Susan's Place Transgender Resources

This could be interesting.

For the most part I'd say I'm liberal to left.  However most of my fiscal views tend to old line Republican, what once upon a time were called East Coast Republicans before the right wing drove them all out of the party.

social liberal/fiscal conservative, no doubt.

I said social liberal/fiscal conservative. I am socially liberal in the sense that I believe that adults should be able to do whatever it is that they please without the government interfering and as long as nobody is being harmed. If some type of regulation on certain things is necessary (i.e. drugs) then fine. So I'm liberal there in that I don't believe that the "old culture" should result in government control over current behaviors and lifestyles. It is not the government's business how I dress, what I read, what I smoke, who I socialize with, the creed I follow, or how I spend my time.

As to fiscal, enough of these damn government programs! I believe in equal opportunity and the government should work hard to make sure that everyone who does try to get ahead at least gets equal opportunity. Aside from temporary assistance for people between jobs or in tight fixes or permanent assistance for people so totally disabled that they will never be able to provide for themselves, keep the government out of it. I'm sick of people sitting around and asking for handouts. We need a system of fair standards where people who want an education can get it and those who want a job can find one but what we don't need is people by the millions just lining up for government giveaways who have no intention of ever improving any aspect of their lives.

social liberal/fiscal liberal

---

Post Merge: May 27, 2009, 03:25:52 AM

---

We must understand that in current atmosphere liberal is word that is understood very negatively. So many caanot admit that they are ''two times'' liberals.

I do not care for society either liberal or conservative. Neither one is human.

I have to admit that in most areas I'd be seen as being a "raging liberal." Yet, not nearly in all. I have a huge problem tying myself to a label of any sort that seems to demand I take a particular position and maintain that through hell and high-water.

Ideologues are morons in my opinion, and they usually manage to prove that rather quickly when they begin to write or talk.

The one unchanging thing in human lives is that things change, as do the humans.

So, you're not likely to see me take a label willingly that will mean somewhere along the line I've given up my responsibility to
have a heart, be compassionate and reasonable, or am obliged to skewer anyone who violates my "ideological" sense by showing me exceptions to what I would have considered a "rule." 

Just sayin,' ya know, TS/TG boards are a great place to show the "truth" of that almost daily. :laugh:

I am a fiscal liberal .... logically middle class has to pay less taxes in cases they elect fiscal liberals not conservatives. 

One other person have only voted fiscal liberal. So are people really so scared about ''tax and spend''-liberals.

I agree with social conservatives on gay marriage is not necessery. But with liberals issues as  civil unions, non-discrimination and hate-crimes.

---

Post Merge: May 27, 2009, 08:45:59 AM

---

I really think that you cannot separete fiscal and social scale. In western society there is right and left and will be in the future too. This is too theoretical. I do not think that a fiscal conservative can be a social liberal. At least not in society where we currently live.

---

Post Merge: May 27, 2009, 03:24:56 PM

---

This speak for itself more than any other thing here!

Too far left to even vote on that poll.  If you read Parecon, by Micheal Albert, that's a pretty close example of my views.

QuoteI do not think that a fiscal conservative can be a social liberal. At least not in society where we currently live.

Hmmm.. since that's the way that most of us voted, it sounds like that's probably wrong.

[X] None of the above.

Interesting replies, thanks. My first poll, by the way I think ever.

The socially liberal/fiscal conservative response dosen't surprise me. Some of you might want to check out the Libertarian Party. Open acceptance of LBGT community in the Party Platform. Then again some of their "Free Market" policy scares even me and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the most "right wing" among us when it comes to such policy.

I personally think that alot of the Dem/GOP divide has todo with what people view as more important. A more socially liberal politics or a more fiscally conservative politics.

But Tekla is "right" about the current GOP. Some wack jobs have taken the Grand Old Party hostage in the past dozen to 15 years or so. That the GOP controlled Congress along with "W" started to spend like drunken sailors didn't help either. No offense to drunken sailors.

My motto: Do what ever the heck you pretty much want to do, just don't ask me to pay the tab at the end of the debauchery.

New Hampshire is way to cold for my tastes, but I borrow their State Motto: Live Free or Die.

Here all fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives.

Somebody seems to have mission to drive people away from Dems.  :(

Quote from: Mister on May 28, 2009, 12:27:45 PM
Hmmm.. since that's the way that most of us voted, it sounds like that's probably wrong.

Saves me from a long reply.

Goodbye.

Mich'

social liberal/fiscal conservative.  At one time I was very conservative in both areas.  But as I am out to myself an saw the world as it is I became a lot more liberal.  Fiscally still conservative because over spending by the governments have lead to the problems we are having now.

IMHO,
Janet

QuoteThen again some of their "Free Market" policy scares even me and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the most "right wing" among us when it comes to such policy.

Both parties are corporate supporters. It seems humans come second. We as a world population can not support corporations and the consumption life style. It is unfair to labor and promotes increases in population that will out strip resources. Free trade is only possible when the is a level playing field. That means equal wages and benefits for equal work. You also need equal working conditions and environment rules. Other wise it is a matter of who is willing to be a slave under the poorest conditions. The earth cannot possibly support 6.7 billion people living and using resources like the average American.

Well said Lisa.  We - and that's all of us - need to look at issues of sustainability and fairness.  It might be - or it just flat out is - necessary for those of us in the first world to do the hippie deal and "live simply so that others may simply live."  We've been at that point for a long time now. We can not give everyone in the world a 2000 sq foot house and a car and freeway to drive it on.  We can not continue to have huge amount of the population be overweight while others in the world die of malnutrition. And its not like they don't know what's happening.  We've happily beamed them our TV shows and movies for decades now and we wonder when they show up and try to get in illegally.  A few of us have traveled in some of the poorer sections of the world and if you have not been to them you can not even begin to imagine how bad it is.

Two previous answers give an answer why I voted ''fiscal liberal''.

But it has nothing to do with giving the State more money, it has everything to do with the little decisions we all make everyday.  Face it, most money given to the State is a total waste.

<=== Broken

Social Conservative, Fiscal Liberal

Only because there was no Social Moderate.

I dare to say that in the USA of today you cannot be Republican and support civil rights.

Quote from: DarkLady on June 02, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
I dare to say that in the USA of today you cannot be Republican and support civil rights.

I dare to say that you are totally misguided in that belief.

Quote from: michellesofl on May 31, 2009, 02:47:27 AM
But Tekla is "right" about the current GOP. Some wack jobs have taken the Grand Old Party hostage in the past dozen to 15 years or so. That the GOP controlled Congress along with "W" started to spend like drunken sailors didn't help either. No offense to drunken sailors.

Accusing them of spending and not point at the current White House is hypocritical.   

Obama's spending has scared my daughter to death, and then to hear it mentioned that they would like to institute a 25% sales tax in addition to the standard income tax - no frigging way. 

Daisy

QuoteObama's spending has scared my daughter to death, and then to hear it mentioned that they would like to institute a 25% sales tax in addition to the standard income tax - no frigging way. 

Look at it this way the products you are buying are made with 10 cents an hours labor. If they raised there wages to $10 and hour it would be more than a 25% sales tax. The motive here is to stop being wasting consumers and start being responsible.

Quote from: Nichole on June 02, 2009, 03:06:57 PM

Quote from: DarkLady on June 02, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
I dare to say that in the USA of today you cannot be Republican and support civil rights.

I dare to say that you are totally misguided in that belief.

Darklady - Making a statement like that does nothing, except enrage the Republicans that believe you can only be a Democrat if you have your hand in my wallet trying to take more and give it to ones you choose are less fortunate.

Nichole - I dare say that was excellent unexpected response.

Daisy

Blaming this mess on one side or the other is pretty much the second grade politics that got us into it in the first place.  Both sides spend, its a question of what they spend the money on.  Both sides are guilty of jacking up the size of government to levels that seems astronomical.  All are guilty of playing fast and loose with the facts. 

Quote from: lisagurl on June 02, 2009, 03:14:03 PM
Look at it this way the products you are buying are made with 10 cents an hours labor. If they raised there wages to $10 and hour it would be more than a 25% sales tax. The motive here is to stop being wasting consumers and start being responsible.

Okay a carton of milk cost $3.00 , and minimum wage is $6.55.   You work one hour but take home $5.30 after income taxes ( conservative estimate).  Then you go to buy your milk, and the final bill comes to $3.99 (Local, state, and Federal Sales tax), and then you have $1.31 left for an hours work to buy milk ( wasteful -- I do not think so).  Just better to have not... I guess.    Or do you think Minimum wage workers will get an ID card exempting them from the national sales tax...

Daisy

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Accusing them of spending and not point at the current White House is hypocritical.  

Obama's spending has scared my daughter to death, and then to hear it mentioned that they would like to institute a 25% sales tax in addition to the standard income tax - no frigging way. 

First after 130 days I'm not shocked that the Texas secede crew make that disingenuos argument. You lot were blaming Clinton for everything that occurred negatively during the Bush Admin.

Time now to see that Bush policies and procedures actually had an effect that takes far longer than 130 days to amend.

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 03:15:47 PM
Nichole - I dare say that was excellent unexpected response.

Daisy

And that's because you imagine you know me and that I am strictly as predictable as the Limbaugh/Savage group only as a liberal.

Lots of Pubs believe in civil rights. Party affiliation doesn't seem a litmus test in that regard.

Drink water. Daisy

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 03:23:21 PM
Okay a carton of milk cost $3.00 , and minimum wage is $6.55.   You work one hour but take home $5.30 after income taxes ( conservative estimate).  Then you go to buy your milk, and the final bill comes to $3.99 (Local, state, and Federal Sales tax), and then you have $1.31 left for an hours work to buy milk ( wasteful -- I do not think so).  Just better to have not... I guess.    Or do you think Minimum wage workers will get an ID card exempting them from the national sales tax...

Daisy

I've lived in five states.  None of them taxed unprepared food, including milk.

Here's CA's text on the exemption..

QuoteFOOD PRODUCTS — Sales of food for human consumption are generally exempt from tax unless sold in a heated condition (except hot bakery items or hot beverages, such as coffee, sold for a separate price), served as meals, consumed at or on the seller's facilities, ordinarily sold for consumption on or near the seller's parking facility, or sold for consumption where there is an admission charge.

Quote from: Mister on June 02, 2009, 03:36:27 PM
I've lived in five states.  None of them taxed unprepared food, including milk.

Here's CA's text on the exemption..

The 25 % national tax was stated to be for everything..  so I got the 8% wrong.

The point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the goverment to take out of every dollar you make? 
For the rich living off of inhertance - 
For the rich working - 
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable -

Or should it all be the same rate....

Daisy

I find it very hard to believe that there wouldn't be exemptions to the tax.  Things that are essential (i.e. food, medical treatment, etc.) would be very hard to tax without public outcry.  "OMG, they're taxing tea and sugar...   screw you, king george."  Whoops, sorry, wrong century.

Personally I believe in a flat tax, with no exemptions or deductions.  Added to that would be a sales tax with exemptions for food and rent and medicine/medical care. 

Quote from: Nichole on June 02, 2009, 03:24:41 PM
First after 130 days I'm not shocked that the Texas secede crew make that disingenuos argument. You lot were blaming Clinton for everything that occurred negatively during the Bush Admin.

Time now to see that Bush policies and procedures actually had an effect that takes far longer than 130 days to amend.

And that's because you imagine you know me and that I am strictly as predictable as the Limbaugh/Savage group only as a liberal.

Lots of Pubs believe in civil rights. Party affiliation doesn't seem a litmus test in that regard.

I was not trying to insult.  I was more than a bit impressed but that has been washed away.

QuoteYou lot were blaming Clinton for everything that occurred negatively during the Bush Admin.

How can you solve the spending problems of the BUSH era with spending at ginormous rates going on now.   This spending will last long past Obama's term of presidency (1 or 2), and our children will pay for it dearly.

QuoteDuring the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/23/obamas-federal-spending-spree-raises-management-issues/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/23/obamas-federal-spending-spree-raises-management-issues/)

Note: the war in IRAQ 100 million less than this over the whole 8 year period http://costofwar.com/ (http://costofwar.com/)

QuoteObama is not the anti-Bush. He is Bush on steroids.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aYgo3fufKIbI (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aYgo3fufKIbI)

And to be fair from MSNBC ( NBC and they are now known as the obama propoganda channel ):

QuoteThe budget outline also makes it plain that Democrats won't let a mountain of deficits and debt interfere with advancing Obama's ambitious but costly agenda.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcchicago.com%2Fnews%2Fus_world%2FSenate-OKs-Obamas-34-Trillion-Budget-Plan-.html&ei=E5IlSreiDoy9twen-b3YBg&rct=j&q=obama+spending+spree+nbc&usg=AFQjCNHuQVlIRFjihztdPGOjNCbtKPpYFg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcchicago.com%2Fnews%2Fus_world%2FSenate-OKs-Obamas-34-Trillion-Budget-Plan-.html&ei=E5IlSreiDoy9twen-b3YBg&rct=j&q=obama+spending+spree+nbc&usg=AFQjCNHuQVlIRFjihztdPGOjNCbtKPpYFg)


Daisy

---

Post Merge: June 02, 2009, 03:04:31 PM

---

Quote from: tekla on June 02, 2009, 03:51:09 PM
Personally I believe in a flat tax, with no exemptions or deductions.  Added to that would be a sales tax with exemptions for food and rent and medicine/medical care.

I am okay with:
1. a flat income tax (for all) or
2. a flat sales national tax (for all)

Daisy

Really, political stuff should be left to adults who can see the differences - or, more to the point, the NON differences - that are going on and going down.  So much of this left/right, pub/dem, liberal/conservative has been a careful smokescreen to conceal the real truth and who the real masters are.

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 04:01:48 PM
I was not trying to insult.  I was more than a bit impressed but that has been washed away.

O, I didn't think you were trying to insult. I believed you were surprised that people do not follow party-lines.  :)

As far as being "impressed" was concerned. I don't anticipate that from you to ever last very long anyhow., Daisy!  :laugh: :laugh:

I may as well tell what appears to be the truth in that case.

As for the rest, believe and think what you wish. "Our children" have been "paying for it" since the first Bank of the US and the Federalist plan to build the country on debt and bonds. This country was never, ever, based on "common people" ever being anything but common and working very hard to finance through their labor the needs of the wealthy.

To do otherwise would be to invite all sorts of terrible immoral activity due to the "common men" getting all sorts of silly notions in their heads! Can't have that, can we?

Besides, someone's gotta pay. Can't be the one's who "own" the deal, they need to "pass that on." Learn your capitalism.

With the possible exception of about one hour of the Eisenhower admin when Ike got realer than anyone wanted him to get, or thought he would, the government, including the so-called confederacy, always operated in the interest and for the purpose of furthering the interest of banks and industrialists.

About 1980 or so the Reagan-admin decided we could live without the industrialists. Ever since we have operated soley in the interest of the bank and financial markets.

Do I think Obama is gonna make a difference? Hell no! That ship sailed already, prolly the day he entered Harvard. Surely by the day he decided his financial policy would be in the hands of Geithner, Summers, et al. Notice that the Pubs have had no great anger about any of those policies thus far.

They'll use them in electoral politics, but they vote for them, now don't they?

Nichole

QuoteNote: the war in IRAQ 100 million less than this over the whole 8 year period

No it will cost trillions when you count the medical issues of all those who are having health problems.

Then why count? It is all an artificial value placed on life.  The facts tell both parties are corporate supporters and the common folks are slaves supporting their life styles. It does not matter much for the future will have reduced resources and reduced support for consumption.  Less to go around. So population will reduce itself one way or another. Those that are left will have to find new ways to happiness other than consumption.

Even though I started this thread, I think I am going to stand back and play Switzerland for the most part.

Then again that wouldn't be much fun.

Reading the replies thus far has proven one thing to me. "Wingnuts" have both a left and right "handle" to them. Theres one from each side posting here.

I didn't include foreign policy because that would have clouded the question up quite a bit.
Besides both Democratic and Republican administrations have initiated/prosecuted wars in the past.

Oh, Daisy.

Obama was the one to walk thru the door of current spending. However Bush certainly opened it for him.

Darklady.

Can you offer anything beyond a one sentence reply?

For costs on the Iraq war (not counting out year obligations) try this:
http://costofwar.com/ (http://costofwar.com/)

Currently, its about 863 billion (that's Billion with a B) dollars.

What the banks want, the banks get, no matter who is in the White House.  It was both the Pubs and Dems who passed the Personal Bankruptcy Act (which ought to have been called the GoodFellas Law, because the banks now are pretty much like those guys.)

But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fark you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fark you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? Fark you, pay me." *

They got all their bad paper taken away, without a penny of cost to them, and walk with the profits.  What are they doing with the bailout, buying out other banks of course.

It's so bad, its criminal.  Vito, Guido and Vinnie from Jersey never had it that good.

*Rent the movie, you're old enough to do that, just don't read the script, you aren't that old yet I guess.

and our grandchildrens, grandchildren will still be paying it all off.

nice Goodfellas ref. Tekla... I love that movie.

The game is as simple as it is old.  Smoke and mirrors like magicians.  Bread and Circuses like the Romans. 

Distraction.
Diversion.
Misdirection.

So let's get everybody worrying about Presidential ->-bleeped-<-s, or Gay Marriage or some other issues that effects two, or just a few, while stuff that impacts the many - well, we're much to busy to get into that.

Didn't make enough money to buy a new car?  Or, like me, gave up cars.  Congratulations.  You're about to buy one anyway.  On the up side, you won't have to take delivery.  Couldn't buy a house, or if you did you kept up with your payments?  Congratulations, you're about to buy houses for those who didn't.  Didn't want to risk playing the market, you made safe investments?  Guess what, you're about to buy all the bad paper you missed the first time around.

And who is going to be driving those new cars?  Taking the profit while losing the losses?  Buying their fourth multimillion dollar house while you can't even afford the one your in now?  Not me.

Tekla, the correct spelling of the expletive is, "F-R-A-K," (in the parlance of our times).

Personal Bankruptcy Act? That's nothing. It all stems from the aftermath of the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Marquette v. First of Omaha. That aftermath only really got rolling about 20 years later. Congress has consistently failed to correct the problem, and today credit card companies can charge rates that might tempt Paulie to leave his life of crime.

I choose to use FARK, after my favorite website.

Another thing -- it's the old saying, if I owe you $1000, that's your problem; if I owe you $100 billion, that's your problem. China, you hear that? Also, no, all that debt we're running up now will not be paid by our grandchildren. It will be paid by the Chinese and by all those responsible people with ample retirement accounts. That is, it will be mostly inflated away in the next couple decades. Frankly, as drastic and scary as it is, it's a lot less scary than doing what Japan did in the '90's, or what Hoover did in the early '30's. Okay, warn about excessive government debt, sure, but "excessive" means a different thing in a crisis than in times of prosperity. Running deficits during periods of low inflation and prosperity -- now that's just stupid. We can talk about it again when we get there.

Politics, religion and idiots all go in the same round basket  :P

Quoteand our grandchildrens, grandchildren will still be paying it all off

Look at the big picture. It is not the money, it is only a symbol. The whole U.S. could lose faith and go bankrupt. or they could change the currency like in third world countries. Only real objects would be worth trading. Our future generations are going to shape their world and not pay our debts there could be a revolution if things are bad enough or another world war and we all know where that will go. Not to mention the problems with the changing climate and pollution.

I don't think it was always this broken.  Somewhere along the line the scale became so vast, so sweeping and so interconnected that it all began to spin out of control.

Our national debt is now at, what, 11 trillion. Thats 11,000,000,000,000. Thats about $36,000 per man, woman, and child in the US.

and we haven't even begun to install a National Health Care System yet.

When does the Zimbabwe style inflation begin?

Well of all the proposed ideas for Nat. Health Care, the most obvious choice - Single Payer - is not even on the table.  Which does not give me much hope of getting a real health care policy through, but only something with more band-aids on a hemorrhage.

QuoteWhen does the Zimbabwe style inflation begin?

Is life about humans or money? Communities do not need money. People share and help each other a concept that government has forgotten. A concept that controls out of scale buying and selling, a concept that puts everyone on equal footing. We can not have out of control consumption or population growth. When the people say no to the worthless toys that the market and government shower us with things will change for the better. Propaganda has everyone thinking they can buy happiness.

No doubt, what a lot of this is - despite everyone thinking its not, hoping, praying its not - is the end of the shop till you drop consumer based lifestyle, and with it, all those things like random and endless use of automobiles, the suburban sprawl/WallMart consumption cycle, the useless jobs (middle management, consultants, administrators) the non-productive stuff.  And its going to go down real hard.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 03, 2009, 10:13:22 AMPropaganda has everyone thinking they can buy happiness.

Reality has made me come to believe that money can sure buy my way out of hunger, suffering and needs. It's the "wants" though that keep f'in with my mind.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 03, 2009, 11:28:54 AM
Reality has made me come to believe that money can sure buy my way out of hunger, suffering and needs. It's the "wants" though that keep f'in with my mind.

As someone who hasn't owned a television in over five years, it's amazing how much my 'wants' have decreased.  Give me a week of house sitting for a friend with a million channels of cable and no internet and all of a sudden, I'm recalculating my budget in my head and craving the food from every commercial I saw. 

Kill your TV and I guarantee you'll spend less $.

Simple way of managing your wants is to get a simple financing program and getting into the habit of filing in it every single spent and gained coin you make (Buddi for Windows, and Cashbox for mac are my personal favorites).. as soon as you start to "look" at every coin in and out, it becomes easier to see just how much money gets used up by pointless, impulse wants.
_

Back on topic, My political leanings are such..

I'm a democratic socialist who would be an anarchist communist, if I believed the system could work.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 02, 2009, 09:51:53 PM

Oh, Daisy.

Obama was the one to walk thru the door of current spending. However Bush certainly opened it for him.

I am willing to bet that each administration has exceeded the previous in spending... however it appears Obama wants to exceed the Bush 8 Years in his first.

I think Clinton spent less than the Reagan/BushI team did on the average.

Quote from: Nichole on June 02, 2009, 05:52:46 PM

As far as being "impressed" was concerned. I don't anticipate that from you to ever last very long anyhow., Daisy!  :laugh: :laugh:

Not sure I understand the animosity -- I was impressed we had common ground.  I respect everyone opinions on this board, but that does not mean I have to agree.  I have done nothing to you personally, except not see the current or past administration the way you do.   But this is America, and I do currently have the right of free speech, just as you do.

Daisy

---

Post Merge: June 03, 2009, 02:16:59 PM

---

Quote from: tekla on June 03, 2009, 02:12:07 PM
I think Clinton spent less than the Reagan/BushI team did on the average.

Maybe -- maybe not
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flibertyunbound.com%2Farchive%2F2004_11%2Fbradford-spending2.jpg&hash=b7cee30f18fc64c61457d26aa59bb1008a6116e9)
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/bradford-spending.html (http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/bradford-spending.html)

Quote from: daisybelle on June 03, 2009, 02:14:33 PM
But this is America, and I do currently have the right of free speech

I was under the impression that "this" is a forum, on the internet, where the forum owner is free to restrict your speech. ;)

Quote from: lisagurl on June 02, 2009, 03:26:01 PM
Drink water. Daisy

Think I need some sedatives too....

---

Post Merge: June 03, 2009, 01:27:52 PM

---

Quote from: Miniar on June 03, 2009, 02:18:55 PM
I was under the impression that "this" is a forum, on the internet, where the forum owner is free to restrict your speech. ;)

Seems to be this question was asked for "political leanings".   Or was it really meant to be "Hey any of you lefties make your self known".

Forum owner -- please slap my hands because the left side here is too closed minded to hear any of my spewing of anything conservative because it is offensive.... If you-yourself-the owner find any of the text here offensive.

Daisy


Asking again:
The point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the government to take out of every dollar you make?
For the rich living off of inhertance -
For the rich working -
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable -

Or should it all be the same rate....

Daisy

Looking at that bar graph, it looks like Reagan started spending like a drunk sailor, Clinton attempted to reduce it (and had good economics on his side, its not the spending as much as the deficit spending that hurts) till Newt&Co started the Contract on America.

And you're missing the Golden Years of Bush II, when that stuff really went up, if the numbers are even right, and I doubt that they are, as the real dollar amounts are often not recorded correctly, like fighting the Iraq War off the books so to speak.

Quote from: daisybelle on June 03, 2009, 02:21:26 PM
Asking again:
The point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the government to take out of every dollar you make?
For the rich living off of inhertance -
For the rich working -
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable -

Or should it all be the same rate....

Daisy

The "general" income tax up here, is 27% on every dollar you make "above" the non-taxxed minimum income. That means you can earn up to X tax free, but after that the income tax is 27%.

We used to have a "high income" tax which meant that people who were earning a lot more money and thus controlling a lot more of the resources had to pay a second tax which was relatively low but made their total tax be "approximately" the same as a 31% income tax.

The unemployable still pay the same tax on what they make over X as everyone else, but that X is there to make sure that they, and others who can not make enough money, aren't being shafted by the system.

I enjoy this system.
I think that what's best for the weakest of the citizens is what's best for the country for a number of reasons.
I like taxes, I like them because I like having roads, and plumbing, and trash collection, and police, and a fire department, and so on and so forth. I like taxes too because they mean that my sister, who's a single mother, won't loose her home, her son, her car, and everything else she can call "hers" if she so much as breaks a single bone in her body.
I like knowing that everyone is taken care of, even people who suffer physical and mental conditions that leave them unable to take care of themselves.

Everyone knows that mass social inequalities breed criminal activity.

QuoteReality has made me come to believe that money can sure buy my way out of hunger

Only if the farmer believes that your paper is worth something. The whole system works on beliefs. I have been in places where money is not any good.  A carton of cigarettes worked but not money.
 

QuoteThe point is -- How much do you think is acceptable for the government to take out of every dollar you make?
For the rich living off of inheritance -
For the rich working -
For the Middle class working -
For the Poor working -
For the Poor unemployed -
For the Unworkable

So you are saying one life is worth more than another? We each have a finite amount of time in this world. I do not think anyone else's is worth more than mine.

I think that what's best for the weakest of the citizens is what's best for the country for a number of reasons.

I don't even know where to begin with this one.  Seems like pitching to the lowest common denominator.

Quote from: daisybelle on June 02, 2009, 04:01:48 PM
...  I was more than a bit impressed but that has been washed away.

Quote from: Nichole on June 02, 2009, 05:52:46 PM
O, I didn't think you were trying to insult. I believed you were surprised that people do not follow party-lines.  :)

As far as being "impressed" was concerned. I don't anticipate that from you to ever last very long anyhow., Daisy!  :laugh: :laugh:

Quote from: daisybelle on June 03, 2009, 02:14:33 PM
Not sure I understand the animosity -- I was impressed we had common ground.  I respect everyone opinions on this board, but that does not mean I have to agree.  I have done nothing to you personally, except not see the current or past administration the way you do.   But this is America, and I do currently have the right of free speech, just as you do.

Daisy

Actually you said your impression had already "been washed away." I said, "I hadn't expected it to last for long anyway."

Sensitive much?

That I expect your being impressed that we have something in common not to last long?

What would make you think differently?

Next time I make some opine about Texas Secessionists (throwbacks?) or the inane conservative talking-points you trot out I would presume that any "impression" would immediately become negative. Would that be an incorrect presumption?

Now, if you want to think that you are being repressed, get in line with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and various other yahoos who believe "repression" to be what occurs anytime they are not in-charge of how most people think and act. :)

Oth, you might just realize that I thought that rather than being impressed you were surprised I didn't adhere to some lock-step "liberal position."

And it looks to me like that's exactly what had occurred from your comment quoted above.

You are allowed, of course, to say anything you wish on this site of a political nature. But, "animosity"?? I'm kinda perplexed where you come up with that notion, Daisy. I don't hold to most of your positions and find most of them both inane and extraordinarily disingenuous. But, I don't dislike or feel an animus toward you because your politics seems to me similar to Jefferson Davis' politics.

N~

I am first human before any ideology and do not take any ideology dogmatically. I do not believe that political ideologies should be only watched theoretically without understanding the deeper effect on society and people's lives. I am a fiscal liberal so I dare to critize neoliberalism when it is needed. The fact that socialism did not work does not mean that Reagan-Thatcher ideology of the free market is the only possibility. Sometimes goverment spending is justified and reduces need for more spending in the future.

Didn't Churchill say, "Capitalism by far isn't the best system, then again its way better than anything we've tried before."?

Both the US and Britain, especially Britain, did very well under Reagan/Thatcher eco. policies. Even helped to defeat the USSR.

As far as national debt goes. It took a loooong time to get here, it won't be solved overnight. Though I know it's not helping to add a good trillion or two to it either.

QuoteDidn't Churchill say, "Capitalism by far isn't the best system, then again its way better than anything we've tried before."?

Churchill cracks me up.  Sad, but true.

Churchill kicked a## back in his day.

Heres an interesting link, Bernake on the current debt and spending.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide)

---

Post Merge: June 03, 2009, 06:57:03 PM

---

Obama proposes a version of "single payer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul)

Add a minimum of 1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Yeah, but versus what cost now over the same amount of time?  Figures are relative.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 03, 2009, 06:48:26 PM
Churchill kicked a## back in his day.

Churchill wasn't particularly good at warfare. (Read some about his days in the Boer War and his masterminding of Gallipoli.

But sure as shootin' he wrote two excellently readable and artistic histories. He was an excellent stylist and a wonderful one to come up with pithy comments and acerbic observations.

He was an excellent PM when it came to rousing GB to resist the German invasion and ongoing airwar. He rallied the troops and was an inspirational war leader.

O, peacetime? Hmmm, not so hot in that regard. Seemed unable to allow his old-line conservative beliefs to wrap themselves around things like people having to work and make money to feed their kids or how to build or renew an economy in a whole 'nother world.

That would be why he was roundly rejected at the first pass after the war was over. The public just didn't find that his views of political economy were pertinent to Britain in 1946.

I'm sure if he could have run in USA we'd have prolly elected him until he finally dies.

But, Americans have never been adept at understanding their political interests if they weren't part of the "elites."

Now we know which nations Health Care system ours will be modeled on: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/jun/03/candadian-leader-stumps-for-obamacare/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/jun/03/candadian-leader-stumps-for-obamacare/)

Remember Nichole, the Conservative, Churchill came back for another term.

Quote from: Nichole on June 03, 2009, 04:18:23 PM


Actually you said your impression had already "been washed away." I said, "I hadn't expected it to last for long anyway."

Sensitive much?

That I expect your being impressed that we have something in common not to last long?

What would make you think differently?

Next time I make some opine about Texas Secessionists (throwbacks?) or the inane conservative talking-points you trot out I would presume that any "impression" would immediately become negative. Would that be an incorrect presumption?

Now, if you want to think that you are being repressed, get in line with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and various other yahoos who believe "repression" to be what occurs anytime they are not in-charge of how most people think and act. :)

Oth, you might just realize that I thought that rather than being impressed you were surprised I didn't adhere to some lock-step "liberal position."

And it looks to me like that's exactly what had occurred from your comment quoted above.

You are allowed, of course, to say anything you wish on this site of a political nature. But, "animosity"?? I'm kinda perplexed where you come up with that notion, Daisy. I don't hold to most of your positions and find most of them both inane and extraordinarily disingenuous. But, I don't dislike or feel an animus toward you because your politics seems to me similar to Jefferson Davis' politics.

N~

A bit cynical you think.   

I liken this this to a friend of my wife.   She is a complete tomboy - never cares for the frilly girl side. And that is okay in my book.  But she has her long distance boyfriend coming to town, so she let's say went the extra mile.  And looked pretty good.  I was impressed.   I said so.   The difference is she said thank you.

On the other hand you group me in with Texas secessionists etc.... hell in this website don't we have enough labels?   Whether you were correct or not is completely irrelevant.   The fact that your response was barbed is what I have a hard time understanding.

Whatever...

Daisy

---

Post Merge: June 04, 2009, 09:41:07 AM

---

Quote from: lisagurl on June 03, 2009, 03:25:04 PM

So you are saying one life is worth more than another? We each have a finite amount of time in this world. I do not think anyone else's is worth more than mine.

That was not the question...  The question was :  How much of every dollar of yours should be taxed?

How much of every dollar of yours should be taxed?

Oh that's kind of a knee jerk question unless you are also asking:
What is that money being used for?
Is everyone paying that rate, or only a few people?
Is there a better way to get that money, say fees, than just tax it?

I don't mind (though I don't like it either) paying taxes in so far as the money seems to go for things that provide for the common good - and is not wasted, frittered away, spend on pet projects or providing luxury accommodations for people working for the state.  I also don't mind in so far as we all pay them, and the burden does not fall on some groups much harder than on others.

QuoteThat was not the question...  The question was :  How much of every dollar of yours should be taxed?

No, the question is, "how much time of your life do you contribute to the community?"

And the conservative rallying cry is "NONE, my community ought to be contributing to me, damn it!"

But what is clear to me, and becoming clear to others I hope, is that those old notions, labels, and ideologies no longer work on either side.  The problems, issues, and challenges we face no longer fit into either the left or the right, liberal nor conservative seem to have any answers anymore.  Time and change have passed them by.

A few short decades ago conservatives were rallying that marriage was the foundation of society, the bedrock of civilization (such as it was), while liberals were decrying marriage as an oppressive institution and all it took to get both groups to do a total 180 was to try to extend that institution to more people and all of a sudden conservatives wanted less stability and less of a bedrock, and the oppressive nature of the institution was forgot by the liberal in an effort to, I guess, oppress even more people into it. 

In that debate - just to pick one glaring example - both groups forgot what they stood for, and both became pale copies of the other side.

In that debate - just to pick one glaring example - both groups forgot what they stood for, and both became pale copies of the other side.

Ha ha.... you are most correct Tekla.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 03, 2009, 09:49:09 AM
Our national debt is now at, what, 11 trillion. Thats 11,000,000,000,000. Thats about $36,000 per man, woman, and child in the US.

That's not really that much, historically speaking. It ought to be higher right now in order to fight the economic crisis, and it will be. Yes, it's good in general to have debt under control, but that's not a major problem right now at all.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)

Quote
and we haven't even begun to install a National Health Care System yet.

The question is, will you pay for health care through high taxes or through high deductions from your paycheck? The current system is profoundly inefficient, in large part because of the number of people who can't afford insurance, and so don't get preventive care, and default on their debts when something major comes up. So you get to pay one way or another.

Quote
When does the Zimbabwe style inflation begin?

When the party in control government takes over all the farms in America, kicks all the farmers out of the country (under threat of death), and hands over the land to cronies, leading to mass starvation.

Quote from: tekla on June 04, 2009, 09:50:18 AM
to go for things that provide for the common good - and is not wasted, frittered away, spend on pet projects or providing luxury accommodations for people working for the state. 

If you could guaranty that you should run for office...

Quote from: tekla on June 04, 2009, 09:50:18 AM
I also don't mind in so far as we all pay them, and the burden does not fall on some groups much harder than on others.

So are you saying Flat Tax equally or tiered???

Flat, as in a set percentage of income, all income, no matter how obtained.  The notion that someone who works for money should pay a higher rate on those earnings than someone who has acquired that money by clipping coupons on bonds, or in stock transfers, or though other cap gains is silly and counterproductive.  It was a law written for and by people who don't work.

I'd also abolish corporate income (but not property) taxes in exchange for giving up Southern Pacific Railroad vs. Santa Clara County, as I think that corporate taxes are simply passed on to the consumer.  If the system is working right, those profits revert to shareholders, and that income can be taxed at that intersection. 

I know, it puts H&R Block and all them people out of business, as a flat tax is so simple that it would not require in most cases complex laws and forms.

And I would establish a small sales tax (but not a VAT tax) with several exemptions (rent/housing - but only one house at a time - medical/medicine, tuition) as a way of taxing - at least in some small amount - income that comes from illegal (or off the book) sources and encouraging savings and investment as opposed to mindless consumption.


     to go for things that provide for the common good - and is not wasted, frittered away, spend on pet projects or providing luxury accommodations for people working for the state.

If you could guaranty that you should run for office...

If I could guarantee that, and ran for office I'd end up like Bobby Kennedy or Paul Wellstone.

At least I do not work here: http://gizmodo.com/5273192/canon-employees-are-forbidden-to-sit-down-walk-at-normal-pace (http://gizmodo.com/5273192/canon-employees-are-forbidden-to-sit-down-walk-at-normal-pace)

There is some truth to that - the story was in Fark this week and drew a lot of comments - one of the best bosses I ever had used to have staff meetings standing up as he thought it made everyone get to the point and then get back to work - as he put it 'we ain't making no dough for meeting'.  I myself have been known to tell people 'if you got time to lean, you got time to clean.'  The walking alarms are a bit much though, as is the whole 'save the world' part - if they went out of biz, the world would keep on spinning.

Quote from: tekla on June 03, 2009, 02:32:51 PM
Looking at that bar graph, it looks like Reagan started spending like a drunk sailor, Clinton attempted to reduce it (and had good economics on his side, its not the spending as much as the deficit spending that hurts) till Newt&Co started the Contract on America.

And you're missing the Golden Years of Bush II, when that stuff really went up, if the numbers are even right, and I doubt that they are, as the real dollar amounts are often not recorded correctly, like fighting the Iraq War off the books so to speak.

The most common mistake when arguing about the budget is that the most powerful institution re spending is the House of Representatives.

If they want to spend, they will. A president can't fight back if he wants to spend a lot of political capital, or, he can augment (as in Reagan's commitment to increase defense spending or Bush via the war) but an analysis that lays spending solely at the feet of the president is flawed.

I think that on the whole, the only time in recent decades we've seen actual fiscal restraint was the Gingrich Congress working with Clinton...and the GOP Congress forgot all that once Gingrich was pushed out.

Of course, it's a subjective judgment when "excess" spending is justified and when it isn't.

As far as the Original Question - I didn't vote. I'm a fiscal conservative, that part is easy (which contrary to the implications of some replies doesn't mean I'm one who rages against spending to aid those in need)

On social issues I was once a mostly social conservative (though troubled by some misplaced priorities) but I've evolved into a more libertarian view on social issues.

Except for his impractical (idealistic) views on foreign affairs, there was a lot I liked about Ron Paul's positions.

---

Post Merge: June 05, 2009, 01:58:23 PM

---

Quote from: michellesofl on June 03, 2009, 06:48:26 PM
Churchill kicked a## back in his day.

Heres an interesting link, Bernake on the current debt and spending.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide)

---

Post Merge: June 03, 2009, 06:57:03 PM

---

Obama proposes a version of "single payer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul)

Add a minimum of 1.5 trillion over 10 years.

It's good to keep in mind how VERY wrong previous estimates of what a new program would cost have been. Things always cost way more than the projections used to get them passed.

Oh no, I pretty much have open contempt for all of them.  True the House has - as they say - the 'power of the purse' but since the 1970s the power of Congress has been ever more limited as power drifted into the executive branch.  The Newt Gingrich House is light years away from the Sam Rayburn House in power, authority, and prestige much to all of our loss as a nation.

And, as it's the President who submits the budget and signs off on it - well, as they say, heavy lies the head that wears the crown and all.

and, of interest, this think piece on the Reagan years and how it began so much of the crap we're all waist (waste) deep in now.

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.

Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)


http://www.alternet.org/politics/140438/was_ronald_reagan_an_even_worse_president_than_george_w._bush/?page=entire (http://www.alternet.org/politics/140438/was_ronald_reagan_an_even_worse_president_than_george_w._bush/?page=entire)

QuoteAn economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.   That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Can't be made much simpler than that

I have no problem trying to help the unfortunate step up,  but they have to want to try.  And Society should take care of the ones who can not take care of themselves.   BUT -- What should we as a society do with the ones that take advantage of the situation?

Quote
Quote from: lisagurl on June 03, 2009, 04:25:04 pm
    So you are saying one life is worth more than another? We each have a finite amount of time in this world. I do not think anyone else's is worth more than mine.

Value is a perception.  If the item under evaluation is mine -- it is definitely worth more to me. 

But I do not make the statement that one life is worth more than another, it is what we do with our lives that make it have more value.  A couple of examples:

1. Mother Teresa - I think she would be high on the list very near the top.
2. Bill Gates - Gives an awfully obscene amount for charity , but built Microsoft off the work of others -- maybe lower (note the sarcasm).
3. Someone who does nothing for their community (although they could) except receive welfare, etc. -- lower still.

4. Someone who does everything they can for their community while on welfare, etc. -- pretty high.

Daisy

You should enter the morals thread.

Money is not the measure of people's worth either are grades. Or a diploma for that matter.  Gates did not earn one.

Values vary between cultures and individuals. Faith in the federal banking system will not produce more resources or make the value of people's lives greater. The balance between my value of my life and your value of my life is different and can not be measured in money or grades.  The greater the disparity of values the greater chance of unhappiness.

Hey, and I'm not even sure about Mother Theresa myself, she had great press, but she has many detractors who claim, among other things:

    * MT was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. In 1996, she worked to create a ban on divorce and remarriage as part of Ireland's state constitution (her side narrowly lost).

    * MT was a friend of poverty, not a friend of the poor. She considered suffering a gift from God, noting that "the suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." Hitchens notes that MT "spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

    * MT was a friend to "the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return), praising the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha and accepting funds from Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Loan fame."

    * MT did not use the millions she collected to make improvements to the rundown, primitive hospice in Calcutta that was "rudimentary, unscientific and miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do." This impoverished image of the facility was key to MT's fund-raising, but monies collected for this purpose were used instead to discourage birth control, abortion and sex education in undeveloped countries and to open 500 convents in 120 countries. However, when she got sick, MT preferred to be treated in modern clinics in California.
       
    * MT is used by the Religious Right and fundamentalist Protestants as a poster girl for the right-to-life wing in America. She was used as the example of Christian idealism and family values, of all things, by Ralph Reed - the front man of the Pat Robertson forces. That's a symptom of a wider problem Hitchens called "reverse ecumenicism," an opportunist alliance between extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants.
(compiled by Chris Hitchens - the underline is what bothers me the most about her)

Or a diploma for that matter.  Gates did not earn one.

True that, but people who use it as some sort of an "I don't need a formal education" deal are well to remember that though he did drop out of college, he did get INTO Harvard, not easy to do.

social liberal/fiscal conservative

Quote from: lisagurl on June 08, 2009, 05:03:05 PM
You should enter the morals thread.

Money is not the measure of people's worth either are grades. Or a diploma for that matter.  Gates did not earn one.

Values vary between cultures and individuals. Faith in the federal banking system will not produce more resources or make the value of people's lives greater. The balance between my value of my life and your value of my life is different and can not be measured in money or grades.  The greater the disparity of values the greater chance of unhappiness.

Just responding to your quote... I can honestly say this last one has me baffled.   I am not sure where you got grades or money out of my last quote.    I stated clearly " it is what we do with our lives that make it have more value". 

So I ask you what do you do to live your life to have more value?   I do a multitude a things, but could I do more?  Certainly. 

Just curious as you seem to avoid answering the How much out of every dollar should go to taxes?

Daisy

Just curious as you seem to avoid answering the How much out of every dollar should go to taxes?

Given the current state of the US economy it would be unrealistic for anyone to give an accurate long term tax rate. Be it either flat or progressive in nature.

If you want to debate short-term tax rates in a recession that would probably be a more effective line of discussion.

QuoteSo I ask you what do you do to live your life to have more value?

The whole concept of "more" is unsustainable. We should not even have money, as for taxes they are immoral,  as the concept that leaders can direct your contributions to the human race requires a person to degrade themselves.  You need to live on your own terms even if life itself is not of the greatest value. Our modern society seems to put life as the highest value which is a religious belief. In the past other ideals were put above life.

QuoteThe greater the disparity of values the greater chance of unhappiness.

The assumption that one society is good for all is not a good way to live. Bigger is not better.  Happiness comes from diversity and different cultures and different ways of living which are in conflict with each other.  Find your tribe and you will find happiness.  With one tribe no one is happy.

I'm a social progressive who is fiscally responsible.  I don't believe that our government should spend money unless they actually have it.  If we go to war, we assess every household an equal share to pay the bill as we incur expenses.  If we have a natural disaster, we do the same. We scale back government to match the funds that we dole out.

I also believe in a progressive tax rate. The wealthy use the majority of our infrastructure that we all pay for (the courts, communications, power, roads, security, etc).  For the forty years between FDR and Reagan, those earning more than 3.2 million dollars per year payed a very high tax rate for income earned over that number.  For that forty years, our middle class had a growth spurt never before experienced. Additionally, the ups and downs in the market were leveled. We didn't see the sorts of recessions we see now every 5 years or so.

On the social side, I believe in equal rights for everyone.... including US.  I see no valid arguments for any other point of view.

I also believe that the rights of "life and the pursuit of happiness" should now include health care. Yes, it should be a right of every citizen.  I think I might write a separate article on this.

Additionally, every citizen should receive a college education should they wish to pursue it and can maintain their grades. Why is it that we need to import so many engineers?  It's because we can no longer produce them here.  Listen.... if a prisoner serving a life sentence can get a college education at our expense, then we should be able to provide one to anyone else.

So where do we get the money for the social programs I support?  We go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. We start scaling back our military research. We start demanding some discipline and accountability in congressional spending.  The first step is to balance our budget and start paying down our national debt.  The interest alone we pay on our debt is in itself a crippling bill out of every year's budget. Let's pay it off.  Once these are done, and it is not an impossible task, we can provide important and critical social programs to our nation's health. We did it once in the 1940's...... we can do it again.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on June 09, 2009, 12:55:22 PM
I'm a social progressive who is fiscally responsible.  I don't believe that our government should spend money unless they actually have it.  If we go to war, we assess every household an equal share to pay the bill as we incur expenses.  If we have a natural disaster, we do the same. We scale back government to match the funds that we dole out.

I also believe in a progressive tax rate. The wealthy use the majority of our infrastructure that we all pay for (the courts, communications, power, roads, security, etc).  For the forty years between FDR and Reagan, those earning more than 3.2 million dollars per year payed a very high tax rate for income earned over that number.  For that forty years, our middle class had a growth spurt never before experienced. Additionally, the ups and downs in the market were leveled. We didn't see the sorts of recessions we see now every 5 years or so.

On the social side, I believe in equal rights for everyone.... including US.  I see no valid arguments for any other point of view.

I also believe that the rights of "life and the pursuit of happiness" should now include health care. Yes, it should be a right of every citizen.  I think I might write a separate article on this.

Additionally, every citizen should receive a college education should they wish to pursue it and can maintain their grades. Why is it that we need to import so many engineers?  It's because we can no longer produce them here.  Listen.... if a prisoner serving a life sentence can get a college education at our expense, then we should be able to provide one to anyone else.

So where do we get the money for the social programs I support?  We go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. We start scaling back our military research. We start demanding some discipline and accountability in congressional spending.  The first step is to balance our budget and start paying down our national debt.  The interest alone we pay on our debt is in itself a crippling bill out of every year's budget. Let's pay it off.  Once these are done, and it is not an impossible task, we can provide important and critical social programs to our nation's health. We did it once in the 1940's...... we can do it again.

Cindi

Well done, Cindy.

Ya know, I get the feeling that lots of folks have no idea what was made and what was furthered by the New Deal. And the most often ignored effect of it was that growth of the middle classes in US during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

And the most often ignored thing about that time was the 75% or so marginal tax rate for the very wealthy. And what was the result? Investment in people and the economy and a huge growth in allowing diverse folk to take part in America as equal citizens. I mean, it was the essence of what Reagan would call "trickle-down" as pretty much all boats were lifted by that tide and pretty much all boats sank under the Milton Friedman theory.


1980 was certainly a watershed and a very negative one for most Americans. Odd how so many of those who are cocnsistently comlaining that we have a "socialist" government do so during the past 30 or so years while they have as open a "free-market" free-for-all as the country's experienced since 1932.

Excellent post.

N~

Quote from: Cindi Jones on June 09, 2009, 12:55:22 PMSo where do we get the money for the social programs I support?  We go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. We start scaling back our military research. We start demanding some discipline and accountability in congressional spending.  The first step is to balance our budget and start paying down our national debt.  The interest alone we pay on our debt is in itself a crippling bill out of every year's budget. Let's pay it off.  Once these are done, and it is not an impossible task, we can provide important and critical social programs to our nation's health. We did it once in the 1940's...... we can do it again.

Cindi

Well, "we" did it in 1940 by making "our children" -- the Baby Boomers, to be precise, pay for it, at least the monetary part. So while I agree in general, and agree that running up huge debts isn't usually a great idea, balancing the budget isn't the first step; it's the last step. No country runs a balanced budget in wartime, and the U.S. certainly didn't in 1940-45, nor should it have, nor could it have, nor should we now in this time of serious economic crisis. Times like these are what all that fiscal discipline in flush years is for, which is why Reagan, Bush, and Bush, Jr. were such disastrous presidents (though 41 was a LOT better than 40 or 43). In two or three years, if the economic situation stablizes, then I'll definitely be on the same page.

Nichole, I have to say that, for me, 1980 was a watershed year as well, but in a good way, such a time of great changes in my life. Learning to speak and walk are skills that I have treasured ever since then. :laugh:

I dare to ask how much over-spending in the future can be avoided by smart spending today? And it is also enterily possibble to think that part of the conservatives love big taxes.  :)

I think the government should spend more on infrastructure, including road and rail. They should also throw more money into scientific research. I think that a successful, hi-tech economy is the only kind of population control necessary because it appears to be highly effective. My sympathies regarding the drug laws are torn between my disgust toward them in principle and my disgust toward the kind of people who use drugs; frankly, I despise drug addicts. In the West, religious adherence seems to be an inverse bellwhether for social prosperity: the more rabidly any given religion is exercised, the worse off a country normally is. I think the American Revolution was a mistake, and I believe we should make a go at getting into the Commonwealth of Nations; however, I won't get my hopes up. I think the prolifers and the greenpeacers were born for each other, and I hold both factions responsible for a long list of Things That Annoy Me.

If you asked me whether my politics are "right" or "left," I would say, "shut up, and ask me something specific." Also, I have a bad habit of expressing views that are well-founded but highly unpolitic: I do this to annoy the kinds of people who either stick their heads in the ground or lash out when they are forced to think too much, for it is very pleasurable to watch a stupid, little person turn purple in the face.

Social liberal/fiscal conservative was my vote.

I think it's highly unlikely, maybe even impossible, to have an "ideal" system.

Liberal all way :)

Sigma Prime wrote:

<quote>My sympathies regarding the drug laws are torn between my disgust toward them in principle and my disgust toward the kind of people who use drugs; frankly, I despise drug addicts. </quote>

Let me first say that the following anecdote is no commentary on your post..... it simply reminds me of my personal experience with bars.  When I lived in Utah, part of my coming out involved my first steps into a local public bar.  Since I grew up Mormon, it was something new to me.  The bars in Utah are dirty disgusting places.  Why do you ask?  Because that's where the "lowlifes" go to get drunk.  In my business travels, I had been to places that served alcohol but never a real bar.  I was surprised to find that there are many very nice bars that are legal that are considered acceptable in other states.  I have a hunch that if we were to legalize some of these drugs, we'd see something different than "lowlifes" strung out on the street.  We could save a lot of money too by reducing the prison populations.... and even tax the stuff.

Cindi

QuoteI have a hunch that if we were to legalize some of these drugs, we'd see something different than "lowlifes" strung out on the street.

OK, where would this larger number of lowlifes be strung out at. Not to mention the increased crime due to getting the money to buy the drugs and pay the taxes.

The first assumption is that someone is a "lowlife".  People rise to your expectations.  If you throw them into a ->-bleeped-<- hole, they will indeed be covered in ->-bleeped-<-.  Sorry to be so blunt.

If drugs were legal, the price would come down.... significantly.  Right now, it makes sense that people are willing to die for a chance to  make a million dollars. Would they be so willing if they only made 20?

Right now, addicts must steal to keep their habit.  But it has been shown that people can live a responsible life on a managed level of many narcotics.  Granted, you wouldn't want them driving school buses or operating metal lathes.  But they could certainly push papers somewhere. Lower the price, get them to a doctor for managed care, and then they might find work so that they can pay their own way.  No more stealing.  Are they still lowlifes?

And what of the corporate yippie yups who ARE strung out on legal prescription drugs and still pulling down 6 figures in salary?   Are they lowlifes?  You will never know because you don't see them.

From my original example.... in Utah, when I was a straight laced Mormon, someone who went to a bar was a drunk.  Out on the lawn at the white house, these days, sitting down to share a bear is considered a "teaching moment". Who is the lowlife?  My answer might be the observer.

Cindi

QuoteMy answer might be the observer.

A lowlife is not someone who uses drugs. A lowlife is someone that does not contribute to good of society. Being strung out means someone who does not have the ability to benefit mankind. People that are habitually strung out use methods that are not ethical to prolong their misery.

The notion that drugs = addiction is tragically wrong.  They are referred to as 'recreational drugs' for a reason, most of the people who use them, only use them on occasion.  Like drinking, sure there are lowlife bars, filled with drunks, but there are very high class nightclubs, bars and cafes that serve adult beverages also.  Going out to have a drink in SF does not mean you wind up at the 61 Club at the corner of Turk and Taylor, you could be going to the Cliff House, or the Top of the Mark, or the Starlight Club just as well.

Nobody is required to contribute anything to society. However, I think it is reasonable to expect that people don't detract or take from society either. Drugs are another example of where the government believes it should be interfering with and controlling people's private lives. As far as I'm concerned, people are sovereign individuals and if they want to kill themselves on heroin then that is fine. I hate to see it happen but as long as they aren't using my tax dollars to further their habit, aren't driving intoxicated, or committing crimes, then they should have the right to do what they want. Treat all drugs like alcohol and cigarettes: tax it and regulate it.

I don't believe that if drugs were legal tomorrow that suddenly everyone would be buying them. People who don't normally do drugs would not likely be interested. At the same time people who are using drugs may actually be less interested in them if they were legal due to the "reverse psychology" aspect of them currently being illegal. Regardless, it is not the government's job to tell adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies.

Quote from: Sigma Prime on July 01, 2009, 09:46:16 AM
frankly, I despise drug addicts.

Addiction is a disease. No one chooses to become an addict.
Hating drug addicts for their addiction makes about as much sense as hating a person with AIDS for having that.

QuoteNobody is required to contribute anything to society

On the contrary, freedom and liberty come with responsibilities. Perhaps there is not laws other than things like jury duty but how you are treated by society depends on what you do for it. Nothing is for free.

QuoteAddiction is a disease. No one chooses to become an addict.

Addiction is a choice. Being ignorant of the effects of drugs in not an excuse. Just as having unprotected sex is not an excuse. Now there are some people who have AIDS through no fault of their own but the majority live risky lifestyles just as someone who starts to smoke. With all the information and laws it is hard to not accept some of the responsibility.

Yeah addiction is a strange deal, you never know until its too late.  Most of the people I've been around can do things, have a drink or two, smoke some herb, do a line, and walk away from it.  Others, that first drink, hit, line - might as well have put a gun in their mouth and pulled the trigger. 

Like a lot of things in life, your rolling those laughing bones.

Quote from: lisagurl on August 03, 2009, 09:19:42 AMAddiction is a choice. Being ignorant of the effects of drugs in not an excuse. Just as having unprotected sex is not an excuse. Now there are some people who have AIDS through no fault of their own but the majority live risky lifestyles just as someone who starts to smoke. With all the information and laws it is hard to not accept some of the responsibility.

And obviously, everyone who get lung cancer from living in a smog filled city, are to blame for their own disease too.
And alcoholics who were addicted from the first beer they drank.
And people who break their legs skiing are also to blame for their injury, what with the risks being known.

Where do you draw the line?
No one chooses to break a leg skiing. Yet, people break their legs skiing quite often and so everyone who skis should know that there's a chance they could get injured doing so. Does that mean that the choice to ski is equivalent to the choice to break your own leg?

No one chooses addiction. That's a fallacy and a cruel one at that.

It's a bit like saying "Everything that happens to you is your own fault for participating in life!"

Quote"Everything that happens to you is your own fault for participating in life!"

Everything has its probability. All rational decisions are made with the thought of probability. If one out of 10,000 people a day break a leg skiing then that is your odds. You may want to have health insurance before you go skiing.

One in 800 births is Down syndrome. The odds of having a Down syndrome baby is good enough to be tested for and perhaps abort if it happens. It is also important to have health insurance before you have unprotected sex.

Participating in life has its risks. To be aware and prepared is only logical and rational. To do things on blind faith has its consequences so accept the cost.

Repeated exposure is required to foster addiction/dependence in the majority of cases.

Substance Use and Dependence Following First Time Use (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.htm)

This is where I am generally a conservative. I believe strongly in "personal responsibility." Addiction may not be a choice as chemicals can affect different people's bodies differently. However, it IS a choice when it comes down to what one decides to do about the addiction. Liberal thinking tends to be focused on the group mentality where people are more or less products of their environment and instead of blaming the individual for his or her failures, excuses are given such as "he came from a bad home."

Not everyone is dealt the same lucky cards but everyone gets to choose how well they play the hand they are dealt. I guess when it comes to substances I am a bit of a lucky one. I have tried just about every drug and never had negative effects from them other than maybe a bit of wasted time and money. The same can be said for non-drug activities such as watching TV or shopping. Moderation is the key. You are responsible for your choices, not your neighbor, family, or government. If you believe that you can't stop doing something (addiction) there are lots of private and government programs that will help you. Regardless, you are responsible for taking that step.

I believe that drugs and many other things (gambling, firearms, etc.) should be legal even if these things are seen as somewhat harmful. It is YOUR job to decide what is right for you--not the job of the government to "save you from yourself." I don't believe in forced safety. If you screw up your life, that is your problem and again there are resources to help you wake up and smell the coffee. If you screw up someone else's life (i.e. kill someone in a drunk driving accident) then we already have laws to put an end to that for awhile.

Another area where I guess I'm conservative is I don't believe a person is required to "contribute to society." I believe people should contribute but there is a large difference between what someone should and should not do and what they are required to do or not do. As long as someone is not draining society, they aren't really required to contribute either. Extreme liberal thinking means that all people are to come together, work together, build together and opting out isn't really an option. People who don't work and sit around all day may not appear to be contributing to society but every time they purchase something, 8% of their order goes to sales tax which is supposed to contribute to projects that benefit everyone.

Without going on further, my "political leanings" generally come down to "do whatever you please, contribute what you will, as long as you harm none." I guess it is somewhat libertarian.

QuoteIf you screw up your life, that is your problem and again there are resources to help you wake up and smell the coffee. If you screw up someone else's life (i.e. kill someone in a drunk driving accident) then we already have laws to put an end to that for awhile.

Then it is too late as an Innocent person is killed for no reason of their own.

People that do not contribute do not have the money to buy something and pay tax. Not to mention those drug deals and sex deals that are not paying income tax and FICA. Federal offenses.

It is no consolation to the dead person if the one who did it spends their life in jail.

I don't believe in forced safety.

Oh sure you do.  Otherwise there would be no speed limits, after all, don't I have the right to drive as fast as the car will let me?  Product safety?  Why bother?  You ate the tainted food, that was your choice.  You could have choose to eat something else.  You could have got it tested on your own if you were not sure. Why bother to test everything for everyone?  What a nanny idea. Why have liability laws at all, after all, things happen, so they happened to you.  Tough.

If guns only killed the people who were owning them, or carrying them, it might be a different deal, but such laws are written to protect everyone else from the fool who thinks they need to pack heat and pop off a few caps every time they feel a threat coming on.

And Lisa is right about the person being in jail being little comfort to the dead person, or to their family either.

Quote from: lisagurl on August 04, 2009, 10:01:01 AM
Then it is too late as an Innocent person is killed for no reason of their own.

People that do not contribute do not have the money to buy something and pay tax. Not to mention those drug deals and sex deals that are not paying income tax and FICA. Federal offenses.

It is no consolation to the dead person if the one who did it spends their life in jail.

This is why I believe that drugs and prostitution should be legal. The government can then regulate them and tax them. Of course, I don't believe in income tax for individuals either. Sales tax is an anonymous tax keeping the government out of one's business. Instead of having a 12% income tax on my pay check and an 8% tax on what I buy, get rid of the income tax and instead have a 20% sales tax. It is anonymous and you pay one tax, not a double tax where you are taxed with what you make followed by again with what you spend it on. Drugs would be bought and sold with a sales tax associated. Prostitutes would contribute tax because everytime they (or their clients) buy clothes, makeup, or whatever else, a percentage goes back in the tax pool. They could also require a service tax similar to restaurants. Just like a $20 meal would add $1.60 in tax to the bill, a prostitute charging $100 for a service would have to add an $8 fee to it. If this person is operating as an individual, no income tax and no government intrusion. If they run it as a corporation then it can be understood that if they make a net profit part of that is taxed.

I don't have a problem if someone is not contributing to society as long as they aren't taking away from society either. You have the freedom to be to yourself, live off of a pot of gold, and not really buy anything other than bare necessities. As long as you aren't going around committing crimes, the government should stay out of it.

As to innocent people being killed that is sad, but I don't believe in trading freedom for security. We could have a society where everyone's every move was so closely monitored and controlled that it would be very rare for someone to be killed by another. Unfortunately, 300 million people's freedoms would be sacrificed because of a mere fraction of a percent who would commit crimes. Rather than the government policing people's moves excessively before they even break the law which is essentially "thought crime," they simply need to be tough on crime. An example would be with guns. Having a gun in one's home could mean that at some future date they would kill someone with it but no one can prove that they would do something like that. They may just be using it for home defense, hunting, or target practice. Either way, the government should not be assuming people's actions for them unless there is strong probable cause which requires at least some type of evidence that a crime is about to be committed (i.e. the person owns a gun and has made threats to kill congressmen). However, if the person does use the gun illegally at some future date to commit murder, then you lock them away and throw away the key or you execute them. That won't bring the innocent person back but again I don't believe millions of people should be trading their freedoms over the actions of a few for a false sense of security.

---

Post Merge: August 05, 2009, 02:13:13 AM

---

Quote from: tekla on August 04, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
I don't believe in forced safety.

Oh sure you do.  Otherwise there would be no speed limits, after all, don't I have the right to drive as fast as the car will let me?  Product safety?  Why bother?  You ate the tainted food, that was your choice.  You could have choose to eat something else.  You could have got it tested on your own if you were not sure. Why bother to test everything for everyone?  What a nanny idea. Why have liability laws at all, after all, things happen, so they happened to you.  Tough.

If guns only killed the people who were owning them, or carrying them, it might be a different deal, but such laws are written to protect everyone else from the fool who thinks they need to pack heat and pop off a few caps every time they feel a threat coming on.

And Lisa is right about the person being in jail being little comfort to the dead person, or to their family either.

I would appreciate it if you would actually respond to my points without taking them out of context. Out-of-context quoting distorts what I am saying. Anybody could twist anything anybody said by merely grabbing quotes out of a book but if you want to understand the full meaning of what they are saying, you need to read it in entirety. It is a common tactic of media to do this to people to deliberately smear people's reputations. I'm hoping that discussion boards such as these can rise above the level of prime time TV tactics.

Here is the out of context snippet you based your response on:

QuoteI don't believe in forced safety.

Here is the actual material in context:

QuoteIt is YOUR job to decide what is right for you--not the job of the government to "save you from yourself." I don't believe in forced safety.

It is clear here that I am talking about forced safety against individuals to protect them from harming themselves. Your response is about safety so people don't harm each other. That was covered in this quote:

QuoteIf you screw up someone else's life (i.e. kill someone in a drunk driving accident) then we already have laws to put an end to that for awhile.

QuoteOh sure you do.  Otherwise there would be no speed limits, after all, don't I have the right to drive as fast as the car will let me?  Product safety?  Why bother?  You ate the tainted food, that was your choice.  You could have choose to eat something else.  You could have got it tested on your own if you were not sure. Why bother to test everything for everyone?  What a nanny idea. Why have liability laws at all, after all, things happen, so they happened to you.  Tough.

You are referring to laws regulating safety between individuals or between corporations and the public. That is different than regulating safety against yourself. If you choose to plant your own garden, bake your own cookies, and only you or your family are eating them, no safety mandates from the government are needed. If you are going into business and selling these to the public where thousands of people are impacted, then regulation should take place. Same with cars. If you own a huge lot with acres of land, since it is your private property you can drive your car all you want at any speed you want and if you crash it that is your problem. If you decide to take your car out onto public roads where thousands of other cars are, then obviously regulation should take place. That's the key difference.

QuoteIf guns only killed the people who were owning them, or carrying them, it might be a different deal, but such laws are written to protect everyone else from the fool who thinks they need to pack heat and pop off a few caps every time they feel a threat coming on.

This is a similar example to the above. I support regulation requiring safe handling and safe storage which we already have in many states. I don't support regulation that is based on "thought crime" where you have to practically have to sleep with the governor to even own a gun. Arizona for the most part has these laws along the lines I support. You can't carry a gun in a dangerous manner (i.e. waving it around or pointing it at people) and it is illegal to discharge firearms except in far off-road areas, regulated hunting grounds and ranges. Shooting someone when it is not self-defense is illegal as well. At the same time, no permit is required to carry a gun in public as long as the gun is visible and carried in a safe manner (i.e. a holster) and no registration is required to keep guns in the home. Owing and carrying guns in no way proves that the individual will misuse them or plans on doing so and the government should not be making decisions for people based on what they might do vs. what they are doing. The laws against murder and manslaughter work fairly well. We don't have bodies piling up on the streets everywhere. Unfortunately, there is always something tragic here or there that happens to someone but millions of people's freedoms should not be sacrificed because of a tiny fraction of incidents.

It really comes down to what you support more: freedom or security. I'd rather have people generally be allowed to do what they please with a few unfortunate tragedies than the masses turned into robots tucked safely into their beds at night.

Usually when fools take themselves out, they take others out with them.

And your wrong about gun laws, they vary from state to state, and are often different within the state as many urban areas have stricter controls.

The laws against murder and manslaughter work fairly well. We don't have bodies piling up on the streets everywhere. Unfortunately, there is always something tragic here or there that happens to someone but millions of people's freedoms should not be sacrificed because of a tiny fraction of incidents.

That's funny.  I'm cracking up.  Have you ever looked at the rates of gun deaths and shootings in the US vs. any other industrial nation?  Our murder/homicide rates vs. oh say Germany or France, or England.  We have a blood bath going on in this country, year in and year out, and out of those 30K deaths, about a steady 40% year in and year out are homicides.  Or, around 12K, vs. other industrial nations where such deaths are not in the tens of thousands, not in the thousands, not even in the hundreds, but in double and single digits.

QuoteOf course, I don't believe in income tax for individuals either. Sales tax is an anonymous tax keeping the government out of one's business. Instead of having a 12% income tax on my pay check and an 8% tax on what I buy, get rid of the income tax and instead have a 20% sales tax. It is anonymous and you pay one tax, not a double tax where you are taxed with what you make followed by again with what you spend it on.

On the surface, this sounds fair but it is not.  Let's suppose that I make $100,000 a year and you make $75,000 a year.  We will both spend about the same amount in food, gasoline, and most other items. Who gets the wrong end of that stick?  Now, assuming I make $100,000 and someone else is making a million.  Sure, they will spend more on food and clothing..... but ten times more?  Nope.

Additionally, if you have money, the things you buy and sell are taxed at extraordinarily low rates.  For example, if you buy a security, you pay nothing in sales tax.  And if you sell it under capital gains, you only pay 15 percent of the profit. 

So what we have with flat sales tax is that it is fair only if everything is taxed at the same rate. That would include real estatee and securities. Try getting that one through congress.

There really is no "fair" way to tax people.  There's always some little thing that doesn't seem fair to somebody else.  If you get a tax increase... then it's unfair.

I actually favor direct taxation to pay the bills.  So, we take the amount we spend every year, divide that by the number of everyone in the country, and assess that to each person.  So if you have a brood of kids, you pay more.  I'd pay much less in taxes and that seems fair to me.  ;)

Seriously, a progressive income tax, which I have paid stinging rates for most of my life, is the most equitable. I think that we actually should raise them significiantly. Capital gains taxes should also be increased.

Cindi

I haven't made my mind up on this issue.

What I like about a percentage is that it's inherently proportionate.  If everyone pays 10%, then the proportionate burden of contribution is the same.  This is often mentioned in "flat tax" proposals as a point of equity.

However, as Cindi points out, the price of commodities as a proportion of income is NOT relative.  Taxing higher earners at a higher rate, though, doesn't change the price:income ratio of the lower earner, it just swells government coffers from the higher earners.

What often happens then is a tangled web of cross-funding, banding, tax and relief, etc. in a (probably futile) attempt to find some kind of "median equity".

The only thing that does grate is when someone asserts that a higher earner is, by default, "luckier" and so should pay more.  I confess that I find the assertion rather offensive.   Luck had nothing to do with it.  It was hard work and intrinsic motivation, working up from entry level pay like anyone else.

Now if someone knocked on the door one morning and said "Surprise! Have a career, good salary, house and car!" then yeah, that's luck.  I don't see it happen often.

I don't believe in progressive taxes to equalize or socialize everyone's income. A flat tax does put the same burden on everyone. It is true that more of a poorer person's income will go to necessities while a richer person's income will be large enough that they have a larger cushion over their expenses. However, richer people also buy luxury items that poorer people cannot afford. Perhaps a progressive tax might make more sense only when it is applied as a sales tax, not an income tax. Stuff that everyone buys (food, clothing, etc.) could be taxed at a lower rate (7 or 8 percent) while jewelery, antiques, etc. would have a higher tax (10 or 11 percent). That is a thought and it might work better.

As to tekla's response on firearms, you still didn't accurately read what I say. Is this so freaking difficult? I clearly said the laws I was referring to were those in my home state (Arizona) and you seemed to think I was talking about laws in all states. Please read carefully.

As to other countries, research should be done to find out why the U.S. has such a high murder rate. I won't deny that easy access to guns probably plays a role but I doubt it is the only factor. I believe a bankrupt culture may also have a lot to do with it. The U.S. holds 25% of the world's inmates and has the highest prison population of any country in the world. Nearly 1 out of every 100 Americans are in jail or prison. A lot of those are non-violent crimes as well. I haven't been to Europe but it would be interesting to find out how similar or different the culture of those countries are from first-hand experience some day.

Either way, I don't believe in sacrificing freedom for security. The murder rate in the U.S. is high but it doesn't equate to a bloodbath as you describe. Iraq or Afghanistan may closer fit that description. A murder rate of 15,000 a year would mean that about 0.005% of people are murdered every year or 1 out of 20,000 people. That doesn't equate to "bodies piling up on the streets." Again, this is the classical freedom vs. security debate. People who prefer security want more government in their lives so that they can sleep comfortably at night and don't have to make their own decisions about their well-being. People who support freedom don't mind life having its risks as long as one truly gets to decide how they are going to live it.

Iraq and Afghanistan are war zones.  Is that really the comparison you want to make?  Cause I'll make it for you.  There are large areas of the United States that are war zones.  There have been 4 officer shootings in Oakland this year, one of them a guy with an AK took out four armed police officers, I'm not sure how I feel safer with people like that being armed.

As to other countries, research should be done to find out why the U.S. has such a high murder rate.  And its not just 'has', twas ever thus.  Its been a very violent nation from the start.  I bet people could name me more serial killers than Supreme Court justices.  (I'm pretty sure about this too, I would always poll my students when I was teaching.)  Perhaps we're just a very violent bunch.

As for Europe, they just don't have the guns, to begin with.  Nor do they have a prison-industrial complex like the US does.

Point taken.  But in terms of prison/jail/justice, a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping a lot of people in the 'system.'

Yeah, it's Obama's fault.

Quote from: tekla on August 06, 2009, 11:28:11 PM
Yeah, it's Obama's fault.

On this date in history...
The Democrat/left-leaning/Obama loving side of the board begins to wake up to reality. ;D

I'm blaming Obama for World War I today.

Y'all still got your heads partially in the sand, you thought this post was going to place your heads elsewhere.

Obama is obviously responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, the actual Roman Empire. Not the so-called "Holy" one.

ALL HAIL BARACK!!!

And hey, I'm not 'left leaning' I'm all the way over there.  I'm the one yelling "Hey dillweed, elections have consequences."

HA HA HA HA HA...

I have a health care take-over reform protest to fund/organize/script.

The best personal benefit to me... frequent flyer miles. The worst, so many damn flights!!

Oh flying is so horrible anymore I just can't stand to do it - take off your shoes, you can't carry anything on and if I check my tools I can bet they will not be there when I land.  Give me the train, even late, its ever so much more pleasant and civilized.

A couple of points here. First, as Tekla's comments on guns in the U.S., four police officers killed is tragic especially when it is in one city within a year but it still doesn't equate to "bodies piling up on the streets" or a "bloodbath." 99.9% of the time, the general public goes about their business without dealing with violent criminals. Also, California bans by law AK-47 rifles. That means that the criminal already broke gun laws before he committed murder. Like those gun laws did any good in your state. Here in Arizona, anyone who is not federally prohibited from buying a gun (felons, mentally ill, etc.) can purchase an AK-47 from a gun shop and leave with it that very day, no permit, no registration required. Guess how many shooting rampages this state has had recently? Zero.

Criminals start to realize that when laws make it easy for law-abiding citizens to carry that the stakes go up for them. If someone walks into a restaurant anywhere in Arizona to shoot up the place, chances are several other patrons will also be carrying guns and they will quickly put an end to the mayhem just barely after it starts. In California, where nobody can get a concealed carry permit unless they are very well connected and where virtually any type of useful firearm is illegal as they consider them "assault weapons," Californians can be sure that in public places that the only people carrying guns are criminals.

It may be true that gun control may work better in countries that haven't had guns around for a long time. In this country, however, there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation and the last time I checked statistics, there are over 80 million current American gun owners. You liberals cannot take away our guns no matter how hard you try. Additionally, it is in our Constitution that we have the right to keep and bear arms and the Supreme Court has ruled on this as well. If the government tried to ban firearms, the first house they knock on will be the next Waco, TX incident. Regardless, it is common sense that a free sovereign individual has the human right to self-defense and they have the right to protect their friends, family, loved ones, and innocents from harm. The Supreme Court has also ruled that law enforcement is under no obligation to protect you from criminals. That responsibility is yours.

Second, let's take a look at some comments here on Obama. While he hasn't been in office that long, most of his ideas and plans are very disturbing and are unconstitutional. His economic bailout plan for the most part has used our tax dollars to bail out failing businesses. Instead, he should let the businesses fail. They started the mess and they should pay the consequences. Instead, he could have used all of this tax money to go directly back to the people similar to Bush's $300-$600 checks. The sheer size of the bailout plan could have allowed much larger checks to go out such as in the $2,000-$5,000 range. This would stimulate the economy because consumers would spend and thereby help businesses who were having trouble, and they could pay back some of their credit card and other debts helping the banks become more solvent again. I also don't like these vouchers giving people credit to buy homes or cars. People need to understand that nothing is free. If you go and buy a car and get a $4,500 credit from the government, that means that part of MY paycheck is paying for YOUR car. That is socialism and it is stealing. Responsible people should not have to pay for irresponsible people's shortcomings.

He also has a man named John Holdren as the Department of Science and Technology chair. This man co-authored a book in the 70s promoting forced abortions, sterilization, and surgeries to control the world's population. Obama's healthcare plan includes mandatory signups and fines for people who don't register. He also supports mandatory community service for youths and young adults as part of the "Give Act." Just look at this man's endless grins and smug looks. He is an elitist who believes that you don't know what is best for you but that he sure does.

I have never asked for a freaking handout and never will. I would like to get a boob job some day and SRS may eventually be in my plans. But I will not stand in a government office and wait for their approval to do those things. I determine my life, not them. I can't afford those things now but I would sure save enough money to pay for those surgeries myself before I'd go living off the government dole. Nobody should be required to pay for anyone else's problems. I don't ask for handouts and likewise nobody should be asking me to take care of them. Everytime a person appeals to the government to take care of a personal problem, they are relying on other people to take care of them instead of doing it themselves. It is literally sacrificing freedom for the sake of a little bit of security. Obama may not publically announce it but it seems obvious that he desires to take over every aspect of our lives where individual liberty is a concept of the past. Likewise, anyone who comes knocking on my door to require me to turn in guns or other possessions that I had legally obtained, forces medical testing or treatment on me without my consent, or requires me to perform labor (slavery), it will be the last door they knock on. Enough said.

Amen Britney

QuoteEnough said.

Read "Theory of Justice " By John Rawls

Actually, the SC has ruled no such thing, but going back as far as 1840s ruled that the States have the ability to regulate weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not about the people totin' guns but about the rights of the States (the Constitution was a compact between the States and enacted by the States) to have a militia, which is how Iowa gets a fighter wing in case Nebraska decides to attack it with something other than the Big Red football team.

Obama's bail out of the financial institutions is an inherited deal, seems to me that Bush passed it to begin with, right?  And there was no way that any sane, senescent person was going to let the financial system of America fail on the scale that it was failing.  Perhaps all we're doing is slowing it down, but a slow crash is better than a fast one.  Sad to say, I don't think they had much of an option there and those bills passed with a huge bi-partisan level of support, so you can't blame it all on him.

Likewise, I don't see where its in the national interest to let our largest manufacturing industries turn into so much scrap metal, we need them for several reasons, not the least of which is defense. So, they have some middle class new car deal, at least those people are getting something for their tax dollars.  Its not a bad idea to get older cars off the road, if that's what's happening, and I'm not sure it is, but it is getting cars sold, and in turn gets more cars made, and though I'm not exactly thrilled - I'd much rather see them turning out mass transit, high speed mag-lev trains and other innovations that we are sorely lacking in - I do see a national need in making sure these facilities are kept in production.

And anyone who supported the Bush II term has a lot of damn gall taking about the executive branch acting in an unconstitutional manner. 

If the government tried to ban firearms, the first house they knock on will be the next Waco, TX incident.
Great analogy there, almost as good as comparing the death by gun figures to a war zone.  So, how did it turn out in Waco?  Did the good people in the Branch Davidian cult win?

Quote from: Nichole on August 07, 2009, 09:09:11 AM
Yeah, we all see now that Obama is to blame for sky-rocketed healthcare costs, the war and "recovery" in Iraq and pretty much everything else that's occurred in the world since, O, hell, let's just say 1917 when the German General Staff sent Lenin from Zuerich to St. Petersburg in a sealed train. :laugh:

O, my, how gloriously the sunlight beams!

Wrong yet again...  No Clinton is more to blame I believe....

In 1994 I paid around $200 a month for health insurance as a self paid insurer.   By 1999 under CLinton that price had risen to $975 a month.   That is an increase of 488%.    Under Bush, it actually dropped a little.  I know it is still expensive, but who should I point the finger at?

Note $975 a month is $11700 a year.   So as a resourceful  Information Technology consultant,  if I made the following:

Salary                           85000
Employer Paid FICA               5270    -- Self emplyed people pay as the double ( once as the Employer and as the Employee)
Employee Paid FICA   5270
Medicare                             2465
Unemployment                2295
Health Insurance              15300
FIT                           17056
   
Total of withholdings & health   47656

What is left over   37344

Do we really want our taxes & health to be in excess of 50%?

D

QuoteDo we really want our taxes & health to be in excess of 50%?

During that time I made twice as much as you and paid less than half of what you paid. I think you need a better tax accountant.

Quote from: tekla on August 09, 2009, 01:42:31 PM
Actually, the SC has ruled no such thing, but going back as far as 1840s ruled that the States have the ability to regulate weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not about the people totin' guns but about the rights of the States (the Constitution was a compact between the States and enacted by the States) to have a militia, which is how Iowa gets a fighter wing in case Nebraska decides to attack it with something other than the Big Red football team.

Obama's bail out of the financial institutions is an inherited deal, seems to me that Bush passed it to begin with, right?  And there was no way that any sane, senescent person was going to let the financial system of America fail on the scale that it was failing.  Perhaps all we're doing is slowing it down, but a slow crash is better than a fast one.  Sad to say, I don't think they had much of an option there and those bills passed with a huge bi-partisan level of support, so you can't blame it all on him.

Likewise, I don't see where its in the national interest to let our largest manufacturing industries turn into so much scrap metal, we need them for several reasons, not the least of which is defense. So, they have some middle class new car deal, at least those people are getting something for their tax dollars.  Its not a bad idea to get older cars off the road, if that's what's happening, and I'm not sure it is, but it is getting cars sold, and in turn gets more cars made, and though I'm not exactly thrilled - I'd much rather see them turning out mass transit, high speed mag-lev trains and other innovations that we are sorely lacking in - I do see a national need in making sure these facilities are kept in production.

And anyone who supported the Bush II term has a lot of damn gall taking about the executive branch acting in an unconstitutional manner. 

If the government tried to ban firearms, the first house they knock on will be the next Waco, TX incident.
Great analogy there, almost as good as comparing the death by gun figures to a war zone.  So, how did it turn out in Waco?  Did the good people in the Branch Davidian cult win?

The financial situation for Sub-Prime mortgages started under Clinton.

The Branch Davidian affair was under Clinton.

Osama's capture or takeout was failed under CLinton - multiple times.

I will be the first to admit we sacrificed some freedoms under Bush, but only as to protect our country as a whole.  What is the value of the lives saved from subsequent attacks after September 11 2001?   Of those freedoms can you specifically name one that impacted the average US citizen as a whole?

D

Britney -- RIGHT ON!!!  :icon_dance: :icon_dance: :icon_dance: :icon_dance: :icon_dance: :icon_dance:

---

Post Merge: August 10, 2009, 02:22:35 PM

---

Quote from: lisagurl on August 10, 2009, 02:08:29 PM
During that time I made twice as much as you and paid less than half of what you paid. I think you need a better tax accountant.

Oh but there were deductions.  But isn't that kind of the point....  If I deduct everything possible, and I end up paying a significant amount less, then is that fair?   Is it fair because I have the ability to pay for deductions to say only end up paying $5000 total in taxes?  Note I would still have to pay the health amount.

D

QuoteIf I deduct everything possible, and I end up paying a significant amount less, then is that fair?

Yes, the government does not have the power to control your life but it does reward and punish people through taxes for not living and having the life style they expect. Big business lobbies the law makers to give them the advantage. That is the main reason for high cost of health care and insurance. It is not parties but the whole of congress that feeds from the corporate trough. Unless we control the way campaigns are funded we will be taken to the cleaners by big business.

tekla:

QuoteActually, the SC has ruled no such thing, but going back as far as 1840s ruled that the States have the ability to regulate weapons.

Yes, they did:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/26/nation/na-scotus27 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/26/nation/na-scotus27)

Just a bit over a year ago, a case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court over D.C.'s handgun ban. The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to the people, not a state militia. The ruling now requires that D.C. allows people to keep handguns in their home and also struck down a law requiring trigger locks on guns or that they remain disassembled while in the home. I expect that similar challenges will be filed in Chicago, IL as well. Regardless of the Federal ruling, the state I live in (Arizona) also has it in our own state constitution that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The ruling left the door open to regulate weapons. Obviously, there is a difference between regulating weapons and outright banning them. Without proper checks and balances on the government, however, so-called regulation can in turn translate into banning. Many counties in New York and California will not issue concealed carry permits to anyone except the wealthy, famous, and most connected. As these are "may issue" states leaving it up to the discretion of judges or police chiefs, in practice those judges can allow no one to have a permit even though the law provides a procedure for getting one. More states have adopted "shall issue" to avoid this problem. That means that as long as anybody passes the requirements which usually consist of a training class, a background check, and fingerprints, the permit is issued. This process prevents a whole lot of unnecessary discrimination (i.e. your personal appearance could get you denied a permit).

It is therefore important that any regulation the government puts on what individuals can and cannot own or how they can or cannot utilize what they own be done in a fair manner. This article quoted a statement from one of the opposing court justices and Obama also had a similar statement at one time demonstrating an elitist attitude towards guns. The phrase used here is "keeping guns out of crime-ridden urban areas." This is an example of where government regulation would be inherently biased against the poor and minorities.

Wealthy people live in suburbs where they can afford gated lots, sophisticated alarm systems, armed guards, and can count on a more active and responsive police department. These areas are low-crime anyway for the most part so they don't necessarily need a lot of guns anyway when they have all of these other safeguards. Common sense says that if a person lives in a "crime-infested urban area" the first thing they need is a gun. They don't have the privilege of police being there on a minute's notice, they can't trust their neighbors (who are probably criminals themselves), and there is no way they could afford guards or alarm systems that wealthy people could. They could probably afford a cheap gun, however.

This is why I have always felt that the "gun control" mentality really isn't about guns at all, it is about control. If it was about guns, they would control them equally meaning that if a poor person couldn't have one on the south side, then a rich person in the foothills also couldn't have an armed bodyguard. As long as these people support this double standard, it proves that the real goal is control over individual freedom. They can then replace "gun" with "gold" or "car" or "sex" and come up with another set of reasons why such and such should now be controlled and regulated.

Just to answer the initial question...

I did not vote in the poll.  The words have no meaning except in context.

I strive to be an Odonian, even if Odonianism is incompatible with reality -- for an explanation, try Ursula K. LeGuin, The Dispossessed.  Down With Profiteers!

Reality will catchup to you some day.

Quote from: lisagurl on May 31, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Both parties are corporate supporters. It seems humans come second. We as a world population can not support corporations and the consumption life style. It is unfair to labor and promotes increases in population that will out strip resources. Free trade is only possible when the is a level playing field. That means equal wages and benefits for equal work. You also need equal working conditions and environment rules. Other wise it is a matter of who is willing to be a slave under the poorest conditions. The earth cannot possibly support 6.7 billion people living and using resources like the average American.

It is a big problem, Lisa. What's needed is a genuine third party that puts people FIRST. Also need a media that gets no corporate backing or government funding.

Gennee

If such a party is founded, then few will hear of it, because even printing out local fliers from your personal printer costs money...

My personal leanings politically are hardcore liberal/neo-conservative (liberal in civil rights and very collectivist economically), but in my actual political beliefs I am very much and independent moderate. I think the presidential candidate I liked the best was Mitt Romney, at least in retrospect. But I don't trust either party at all, Democrat or Republican. I see both as being major threats to our freedoms, but in different ways. And all politicians are F***wads in my opinion.

Speaking of guns, while I personally hate guns, I do NOT want that right taken away. Biggest reason, I don't like the Bill of Rights getting f***ed with. But I don't see guns being taken away as solving anything, especially in the short term. (Please don't take this as me being callous. I love EVERYONE, and want no harm to come to them in anyway) It seems the people that are hurt most by guns are those that are doing the hurting to others who themselves are hurting others, mostly criminals, so it seems the only person that would be hurt by taking them away is those who take care of them. Criminals aren't going to get rid of their guns, and it just creates a new black market for their sale. If we could get rid of guns entirely, super, but this doesn't seem likely.
And in my opinion, the biggest threat to gun rights comes from the "right". Imagine the day when in order to get a gun you have to "prove" your patriotism to "America", because "un-American people don't deserve constitutional rights anyways". So, fascism could be instated, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting rid of guns, because the people with the guns would be for the fascist government anyways. But people on the right would never see such a scenario, because they have a tendency to be unintelligent rednecks...(and people on the left are crazy tree hugging hippies).

Quote from: bigrift on August 26, 2009, 02:21:32 AM
My personal leanings politically are hardcore liberal/neo-conservative (liberal in civil rights and very collectivist economically), but in my actual political beliefs I am very much and independent moderate. I think the presidential candidate I liked the best was Mitt Romney, at least in retrospect. But I don't trust either party at all, Democrat or Republican. I see both as being major threats to our freedoms, but in different ways. And all politicians are F***wads in my opinion.

Speaking of guns, while I personally hate guns, I do NOT want that right taken away. Biggest reason, I don't like the Bill of Rights getting f***ed with. But I don't see guns being taken away as solving anything, especially in the short term. (Please don't take this as me being callous. I love EVERYONE, and want no harm to come to them in anyway) It seems the people that are hurt most by guns are those that are doing the hurting to others who themselves are hurting others, mostly criminals, so it seems the only person that would be hurt by taking them away is those who take care of them. Criminals aren't going to get rid of their guns, and it just creates a new black market for their sale. If we could get rid of guns entirely, super, but this doesn't seem likely.
And in my opinion, the biggest threat to gun rights comes from the "right". Imagine the day when in order to get a gun you have to "prove" your patriotism to "America", because "un-American people don't deserve constitutional rights anyways". So, fascism could be instated, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting rid of guns, because the people with the guns would be for the fascist government anyways. But people on the right would never see such a scenario, because they have a tendency to be unintelligent rednecks...(and people on the left are crazy tree hugging hippies).

So are you saying the majority of voters are more interested in the price of their vice ( Bud-light or weed ) than the price of your healthcare?

I believe there are a few on the right that are intelligent, and some lefty's that would not necessarily be considered a hippie.   Labels suck...

FYI - I do not own a gun.  I prefer deterrence.  I have four dogs in my house that would intimidate any would be prowler.

However I do not want that right to own a gun to be taken away.

D

Hippies were, and still tend to be, apolitical.