Republicans

[brencat]

I have to concur...welcome to the real world. When you're young, you tend to be more idealistic...until you get your first paycheck and realize how much of your money is taken and then wasted on politicians' pet projects or govt waste / inefficient programs. I was never a liberal but what has happened the past 15 years has only made me more conservative. And I hate what Bush & Co. did to the Republican brand btw...they ALL betrayed true conservatism.

Many have heard me say on these forums that we should provide for the poor and disabled as that is the right thing to do. But if you are able bodied and just lazy or unmotivated to make your life better however, you can go cry me a river because I just don't give a damn.

And yes, I WAS unemployed...for 11 months (wife + 2 small kids to care for), right in the middle of the 2008 market meltdown. But I had faith in God, strength of family, and was well motivated to just keep interviewing & networking and ended up landing in a better role than I had before. Unemployment comp was a joke...try living on that in NJ/NY.

Point is, my political beliefs are based mostly on my real world experiences. And those experiences have taught me that you are best on your own, and that govt while good intentioned usually makes problems worse or creates dependency. The smaller and less intrusive govt the better IMO.

Also, have a healthy skepticism for what you read and hear since everyone has an agenda these days. The true story is always below the surface if you're dilligent enough to want to find it. Either way life goes on regardless of how angry or unfair you think life is. So work hard, make money, provide for your family, volunteer and contribute to charities, and don't exercise misguided compassion (as many liberals do).

Everyone else...well, you can go fvck yourself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is the wrong place to be for objective perspectives. You need to get a good grounding in facts first then ask for opinions.

Do searches on your interests, then look up news articles, references that sort of thing.

I can tell you why I believe we haven't been offered health care, but I won't because you have no background.

Beware liberal or conservative bias. Get the history first, then fine tune it later

 

[woolfe9999]

Welcome to the real world dude. Everyone, when they were younger, had a more idealized view of what should happen. Then you learn that every company is moving to china because people there are willing to work for 100 dollars a month. The United States simply doesn't have the money to help poor countries, get into two wars, and still remain competitive.

What is the solution? Lower the minimum wage, bust the Unions, cut government spending and lower taxes. You'll find that more companies will be willing to stay in the US and even reinvest in manufacturing plants here instead of in China if they have the right incentives. Ow ya, get rid of Nafta. You know its bad when Coors Light isn't made in the US but in Mexico.

So the way to compete with China is to be like China? Sorry, I don't want to live in China, a country whose GDP keeps rising precisely because it has an enormous labor force, but a standard of living that is in the crapper. I am not interested in sacrificing our vastly superior standard of living so that we can stay ahead of China's GDP. With almost fourfeld the labor force as the U.S., it is inevitable that their GDP will one day surpass us. But their standard of living? Certainly not any time this century, and probably never.

There is so much talk of worries over China, and even envy of China. It is utterly bizarre. China is a freaking toilet, where their industries dump toxic waste and belch pollution into the air unfettered, and the vast majority of its immense population lives in squalor. Frankly, I don't see anyone who acts as if they are so envoius of China talking about pulling up stakes and moving there.

And you want us to compete with China by being more like them? No thanks.

- wolf

 

[manlymatt83]

So work hard, make money, provide for your family, volunteer and contribute to charities, and don't exercise misguided compassion (as many liberals do).

See, this is exactly where I'm at. I'm 26 now, work hard as a contractor, pay my own health benefits out of pocket, but I enjoy what I do - paying all those taxes; however, makes me question where the money goes.

And I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't want to support ANYONE who is able bodied and willing to work. But does anyone? Are there tree-huggers/liberals out there who would really say yes to supporting someone they know is just laying on their ass not doing anything? From what I understand, liberals support government financial support to those who are less fortunate and CAN'T get a job or fend for themselves.

 

[Elias824]

As far as the health care bill goes the republicans have no reason to vote for it. They have no say in whats in it, if they vote for it they will almost certainly be voted out of office next cycle, and even if it ends up being very beneficial for the U.S the dems will get all the credit, it just serves to help them.

One of my friends used to always say, democrats tax and spend, republicans borrow from china and spend.

 

[jonks]

Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad

As they say, reality has a liberal bias. If you came out of college armed with the knowledge that there actually is a scientific consensus on climate change, and that the ice caps melting and drowning the world's coastal cities is "bad", I'd say you got your money's worth. According to the poll in OT, many are not as educated as you.

As to the healthcare bill, if passed, the GOP will have an interesting time trying to run on repealing it b/c they'd have to first convince people to give up the benefits it brings like not being able to be dropped by your ins co, being rejected for preexisting conditions, the 30+ million people now covered. The minority party historically gains seats anyway, but bet on this, after the GOP wins back some seats this Nov, even though they'll still be the minority, they'll claim "america voted no" on the healthcare bill, or that "americans gave us a mandate" to overturn healthcare. Even though Obama ran on universal healthcare (and this ain't even that!) and won pretty handily.

I almost think ppl would be happier once the bill is passed b/c they don't want to hear about it anymore. But I guess we'll see.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

See, this is exactly where I'm at. I'm 26 now, work hard as a contractor, pay my own health benefits out of pocket, but I enjoy what I do - paying all those taxes; however, makes me question where the money goes.

And I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't want to support ANYONE who is able bodied and willing to work. But does anyone? Are there tree-huggers/liberals out there who would really say yes to supporting someone they know is just laying on their ass not doing anything? From what I understand, liberals support government financial support to those who are less fortunate and CAN'T get a job or fend for themselves.

If you think these taxes are bad...just wait until the Bush tax cuts expire. Dems are spending money like drunken sailors...and one way or the other...we and our children will be paying the price for some time to come.

 

[Hacp]

So the way to compete with China is to be like China? Sorry, I don't want to live in China, a country whose GDP keeps rising precisely because it has an enormous labor force, but a standard of living that is in the crapper. I am not interested in sacrificing our vastly superior standard of living so that we can stay ahead of China's GDP. With almost fourfeld the labor force as the U.S., it is inevitable that their GDP will one day surpass us. But their standard of living? Certainly not any time this century, and probably never.

There is so much talk of worries over China, and even envy of China. It is utterly bizarre. China is a freaking toilet, where their industries dump toxic waste and belch pollution into the air unfettered, and the vast majority of its immense population lives in squalor. Frankly, I don't see anyone who acts as if they are so envoius of China talking about pulling up stakes and moving there.

And you want us to compete with China by being more like them? No thanks.

- wolf

And you want to see more jobs just leave? I'm not talking about being like China, I'm talking about depressing wages and the cost of doing business in the US so manufacturers don't leave us for China. The first step is to weaken unions. The next is to lower the minimum wage. The last is to lower corporate taxes as well as income taxes and lower government spending. If we take these steps maybe, just maybe, we won't see the good but grueling factory jobs shipped to China.

 

[Specop 007]

Simply put theres a huge difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Many, too many in fact, assume we should have equality of outcome.

Whether you go to college for 8 years to be a neurosurgeon or dropped out of high school and push a broom you should be paid the same. This is equality of outcome and is disastrous to growth and competition. Many social programs are geared for maintaining equality of outcome. Its the whole point of their existence. Feed up on the jealously and envy of those more successful than "you".

You can heart his daily. Remember Obungo's "No taxes on anyone making less than 250,000" claim? Ok, so $250,000 has become the new "Evil rich white guy" mark. And that bar has been lowering and lowering. Tax tax tax to support the lowest common denominator. Wealth redistribution.

At the end of the day its the pursuit of equality of outcome and it WILL destroy the middle class and push the upper class out of the country. Interestingly history shows this to be true time and time again, and yet many in this country want to repeat those steps.

 

[woolfe9999]

And you want to see more jobs just leave? I'm not talking about being like China, I'm talking about depressing wages and the cost of doing business in the US so manufacturers don't leave us for China. The first step is to weaken unions. The next is to lower the minimum wage. The last is to lower corporate taxes as well as income taxes and lower government spending. If we take these steps maybe, just maybe, we won't see the good but grueling factory jobs shipped to China.

And so we will keep more manufacturing jobs, and the people who work those jobs will live like the people who now work those jobs in China. Bust unions and lower the minimum wage in order to retain manufacturing jobs? So we have people working in factories for $4 an hour, and we have a tax cut which will not benefit those people as you don't pay taxes on wages that low even under the current system. Basically what you are advocating here is that we fight to retain manufacturing jobs that will be approximately like manufacturing jobs in China, or another analogy is to manufacturing jobs in our early period of industrialization, in the late 19th century. Why again do we want to retain a large base of sub-poverty line jobs? I'd rather leave those to the Chinese, who will eventually destabilize politically unless they start sharing their enlarged economic pie with their impoverished workers. In other words, they themselves will eventually have to implement the reforms we made over 100 years ago, the ones you want to roll back.

I don't personally see a problem with the U.S. economy being services oriented, with a small manufacturing sector, and an emphasis on technological innovation, and selling/exporting the innovations. Once upon a time we were a manufacturing based economy, and we prospered, particularly because those with manufacturing jobs lived well because of things likes unions and minimum wage. But we couldn't compete and those jobs went elsewhere, to places without those reforms. Yet somehow we still prosper. Even in the worst recession in 80 years, our standard of living is 10x that of countries who pay their workers slave wages.

- wolf

 

[brencat]

Simply put theres a huge difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Many, too many in fact, assume we should have equality of outcome.

Tax tax tax to support the lowest common denominator. Wealth redistribution.

+1

I see it Specop's way as well -- that it has historically been Democrats and Liberals that have supported policies that promote, directly or indirectly, equality of outcome. This is the primary reason why I am a conservative (note that I did not say Republican).

 

[Craig234]

Manlymatt, I was told growing up that it was the Democrats that spend and spend, and the Republicans came in to clean up the deficit. Polar opposites, and yet the truth of it has become, with the exception of Clinton, both parties gleefully rack up the deficit.

Your "liberal" bias of help the little country, pay more taxes, it's big businesses fault just... doesn't make sense to me. Not at all. I guess that's formative thinking?

If you hate the absurd deficit spending, you don't really fit to either of the dominant two parties.

What this not very honest poster did not mention is that the skyrocketing deficit began with Reagan, who took office in 1981, and since then trhe only democrats acre Clinton and Obama.

Google a chart sometime of the rate of increase of the deficit at least back to Reagan, and get the facts.

Obama is in somewhat of a unique situation with a 'time bomb' he inherited. Bush people whose ideology was not to bail out companies or give the government a role said it was necessary.

It was caused because this 'feree market' you see worshipped so much wasnt kept reigned in where it's effective but was let loose to do bad things, and it was very profitably creating systemic risk.

Obama had little choice but to inject big cash in the crisis, that doesn't make it a 'Democratic policy'.

Your backrground you mention is a decent start - you shouldn't say 'brainwashed' - but a tiny one. You still seem caught up in the real brainwashing - the "big pharma can't really be ruthless about profit can they"?

Wha's obsolete in your background is making the issue Republicans and Democrats. The issue is the 'corporate agenda' versus the 'public agenda'. Note this isn't 'corportations against' the public'. Much of what big corporations do is great, andthe public interest includes a lot of benefits of big corporations. It includes specific areas where the corporations' interests are harmful to the puiblic.

And part of that is that the corporate agenda 'owns' a lot of Washington. THat's the obsolete part, because it owns a ot of Democrats as well as the vast majority of Republicans.

The only major faction representing the public interest is the progressive wing of Democrats.

I suggest you do some more reading and you will gt a lot of good info. Here's a suggested few to start.

- Rent the movie "The Corporation".

"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and it's followup "As Old as Empire". These explain a lot about the history of the west's deaings with the third world.

"Bad Money" by Kevin Phillips, which Bill Moyers says is the best book about the economic crash.

See my sig for a wide list of good writers - check out their columns etc.

If you want an insider look at right-wing media, read David Brock's books. This might help you get past the fretting over 'bias'.

I could list many more useful books and if ou are interested in a topic let me know.

On bill after bill this year, the corporatocracy has proven it has a majority, between nearly all the Republicans, and too many corporatist Democrats, and usually President Obama.

That's not 'worse' with Democrats; the only major domestic program Bush didn't get in his 8 years was Social Security privitization, which would rip off the elderly for Wall Street. He got every other one.

 

[blackangst1]

And so we will keep more manufacturing jobs, and the people who work those jobs will live like the people who now work those jobs in China. Bust unions and lower the minimum wage in order to retain manufacturing jobs? So we have people working in factories for $4 an hour, and we have a tax cut which will not benefit those people as you don't pay taxes on wages that low even under the current system. Basically what you are advocating here is that we fight to retain manufacturing jobs that will be approximately like manufacturing jobs in China, or another analogy is to manufacturing jobs in our early period of industrialization, in the late 19th century. Why again do we want to retain a large base of sub-poverty line jobs? I'd rather leave those to the Chinese, who will eventually destabilize politically unless they start sharing their enlarged economic pie with their impoverished workers. In other words, they themselves will eventually have to implement the reforms we made over 100 years ago, the ones you want to roll back.

I don't personally see a problem with the U.S. economy being services oriented, with a small manufacturing sector, and an emphasis on technological innovation, and selling/exporting the innovations. Once upon a time we were a manufacturing based economy, and we prospered, particularly because those with manufacturing jobs lived well because of things likes unions and minimum wage. But we couldn't compete and those jobs went elsewhere, to places without those reforms. Yet somehow we still prosper. Even in the worst recession in 80 years, our standard of living is 10x that of countries who pay their workers slave wages.

- wolf

Well said.

 

[Craig234]

+1

I see it Specop's way as well -- that it has historically been Democrats and Liberals that have supported policies that promote, directly or indirectly, equality of outcome. This is the primary reason why I am a conservative (note that I did not say Republican).

Your error is not realizing the left supports equality of opportunity, not outcome, and the right supports the benefit of the rich and powerful, and that frequently means less opportunity for most.

That's why whenever there have been policy choices between keeping a poor/enslaved workforce tha profits the rich, and spending money to create opportunity, the right has chosen the rich.

You won't see it in whaqt they SAY - they have to sell it to voters, because unfortunately for them, we ave a democracy, so you see them explaining WHY more tax cuts for the rich actually help the poor and middle.

 

[woolfe9999]

Simply put theres a huge difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Many, too many in fact, assume we should have equality of outcome.

Whether you go to college for 8 years to be a neurosurgeon or dropped out of high school and push a broom you should be paid the same. This is equality of outcome and is disastrous to growth and competition. Many social programs are geared for maintaining equality of outcome. Its the whole point of their existence. Feed up on the jealously and envy of those more successful than "you".

You can heart his daily. Remember Obungo's "No taxes on anyone making less than 250,000" claim? Ok, so $250,000 has become the new "Evil rich white guy" mark. And that bar has been lowering and lowering. Tax tax tax to support the lowest common denominator. Wealth redistribution.

At the end of the day its the pursuit of equality of outcome and it WILL destroy the middle class and push the upper class out of the country. Interestingly history shows this to be true time and time again, and yet many in this country want to repeat those steps.

History shows this to be true? It's odd, because in Europe they stress equality of outcome more so than here, and Europe has a standard of living very similar to the U.S., in other words, the highest in the world.

Some liberals might argue that there isn't equality of opportunity, because not everyone is born into a situation that offers the same opportunity as everyone else. Equality of opportunity is a nice theory, but it doesn't exist in the real world.

But let's set that aside for the moment, and address what I think is either a straw man characterization of liberals, or else is a characterization of only its most extreme elements. Modern day liberals believe in welfare captialism, with the emphasis being about relatively equal on both. That is not a philosophy of absolutely equal outcomes.

I personally have no problem with people getting rich, and staying rich. I think people who are more talented and/or practice a more rigorous work ethic should live more comfortably than those less talented or industrious, and I think they should even live luxoriously. The rich can keep their BMW's and their yachts, and eat their lobster, and the middle class can keep their big screen TV's and eat their steak. What I believe, rather, is that society should provide a minimum, bare bones standard of living for all of its citizens. That means that they can provide food for themselves and their kids, that they can keep their electricity on, and that they have access to basic, inexpensive healthcare. You can provide this basic standard, and there is plenty of pie left over for extremely uneven distribution of wealth, meaning extremely UNequal outcomes, for the vast majority who live above that basic threshold.

I am afraid you are making the mistake of equating welfare capitalism with communism when they are not the same thing. Welfare capitalism actually exists about midway between the extremes of unfettered, laissez faire capitalism on the one hand, and communism on the other.

You are perfectly free to disagree with modern day liberalism. Just be careful to understand what it really is. Liberals may want *more* equality of outcome than conservatives, but no one is arguing for anything even remotely close to absolute equality of outcomes.

- wolf

 

[Hacp]

And so we will keep more manufacturing jobs, and the people who work those jobs will live like the people who now work those jobs in China. Bust unions and lower the minimum wage in order to retain manufacturing jobs? So we have people working in factories for $4 an hour, and we have a tax cut which will not benefit those people as you don't pay taxes on wages that low even under the current system. Basically what you are advocating here is that we fight to retain manufacturing jobs that will be approximately like manufacturing jobs in China, or another analogy is to manufacturing jobs in our early period of industrialization, in the late 19th century. Why again do we want to retain a large base of sub-poverty line jobs? I'd rather leave those to the Chinese, who will eventually destabilize politically unless they start sharing their enlarged economic pie with their impoverished workers. In other words, they themselves will eventually have to implement the reforms we made over 100 years ago, the ones you want to roll back.

I don't personally see a problem with the U.S. economy being services oriented, with a small manufacturing sector, and an emphasis on technological innovation, and selling/exporting the innovations. Once upon a time we were a manufacturing based economy, and we prospered, particularly because those with manufacturing jobs lived well because of things likes unions and minimum wage. But we couldn't compete and those jobs went elsewhere, to places without those reforms. Yet somehow we still prosper. Even in the worst recession in 80 years, our standard of living is 10x that of countries who pay their workers slave wages.

- wolf

There is a huge problem with relying on a service based economy. Services can be outsourced. With unemployment at 10%, I'm sure many people will be willing to work for 4 dollars an hour.

 

[Craig234]

Whether you go to college for 8 years to be a neurosurgeon or dropped out of high school and push a broom you should be paid the same. This is equality of outcome and is disastrous to growth and competition.

This is the myth at the root of much of Specop's wrong views. Not one person supports what he says they do.

He confuses 'rich and poor' as something like the example above, between the neurosurdian who should make far more than the sweeper, and is clueless what 'rich and poor' are really about.

He has no idea about the behavior of the worst corporate interests and the ultra rich - how their practices drain wealth and opportunity from society. The issues are billions ane he thinking it's about a surgeon.

He can't be educated - he won't go near the books that would fill him in.

But recognize it's the left who will be good for the sweeper and the surgeon, and the right who will unwilltingly screw them both.

When the right - corporatist Dems and Republicans - let Wall Street go crazy and earn neraly half the profits in the country and create systemic risk - it put both the sweeper and surgeon at risk.

When the right - corporatist Dems and right-wng Repubublicans - put provisions in bills big donor big pharma drug prices would not be negotiated by the government, the sweeeper and surgeon got screwed.

 

[Craig234]

See, this is exactly where I'm at. I'm 26 now, work hard as a contractor, pay my own health benefits out of pocket, but I enjoy what I do - paying all those taxes; however, makes me question where the money goes.

And I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't want to support ANYONE who is able bodied and willing to work. But does anyone? Are there tree-huggers/liberals out there who would really say yes to supporting someone they know is just laying on their ass not doing anything? From what I understand, liberals support government financial support to those who are less fortunate and CAN'T get a job or fend for themselves.

The 'spend on the poor' issue is a red herring - designed to take an issue that's a tiny sliver of the economy, and get you to put yourself on the 'side' of the richer and enable a whole other agenda.

The spending on the poor is a small part of what's going on in our economy, and you should not let yourself get pulled away from the larger issues of big corruption at the top.

 

[jonks]

Simply put theres a huge difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Many, too many in fact, assume we should have equality of outcome.

Whether you go to college for 8 years to be a neurosurgeon or dropped out of high school and push a broom you should be paid the same. This is equality of outcome and is disastrous to growth and competition. Many social programs are geared for maintaining equality of outcome. Its the whole point of their existence. Feed up on the jealously and envy of those more successful than "you".

You can heart his daily. Remember Obungo's "No taxes on anyone making less than 250,000" claim? Ok, so $250,000 has become the new "Evil rich white guy" mark. And that bar has been lowering and lowering. Tax tax tax to support the lowest common denominator. Wealth redistribution.

At the end of the day its the pursuit of equality of outcome and it WILL destroy the middle class and push the upper class out of the country. Interestingly history shows this to be true time and time again, and yet many in this country want to repeat those steps.

You recall those decades during which the US emerged as a world superpower? You know, the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s? The taxes then were just a tad higher than the proposed increases Obama pushes for. Just a tad.

 

[Craig234]

As far as the health care bill goes the republicans have no reason to vote for it. They have no say in whats in it, if they vote for it they will almost certainly be voted out of office next cycle, and even if it ends up being very beneficial for the U.S the dems will get all the credit, it just serves to help them.

One of my friends used to always say, democrats tax and spend, republicans borrow from china and spend.

Put aside for a moment whether this healthcare bill is good or bad.

What you're saying is that IF the Democrats came up with a great bill that helped society, Republicans should vote no because the credit would go to Democrats?

Do you realize why that's wrong for either party?

 

[Craig234]

You recall those decades during which the US emerged as a world superpower? You know, the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s? The taxes then were just a tad higher than the proposed increases Obama pushes for. Just a tad.

The share of income taxes paid by the rich waqs much higher. The share of income taxes paid by business over individuals was much higher. A blue collar worker could support a one-income family much easier.

 

[Craig234]

Whether you go to college for 8 years to be a neurosurgeon or dropped out of high school and push a broom you should be paid the same. This is equality of outcome and is disastrous to growth and competition.

This is the myth at the root of much of Specop's wrong views. Not one person supports what he says they do.

He confuses 'rich and poor' as something like the example above, between the neurosurdian who should make far more than the sweeper, and is clueless what 'rich and poor' are really about.

He has no idea about the behavior of the worst corporate interests and the ultra rich - how their practices drain wealth and opportunity from society. The issues are billions ane he thinking it's about a surgeon.

He can't be educated - he won't go near the books that would fill him in.

But recognize it's the left who will be good for the sweeper and the surgeon, and the right who will unwilltingly screw them both.

When the right - corporatist Dems and Republicans - let Wall Street go crazy and earn neraly half the profits in the country and create systemic risk - it put both the sweeper and surgeon at risk.

When the right - corporatist Dems and right-wng Repubublicans - put provisions in bills big donor big pharma drug prices would not be negotiated by the government, the sweeeper and surgeon got screwed.

 

[palehorse]

In the wonderful new 21st Century, neither party has the market cornered on catering to the wealthy, receiving unchecked corporate handouts, or spending your money like it's going out of style. They're all guilty of all of the above. Period.

That's the truth. Anyone who tries to tell you anything else is entirely full of partisan shit.

 

[Craig234]

In the wonderful new 21st Century, neither party has the market cornered on catering to the wealthy, receiving unchecked corporate handouts, or spending your money like it's going out of style. They're all guilty of all of the above. Period.

That's the truth. Anyone who tries to tell you anything else is entirely full of partisan shit.

Virtually all Republoicans, and far too many corporatist Democrats, are guilty. Progressive Dems are the only major faction who is not, who put the public interest first. Anyone saying otherwise is... 'partisan excrement'.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Virtually all Republoicans, and far too many corporatist Democrats, are guilty. Progressive Dems are the only major faction who is not, who put the public interest first. Anyone saying otherwise is... 'partisan excrement'.

Because you say so, right?