcare while working the only job available to him while insurance execs party down on the millions in profit they maintain because of government subsidies and tax breaks, as premiums increase and coverages decrease to the point where working people can't afford adequate coverage, then their's a huge problem and it's not that the human being wasn't doing the best he possibly could.

Since when should any established business or corportation be subsidized so that their executive officers can maintain their conspicuously wealthy lifestyles? If a company can't afford to pay their officers those huge salaries and bonuses then they've got the same kind of business decision to make that a small business owner does now. Do they take a personal pay cut while they try and find a way to improve their business's profits, or do the sell out? That's a free enterprise decision.

[ohsherrie]

Until you do, I won't dignify your comments with a response because you're obviously blowing them out your ass.

I call foul here...you are running away because you have no cohesive argument or facts to back up your beliefs, so you are running away.

You ALMOST never cite anything to back yourself up. Maybe if you did we would take you more seriously, well that and stop blaming EVERYTHING on the President. Not EVERYTHING is his fault, not even close. Economically a President can do very little to affect things.

You've either ignores or didn''t comprehend the facts and sources I've provides so why should I bother? Check this thread, page 6. If you don't read all of every source then don't bother getting back to me on it.

http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... &start=150


Now can you so me documentation of your claim that the stellar Clinton economy was really due to somebody else?

[strangegrey]

........

[conversationpc]

Now can you so me documentation of your claim that the stellar Clinton economy was really due to somebody else?

Didn't the Republican-controlled Congress pass all those laws that stimulated the economy? Much of the economic stimulus that happened back then was part of the Republican's Contract With America, wasn't it? That doesn't mean that Clinton shouldn't get some credit for it because it happened on his watch, but he's far from being the only one to get credit for it.