The Prez.'s Economic Speech....

[BaliBabyDoc]

My wife had her college paid for by the state. Free. She came from a "poor" family, where nobody worked because they made more from the SSI checks.

I don't know what to say. It is unfortunate that your wife's family lacks morals but its great she worked to become a productive citizen.

BaliBayDoc - The poor have free education until the end of high school and there are so many benefit programs around for low income students that they could make it through University if they made it that far.

The education is free and of poor quality in much of the South and often the inner city of the North and West. Successful children come from investment of time and money. Let's face the facts that many home environments bite. Which means a tremendous need for adequate afterschool care to augment benefits from education. I would level public housing . . . nothing but bad things happen by concentrating poverty.

The poor also have free healthcare. The segment most at risk are those who earn enough to not qualify for free healthcare but who do not have medical benefits.

The poor have free healthcare if they can navigate the application process . . . some states . . . like TX, try their best to limit rolls by limiting access. As government has decreased reimbursement doctors have stopped serving Medicare/Medicaid and/or stopped accepting new patients.

You highlighted the greatest disparity. People who work 1, 2, or 3 jobs - do not qualify for government assistance - but can't afford private health insurance. Can you tell me how the Compassionate Conservative is helping? Do you have any idea what premiums would cost a couple much less a family? I will give you a clue . . . take the President's hypothetical tax savings for a family of four and multiply by 4 to 6.

My wife (and her family) had all of their medical expenses paid for, including dental and eyecare.

Hey, that's what I call good access to healthcare . . . you must be Canadian!

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

I love how people in the upper 5% can claim that there are no classes. Upward mobility as well as wealth to begin with takes luck. Luck of being born in the right family, in the right place, etc etc. How many poor people do you actually know who spout out this "American Opportunity" BS? It just doesn't work that way. Of course there is upward mobility, but it's nearly impossible, and a rare case. It ends up being an excuse to dismiss the fact that the bottom 20% of the population posesses 5% of the wealth, or some statistic like that. "American dream" doesn't work on this large scale, unless you find a way to get that bottom 20%'s children to all go to college, but then again that would just devalue a college education.

It needs to be accepted that in a mature economy, PT Barnum style rags to riches is even more individual, and has no place in an argument about taxes.

Ahahaha, I love it when fools come in and start spouting this crap. Upward mobility is entirely possible, if you make the sacrifices to a) get an education, b) take risks, and c) save your money.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Thera

Oh it's a fairly decent description of Fascism. That being said, what does that have to do with the Republican Party. One of the main tenets of the Republican Party is the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. The following excerpt from your linked text flies right in the face of that tenet.

"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

That alone is enough to refute your weak argument that Republicans are Fascists.

Absolute as opposed to the liberal's state which is viewed as evolving government structure rooted in assisting the citizenry. The GOP platform is to remove government involvement from the people.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual.

Nice....you left out the rest of, and most important part, of that statement. Here's the full text:

"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

If you're going to quote things you need to use the entire quote, not just pick and chose words that fit your argument.

Of course I should have expected no less from someone like you. It's not all bad though, you seem to have a knack for weeding out what you see as not being important if it disagrees with your ideology. Congratulations....you can be a reporter from the N.Y. Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or Al-Jazerra.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And only last year he used the term "n_____" on Fox News. Outcrys of Byrd's insensitivity from the mainstream press = zero.

Dude, what do you expect him to say on Fox News . . . (gross generalization/stereotype to follow) . . . who do you think watches Fox News? Byrd was talking to his people. The only difference between Byrd and Lott is about 20 yrs and maybe abortion rights. Otherwise their service in Congress has been about serving themselves and wasting our money.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Oh it's a fairly decent description of Fascism. That being said, what does that have to do with the Republican Party. One of the main tenets of the Republican Party is the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. The following excerpt from your linked text flies right in the face of that tenet.

"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

That alone is enough to refute your weak argument that Republicans are Fascists.

Absolute as opposed to the liberal's state which is viewed as evolving government structure rooted in assisting the citizenry. The GOP platform is to remove government involvement from the people.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual.

Nice....you left out the rest of, and most important part, of that statement. Here's the full text:

"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

If you're going to quote things you need to use the entire quote, not just pick and chose words that fit your argument.

Of course I should have expected no less from someone like you. It's not all bad though, you seem to have a knack for weeding out what you see as not being important if it disagrees with your ideology. Congratulations....you can be a reporter from the N.Y. Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or Al-Jazerra.

Ok... take the full quote, no problem. If your argument is that I can't quote then we need to get you back on target.

The Ashcroft/Bush government seems quite happy limiting the freedom of our country. The FBI can now watch us worship, watch us type, and listen to our phone conversations; all without a warrant. That certainly sounds like deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, doesn't it. We certainly need the government to watch us for us to be safe.

I wonder what you'll try to change the arguement to next time?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And only last year he used the term "n_____" on Fox News. Outcrys of Byrd's insensitivity from the mainstream press = zero.

Dude, what do you expect him to say on Fox News . . . (gross generalization/stereotype to follow) . . . who do you think watches Fox News? Byrd was talking to his people. The only difference between Byrd and Lott is about 20 yrs and maybe abortion rights. Otherwise their service in Congress has been about serving themselves and wasting our money.

My wife watches Fox News. My wife is black. Would you care to take back your gross generalization?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Oh it's a fairly decent description of Fascism. That being said, what does that have to do with the Republican Party. One of the main tenets of the Republican Party is the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. The following excerpt from your linked text flies right in the face of that tenet.

"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

That alone is enough to refute your weak argument that Republicans are Fascists.

Absolute as opposed to the liberal's state which is viewed as evolving government structure rooted in assisting the citizenry. The GOP platform is to remove government involvement from the people.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual.

Nice....you left out the rest of, and most important part, of that statement. Here's the full text:

"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

If you're going to quote things you need to use the entire quote, not just pick and chose words that fit your argument.

Of course I should have expected no less from someone like you. It's not all bad though, you seem to have a knack for weeding out what you see as not being important if it disagrees with your ideology. Congratulations....you can be a reporter from the N.Y. Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or Al-Jazerra.

Ok... take the full quote, no problem. If your argument is that I can't quote then we need to get you back on target.

The Ashcroft/Bush government seems quite happy limiting the freedom of our country. The FBI can now watch us worship, watch us type, and listen to our phone conversations; all without a warrant. That certainly sounds like deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, doesn't it. We certainly need the government to watch us for us to be safe.

I wonder what you'll try to change the arguement to next time?

I'm not trying to change the argument at all. Just point out that you are full of...well you know. You think this is the first time the FBI, etc... have been able to wire tap your phone, do surveillance on you, etc? Come on, get a grip. Trying to lay this at the feet of Republicans is asinine. Then again you probably had no problem with the Clinton White House gathering FBI files, illegally, of Republicans and others that the White House perceived as a threat to them in the next elections or who would oppose them on certain legislative items. Has anyone tried to deprive you of your freedom? When was the last time jack booted thugs kicked in your door and drug you away screaming in the night? Oh that's right, never. However your buddies in the Democratic party would love to pass anti-gun legislation that would allow them to do just that. I don't know where you get your Cracker Jack political philosophy from, but it's fairly obvious you got large portions of it from watching the various talking heads and so called experts on the major news networks. You've bought into a lie, a big one, and you won't open your eyes and look around to find the truth.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

My wife watches Fox News. My wife is black. Would you care to take back your gross generalization?

Your wife could be blue, green, or lavendar . . . I'm sure she's a beautiful woman (inside and out). I stated it was a gross generalization/stereotype . . . ie taking an accurate description of a small cohort and expanding it to a broader demographic . . . the expansion . . . more often than not being wholly inaccurate.

(gross generalization/stereotype to follow) . . . just stating the obvious b/c many people at ATOT can't distinguish between gross generalizations/stereotypes and accurate descriptions.

Let me see Socialist=Democrat . . . Republican=Fascist . . . Republican=Racist . . . Green Party=tree huggers, lesbians, pillowbiters . . . you know gross generalizations and stereotypes.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Oh it's a fairly decent description of Fascism. That being said, what does that have to do with the Republican Party. One of the main tenets of the Republican Party is the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. The following excerpt from your linked text flies right in the face of that tenet.

"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

That alone is enough to refute your weak argument that Republicans are Fascists.

Absolute as opposed to the liberal's state which is viewed as evolving government structure rooted in assisting the citizenry. The GOP platform is to remove government involvement from the people.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual.

Nice....you left out the rest of, and most important part, of that statement. Here's the full text:

"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

If you're going to quote things you need to use the entire quote, not just pick and chose words that fit your argument.

Of course I should have expected no less from someone like you. It's not all bad though, you seem to have a knack for weeding out what you see as not being important if it disagrees with your ideology. Congratulations....you can be a reporter from the N.Y. Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or Al-Jazerra.

Ok... take the full quote, no problem. If your argument is that I can't quote then we need to get you back on target.

The Ashcroft/Bush government seems quite happy limiting the freedom of our country. The FBI can now watch us worship, watch us type, and listen to our phone conversations; all without a warrant. That certainly sounds like deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, doesn't it. We certainly need the government to watch us for us to be safe.

I wonder what you'll try to change the arguement to next time?

I'm not trying to change the argument at all. Just point out that you are full of...well you know. You think this is the first time the FBI, etc... have been able to wire tap your phone, do surveillance on you, etc? Come on, get a grip. Trying to lay this at the feet of Republicans is asinine. Then again you probably had no problem with the Clinton White House gathering FBI files, illegally, of Republicans and others that the White House perceived as a threat to them in the next elections or who would oppose them on certain legislative items. Has anyone tried to deprive you of your freedom? When was the last time jack booted thugs kicked in your door and drug you away screaming in the night? Oh that's right, never. However your buddies in the Democratic party would love to pass anti-gun legislation that would allow them to do just that. I don't know where you get your Cracker Jack political philosophy from, but it's fairly obvious you got large portions of it from watching the various talking heads and so called experts on the major news networks. You've bought into a lie, a big one, and you won't open your eyes and look around to find the truth.

Seems you did change the arguement. HE pointed out a parallel with:

The Ashcroft/Bush government seems quite happy limiting the freedom of our country. The FBI can now watch us worship, watch us type, and listen to our phone conversations; all without a warrant. That certainly sounds like deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, doesn't it.

...and you went off on about 3 topics instead of discussing whether there was indeed a parallel there.

 

[shiner]

A parallel there? Only if you didn't open your eyes before last year and didn't know that sort of thing always went on. My point to her is that it has been going on long before the current administration and her trying to paint it as some sort f Republican conspiracy or dictatorship in the works is ridiculous.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
A parallel there? Only if you didn't open your eyes before last year and didn't know that sort of thing always went on. My point to her is that it has been going on long before the current administration and her trying to paint it as some sort f Republican conspiracy or dictatorship in the works is ridiculous.

Ok, but this is new legislation pushed by the republicans and iirc was met with resistance by the democrats?

The point would be limited to whether or not this particular legislation has anything in common with Fascist ideology.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: shinerburke
A parallel there? Only if you didn't open your eyes before last year and didn't know that sort of thing always went on. My point to her is that it has been going on long before the current administration and her trying to paint it as some sort f Republican conspiracy or dictatorship in the works is ridiculous.

Ok, but this is[/ new legislation pushed by the republicans and iirc was met with resistance by the democrats?

The point would be limited to whether or not this particular legislation has anything in common with Fascist ideology.

Then your answer is no. The legislation that was passed was done so to protect the country, not to deny people of rights. Had the reverse been true then there would have been a parallel. I suppose if you REALLY want to stretch the argument then yes, you could say it has something in common with Fascist ideology. However that would be a real stretch, one akin to getting Anna Nicole Smith into a pair of jeans made for a woman with a 24 inch waist.

This is not a father knows best country, well at least not until the Democrats convince the general populace that they know best and should leave being taken care of to the government. Ask yourself, which party spouts a line like that? Is it the Republicans? No, it is the Democrats with all their various social programs that would take the responsibility of taking care of oneself and doing anything but breathing away from individual and make them dependant on the government for support.

 

[flavio]

This is not a father knows best country, well at least not until the Democrats convince the general populace that they know best and should leave being taken care of to the government. Ask yourself, which party spouts a line like that? Is it the Republicans? No, it is the Democrats with all their various social programs that would take the responsibility of taking care of oneself and doing anything but breathing away from individual and make them dependant on the government for support.

The Democratic agenda is to hopefully have most people dependent on the government for support. You really think that's what they're shooting for? That's just more rhetoric.

If you truly believe that then there may be little hope in having an intelligent discussion here.

 

[outriding]

ok this is touted at an ecomonic stimulas package. where most of the money will be going to the "super rich" ( and no i dont want an arguement about well the get taxed more ). for gods sake they already have everything how is giving them more money going to help the economy. its not like they are going to buy new cars because they already have new cars, a nice house , and etc.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yes but they are also the producers of "wealth". And if you ever hope to get what we've got . . . you need an education and to work hard . . . otherwise just look up, open your mouth, and accept the trickle.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: outriding
ok this is touted at an ecomonic stimulas package. where most of the money will be going to the "super rich" ( and no i dont want an arguement about well the get taxed more ). for gods sake they already have everything how is giving them more money going to help the economy. its not like they are going to buy new cars because they already have new cars, a nice house , and etc.

You don't understand economics at all do you?

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: outriding
ok this is touted at an ecomonic stimulas package. where most of the money will be going to the "super rich" ( and no i dont want an arguement about well the get taxed more ). for gods sake they already have everything how is giving them more money going to help the economy. its not like they are going to buy new cars because they already have new cars, a nice house , and etc.

Damn, you guys can't be this thick! Who else is going to invest in businesses or start new businesses? Where do you suppose jobs come from? Duh!

"...convince the general populace that they know best and should leave being taken care of to the government."

Democrats are all for a huge Nanny State, that's no secret. Who should pay for your health coverage? The Fed? The State? Your local govt.? Your employer? Hell, who cares, so long as it isn't you! Who coined the phrase, "It takes a village."? Yep, you know damn well that's the mindset of ALL Democrats!

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yes but they are also the producers of "wealth". And if you ever hope to get what we've got . . . you need an education and to work hard . . . otherwise just look up, open your mouth, and accept the trickle.

:Q

Oh, you mean a trickle of money.

😱

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: flavio

This is not a father knows best country, well at least not until the Democrats convince the general populace that they know best and should leave being taken care of to the government. Ask yourself, which party spouts a line like that? Is it the Republicans? No, it is the Democrats with all their various social programs that would take the responsibility of taking care of oneself and doing anything but breathing away from individual and make them dependant on the government for support.

The Democratic agenda is to hopefully have most people dependent on the government for support. You really think that's what they're shooting for? That's just more rhetoric.

If you truly believe that then there may be little hope in having an intelligent discussion here.

The heart and soul of the Democratic Party does want that. Just look at one Senator Hillary Clinton for proof. Her national health care plan was just such a grab for tax dollars and dependency on the government. That's exactly what the left would like. Send the government most of your money and let them take care of your health, education, etc, etc, etc.... Socialism at it's finest. Denying that is foolish. Just look at the past grand plans of the Democrats to wipe out poverty. The New Deal, The Great Society, yeah....they worked.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: outriding
ok this is touted at an ecomonic stimulas package. where most of the money will be going to the "super rich" ( and no i dont want an arguement about well the get taxed more ). for gods sake they already have everything how is giving them more money going to help the economy. its not like they are going to buy new cars because they already have new cars, a nice house , and etc.

You don't understand economics at all do you?

trickle down economics ? that is pretty much all this is. but this time they gave a little bit to the lower class and left out the middle class all together. oh btw the tax cuts earlier really worked out very well so let do it again./ sarcasm

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Who coined the phrase, "It takes a village."?

I believe it's derived from an old African proverb . . . damn Democrats.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: outriding
ok this is touted at an ecomonic stimulas package. where most of the money will be going to the "super rich" ( and no i dont want an arguement about well the get taxed more ). for gods sake they already have everything how is giving them more money going to help the economy. its not like they are going to buy new cars because they already have new cars, a nice house , and etc.

You don't understand economics at all do you?

trickle down economics ? that is pretty much all this is. but this time they gave a little bit to the lower class and left out the middle class all together. oh btw the tax cuts earlier really worked out very well so let do it again./ sarcasm

Yep, they sure left out the middle class....you know...that class of people that make $50k and below yet file 15.2 million tax returns reporting stock dividends totaling 26.9 billion that they then have to, unfairly, pay taxes on.

The last round of tax cuts did work. They are what kept the economy from going into a true recession. If you don't believe me just look up some of Alan Greenspan's testimony to Congress mid to late last year.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
SagaLore, You should take the nut thing up with our resident CPA. He liked the idea. Bali, when in Rome, be a flake. Isn't that how that ancient saying goes? 😀

huh? What nut thing? What'd I miss?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: flavio

This is not a father knows best country, well at least not until the Democrats convince the general populace that they know best and should leave being taken care of to the government. Ask yourself, which party spouts a line like that? Is it the Republicans? No, it is the Democrats with all their various social programs that would take the responsibility of taking care of oneself and doing anything but breathing away from individual and make them dependant on the government for support.

The Democratic agenda is to hopefully have most people dependent on the government for support. You really think that's what they're shooting for? That's just more rhetoric.

If you truly believe that then there may be little hope in having an intelligent discussion here.

The heart and soul of the Democratic Party does want that. Just look at one Senator Hillary Clinton for proof. Her national health care plan was just such a grab for tax dollars and dependency on the government. That's exactly what the left would like. Send the government most of your money and let them take care of your health, education, etc, etc, etc.... Socialism at it's finest. Denying that is foolish. Just look at the past grand plans of the Democrats to wipe out poverty. The New Deal, The Great Society, yeah....they worked.

Bah...I could point out one extreme conservative and call that proof of facism as well. I haven't seen any plans of Republican wipe out poverty either. You grossly oversimply issues to make it sound as if Democrats would like to see everyone on welfare.

Would you like no government involvement in education? No public schools?

What about hardworking americans who don't make enough to afford decnt healthcare but have more than their fair share of health problems. Should they be left to die?

There are too many complicated issues in this country for for people to be following any strict party doctrine and discounting other parties as communist or fascist. Over generalization is counter-productive.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The greatest benefit ever to my state was the establishment of a school of public health and the first medical school. Why did it happen? B/C NC had the largest number of recruits rejected from WWII due to physical condition. We have a wonderful group of elders who can bestow their wisdom (and collect SS/Medicare) b/c we've invested in their health. Many of the technologies in equipment and pharmaceuticals exist b/c of government investment in healthcare.

The GI Bill helped many soldiers convert to civilian productivity. Everytime in the ED I treat a fat kid with typeII diabetes or child with asthma b/c they don't have a regular physician consumes resources that would be better applied to the acute care of true emergencies. Is NMD a prudent investment . . . some say yes others say no. Is it prudent in comparison to other vital needs . . . many would say no. Why not take the 6B to spent on NMD this year and give military raises?

The Congress blocked Clinton's stimulus package b/c it wasn't necessary . . . Bush's package should be blocked for the same reason. Take care of the necessities like extending unemployment and helping the states get their houses in order and balance the damn budget so the fat cats who clearly have not paid enough taxes (if we are in deficit that must mean taxes are too low or we are spending too much - - - it can't be spending too much b/c a lot of the early Bush package is MORE spending) can start paying down the massive debt we acquired during Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.