It's dangerous following Liberals

[Phantasmal]

Well maybe so, but still.... the philosophy of continuing to elect clueless cynical Democrats and blame all bad things on Republicans, doesn't make much sense.

Voting for clueless corrupt Tepublicans and thinking they are blameless doesn't help, either.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Voting for clueless corrupt Tepublicans and thinking they are blameless doesn't help, either.

I never said they were blameless, but they have no political power, how can we blame them yet? You want to blame the Tea Party for Liberals and Obama failing to have answers and solutions. If the Tea Party gets a legitimate chance at power, and has the same results as Obama, I will blame them and hold them accountable. I can't see the logic in accountability going to the people who aren't in power, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain your logic?

 

[Phantasmal]

I never said they were blameless, but they have no political power, how can we blame them yet? You want to blame the Tea Party for Liberals and Obama failing to have answers and solutions. If the Tea Party gets a legitimate chance at power, and has the same results as Obama, I will blame them and hold them accountable. I can't see the logic in accountability going to the people who aren't in power, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain your logic?

I have never seen you blame the Republicans or conservatives for anything, not even a hint, you rail against the liberals here everyday of the week. Can you explain this logic? Tea Party politicians are Republicans on steroids, nuttier than the originals.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have never seen you blame the Republicans or conservatives for anything, not even a hint, you rail against the liberals here everyday of the week. Can you explain this logic? Tea Party politicians are Republicans on steroids, nuttier than the originals.

Well, here ya go... from the OP in this very thread:

This is where we find the most evidence of how dangerous it is to follow Liberals. A most recent example is the Pill Bill, signed into law by Compassionate Conservative, George W. Bush. Libs throw the 'crisis' out there... poor old people can't buy their medicine! They continue to protest and scream, and cry and plead, and nag and pester, until someone who should know better, says... OKAY! OKAY! Maybe we can do something to help the poor old people buy their medicine! *poof* we get the Pill Bill.

I think my words are very critical of Republicans, namely the "Compassionate Conservative" type who are intrigued enough by liberal stupidity to follow them.

Tea Party politicians are Republicans who believe in conservative constitutional principles, and that is why you don't like them. They certainly aren't any "nuttier" than you, a person who thinks it's a great idea to continue electing feckless and incompetent idiots who are Democrats, while laying all the blame for our woes on Republicans. Now THAT is fucking nutty, if you ask me.

 

[Phantasmal]

Well, here ya go... from the OP in this very thread:

This is where we find the most evidence of how dangerous it is to follow Liberals. A most recent example is the Pill Bill, signed into law by Compassionate Conservative, George W. Bush. Libs throw the 'crisis' out there... poor old people can't buy their medicine! They continue to protest and scream, and cry and plead, and nag and pester, until someone who should know better, says... OKAY! OKAY! Maybe we can do something to help the poor old people buy their medicine! *poof* we get the Pill Bill.

I think my words are very critical of Republicans, namely the "Compassionate Conservative" type who are intrigued enough by liberal stupidity to follow them.

Tea Party politicians are Republicans who believe in conservative constitutional principles, and that is why you don't like them. They certainly aren't any "nuttier" than you, a person who thinks it's a great idea to continue electing feckless and incompetent idiots who are Democrats, while laying all the blame for our woes on Republicans. Now THAT is fucking nutty, if you ask me.

Dixie, I have been reading over some of your old posts and you are as fickle as a fart in a windstorm.

I don't like the Tea Party because they are so far right they can't see the middle and the Constitution only appeals to them when it suits their agenda.

 

[midcan5]

LOL Given the history of conservative republican policy and subsequent failure, Dixie must live in some odd bubble.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?35351-Republican-Ideology-through-History

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, I have been reading over some of your old posts and you are as fickle as a fart in a windstorm.

I don't like the Tea Party because they are so far right they can't see the middle and the Constitution only appeals to them when it suits their agenda.

Actually, the Tea Party is a combination of several factions, mainly independents and moderates. They are not "far right" and nothing they have proposed or advocated is "far right." Their main political message is, to balance the budget.... whoa... look out there, we're toppling over to the right on that one! Can't have those kind of wackos in power! What's next, spending cuts? Crazy talk!

From the mortgage finance crisis to the stimulus, from bailouts to our credit rating, the Tea Party has been the only ones who got it right. YOU don't like the Tea Party because they are a THREAT to your precious liberal agenda. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL Given the history of conservative republican policy and subsequent failure, Dixie must live in some odd bubble.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?35351-Republican-Ideology-through-History

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

Yes, my bubble is oddly enough, not filled with liberal hubris.... does it make you talk funny and feel light-headed?

 

[Phantasmal]

Actually, the Tea Party is a combination of several factions, mainly independents and moderates. They are not "far right" and nothing they have proposed or advocated is "far right." Their main political message is, to balance the budget.... whoa... look out there, we're toppling over to the right on that one! Can't have those kind of wackos in power! What's next, spending cuts? Crazy talk!

From the mortgage finance crisis to the stimulus, from bailouts to our credit rating, the Tea Party has been the only ones who got it right. YOU don't like the Tea Party because they are a THREAT to your precious liberal agenda. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

What exactly is the liberal agenda, especially MY liberal agenda, since you seem to know my mind?

 

[apple0154]

Throughout the history of liberal socialist statism, there have been many hapless victims. Sucked in to the rhetoric, mesmerized by the prophets, brainwashed into believing in Utopia. I suppose it's not really a surprise, it's human nature for mankind to course the path of least resistance, and it's easier to believe in a Utopian dream world than to accept reality. What's wrong with dreaming we can someday feed all the hungry and heal all the sick? Well, it's dangerous, that's what.

We can look to history, and find example after example, of the liberal socialist statist philosophy being attempted, in a number of different variations-- Maoism in China, Marxism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, and assorted offshoots from rogues like Pol Pot and Qaddafi to regime dynasties like Castro and Saddam Hussein. None of the examples end well for the people. It would be great if there were a good example, then the liberal socialist statists could manage to print t-shirts with someone other than Che Guevara.

What percentage of them were democratically elected by the people?

The struggle against the liberal socialist statist mentality in our own country, has been going on for years. Libs love to quote Hamilton, and perhaps Hamilton was one of the country's first pinheads. Most of his statist ideas were fundamentally rejected by Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, but important to history, because they presented the perfect platform to juxtapose the new ideas of freedom and liberty. Of course, lazy asses today will not bother reading the Federalist Papers, to understand this, they will accept the Liberals quoting Hamilton, as if his words were some sort of principled ideas of our founding fathers. The "general welfare" clause is a good example. Hamilton believed, like many liberal socialist statists, that "general welfare" was sort of a 'carte blanc' for government to assume responsibility regarding any aspect of our general welfare. Madison brilliantly pointed out, that is precisely why "general welfare" can't be interpreted that way, it would render the Constitution meaningless and grant unlimited power to the central government. If you follow the Hamiltonian philosophy, the end result is not good for the people. It eventually replaces personal freedom with central government power, which has never worked out well for the average Joe.

How quick you forget. The Preamble states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It’s also worth mentioning, “It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.”

So, we know the Founding Father’s intentions regarding what they hoped to achieve and what they hoped for was a more perfect union by promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty. So, yes, the government was tasked with that responsibility. It does not mean unlimited power or loss of freedom.

Still, we have people in history like Adams, who have entertained some notion of a "middle ground" between founding principles and statist nonsense. We've always had a certain segment who are not totally on board with the liberal socialist statists, but apparently dislike confrontation so much, they are willing to abandon their own principles to try and "get along" with them. This is where we find the most evidence of how dangerous it is to follow Liberals. A most recent example is the Pill Bill, signed into law by Compassionate Conservative, George W. Bush. Libs throw the 'crisis' out there... poor old people can't buy their medicine! They continue to protest and scream, and cry and plead, and nag and pester, until someone who should know better, says... OKAY! OKAY! Maybe we can do something to help the poor old people buy their medicine! *poof* we get the Pill Bill. What happened next? Problem solved? Hardly! Libs moved on to nationalized health care. Look what happened with FDR? We went along with his liberal socialist statist principles because we were desperate, and created an entitlement class. Was the New Deal it? Did it fix all our problems? Oh no! Was LBJ's Great Society enough? Nope! Still not there yet. Since then, Libs have pressed on, with more an more departments and more and more government.

What you fail to understand is any and all solutions are injected with Conservative poison. Take the pill bill, for example. Why did some members of government refuse to grant negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies? Well, we know why. That free enterprise, charge what the people can bear, thing. So, of course, the price would skyrocket.

The same thing happens with other programs. For example, unemployment insurance. There was a time when the unemployed could not increase their education by attending colleges/universities. After all, businesses that contribute funds to UI were not going to pay for someone’s education. “If we must pay them let them sit at home and rot!” Fortunately, that backwards attitude is slowly changing.

Some people are so jealous someone will get something for nothing they deliberately poison programs. We see that with welfare. If two people are entitled to the same amount of money what difference does it make it one decides to live with someone, save money on rent and then have sufficient funds to purchase decent clothes for job hunting? Or someone who may pick up an hour’s worth of work at a restaurant dumping garbage and washing floors at closing in return for a decent meal that was prepared but not sold?

It’s the restrictions put on the help people receive that causes the problems. Welfare “counsellors”, if one can call them that, are not there to help the people. They are there to try and disqualify as many as possible. That sets up a “battle” resulting in the recipient’s main goal being survival. The recipient isn’t going to talk freely with the counsellor knowing the counsellor is listening for any reason they can use to diminish help.

For example, maybe a welfare recipient hears about a job they’ve never done and don’t know if they can do it. Let’s say working in a mortuary. They may start off setting up chairs for the visitors and cleaning the viewing area. After a few weeks they’re asked to do some work in the embalming area and find they can’t deal with it so they quit. If they had notified welfare they had a job and then quit…well, as the old saying goes, “The excrement would come in contact with the air moving apparatus." Rather than being encouraged for trying they’d probably be listed as unwilling to work.

You see, when you follow a Liberal, the road to Utopia never ends. The world has an endless supply of people suffering, the planet produces new crisis everyday. The planet is never going to have enough people or resources to adequately accommodate all inhabitants at all times everywhere. There will forever and always be, some people who have more than others, and some people who have very little or nothing. This is what is commonly referred to as "a fact of life." We should all be aware of this, and it should be obvious it's a problem we can't ever solve, but for some reason, it is easier to believe in Liberal Utopia....Nirvana!

Right there we see the problem. “The planet is never going to have enough people or resources to adequately accommodate all inhabitants at all times everywhere.” Maybe not, but we can try. The US produces more food than the citizens consume which means there is plenty of food for every US citizen. One problem solved.

For many years I wondered why there were homeless and hungry and I’d be told there just wasn’t enough for everyone. For example, there just aren’t enough homes for everyone. Of course, after the housing boom we realize there are too many homes. Nevada has a subdivision near Las Vegas with over 150,000 brand new homes that are vacant. Rather than the government buying them at wholesale prices and having a place for, say, poor retired folks the homes are left to rot. They have been taken over by vermin and now new homes are being built because no one wants them. 150,000 homes. The waste is beyond outrageous. 150,000 brand new homes left to rot while we claim we can’t house the homeless.

How many other communities have empty homes? How many factories and office buildings that could be converted into one or two room apartments are simply left empty until they decay and fall down? How many governments, Federal and State and Local, took the opportunity during the booming 90s to take an old, abandoned school building with 30 or 40 classrooms and convert them into small, subsidized apartments for the poor?

So, please, don’t use the “there will never be enough resources” argument. Hell, there were plenty of resources to have a war, according to Rumsfeld, and wars are expensive. “It was an option we could afford.” That’s what the brain dead man said but renovating a stone/concrete school building which would last another 100 years was too expensive. The people couldn’t afford it.

There was a time when one man would work all day just to feed a family of 5 or 6, gardening and hunting and preserving food. Today, with the aid of technology and machinery one man can feed scores of people. Perhaps there are countries where that can’t be done due to political reasons but there is no reason on earth why anyone has to be homeless or hungry or poorly clothed in North America or any first world nation. It has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of resources. It’s lies and bullshit fed to the people to instill worry and struggle but it will come to an end, slowly but surely, over the objections of the greedy and the narcissist.

 

[apple0154]

The latest road the liberal socialist statist wants us to travel down with them, is the "rich don't pay their fair share" meme. They've been playing this for a few years now, protesting and screaming, crying and pleading, nagging and pestering, until people who should know better, start to say; Well, maybe we can tax the rich more if they make over a certain amount? Even though we have example after example of what happens when you follow a liberal, these people seem oblivious to the danger. Will some modest tax increase on top wage earners be enough for Liberals? We already know it won't be, nothing is ever enough! You see, it starts with the fact that we really can't tax rich people, only people who happen to earn a lot of income, because we tax income earned, not wealth. So you can literally raise taxes of top wage earners all you like, there will still be rich people not paying their fair share, according to liberals.

Loopholes. Close all the loopholes and end the exemptions. Full tax on capital gains and inheritance. That would be a good start.

 

[apple0154]

Again, we can't tax "the rich" in this country, we don't tax based on wealth, it's based on income earned. I don't know where the jobs are, why don't you ask your president, he was supposed to have all the answers, that's why you had to elect him, remember? In any event, if you are not too retarded to understand the wealth earners are who create most of the jobs in America through small business, then you must also realize an increase in their tax rates is probably not going to increase jobs. In fact, it's much more likely to destroy jobs. But in Liberal Utopian Dream World, what theoretically happens is; The rich CEO takes a million dollar pay cut and starts making $50k a year, or whatever arbitrary figure liberals determine is "a fair amount" and the money saved goes to the workers and to create new jobs. But what we know happens in reality, is quite different. Small businesses make cuts in staff, downsizing happens, remaining staff has to pick up their slack and keep pushing on. The "rich CEO" (in this case, a small business owner making $250k) still makes the exact same amount, or may even get a raise in pay for being brilliant enough to trim the fat.

In the end, we still have the rich getting richer, because that is what rich people do... it's how they became rich. And we still have the poor becoming poorer, because now, they have no job.

Sure, Dix, The CEO making five million a year is going to go in his garage and invent something.

"....the wealth earners are who create most of the jobs in America through small business,..." Yes, before they were wealthy. From Samuel F.B. Morse, the first child of the pastor Jedidiah Morse (telegraph) to Bill gates (Microsoft/computers) those things were invented by "poor" people. Then a business started. Then they became wealthy. Your idea of the events are backwards.

 

[apple0154]

Again, you are substituting "rich" for people who happen to report higher than average incomes on tax returns. Every single small business in America files income tax through an individual's tax return, it's just how we do that. What you see as an individual making $250k, is very often a small business which made $250k. Most of these small business owners are not "rich" by any stretch, they simply report high incomes on tax returns because they are reporting their small business earnings. A great number of actually "wealthy" people, don't earn an income at all. They may have income from dividends, etc., but this is taxed at a lower rate for everyone across the board, you included.

Now, we can raise the tax on dividend income, but what we already know will happen, is it will cause less dividend type investments. People with the wealth to invest, will have to weigh the cost of additional taxation, and if that is too much, they may simply choose to not invest. Remember, rich people don't NEED to earn income, they are already wealthy enough to live comfortably and take care of their families. If we make it less attractive to invest, they will simply stop doing it. Again, following liberals down a road of stifled economic investment, is a dead end.

OMG! You honestly think rich people will stop trying to get more? The "poor" rich man will become depressed and withdraw from society?

You sure have one strange way of interpreting the world and people.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Apple, if you want me to respond, you need to present something that makes sense. So far, you are flailing around like a little retard trying to hit a pinata and failing.

 

[Phantasmal]

Apple, if you want me to respond, you need to present something that makes sense. So far, you are flailing around like a little retard trying to hit a pinata and failing.

Oh, that's nice, making fun of mentally challenged people.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, that's nice, making fun of mentally challenged people.

Well, they shouldn't let them on the computer!

 

[Althea]

I don't know, I think capitalist free-markets and free enterprise, like we've enjoyed in America the past 200+ years, is a pretty significant example. 'A shining city on the hill,' as some would say. Our people have certainly accomplished things, we invented the industrial age, excelled in the space age, and led the technology age. Millions, if not billions or stories of people who started with nothing, and out of sheer determination, became wealthy. We don't see such examples in liberal socialist statism, because it is frowned upon. Only The Government controls wealth, and ultimately becomes the dreaded 1%.

Ancient history. What has Capitalism done for you lately?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ancient history. What has Capitalism done for you lately?

Well, it made me a cool $7 million in the mid 90s. Since then, it hasn't done much because I haven't invested in it. I would love to see if capitalism could double or maybe even triple my money, but my government wants to steal a substantial chunk of my wealth if I bring it back to this country, so I guess I'll have to keep waiting.

 

[Althea]

Well, it made me a cool $7 million in the mid 90s. Since then, it hasn't done much because I haven't invested in it. I would love to see if capitalism could double or maybe even triple my money, but my government wants to steal a substantial chunk of my wealth if I bring it back to this country, so I guess I'll have to keep waiting.

Anybody with a few grand, and a computer made a million in the 90's.

Only if you got in/out in time. That wasn't Capitalism...it was a new internet market that was a facade. It crashed, as hard as it soared.

The 'shining city on the hill' was created under a system with taxes that are much higher than they are now.

So too, was your supposed windfall in the 90's.

What's your beef?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Well, it made me a cool $7 million in the mid 90s. Since then, it hasn't done much because I haven't invested in it. I would love to see if capitalism could double or maybe even triple my money, but my government wants to steal a substantial chunk of my wealth if I bring it back to this country, so I guess I'll have to keep waiting.

Oh really you took your millions out of the country? Did you bring them to Iraq when you were over there fighting in the war and live posting it?