Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Keep playing partison games while the debt continues to skyrocket through control of both parties.[/QUOTE]
Roger wilco.
Roger wilco.
Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='IRHari']Why didn't we see statements like this being made when Bush kept increasing spending, despite the fact that we were also in debt at the time?
Oh wait...[/QUOTE]
Questions about the debt started being raised on the Republican side in roughly 2005 or so, when things really came to head to boil over in the wars. Between late 2001 and 2004, people in this country wanted blood and didn't care about it then. I'm not really surprised that you failed to counter that argument with a year the Democrats started questioning the debt in our country.
But of course, it's not just the debt. It's the value of the dollar as well. The more we spend, the more the value of the dollar decreases. Obamacare is not going to make matters any better if it's Constitutional or if everything but the Individual Mandate is ruled legal, it's going to cost A TON of money that the country simply can ever afford to pay.
Now I think the Individual Mandate is going to be ruled Unconstitutional because as you should know it's going to come down to Kennedy, who, in the past has ruled that there are limits on the Commerce Clause. How he does the rest of the bill is entirely up for political debate (BTW, it's going to be a Political Decision, don't kid yourself) and at that point we could have a serious problem on our hands.
Oh wait...[/QUOTE]
Questions about the debt started being raised on the Republican side in roughly 2005 or so, when things really came to head to boil over in the wars. Between late 2001 and 2004, people in this country wanted blood and didn't care about it then. I'm not really surprised that you failed to counter that argument with a year the Democrats started questioning the debt in our country.
But of course, it's not just the debt. It's the value of the dollar as well. The more we spend, the more the value of the dollar decreases. Obamacare is not going to make matters any better if it's Constitutional or if everything but the Individual Mandate is ruled legal, it's going to cost A TON of money that the country simply can ever afford to pay.
Now I think the Individual Mandate is going to be ruled Unconstitutional because as you should know it's going to come down to Kennedy, who, in the past has ruled that there are limits on the Commerce Clause. How he does the rest of the bill is entirely up for political debate (BTW, it's going to be a Political Decision, don't kid yourself) and at that point we could have a serious problem on our hands.
[quote name='KingBroly']Questions about the debt started being raised on the Republican side in roughly 2005 or so, when things really came to head to boil over in the wars. Between late 2001 and 2004, people in this country wanted blood and didn't care about it then. I'm not really surprised that you failed to counter that argument with a year the Democrats started questioning the debt in our country.
But of course, it's not just the debt. It's the value of the dollar as well. The more we spend, the more the value of the dollar decreases. Obamacare is not going to make matters any better if it's Constitutional or if everything but the Individual Mandate is ruled legal, it's going to cost A TON of money that the country simply can ever afford to pay.
Now I think the Individual Mandate is going to be ruled Unconstitutional because as you should know it's going to come down to Kennedy, who, in the past has ruled that there are limits on the Commerce Clause.But if it's ruled Constitutional, then guess what? Obama passed Communism.
[/QUOTE]
There ya go! I edited that comment back in for you.
But of course, it's not just the debt. It's the value of the dollar as well. The more we spend, the more the value of the dollar decreases. Obamacare is not going to make matters any better if it's Constitutional or if everything but the Individual Mandate is ruled legal, it's going to cost A TON of money that the country simply can ever afford to pay.
Now I think the Individual Mandate is going to be ruled Unconstitutional because as you should know it's going to come down to Kennedy, who, in the past has ruled that there are limits on the Commerce Clause.But if it's ruled Constitutional, then guess what? Obama passed Communism.
[/QUOTE]
There ya go! I edited that comment back in for you.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']There ya go! I edited that comment back in for you.[/QUOTE]
Ahahaha. Kind of a dick move, but funny.
Ahahaha. Kind of a dick move, but funny.
I should've clarified, where was the tea party when Bush was spending? The only counter i hear is 'yeah we were against TARP'. It completely ignores all the spending he did on massive tax cuts, massive defense spending, massive education spending, and a massive RX drug plan with no plan to control costs.
I did read something the other day where some people had did a survey of political opinions a few years ago (early 2000s I think) and then went back recently and interviewed the same people.
They did find that among those who are in the tea party now, you could predict that affiliation by using their responses to the earlier survey. So they had these views before, they just weren't organized into a movement. They where active though as one of the predictors is that they were more likely to have contacted their representatives than most of the rest of the sample.
It was in one of the major papers or news sites, so maybe a google search will pull it up.
They did find that among those who are in the tea party now, you could predict that affiliation by using their responses to the earlier survey. So they had these views before, they just weren't organized into a movement. They where active though as one of the predictors is that they were more likely to have contacted their representatives than most of the rest of the sample.
It was in one of the major papers or news sites, so maybe a google search will pull it up.
I think it's a tribal thing, that permeates both parties.
Liberals aren't as vocal under Obama as they were under Bush when it came to civil liberties, wars of choice. There's so much overlap between Bush and Obama policies yet you don't see the same amount of outrage from liberals now that you did back then.
Similarly, conservatives weren't very vocal (few exceptions, like Paulistinians) under Bush, not complaining about NCLB, Medicare Part D, his infringements of civil liberties. Talking to tea partiers and bringing up Bush, you wonder who ever approved of him at any point in his term. Conservatives didn't trust government at all when the big Satan aka Clinton was President. Suddenly we must trust our government to protect us from murslims.
That being said, progressive criticism of Obama is far more pervasive then 'tea party' criticism of Bush was.
Liberals aren't as vocal under Obama as they were under Bush when it came to civil liberties, wars of choice. There's so much overlap between Bush and Obama policies yet you don't see the same amount of outrage from liberals now that you did back then.
Similarly, conservatives weren't very vocal (few exceptions, like Paulistinians) under Bush, not complaining about NCLB, Medicare Part D, his infringements of civil liberties. Talking to tea partiers and bringing up Bush, you wonder who ever approved of him at any point in his term. Conservatives didn't trust government at all when the big Satan aka Clinton was President. Suddenly we must trust our government to protect us from murslims.
That being said, progressive criticism of Obama is far more pervasive then 'tea party' criticism of Bush was.
[quote name='NYT']It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.”[/QUOTE]
ohai irony
[quote name='NYT'] Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
[/QUOTE]Very interesting.
ohai irony
[quote name='NYT'] Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
[/QUOTE]Very interesting.
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=1&ref=teapartymovement[/QUOTE]
I think this just made my day.
I think this just made my day.
To clarify, I never claimed anything otherwise. It's painfully obvious that the Tea Party spun out of frustration with the Republican party's in ability to get things ("things" being stuff on the Tea Party agenda) done. TARP and the mass wins of Democrats (including the election of Obama) were very much catalysis in the entire movement - these two issues showed that the mainstream Republicans were out of touch with their roots (sensible fiscal spending - granted, some of us have known that for a long time...) and that the party was ripe for overhaul (mainstream America didn't want four more of Bush via McCain and crew).
The Republican party now finds itself struggling internally, with the old guard often clashing with the new kids, all while trying to keep a united front against the other guys (Democrats, of course). The question is, will the old guard win, keeping the party more of the same for years to come, will the new guys take over and transform the Republican party into the ideal "Tea Party" (without getting corrupted in the same style their predecessors did), or will enough Tea Party activists splinter off to create a viable third party?
The third option there is least likely - the only chance I see at having a viable third party would be a group that seriously wants to tackle government spending, without massive cuts to social programs and is willing to tackle social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, clearing the air on those once and for all. There's a rather large group of independents who like hearing the "fiscally sound" rhetoric that just get completely turned off by talk about banning same-sex marriage and such. If someone was to seriously cultivate these people, I think they could manage a viable third party.
The Republican party now finds itself struggling internally, with the old guard often clashing with the new kids, all while trying to keep a united front against the other guys (Democrats, of course). The question is, will the old guard win, keeping the party more of the same for years to come, will the new guys take over and transform the Republican party into the ideal "Tea Party" (without getting corrupted in the same style their predecessors did), or will enough Tea Party activists splinter off to create a viable third party?
The third option there is least likely - the only chance I see at having a viable third party would be a group that seriously wants to tackle government spending, without massive cuts to social programs and is willing to tackle social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, clearing the air on those once and for all. There's a rather large group of independents who like hearing the "fiscally sound" rhetoric that just get completely turned off by talk about banning same-sex marriage and such. If someone was to seriously cultivate these people, I think they could manage a viable third party.
[quote name='Clak']I linked to an study from Vanderbilt not long ago that said similar things. That tea partiers are like transformers, republicans in disguise.[/QUOTE]
That's never really been unclear. Who hasn't known from day 1 that the tea party wasn't simply the far right part of the republican base. The small government and very religious portion particularly?
I mean we've been a two party system for ages now, so pretty much anyone on the right was voting republican (other than some libertarians) and pretty much everyone on the left was voting democrat.
So it's just a sign of why we need more parties. At the least the Tea Party should be come a real party, and then we need a far left party for all of us frustrated with Obama and other center to right-leaning democrats.
That's never really been unclear. Who hasn't known from day 1 that the tea party wasn't simply the far right part of the republican base. The small government and very religious portion particularly?
I mean we've been a two party system for ages now, so pretty much anyone on the right was voting republican (other than some libertarians) and pretty much everyone on the left was voting democrat.
So it's just a sign of why we need more parties. At the least the Tea Party should be come a real party, and then we need a far left party for all of us frustrated with Obama and other center to right-leaning democrats.
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's never really been unclear. Who hasn't known from day 1 that the tea party wasn't simply the far right part of the republican base. The small government and very religious portion particularly?
I mean we've been a two party system for ages now, so pretty much anyone on the right was voting republican (other than some libertarians) and pretty much everyone on the left was voting democrat.[/quote]
Can we get a party that has the "small government" agenda without the "religious" portion please?
Communist and Socialist - take your pick.
I mean we've been a two party system for ages now, so pretty much anyone on the right was voting republican (other than some libertarians) and pretty much everyone on the left was voting democrat.[/quote]
Can we get a party that has the "small government" agenda without the "religious" portion please?
Communist and Socialist - take your pick.
Like I said, I don't think we've (liberals) ever not known that, but these folks have denied it the whole time. Acting like they're somehow smarter than the av-er-age republican. When the truth is that they're just the right of the right who got pissed off. Now like you said, we need the left's equivalent. Can't eb the socialist party because we'll all be labeled goose stepping nazis.
[quote name='Clak']Acting like they're somehow smarter than the av-er-age republican. When the truth is that they're just the right of the right who got pissed off.[/quote]
Why can't these two go hand-in-hand? People in the Republican party finally figured out that the folks they were electing to represent them weren't representing them... I'd say that's smarter than folks who keep electing the same people who don't represent them... (this sounds familiar)...
Maybe you should worry less about what you're labeled. Look at all the negative labels the left and the media attach to the Tea Party - yet, they keep on keepin' on.
Why can't these two go hand-in-hand? People in the Republican party finally figured out that the folks they were electing to represent them weren't representing them... I'd say that's smarter than folks who keep electing the same people who don't represent them... (this sounds familiar)...
Maybe you should worry less about what you're labeled. Look at all the negative labels the left and the media attach to the Tea Party - yet, they keep on keepin' on.
If you think for a minute that someone like Bachman, or any of these other jokers will be any different than Bush you're delusional.
Calling someone a teabagger is a far cry from pictures of people done up in nazi garb. And since here in the U.S. socialist = nazi and communist = Russians/Chinese, neither works. But then I don't really expect that you'd understand the difference anyhow.
Calling someone a teabagger is a far cry from pictures of people done up in nazi garb. And since here in the U.S. socialist = nazi and communist = Russians/Chinese, neither works. But then I don't really expect that you'd understand the difference anyhow.
[quote name='Clak']If you think for a minute that someone like Bachman, or any of these other jokers will be any different than Bush you're delusional.[/quote]
Did I say anything like that?
Yeah, because teabagger is the worst term used to describe members of the tea party...
Did I say anything like that?
Yeah, because teabagger is the worst term used to describe members of the tea party...
Yeah, the socialist/communist label won't fly because of the association people have to Nazi's, the Russians and Chinese etc. Silly, but that's the way it is.
It would have to have a new name so it just get slammed with new criticisms like the Tea Party has, rather than immediately having no legitimacy due to the negative image of socialism and communism from past decades in other countries (and currently in places like China).
It would have to have a new name so it just get slammed with new criticisms like the Tea Party has, rather than immediately having no legitimacy due to the negative image of socialism and communism from past decades in other countries (and currently in places like China).
So... you want to take a mixture of the ideas and philosophies of the Communist and Socialist parties, but you want none of the negativity that goes along with those parties?
I recall a conversation... "We need more politicians like Bernie Sanders!" "You mean self-admitted Socialists?" "No no no..."
I recall a conversation... "We need more politicians like Bernie Sanders!" "You mean self-admitted Socialists?" "No no no..."
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']a group that seriously wants to tackle government spending, without massive cuts to social programs[/QUOTE]
...is a group that should not be taken seriously. That's a group that wants candy for breakfast and a bathing suit body.
...is a group that should not be taken seriously. That's a group that wants candy for breakfast and a bathing suit body.
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you want to take a mixture of the ideas and philosophies of the Communist and Socialist parties, but you want none of the negativity that goes along with those parties?
[/QUOTE]
I want none of the negative stereotypes and misconceptions associated with those labels through the world wars and decades of propaganda through the cold war etc.
Throw those labels on them and the ideas will never get a remotely fair shake as they'll be disregarded due to bias against those labels. The ideas are hard enough to sell without trying to sell them explicitly under those labels. Call it something new and hopefully you can get more people to at least listen to the ideas and evaluate them on their merits rather than just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah, nah, nah, socialism, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah."
[/QUOTE]
I want none of the negative stereotypes and misconceptions associated with those labels through the world wars and decades of propaganda through the cold war etc.
Throw those labels on them and the ideas will never get a remotely fair shake as they'll be disregarded due to bias against those labels. The ideas are hard enough to sell without trying to sell them explicitly under those labels. Call it something new and hopefully you can get more people to at least listen to the ideas and evaluate them on their merits rather than just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah, nah, nah, socialism, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah."
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']...is a group that should not be taken seriously. That's a group that wants candy for breakfast and a bathing suit body.[/QUOTE]
You're right, Myke... out of control government spending is the only way to have sustainable social programs. What could possibly go wrong when you create a government that spends uncontrollably and a population that ends up depending on it...
For the sane individuals, it's more like a group that wants a well-rounded diet, with plenty of exercise and the bathing suit body.
You're right, Myke... out of control government spending is the only way to have sustainable social programs. What could possibly go wrong when you create a government that spends uncontrollably and a population that ends up depending on it...
For the sane individuals, it's more like a group that wants a well-rounded diet, with plenty of exercise and the bathing suit body.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I want none of the negative stereotypes and misconceptions associated with those labels through the world wars and decades of propaganda through the cold war etc.
Throw those labels on them and the ideas will never get a remotely fair shake as they'll be disregarded due to bias against those labels. The ideas are hard enough to sell without trying to sell them explicitly under those labels. Call it something new and hopefully you can get more people to at least listen to the ideas and evaluate them on their merits rather than just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah, nah, nah, socialism, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah."[/QUOTE]
Consider the fact shitards never bother to define Socialism or Communism. Either way being for the universal health care makes you a stalinist no more than being vegetatian makes you a Nazi.
Throw those labels on them and the ideas will never get a remotely fair shake as they'll be disregarded due to bias against those labels. The ideas are hard enough to sell without trying to sell them explicitly under those labels. Call it something new and hopefully you can get more people to at least listen to the ideas and evaluate them on their merits rather than just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah, nah, nah, socialism, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah."[/QUOTE]
Consider the fact shitards never bother to define Socialism or Communism. Either way being for the universal health care makes you a stalinist no more than being vegetatian makes you a Nazi.
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you want to take a mixture of the ideas and philosophies of the Communist and Socialist parties, but you want none of the negativity that goes along with those parties?
I recall a conversation... "We need more politicians like Bernie Sanders!" "You mean self-admitted Socialists?" "No no no..."[/QUOTE]
Who the
said that?
I recall a conversation... "We need more politicians like Bernie Sanders!" "You mean self-admitted Socialists?" "No no no..."[/QUOTE]
Who the
said that?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Tone down the rhetoric, folks. Leave our leafy greens out of this.
[quote name='UncleBob']You're right, Myke... out of control government spending is the only way to have sustainable social programs. What could possibly go wrong when you create a government that spends uncontrollably and a population that ends up depending on it...[/QUOTE]
Uh, isn't myke taking the centrist beltway view on this? Why are you trying to mock him for this? He's saying that people who want to control spending but don't want to touch Medicare, SS or Medicaid are frauds.
I'd be willing to bet they're more than willing to touch Medicaid, since it more than likely doesn't affect them. Socialism for me, none for you.
Uh, isn't myke taking the centrist beltway view on this? Why are you trying to mock him for this? He's saying that people who want to control spending but don't want to touch Medicare, SS or Medicaid are frauds.
I'd be willing to bet they're more than willing to touch Medicaid, since it more than likely doesn't affect them. Socialism for me, none for you.
[quote name='IRHari']Uh, isn't myke taking the centrist beltway view on this? [/QUOTE]
How is it, in any way whatsoever, "centrist" to say that individuals who want the government to get overall spending under control without massive cuts to social spending should be ignored?
A fiscally sound government with a reasonable, functioning, well-developed social safety net should be the "centrist" position.
How is it, in any way whatsoever, "centrist" to say that individuals who want the government to get overall spending under control without massive cuts to social spending should be ignored?
A fiscally sound government with a reasonable, functioning, well-developed social safety net should be the "centrist" position.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Centrist or not, I don't think "hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too" is a necessarily partisan thing to point out.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
[quote name='mykevermin']Centrist or not, I don't think "hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too" is a necessarily partisan thing to point out.
Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
So... if you don't think you can do both, which should our government do? Out of control spending with social programs? or controlled spending with little-to-no social programs?
Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
So... if you don't think you can do both, which should our government do? Out of control spending with social programs? or controlled spending with little-to-no social programs?
[quote name='Romis']funny how no one ever equates Healthcare is vital part of keeping the Workforce healthy & productive/generating revenues
Neither do they rant over current services already socialized: Police, Fire/Rescue, Government & Military[/QUOTE]
I just met you and I love you.
Neither do they rant over current services already socialized: Police, Fire/Rescue, Government & Military[/QUOTE]
I just met you and I love you.
[quote name='mykevermin'] Centrist or not, I don't think "hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too" is a necessarily partisan thing to point out.
Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
ing this. Poll after poll shows that people like the idea of 'cutting spending' but they never want to give up the shit that benefits them or that they like.
Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
ing this. Poll after poll shows that people like the idea of 'cutting spending' but they never want to give up the shit that benefits them or that they like.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']So... if you don't think you can do both, which should our government do? Out of control spending with social programs? or controlled spending with little-to-no social programs?[/QUOTE]
Because it's all or nothing.
Because it's all or nothing.
[quote name='IRHari']ing this. Poll after poll shows that people like the idea of 'cutting spending' but they never want to give up the shit that benefits them or that they like.[/QUOTE]
Of course - no one *wants* to give up stuff they like.
That's why we have a system in place that's supposed to prioritize the "needs" over the "wants".
[quote name='camoor']Because it's all or nothing.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I'm the one saying that we can have a fiscally sound government along side reasonable social spending.
Myke's the one saying we can't.
ing this. Poll after poll shows that people like the idea of 'cutting spending' but they never want to give up the shit that benefits them or that they like.[/QUOTE]Of course - no one *wants* to give up stuff they like.
That's why we have a system in place that's supposed to prioritize the "needs" over the "wants".
[quote name='camoor']Because it's all or nothing.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I'm the one saying that we can have a fiscally sound government along side reasonable social spending.
Myke's the one saying we can't.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob'] Hey, I'm the one saying that we can have a fiscally sound government along side reasonable social spending.[/QUOTE]
So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?
So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?
[quote name='IRHari']So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?[/QUOTE]
Since when to companies actually care about what our government says or even stay loyal to the nation that gave helped them get to be where they are? Most corporations only care about profits.
They have little problem with breaking laws and taking things to court/paying penalties if after all the conflict they still make money by not altering there actions
or they'll just move their business somewhere outside of US. but of course keep the managment office in the states
Since when to companies actually care about what our government says or even stay loyal to the nation that gave helped them get to be where they are? Most corporations only care about profits.
They have little problem with breaking laws and taking things to court/paying penalties if after all the conflict they still make money by not altering there actions
or they'll just move their business somewhere outside of US. but of course keep the managment office in the states
[quote name='IRHari']So Social Security and Medicare are things the government should do, but telling companies they can't discriminate against black people isn't?[/QUOTE]
Since when to companies actually care about what our government says or even stay loyal to the nation that gave helped them get to be where they are? Most corporations only care about profits.
They have little problem with breaking laws and taking things to court/paying penalties if after all the conflict they still make money by not altering there actions
or they'll just move their business somewhere outside of US. but of course keep the managment office in the states
[quote name='Msut77']I just met you and I love you.[/QUOTE]
hmmmm don't really know if your Ms. Msut or Mr. Msut so don't know whether your gesture is really Cool or kinda Creepy, lol
Since when to companies actually care about what our government says or even stay loyal to the nation that gave helped them get to be where they are? Most corporations only care about profits.
They have little problem with breaking laws and taking things to court/paying penalties if after all the conflict they still make money by not altering there actions
or they'll just move their business somewhere outside of US. but of course keep the managment office in the states
[quote name='Msut77']I just met you and I love you.[/QUOTE]
hmmmm don't really know if your Ms. Msut or Mr. Msut so don't know whether your gesture is really Cool or kinda Creepy, lol
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']That's why we have a system in place that's supposed to prioritize the "needs" over the "wants".[/quote]
Give us an example of this system in action. We _____ tax cuts for the wealthy, but we only _____ an extension of unemployment benefits in a period of slow-to-negative job growth and high unemployment.
Take your "want" and "need" and fill in the blanks in that sentence.
No, I said that people we can not cut spending to a balanced budget while having no impact on programs. Especially social programs, since those don't result in hifalutin' golf vacations or massive campaign contributions or bloated PACs.
Not until you recognize that the single greatest threat to our democracy is the political interests of the wealthy elite. We can cut spending by nationalizing all defense-related components of KBR or lockheed martin, because it is immoral to allow a company to have the size of its profit margin contingent upon whether or not we are in a state of war. If you want to cut spending and not impact social programs, you must slay the great beast of oligarchy. You want to go straight to the final boss, as it were.
The public is fickle; not only will we roll over and allow KBR to make billions in profit giving the same crusty, disgusting food loaves to our soldiers as well as our inmates, we will turn on each other very quickly. See how many of us reacted to new stories of insufficiently armored vehicles - and Rumsfeld's flippant "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" tale. We are incredulous that we would defund our military to any degree, and allow the military-industrial complex to move along, consuming more tax dollars in its wake.
When schools are so desperately underfunded, however, we assail the teachers for being greedy pigs and strip away their rights to negotiate the terms of their employment. Funny, that. Wants versus needs, as you said?
So we can cut, but substantive cuts that matter require a sudden onset of critical thinking skills and genuine introspection that will damn near overthrow our way of life and thinking about the nature of the world we live in. And not only do I typically think that's unlikely to happen, it certainly won't happen anytime soon - Fall tv series are set to debut soon. The revolution can wait.
Also, raise taxes on the wealthy, raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 35%.
Give us an example of this system in action. We _____ tax cuts for the wealthy, but we only _____ an extension of unemployment benefits in a period of slow-to-negative job growth and high unemployment.
Take your "want" and "need" and fill in the blanks in that sentence.
No, I said that people we can not cut spending to a balanced budget while having no impact on programs. Especially social programs, since those don't result in hifalutin' golf vacations or massive campaign contributions or bloated PACs.
Not until you recognize that the single greatest threat to our democracy is the political interests of the wealthy elite. We can cut spending by nationalizing all defense-related components of KBR or lockheed martin, because it is immoral to allow a company to have the size of its profit margin contingent upon whether or not we are in a state of war. If you want to cut spending and not impact social programs, you must slay the great beast of oligarchy. You want to go straight to the final boss, as it were.
The public is fickle; not only will we roll over and allow KBR to make billions in profit giving the same crusty, disgusting food loaves to our soldiers as well as our inmates, we will turn on each other very quickly. See how many of us reacted to new stories of insufficiently armored vehicles - and Rumsfeld's flippant "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" tale. We are incredulous that we would defund our military to any degree, and allow the military-industrial complex to move along, consuming more tax dollars in its wake.
When schools are so desperately underfunded, however, we assail the teachers for being greedy pigs and strip away their rights to negotiate the terms of their employment. Funny, that. Wants versus needs, as you said?
So we can cut, but substantive cuts that matter require a sudden onset of critical thinking skills and genuine introspection that will damn near overthrow our way of life and thinking about the nature of the world we live in. And not only do I typically think that's unlikely to happen, it certainly won't happen anytime soon - Fall tv series are set to debut soon. The revolution can wait.
Also, raise taxes on the wealthy, raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 35%.
[quote name='mykevermin']No, I said that people we can not cut spending to a balanced budget while having no impact on programs.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you said here, but this isn't what you said before. I said we want the government to seriously tackle the spending problem without making massive cuts to social programs.
You chimed in with a /witty/ remark with the implication that it isn't possible.
Now, you went on a huge rant about how it is possible, but that the people don't have the stomach for it.
Good Job.
I'm not sure what you said here, but this isn't what you said before. I said we want the government to seriously tackle the spending problem without making massive cuts to social programs.
You chimed in with a /witty/ remark with the implication that it isn't possible.
Now, you went on a huge rant about how it is possible, but that the people don't have the stomach for it.
Good Job.
[quote name='UncleBob']How is it, in any way whatsoever, "centrist" to say that individuals who want the government to get overall spending under control without massive cuts to social spending should be ignored?[/QUOTE]
I don't want people like that to be ignored or ridiculed, but they are, especially by the beltway DC media. When Democrats say let's tackle the deficit without hitting social programs the Joe Scarboroughs, Chris Wallaces, and David Gregorys of the world laugh them out of town.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Progressive House Caucus had a deficit plan that reduced the deficit without hitting social programs. It got close to no media coverage at all.
I don't want people like that to be ignored or ridiculed, but they are, especially by the beltway DC media. When Democrats say let's tackle the deficit without hitting social programs the Joe Scarboroughs, Chris Wallaces, and David Gregorys of the world laugh them out of town.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Progressive House Caucus had a deficit plan that reduced the deficit without hitting social programs. It got close to no media coverage at all.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
defense is a social program?
bread's done