New Title: Staunch liberal admits to being lifelong Conservative Republican

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The only chest thumping of that nature has come from the "blue" states all these years. "Keep your hands off my pile!", "Quit leeching off of us!", "Backwoods hillbillies would be lost without us!"... when in actuality, that very argument goes against just about every other tax argument the left wants to make.

As I pointed out... the left wants nothing more than to increase taxes on the rich. To do so would disproportionately affect the tax dollars paid-in by "blue" states, since more corporations and higher concentrations of affluent personnel reside in those areas. The end result would be an even greater skew in the amount of taxes paid-in versus the return, all else being equal.

It's redistribution of wealth in action, yet the left like to trumpet it out as the rest of the country being dependent on a handful of "blue" states.

The only way to really solve the problem would be to either tax the rich less, and the poor more... or send more tax dollars to the rich states, and fewer to the poor states.

One side or the other... what's it gonna be?

Nice frame- but it really doesn't fit with what I've offered in the past. I don't have a problem with the redistribution of funds that's occurring. I support even more of it. What I do have a problem with is the perception and attitude of many parties on the receiving end.

I have a problem with the fact that they're so easily manipulated into supporting policies that run against their own interests. Cutbacks in federal funding will hurt them more because they live closer to the edge, thanks to the deep divide between rich and poor in those areas. If cutting taxes at the top was supposed to create jobs, you'd never know it in most of those places- their rich only got richer, got a firmer grip on the regional economy, used that to suppress wages and even development.

I'm sure that an argument could be made that such transfers have actually been counter productive in terms of desired outcome, that mollifying and placating lower class people in those locales is possible only because of such transfers. Left to the tender ministrations of their own wealthy, they'd be a lot colder and a lot hungrier, maybe enough so that they'd awaken from the backwardness of their cultural slumber.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Obviously you didn't get your money's worth out of 7th grade or beyond.

Either you raise taxes on the rich, which would necessarily increase the disparity in taxes paid vs received per capita per state (subsidizing those redneck, leeching, ignorant middle class Americans), or you solve the problem by lowering taxes on the rich, necessarily decreasing the disparity in taxes paid vs received.

You are sounding more and more like a Republican every day! I knew one of these days you'd see the light! :D
I read the whole thread to get right here...and I love it! senseamp, welcome to the Republican Party!

Brings a tear to my eye. My right eye.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I am listening, and that's been the point of my lecture to senseamp. The statistics for dollars paid in vs returned per state are skewed by the disproportionately urbanized populations and concentrations of corporations and generally more affluent individuals in what are considered "blue" states, and the lower-income, rural, retired, less populous "red" states.

It is redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, yet Senseamp thinks it is the most awful thing in the world that the middle and lower classes are leeching off the rich.

This thread basically proves that Senseamp is a conservative Republican. History has been written. :D

I'm pretty sure senseless is being sarcastic. He's playing Republican's advocate.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
It's not always that simple. I live in a metro area with about a million people, and many of them are extremely conservative. The general consensus around here is that people should work for a living and basically be left to die if they don't want to. Metro areas on the other side of the country are wildly different, especially concerning things like government funding of art projects, overall energy policies, environmental policies, federalism vs state provincial rights, and various other things.

The thing that always confuses me is why the sides always need to disagree with each other. If my area wants to have poorly funded healthcare and no funding for art, then why would people in other regions care? I also don't understand why other regions want to increase funding for local festivals but they insist on using federal money to do it. What a bunch of hypocrit assholes. If they want an art festival, they should pay for it with their own money. This is not Russia.

Oh boy- let me give this a shot and risk being pedantic.

Basic human nature is that people do things because they consider them "good". Very few people (and I submit those are literally psychotic) get up and effectively say "I'm going to get up and do three evil things before breakfast". They have a perspective for whatever reason, a personal right and wrong which may or may not line up with the consensus of that means.

Was Bin Laden evil for attacking a nation who brought chaos to the ME for it's own purposes? Was Hitler evil for bringing justice to the nations that made them suffer after WW1?

Note how I phrased the above examples. They could be from the perspective of those two.

People usually do what they consider good, or at least not immoral, or if the latter arises then the end justifies the means. Look around here, you see it every day. It's how people are.

What we are lacking isn't the willingness of people to do "good", but the intellectual capacity to understand that sometimes conflicting POVs aren't mutually exclusive and to understand that not everyone operates psychologically as we do.

Where we have problems is when people insist they are correct because by heavens they are, then it's "right" for them to "bless" others with their way of thinking. We do it on an individual, community and national level and we aren't unique.

In other words it's more satisfying to make others do what we tell them than to accept that perhaps we're either wrong or not entitled to make them little images of ourselves.

That's why we fight. Probably didn't make any sense at all :p
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Obviously you didn't get your money's worth out of 7th grade or beyond.

Either you raise taxes on the rich, which would necessarily increase the disparity in taxes paid vs received per capita per state (subsidizing those redneck, leeching, ignorant middle class Americans), or you solve the problem by lowering taxes on the rich, necessarily decreasing the disparity in taxes paid vs received.

You are sounding more and more like a Republican every day! I knew one of these days you'd see the light! :D

Or we direct more stimulus to the blue states which want it and deserve it more by virtue of paying more taxes, and less to red states who don't.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'm pretty sure senseless is being sarcastic. He's playing Republican's advocate.

Lampooned by their own sort of vitriol and their own "values", Righties just rave on, as if nothing happened, as if Senseamp is the hypocrite and they're not...
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Oh boy- let me give this a shot and risk being pedantic.

Basic human nature is that people do things because they consider them "good".

What is the prime directive from star trek? Observe other species and cultures but do not interfere. That's all I ask.

Red and blue states trying to stomp each other is as fucked up as europeans going into the rain forest and telling the locals "well ya see your whole culture is wrong so we're going to take control and switch everything around"
I don't mean conquer the locals and take over the land, but forcibly change their rules without actually removing any of them from power or anything. It's just weird. It makes no sense at all.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I am listening, and that's been the point of my lecture to senseamp. The statistics for dollars paid in vs returned per state are skewed by the disproportionately urbanized populations and concentrations of corporations and generally more affluent individuals in what are considered "blue" states, and the lower-income, rural, retired, less populous "red" states.

It is redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, yet Senseamp thinks it is the most awful thing in the world that the middle and lower classes are leeching off the rich.

This thread basically proves that Senseamp is a conservative Republican. History has been written. :D

I am for helping the poor, but if they are red state rednecks who are against stimulus and claim it's doing nothing, I'll gladly direct that money to places that want it and realize it's helping create and save jobs.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I am for helping the poor, but if they are red state rednecks who are against stimulus and claim it's doing nothing, I'll gladly direct that money to places that want it and realize it's helping create and save jobs.

Well, yeh, of course. If they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, it'll be impossible to stop 'em, anyway... Not really. They represent the same thinking that opposed civil rights and women's suffrage before that, and who think SS and Medicare are commie plots, even when those things are the only things keeping them alive...

Can't force 'em to think with the head on their shoulders rather than the one in their pants, that's for sure.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Republican economics? That's odd...I thought it was the Dems who pushed for GATT and signed it into law. Silly me.

Uh, ya, GATT, which passed with Republicans voting 151-26 in the House and 35-11 in the Senate, had strong Republican opposition. Darn Democrats. It was both parties.

Funny, of all the trade agreements passed, all had Republican majorities, and most had more 'no' than 'yes' votes from Democrats.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_9_20/ai_n25089209/
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Or we direct more stimulus to the blue states which want it and deserve it more by virtue of paying more taxes, and less to red states who don't.

I am for helping the poor, but if they are red state rednecks who are against stimulus and claim it's doing nothing, I'll gladly direct that money to places that want it and realize it's helping create and save jobs.

PS - We aren't talking about stimulus. The numbers used to calculate paid vs received in the studies conducted are only up to 2005 everywhere that I can see. We're talking about straight tax receipts vs federal spending per state.

So you think we should give more tax dollars to the rich who pay for everything, and not the working class Americans who leech off the system. Got it.

You keep saying the same thing in different ways. Anyway you look at it, you are espousing the exact opposite values that you think you believe in. You want lower taxes on the rich, you want less government dependence, and you want to stop redistribution of wealth from the productive class to the recipient class.

Welcome to the right side of the aisle!
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Uh, ya, GATT, which passed with Republicans voting 151-26 in the House and 35-11 in the Senate, had strong Republican opposition. Darn Democrats. It was both parties.

Funny, of all the trade agreements passed, all had Republican majorities, and most had more 'no' than 'yes' votes from Democrats.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_9_20/ai_n25089209/

Dems controlled both the House and Senate...they and Clinton pushed for it, lobbied Republicans hard, and got it.

"Just like the historic vote on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) a year ago, this vote for GATT shows once again that our country is moving in the right direction, reaching out to the rest of the world and looking at the best interests of our own people." - Clinton
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Dems controlled both the House and Senate...they and Clinton pushed for it, lobbied Republicans hard, and got it.

"Just like the historic vote on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) a year ago, this vote for GATT shows once again that our country is moving in the right direction, reaching out to the rest of the world and looking at the best interests of our own people." - Clinton

In other words, the professed right wing hatred of Clinton was truly irrational. Even when he gave 'em what they wanted, they hated him all the more for it.

He probably was the best Republican president since Eisenhower, which tells us just how radical modern repubs really are.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
In other words, the professed right wing hatred of Clinton was truly irrational. Even when he gave 'em what they wanted, they hated him all the more for it.

He probably was the best Republican president since Eisenhower, which tells us just how radical modern repubs really are.
Stupid Dems drove the GATT bus and got some stupid Republicans to go along with it...both parties were culpable to some degree.

It's important to understand what actually happened....no?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
I believe the infrastructure part of the stimulous bill as packaged and sold is a lie.

It wasn't job a creation program, it was program for funding states. Actually, that's what most of the bill was about. The other big chunk was the AMT fix, which they were gonna do anyway (as they have every year now for quite some time).

Those road projects were already scheduled in, that's how they were 'shovel ready'. It takes years of planning to anything but he simplest of re-paving.

So these projects were just moved off the states' budgets and onto Uncle Sam's; they were gonna be done anyway.

So it was basically just a refinancing manouever.

If you wanna argue that the states would've canceled some of these projects over budget concerns, OK then you can argue that some jobs were saved.

As to more projects, great as long as they are things we actualy need. And we certainly do have real needs, and I'm not talking about repaving unless it seriously needs to be done.

Fern

I notice you don't mention of third of the stimulus was TAX BREAKS!
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
PS - We aren't talking about stimulus. The numbers used to calculate paid vs received in the studies conducted are only up to 2005 everywhere that I can see. We're talking about straight tax receipts vs federal spending per state.

So you think we should give more tax dollars to the rich who pay for everything, and not the working class Americans who leech off the system. Got it.

You keep saying the same thing in different ways. Anyway you look at it, you are espousing the exact opposite values that you think you believe in. You want lower taxes on the rich, you want less government dependence, and you want to stop redistribution of wealth from the productive class to the recipient class.

Welcome to the right side of the aisle!

If you haven't learned to read by now, it's too late for me to try to teach you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Stupid Dems drove the GATT bus and got some stupid Republicans to go along with it...both parties were culpable to some degree.

It's important to understand what actually happened....no?

Well, yeh, but your characterization isn't particularly accurate.

Offshoring wouldn't be such a bad deal for American workers if we were a more socialistic society, If redistribution of income w/ high taxes at the top actually occurred. Being un or under employed wouldn't be nearly the same problem for affected families as it is today.

Instead, we've gone in the opposite direction, cutting taxes at the top repeatedly, and some tend to want to reduce or eliminate what little social safety net we have.

It's not like people don't want to work, or that many still employed are anything other than luckier than their unemployed neighbors. It's that the social contract of investment, employment and rewards is broken, that capitalists need fewer American workers to profit, and that they're directing investment into other economies.

The international flavor of capitalism now allows for the looting of wealthier economies, like our own, so as to benefit those capitalists. Other first world economies have mechanisms designed to prevent that, like Germany, for example.

Yeh, they're ebil soshulists, and they're the world's leading exporter of goods, too. They don't have a balance of payments issue where new money needs to be created to replace the amount being sent offshore, either. They seem to think that their own multinationals owe some allegiance to their home country, and to their workers, as well. Imagine that.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Well, yeh, but your characterization isn't particularly accurate.
My characterization is fact.

Offshoring wouldn't be such a bad deal for American workers if we were a more socialistic society, If redistribution of income w/ high taxes at the top actually occurred. Being un or under employed wouldn't be nearly the same problem for affected families as it is today.

Instead, we've gone in the opposite direction, cutting taxes at the top repeatedly, and some tend to want to reduce or eliminate what little social safety net we have.
Your characterization isn't particularly accurate.

It's not like people don't want to work, or that many still employed are anything other than luckier than their unemployed neighbors. It's that the social contract of investment, employment and rewards is broken, that capitalists need fewer American workers to profit, and that they're directing investment into other economies.

The international flavor of capitalism now allows for the looting of wealthier economies, like our own, so as to benefit those capitalists.
Agree. Our poor are subsiding the rich in many ways...and GATT is one of the major reasons for this. Here's why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI
I believe there are 6 parts to this interview...well worth the time invested.

Other first world economies have mechanisms designed to prevent that, like Germany, for example.

Yeh, they're ebil soshulists, and they're the world's leading exporter of goods, too. They don't have a balance of payments issue where new money needs to be created to replace the amount being sent offshore, either. They seem to think that their own multinationals owe some allegiance to their home country, and to their workers, as well. Imagine that.
I believe Germany is a capitalist country....not socialist.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136