Your opinion: Obvious or not obvious?


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sure, but conservatives are being told they must accept the inevitability of some version of Obamacare in perpetuity even as the left widely views Obamacare as "progress" but continues to fantasize about how to transition that into a single-payer system.

In fact, some of us loons on the right believe that Obamacare is unsustainable by design - that when the whole system comes crashing down we'll be hearing "well, we gave the private sector a shot and it failed, so now - on to completely state-run health care!" (Sort of like they deliberately mischaracterized the 2009 US health care system as a "free market" when in fact the HMOs had turned it into an effectual cartel; and the Democratic administration could have deployed their justice department into trust-busting operations under existing antitrust law but opted not to.)

But see... they didn't have to do any of that. They had a majority. And you can even call it a Mandate. Single-payer system would have gone straight through if they really didn't care to compromise. And there wouldn't be a "we gave it a shot and it failed, so do it my way" because... as far as dems go, they all think single-payer system is manna from heaven and would have been a "nee-ner nee-ner nee-ner, told you it would make America such a great country"...

In conclusion, coming from a place where I have the luxury of playing referee (because, when you don't got a vote, you tend to be less emotional about it... can't blame me either way, right?)... the American political landscape is so divided that nobody really sees the wisdom of having political parties anymore. Compromise is a dirty word (no, I'm not quoting Reid) for everybody.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

P.S. There were so many great compromise bills that died on the Senate floor. Stuff that I can point to plain divisiveness for its demise.

One of them is McCain-Kennedy's Immigration Reform. That was an awesome compromise bill - all it really needed was for the pathway to citizenship to be removed - that is, the Z-visa should be a visa that works just like a green card that does not have citizenship options - and it would have been great.

The ones that finally made it to vote - both the Senate (Specter) and House (Sensenbrenner) versions - are too divisive to ever get compromised on and therefore, were doomed to a timely death.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But see... they didn't have to do any of that. They had a majority. And you can even call it a Mandate. Single-payer system would have gone straight through if they really didn't care to compromise. And there wouldn't be a "we gave it a shot and it failed, so do it my way" because... as far as dems go, they all think single-payer system is manna from heaven and would have been a "nee-ner nee-ner nee-ner, told you it would make America such a great country"...

There was a small Democratic bloc that wouldn't have gone along with it. They needed every vote - which is why the White House courted (for example) Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak so extravagantly.

In conclusion, coming from a place where I have the luxury of playing referee (because, when you don't got a vote, you tend to be less emotional about it... can't blame me either way, right?)... the American political landscape is so divided that nobody really sees the wisdom of having political parties anymore. Compromise is a dirty word (no, I'm not quoting Reid) for everybody.

Well, and I think the talking heads are right for once . . . there really is a fundamental schism in American society about the role of government in everyday life, and the positions are more or less irreconcilable. Meanwhile, the White House soldiers on - acutely aware that it is possible to create a voting majority out of welfare recipients and the working poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a small Democratic bloc that wouldn't have gone along with it. They needed every vote - which is why the White House courted (for example) Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak so extravagantly.

Like I mentioned - it was a compromise. And like all the other compromises we've talked about - is a train wreck. Because, the compromise is not an ideological compromise but a vote-buying one - which all compromises, right or left, have now become.

Well, and I think the talking heads are right for once . . . there really is a fundamental schism in American society about the role of government in everyday life, and the positions are more or less irreconcilable. Meanwhile, the White House soldiers on - acutely aware that it is possible to create a voting majority out of welfare recipients and the working poor.

But see, I don't buy this. Because, regardless of what Obama's personal philosophy is - he doesn't have legislative powers. And the dems do not all fall in that line of thinking... including the liberal voting public.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I mentioned - it was a compromise. And like all the other compromises we've talked about - is a train wreck. Because, the compromise is not an ideological compromise but a vote-buying one - which all compromises, right or left, have now become.

It sounds like you're drawing a distinction between legislative compromise versus ideological compromise. I'm not sure those can be compartmentalized so neatly. Bush II, at least, would have had to make an ideological compromise to sign those bills; and so would many of the individual nominally conservative legislators who voted for them.

But see, I don't buy this. Because, regardless of what Obama's personal philosophy is - he doesn't have legislative powers. And the dems do not all fall in that line of thinking.

Which part don't you buy? That America is fundamentally divided about the role of government, or that the White House is aware that it's possible to create an electoral majority of the underclass?

As for the latter: I would hope it isn't the case with all Democrats; but the fact remains that the party's de facto leader does subscribe to the theory--and it just got him re-elected when he grew that coalition into even more people demanding some form of free stuff (abortion! contraception! jobs based on racial preferences, not merit! more pay for less work! amnesty for making an ill-considered decision to break the law that put my entire family at risk of deportation! four years of partying--er--"education"! green energy that doesn't work but makes us feel better about ourselves!).

It would, of course, be nearly impossible to vet The public and private policy statements of each of the two-hundred-odd Dem legislators at the federal level or the thousands in place at the state level as thoroughly as those of the President. I will merely leave it at this: When you have one of the world's largest economies being run by people whose political strategy for remaining in power depends on the majority of that economy's participants not getting too rich too quickly - being a non-citizen, and therefore a non-voter, will not immunize you from the consequences, wherever you live.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you're drawing a distinction between legislative compromise versus ideological compromise. I'm not sure those can be compartmentalized so neatly. Bush II, at least, would have had to make an ideological compromise to sign those bills; and so would many of the individual nominally conservative legislators who voted for them.

They were hybrid ideological compromises which is why they were so hated on both sides. Real ideological compromise is what is now called a moderate which, together with the word compromise, has become a dirty word.

Basically, an ideological compromise is purposely losing to the opposite ideology in exchange for a win on another. Schwarzenegger is my poster child for this kind of governing. And, of course, Romney... except that instead of defending the wisdom of ideological compromises, he had to repaint himself as a strict conservative.

These new-fangled compromise by pork is terrible.

Which part don't you buy? That America is fundamentally divided about the role of government, or that the White House is aware that it's possible to create an electoral majority of the underclass?

As for the latter: I would hope it isn't the case with all Democrats; but the fact remains that the party's de facto leader does subscribe to the theory--and it just got him re-elected when he grew that coalition into even more people demanding some form of free stuff (abortion! contraception! jobs based on racial preferences, not merit! more pay for less work! amnesty for making an ill-considered decision to break the law that put my entire family at risk of deportation! four years of partying--er--"education"! green energy that doesn't work but makes us feel better about ourselves!).

It would, of course, be nearly impossible to vet The public and private policy statements of each of the two-hundred-odd Dem legislators at the federal level or the thousands in place at the state level as thoroughly as those of the President.

That the Democrats rely on welfare checks to win an election regardless of what Obama's philosophy is. The Obama-phhhooooonnneee is a cheap shot at democrats in the same class as grandma in a wheelchair getting pushed off the cliff.

I will merely leave it at this: When you have one of the world's largest economies being run by people whose political strategy for remaining in power depends on the majority of that economy's participants not getting too rich too quickly - being a non-citizen, and therefore a non-voter, will not immunize you from the consequences, wherever you live.

For a Filipino, as long as somebody can keep the idiots in check (Ahmadinejad, Jung-on, etc.) so that world war doesn't erupt, American economy tanking will not be as gloomy for the Philippines as it is for places such as China and Germany. The biggest buyers of Philippine products/services is China followed by Singapore. China could destabilize when American trade collapses due to the socio-political climate there. Singapore is relatively stable. But, conservative fiscal policies and a democratic political landscape insulates the Philippines from this type of turmoil. So that, whoever is left standing with the moneybags, can turn to the Philippines to find a place to spend it.

This is what happened in 2008 when the mortgage crisis occurred. Instead of Philippine economy going downhill with the rest of them, Philippine GDP only had one year of stagnation followed by a sharp post-recession growth in 2010 that brought things better than normal. That's the type of recession response that signals a very healthy system. And most of these growth was caused by businesses moving to the Philippines (manufacturing and call centers) to escape bad economic policies.

So, for a Filipino, the harder it is for businesses to open in the US, the easier it is for businesses to move to the Philippines... So, we might decrease demand from China and the US, but we may experience an increase from Singapore and Japan (4th consumer of Philippine exports).

That's just amateur economic analysis though... But, if I'm right, the Philippines stands to gain as the growing economy continues to grow, Filipinos will start to discover the luxury of being able to flush corrupt officials down the drain as they realize they're the only ones keeping them shackled amid all the opportunity.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a Filipino, as long as somebody can keep the idiots in check (Ahmadinejad, Jung-on, etc.) so that world war doesn't erupt, American economy tanking will not be as gloomy for the Philippines as it is for places such as China and Germany. The biggest buyers of Philippine products/services is China followed by Singapore. China could destabilize when American trade collapses due to the socio-political climate there. Singapore is relatively stable. But, conservative fiscal policies and a democratic political landscape insulates the Philippines from this type of turmoil. So that, whoever is left standing with the moneybags, can turn to the Philippines to find a place to spend it.

This is what happened in 2008 when the mortgage crisis occurred. Instead of Philippine economy going downhill with the rest of them, Philippine GDP only had one year of stagnation followed by a sharp post-recession growth in 2010 that brought things better than normal. That's the type of recession response that signals a very healthy system. And most of these growth was caused by businesses moving to the Philippines (manufacturing and call centers) to escape bad economic policies.

So, for a Filipino, the harder it is for businesses to open in the US, the easier it is for businesses to move to the Philippines... So, we might decrease demand from China and the US, but we may experience an increase from Singapore and Japan (4th consumer of Philippine exports).

That's just amateur economic analysis though... But, if I'm right, the Philippines stands to gain as the growing economy continues to grow, Filipinos will start to discover the luxury of being able to flush corrupt officials down the drain as they realize they're the only ones keeping them shackled amid all the opportunity.

Do you care about the country you live and raise your children in? Does it matter to you which direction this country goes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you care about the country you live and raise your children in? Does it matter to you which direction this country goes?

Of course, I care. I was merely responding to JAG's comment that an American decline is bad wherever you might live. I don't think this is necessarily true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were hybrid ideological compromises which is why they were so hated on both sides.

Can you please define exactly what you mean here? I'm having a little trouble following you.

Real ideological compromise is what is now called a moderate which, together with the word compromise, has become a dirty word.

I don't think the word "moderate" is hated on the left. In fact, I think most of them think of themselves and describe themselves as "moderates". That's why conservatives are developing so much contempt for the word - it's just newspeak that doesn't mean anything and is designed to cloak the historically objectionable facets of progressivism into more palatable terminology whilst at the same time marginalizing the opposition.

Basically, an ideological compromise is purposely losing to the opposite ideology in exchange for a win on another.

In the short-term only, or in the long run?

And, of course, Romney... except that instead of defending the wisdom of ideological compromises, he had to repaint himself as a strict conservative.

We've parsed language here about the definition of "compromise", but it doesn't really change my bottom-line position and I think Romney (and Bush II) (and, in 2004, John McCain) are a case in point. All of them sincerely and frequently worked across party lines; but when push came to shove - all that mattered was the big "R" after their names, and they were pilloried as extremists.

That the Democrats rely on welfare checks to win an election regardless of what Obama's philosophy is. The Obama-phhhooooonnneee is a cheap shot at democrats in the same class as grandma in a wheelchair getting pushed off the cliff.

Your language is a bit choppy here. Can you please clarify? It sounds like you're characterizing my previous post about "free stuff" as a cheap shot - which I have no problem with, if you can back it up. What parts of the Obama domestic policy platform did not involve giving something to a core constituency group at the expense of the American public at large?

For a Filipino, as long as somebody can keep the idiots in check (Ahmadinejad, Jung-on, etc.) so that world war doesn't erupt, American economy tanking will not be as gloomy for the Philippines as it is for places such as China and Germany.

Let us hope, for your country's sake, that you're right and that that the Philippines really are immune from economic international domino effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of points:

I don't think the word "moderate" is hated on the left. In fact, I think most of them think of themselves and describe themselves as "moderates". That's why conservatives are developing so much contempt for the word - it's just newspeak that doesn't mean anything and is designed to cloak the historically objectionable facets of progressivism into more palatable terminology whilst at the same time marginalizing the opposition.

Could be. The same has been said of the word 'Conservative'. One can be economically conservative, leaning left on civil rights, staunchly cautious of both extremes in regards to taxation. The dichotomy is essentially meaningless. Someone can be a pro-life, pro-gay marriage, pro-small government American Military Hawk. Does that make them a conservative, a liberal, or are those views so discordant that someone couldn't possibly hold them all in a single person? The dichotomy itself is used to force people in to simple packages, often compromising on ideals they feel strongly about when they vote because of how they view themselves.

We've parsed language here about the definition of "compromise", but it doesn't really change my bottom-line position and I think Romney (and Bush II) (and, in 2004, John McCain) are a case in point. All of them sincerely and frequently worked across party lines; but when push came to shove - all that mattered was the big "R" after their names, and they were pilloried as extremists.

Romney did a lot of that himself in the build-up to the general election. He was far-right and used far-right language all the way until he got the party platform and then we began to see the man that I would have voted in if given the chance - Someone who knows that the world isn't simple, that there has to be some government oversight or there is banditry, just to name one bit.

Can you please clarify? It sounds like you're characterizing my previous post about "free stuff" as a cheap shot - which I have no problem with, if you can back it up. What parts of the Obama domestic policy platform did not involve giving something to a core constituency group at the expense of the American public at large?

Just at a glance? The Economic Substance doctrine - A policy that states tax changes must have significant economic justification, plus his signing in of the Bush tax cuts and the credit card bill of rights, which is meant to act as oversight to the credit card equivalent of 'Ninja Loans'.

Let us hope, for your country's sake, that you're right and that that the Philippines really are immune from economic international domino effects.

Of course it won't be. No one will be, but an American economic collapse wouldn't be the end of the world - Not even for Americans. Because of the separation of powers, most of the things that are currently threatening the US economically have nothing to do with the President: The crisis in the EU, the purchasing of US debt by China, just to name a few.

I liked Romney. Heck - I'd have voted for him if I were an American - But Obama isn't as bad as some would have you believe. If anything, I would say that Obama's big problem is the ongoing balkanization of the US. If things get much worse, I suspect that either the cause of, or the first response to, an American economic collapse will be the secession of some states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please define exactly what you mean here? I'm having a little trouble following you.

Hybrid ideological compromises are things like watering down a specific bill by guaranteeing that it doesn't survive past the current Congress, or lading out the bill with pork so that lawmakers have no choice but to say Yes to things he doesn't really want to say Yes on or using the bill to jumpstart a campaign rhetoric.

A recent example to this is the 2010 tax cut extension compromise. First of all, it sunsets in 2 years - right at the turnover point for Congress. Second of all, it was used by dems as a publicity campaign to paint reps as "stonewalling tax cuts for the middle class to provide tax cuts for the rich". This, of course, is a mis-characterization. Do you know what I mean?

I don't think the word "moderate" is hated on the left. In fact, I think most of them think of themselves and describe themselves as "moderates". That's why conservatives are developing so much contempt for the word - it's just newspeak that doesn't mean anything and is designed to cloak the historically objectionable facets of progressivism into more palatable terminology whilst at the same time marginalizing the opposition.

We've parsed language here about the definition of "compromise", but it doesn't really change my bottom-line position and I think Romney (and Bush II) (and, in 2004, John McCain) are a case in point. All of them sincerely and frequently worked across party lines; but when push came to shove - all that mattered was the big "R" after their names, and they were pilloried as extremists.

I don't agree with this. Specimen A: Joe Liberman got voted off the reservation.

Clinton governed as a moderate as he had no choice when faced with Gingrich. I, personally, don't agree with most of Clinton's personal philosophy and he, for sure, did his share of dumb policies, but as far as the sum total of his government, it was a good display of the good things to come out of a democrat executive and a republican house working together for the common good.

Dubya tried to govern on the moderate side but his first term was plagued by the dems belief that he was not an elected president but a court-appointed one. He did not get much respect and there was not much compromise coming from the left on his term.

Obama, in my opinion, is just a dumb executive. I can't find a better word for dumb that expresses what I'm trying to say. Only a person who has no clue would shove Obamacare with the individual mandate and employee mandate down America's throat with a critically high unemployment rate and staggeringly rising deficits plaguing the nation. After that stunt, there was no way house reps would give him the time of day.

So, moderation went dead.

In the short-term only, or in the long run?

Both.

Your language is a bit choppy here. Can you please clarify? It sounds like you're characterizing my previous post about "free stuff" as a cheap shot - which I have no problem with, if you can back it up. What parts of the Obama domestic policy platform did not involve giving something to a core constituency group at the expense of the American public at large?

There are many "millioinaires and billionaires" voting democrat. In 2004, 38% of those with a net worth of over $1M registered as democrats, 54% republican (not too much more than half), and the rest are independents. They, for sure, don't need Obama-phones.

Domestic policy platform - there are tons actually - okay, I don't agree with most of them. For example - on the "War on Women" - the dem stance on equal pay for women is levelling the field - it's not at the expense of the American public at large. I don't agree with it because I believe the 20-some% lower income for females is not due to their pay-rate being lower but due to their fewer work-days. So, to level the field, Romney's approach in support of a flexible work environment would have been the best solution targetted at the real cause of the problem.

Another one - I don't agree with either - supporting green energy and limiting oil and coal. This is definitely not a "take from one to give to another". It is plain and simply an ideological difference where a transition to green energy to reduce dependency on oil and provide for a cleaner environment can only be achieved through keynesian principles. I don't agree with it because I believe that energy is the lifeblood of modern society. Energy independence, therefore, is more important to uncouple America from foreign control of their economy. The luxury of exploring green energy (which everybody agrees on is a noble cause) can, therefore, be achieved by first stabilizing current energy sources to protect the economy.

Let us hope, for your country's sake, that you're right and that that the Philippines really are immune from economic international domino effects.

They're not immune. Nobody is with the dollar as the trade currency. They're just better positioned to be more resilient than most. They've proved themselves through the dot-com bust, the mortgage crisis, as well as the Euro crisis currently unfolding. Hey, if nothing else, you can look to the Philippines as an example of the wisdom of conservative financial principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure has been interesting reading how diffrent some of your thoughts are on the two directions of

government.

All being of the same faith, yet strong in opinion on how it should play out.

I pray that the Body of Christ not be divided over anything, and look always for an explaination

of such weakness .

Truth will stand, nations will fall unless they repent and ask for wisdom to lead.

Pardon my interruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of points:

. . .

Romney did a lot of that himself in the build-up to the general election. He was far-right and used far-right language all the way until he got the party platform and then we began to see the man that I would have voted in if given the chance - Someone who knows that the world isn't simple, that there has to be some government oversight or there is banditry, just to name one bit.

Random tangent here: Leaving aside what Democrats and the domestic and foreign media say about conservatives, and taking merely the statements of conservatives themselves: have we really so utterly failed to distinguish ourselves from anarchists? Have we really appeared to espouse the position that regulation is never ok?

Just at a glance? The Economic Substance doctrine - A policy that states tax changes must have significant economic justification,

No disrespect, but doesn't that just boil down to "taxes shouldn't be raised unless I believe they should be raised"? The President is already on record as saying we should "spread the wealth around". What further justification does he need?

plus his signing in of the Bush tax cuts

I think his platform was keeping them for some income levels and dispensing with them for others.

and the credit card bill of rights, which is meant to act as oversight to the credit card equivalent of 'Ninja Loans'.

I had five-digit credit card debt when that passed, and my interest rate shot up just before it went into effect - Wells Fargo decided to get while the getting was good, knowing their ability for targeted penalties to those who missed payments or exceeded their limits was about to be severely curttailed. It may just be that the administration was incapable of foreseeing the unintended consequences of their actions, but to me it sure felt like I was being asked to subsidize those who had been less conscientious about making their payments.

Of course it won't be. No one will be, but an American economic collapse wouldn't be the end of the world - Not even for Americans.

That's sort of like "Adam's" quote from the OP, to which I would reply more or less as Bob did - sans Hitler reference, of course.

Because of the separation of powers, most of the things that are currently threatening the US economically have nothing to do with the President: The crisis in the EU, the purchasing of US debt by China, just to name a few.

Well, and the staggering amount of debt. We can't grapple with that if we don't have a President willing to address the our fundamental spending problem - any congressional proposals will be pretty much DOA.

If anything, I would say that Obama's big problem is the ongoing balkanization of the US. If things get much worse, I suspect that either the cause of, or the first response to, an American economic collapse will be the secession of some states.

I don't think any state is so delusional as to think that it would be better off economically without any ties to its sister states. It would take a pretty murderous federal tax rate for that to happen. Seems to me that a partial default of sovereign debt is the more likely trigger of economic collapse, and even that won't cause secession - it will cause rioting in the streets and mass starvation among those who have been taught to rely on government aid that no longer comes (think current Staten Island or Queens, on steroids) but I don't think there will be enough cultural or political cohesion in a single geographic area to give rise to a true, viable secession movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody knows what the purpose of Socialism is. That's not in question. The question is - Socialism is an idealistic state that expects the good out of every person. Once you put human frailty to govern it, it's deeesazzterrr...

Now, my question to you Talisyn... there is no need to have a government to be socialist. You can practice it in your own home. So... if you really believe in a Socialist ideal, then are you practicing it with your own family?

Because, if you can't make it work in your own family, it's not gonna work anywhere.

What in the world makes you think she does not practice what she preaches? Or do you just assume socialists are liars?

Talisyn lives as if the United Order was in effect now. She, and her siblings, take care of each other. I could not be prouder.

Problem is that Talisyn/sibings can not take care of all that need help. Our country could take care of the poor and help them get out of that hole but we prefer to place labels on people, then justify our lack of caring and doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world makes you think she does not practice what she preaches? Or do you just assume socialists are liars?

Talisyn lives as if the United Order was in effect now. She, and her siblings, take care of each other. I could not be prouder.

Problem is that Talisyn/sibings can not take care of all that need help. Our country could take care of the poor and help them get out of that hole but we prefer to place labels on people, then justify our lack of caring and doing.

Where in my post did I say Talisyn is not practicing it in his own family? I said... IF you can make it work...

My family practice it. And we can't make it work unless we can vote the bad apples off the island... Or send my rich uncle to the poor house... Both of which we have done... My uncle is now 78 and still working... 4 of his siblings plus his son battled cancer.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Socialism is defined by a community of fewer than a thousand.

That's really about the size that pure socialism can work and be self-sustaining. Anything bigger and you'll need a hybrid system like China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hybrid ideological compromises are things like watering down a specific bill by guaranteeing that it doesn't survive past the current Congress, or lading out the bill with pork so that lawmakers have no choice but to say Yes to things he doesn't really want to say Yes on or using the bill to jumpstart a campaign rhetoric. . . Do you know what I mean?

Yeah, I think so. Remind me how that ties into our discussion to this point? (Apologies, long day)

I don't agree with this. Specimen A: Joe Liberman got voted off the reservation.

I wonder, though. Did those who voted him out label him as moderate, or closet conservative? How did they label themselves?

For example - on the "War on Women" - the dem stance on equal pay for women is levelling the field - it's not at the expense of the American public at large. I don't agree with it because I believe the 20-some% lower income for females is not due to their pay-rate being lower but due to their fewer work-days.

Well, there you go. Dig into the issue and the President is demanding more pay for less work for one segment of society - the cost to be facially borne by the employers which means, as anyone familiar with the economy knows, the consumers.

Another one - I don't agree with either - supporting green energy and limiting oil and coal. This is definitely not a "take from one to give to another".

Sure it is. Just like you can rob from someone without ever meeting him or setting foot in his house, you can redistribute without collecting or disbursing another cent in taxes. (For example, you can compel an HMO to cover certain elective, even controversial and downright revolting procedures. not that our dear leader would ever do such a thing.). Green energy companies are getting billions in subsidies, at a time when we should be subsidizing private enterprise less and not more. Meanwhile the President has acknowledged his desire to make energy prices skyrocket - and, through limitations on drilling and mining, its happening. That's money out of our pockets.

That's what's so frustrating to conservatives. It's like the frog in the near-boiling pot of water who said "say, something smell good! What's cooking?" It's US that's cooking, folks - and we just re-elected the chef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world makes you think she does not practice what she preaches? Or do you just assume socialists are liars?

Talisyn lives as if the United Order was in effect now. She, and her siblings, take care of each other. I could not be prouder.

Problem is that Talisyn/sibings can not take care of all that need help. Our country could take care of the poor and help them get out of that hole but we prefer to place labels on people, then justify our lack of caring and doing.

Please define "take care of". The US government has had programs in place for shelter, food, limited cash, medical care, and vocational training for the poorest among us for two generations now. No conservative that I know of is seriously talking about revoking that.

So, Annewandering, how much more do you want - and what's it going to cost my family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think so. Remind me how that ties into our discussion to this point? (Apologies, long day)

We were talking about compromises that are train wrecks.

I wonder, though. Did those who voted him out label him as moderate, or closet conservative? How did they label themselves?

He was the VP candidate not too long ago. He was definitely the moderate liberal. They thought his war position was too moderate for their taste.

Well, there you go. Dig into the issue and the President is demanding more pay for less work for one segment of society - the cost to be facially borne by the employers which means, as anyone familiar with the economy knows, the consumers.

You're applying your own bias. The democrats are not demanding more pay for less work. It is touting the actions of a democrat Congress in passing the Lily Ledbetter law - equal pay for equal work.

If you think of all things this way, then you'll have to call out the Republican position of building naval ships as redistributing wealth to military contractors. It just doesn't work that way.

Although, I have to concede that the GOP platform is more "inclusive of all Americans" than the Dem.

Sure it is. Just like you can rob from someone without ever meeting him or setting foot in his house, you can redistribute without collecting or disbursing another cent in taxes. (For example, you can compel an HMO to cover certain elective, even controversial and downright revolting procedures. not that our dear leader would ever do such a thing.). Green energy companies are getting billions in subsidies, at a time when we should be subsidizing private enterprise less and not more. Meanwhile the President has acknowledged his desire to make energy prices skyrocket - and, through limitations on drilling and mining, its happening. That's money out of our pockets.

You're looking at it from the Republican ideology. The Democrat ideology is Keynesian in nature in which the way to transition out of the status quo is to provide a government injection of investment to new technology. Basically, for green energy to succeed (we ALL want green energy to succeed), it will have to gain enough momentum to compete with the status quo, otherwise, change through capitalism will not kick in until it becomes too painful for Americans to stay with the status quo, at which time, we wouldnt be prepared to do a peaceful transition. And, of course, it defeats the purpose if you're injecting money to push new technology into competition when you're also giving the old technology a leg up by expanding drilling. You're wasting your injection.

This is not a redistribution because everybody benefits from the new technology. The age old process of the government providing grant money is an integral part of American society.

That's what's so frustrating to conservatives. It's like the frog in the near-boiling pot of water who said "say, something smell good! What's cooking?" It's US that's cooking, folks - and we just re-elected the chef.

You can disagree with the ideology, sticking with capitalism to usher in the needed change, but you can't really demonize the different ideology because, it's like Assemblies of God demonizing Mormons... Its idiotic because they both truly believe in their idea of what constitutes salvation.

If Romney would have won the election, you'll hear the other side utter the exact same sentiment - in reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our country could take care of the poor and help them get out of that hole but we prefer to place labels on people, then justify our lack of caring and doing.

Please define "take care of". The US government has had programs in place for shelter, food, limited cash, medical care, and vocational training for the poorest among us for two generations now. No conservative that I know of is seriously talking about revoking that.

So, Annewandering, how much more do you want - and what's it going to cost my family?

Here's fact for you:

Recent reports claim that there are 46.2Million Americans living under the poverty line.

This year, the US spent $792Billion on welfare - that is, food stamps, WICs, housing, unemployment assistance and the like. This doesn't count things like Medicaid, Pell Grants, etc.

Doing simple mathematics, if we just get rid of all these welfare programs and give each person living under the poverty line the equivalent cash, each person will receive $17,143 per year. A family of 4 is smack dab in the middle of middle class.

That should be enough to wipe most everybody out of the poverty line. YET, we still hear about the poor... Now... Why do you think that is?

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share