Taxes are the current conservative excuse for their own personal failures. Its more PC then blaming Mexicans or African-Americans.
I look forward to paying more taxes in the future. It means I'm doing something right.
Taxes are the current conservative excuse for their own personal failures. Its more PC then blaming Mexicans or African-Americans.
I look forward to paying more taxes in the future. It means I'm doing something right.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
That is a good point, one that many here don't seem to suffer from judging from their devout devotion to their particular party dogma. I would say I have the same problem and I can't seem to reconcile some of my core beliefs with some new viewpoints I've acquired since studying the health care issue, in particular.
Then you have people here saying ridiculous things like "I look forward to paying more taxes, as it means I am doing something right" without any further qualification. Their fanatical and short-sighted worship of all things government is truly disturbing.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Amazing, isn't it? These guys are similar to the religious right in that government seems to be religion to them.
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Amazing, isn't it? These guys are similar to the religious right in that government seems to be religion to them.
Yep. I think once you leave the "moderate" zone of political ideology and shift left, government becomes a faith, because there certainly isn't any empirical evidence suggesting that your expectations are reasonable, and they depend upon a highly efficient, mobilized, intelligent government when ours is anything but (regardless of who's in power).
The problem as I see it isn't necessarily Republicans vs Democrats, but goes back to the talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk (on both sides). They spout so much bs and convince people the world is coming to an end based on a 2% increase in taxes. The problem is this is escalating and people have stopped listening. Prime example are the shoutdowns at the recent town hall meetings. These people aren't interested in debate, they want to stop the message completely. Another example is a lady who was interviewed after instigating a shoutdown, then admitted that she didn't even listen to the responses. That isn't debate. There was also the vet that spouted some jingoistic platitudes and never even acknowledged anything healthcare related and got resounding applause, again these people weren't interested in debate. As many have also pointed out time after time many just stick with their views and ignore any rational arguments. They bury themselves in echo chambers which only radicalizes their beliefs.
Fortunately I think these people are the vocal minority, so there may be hope.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
It is an excellent point. Within the bipartisan political system, parties takes great pains to define themselves in terms of the opposition: it is, after all, a two-horse race. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the posters on this section of the forum are all too willing to support such labelling, whereby, any idea or policy will be rejected, not on its own merits, but rather because it is deemed to be the product of "the other side". Certain members of the Democratic party are obviously more conservative than some of their Republican counterparts and vice versa. However, most voters pledge blind allegiance to a particular party, as is the case with most P&N posters. A little independent thought would be nice from time to time.
Are you serious? I don't look forwards to paying more taxes. I earn the money by performing a skilled job, and want to keep more of my money, instead of sending it off to the government to waste on whatever crap they want to. Will I get by just fine with post-tax income? Sure. Would I prefer to have more disposable income to put towards what I want? Absolutely. Who the hell wouldn't?
Look at what the government is spending on. We have military bases in about a dozen other countries, multiple wars, a huge clumsy bureaucracy, overblown welfare programs, et cetera, and you think we should be GLAD to pay more taxes? And even with what is paid in taxes, the government still goes over anyways, and just continues to do such?
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
The only thing I am not in agreement about is
Seems if we fix the degentrification, if you will, of our laborforce, wages should increase naturally closing the gap a tad. You're just never going to have complete equality in classes, not everybody can be the CEO, or VP. It's my opinion that the class system sets goals for people, which drives them to do better, competition. If there were no competition, if everyone were the same "class", where would the motivation be? What would anyone have to strive for? that's not just human nature, it's just nature. Somethings even mans posable thumbs can't change.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
There are far too many ex banned right wing trolls posting here to ever have any serious discussions any more. They should just call this Proxy & News.
You two have different definitions for "equal opportunity." I think the first step toward reconciliation would be to agree on the definitions.
I think this response answers the OP's question pretty well. Some people just hate the other side, and don't realize that they're looking in a mirror.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
How's that mirror working out for you?
Not owing fealty to any party, it's somewhat amusing to watch the two tribes of apes lining up to throw poo at each other.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
First of all, you obviously have never listened to the show. You are just repeating the party line like a good little minion. I don't understand how people can be so brainwashed to not only automatically accept what other people tell them to think, but to internalize it so much to the point where they fool themselves into believing things they know are false. It's like doublethink from 1984...
I'm confused, are you referring to the union/acorn thugs whom are bussed in from out of the district to fill up the town halls and boo/harass/assault local residents trying to ask their representatives legitimate questions?
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Here are my two major differences with the left.
1. There are times when I sincerely think they would be happy living in a benevolent dictatorship, if it worked towards their ends.
2. They have a completely separate group of virtues. They champion "change," "diversity," and "choice." All of these qualities mean nothing by themselves, needing a qualifier. Change "to what?" Diverse "how?" Choice "to do what?" Yet the left seems enraptured by the very mention of these nouns, and that confounds me.
1. There are times when I sincerely think they would be happy living in a benevolent dictatorship, if it worked towards their ends.
2. They have a completely separate group of virtues. They champion "change," "diversity," and "choice." All of these qualities mean nothing by themselves, needing a qualifier. Change "to what?" Diverse "how?" Choice "to do what?" Yet the left seems enraptured by the very mention of these nouns, and that confounds me.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
And the right seems like it'd be happy with a Mad Max style anarchy state as long as everyone got to own a gun.
The right champions religious and traditional values which put faith and adherence to dogma above logic, science and rational thought.
Of course I don't believe either of those things but that's the mirror to what you wrote.
You're wrong, I do occasionally listen the Rush, Laura Ingrahm as well as Glenn Beck to see what they have to say. I also occasionally listen to Air America. Both sides push out high levels of fud.
So go ahead and call me a minion and push me farther left. I actually considered myself a center moderate until the right wingers told me I was with them or against them then started throwing the Liberal tag as if it was a bad thing, until it finally stuck. A econ fiscal, socially moderate Army Veteran Liberal ... who would have thunk it.
edit: from the last part of your message I may have missed on some sarcasm ...
I don't think anyone is arguing that everyone should be in the same class or make the same wage, progressives just argue that at some point too much is too much and too little is too little. Money doesn't just buy consumables, it buys influence and power. A huge disparity between classes in wealth is also a huge disparity in power and self-determination.
This is not a new argument. I know many people here like to talk about the vision of the Founding Fathers, and if you read the entirety of their work, you get the impression they recognize what happens when a great disparity of wealth exists. This is partly shaped by their experience with Monarchy (which is basically just a system where a Monarch privately owns the land and rules the Kingdom) and also, especially in Jefferson's case, the condition of pre-Revolutionary France.
The problem also surfaces when one man can alter the market either by himself or via assets he controls. I'm going to throw out a complete hypothetical, but the average farm acre in Iowa is worth about $4,468. There are 36,014,080 acres in Iowa, giving an aggregate value of 160,910,909,440, or about 161 billion dollars. This may seem like a lot, but Bill Gates, according to Forbes, is worth about 40 billion dollars. Now, Bill Gates is earning a higher return on his money (Ricardian or H-O model, whichever you'd like to use) than the farmers, and thus his wealth will likely continue to grow faster than the wealth of the land.
Now, ignoring the fact that if Bill Gates tried to sell all of his stock he wouldn't get 40 billion in returns and that if he tried to buy a substantial portion of land, the price would increase (these are again, just matters of scale), what if 1/4 of the land in Iowa was for sale and Bill Gates purchased it all? And instead of farming, he decided to plow the crops to build a personal amusement park? This is his right, no? But this imposes a huge negative externality upon everyone else. Eliminating 1/4 of Iowa's corn supply would drastically alter the market, both in food staples and the price of fuel. Now, we might eventually recover from this shock, but many people would starve in the interim and it would take many resources to correct the problem (cut down forests, plant new crops). Or we'd have to reduce consumption and lower our standard of living.
Now, you might say that we'd simply grow new crops and the market would correct itself. True, this could happen, to an extent. But ultimately, we do live in a world of finite resources (extract the above example to a time when there is simply no more land left). Although people like to talk about the wealth pie as increasing, this is only true to an extent. The wealth pie really only represents the underlying resources and how they are distributed. If we are consuming all of the energy then the size of the wealth pie really does not matter, only the proportion you own. Is there a point where one individual or one group controls too much of the pie? Can they use this ownership to coerce you? You see where this is going. Must of us will always have someone ruling over us. Whether it be our representative government or a King, it does not matter. I would prefer to have a strong government that can hopefully prevent fiefdoms, even if that means they confiscate the wealth of would-be Princes. I would rather be ruled by an agency that at least obstensibly represents the body politic.
1. There are times when I sincerely think they would be happy living in a fascist dictatorship, if it worked towards their ends.
2. They have a completely separate group of virtues. They champion "tradition," "compliance," and "morals." All of these qualities mean nothing by themselves, needing a qualifier. Keeping "to what?" Complying "how?" Morals "to do what?" Yet the right seems enraptured by the very mention of these nouns, and that confounds me.
See how that works .....
You illustrated the problem better than you know. What you have in your mind as 'the left' is a caricature that doesn't exist and has never existed. You'll always be confounded so long as you're looking at an invented character that's been designed to be illogical.
You are correct Patranus. The right does have irreconcilable differences and many other defects too. Good that you noticed, many people on the right would not recognize their own faults and think everyone else shared them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter