Conservatives

[AnnECUCherry]

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

What you are describing is extreme poverty, not your citizen of ordinary means who enjoys the benefits of all those things you seem to believe only wealthy people enjoy. And still even the poorest of those people have the potential to benefit when they find themselves capable of pulling themselves out of their situation. The average person of average means enjoys the benefits of all those things more than the average very wealthy person whom you decry, simply because there are more average people on the bell-curve of wealth. Sadly those people you are most concerned about are usually people with some mental/emotional/drug problem which keeps them in their situation.

The "citizen of ordinary means" you're describing is the middle-class person. Previously, the middle class could occasionally enjoy at least some of the same things more well-to-do people could on a regular basis.

However, the middle class has been shrinking. There are far fewer people nowadays who can afford to travel and enjoy vacations.

Yet the government continues to provide roadways, waterways, and airways for personal travel -- all paid for in part by people who cannot afford to use them.

Most poorer people don't live in abject poverty. Most poorer people are the working poor, people who barely manage to sustain themselves and their families.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

What you are describing is extreme poverty, not your citizen of ordinary means who enjoys the benefits of all those things you seem to believe only wealthy people enjoy. And still even the poorest of those people have the potential to benefit when they find themselves capable of pulling themselves out of their situation. The average person of average means enjoys the benefits of all those things more than the average very wealthy person whom you decry, simply because there are more average people on the bell-curve of wealth. Sadly those people you are most concerned about are usually people with some mental/emotional/drug problem which keeps them in their situation.

I wonder about definitions, such as 'poor."

"When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition. On average, poor people who live in either apartments or in houses are not crowded and actually have more living space than the average person living in European countries, such as France, Italy or England.

Also, a lot of people believe that poor people are malnourished. But in fact when you look at the average nutriment intake of poor children, it is virtually indistinguishable from upper-middle-class children. In fact, poor kids by the time they reach age 18 or 19 are taller and heavier than the average middle-class teenagers in the 1950s at the time of Elvis. And the boys, when they reach 18, are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs storming the beaches of Normandy. It’s pretty hard to accomplish that if you are facing chronic food shortages throughout your life. "

FrontPage Magazine

...When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1.5 baths in very good recondition....

Pure baloney. Where's your evidence?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

But then again, you're assuming the GOP is conservative.

Not a bit!

And that's one of the points being made in this thread.

And completely shot down by quotes from Krauthammer and LimpBoy in 2006 I posted earlier. Are you calling them lying sore losers when they proclaimed a CON$ervative victory in the 2006 elections?????

Yes.

 

[Avatar4321]

I agree, Father Time.

Of course, Sassy didn't list conservative principles, just GOP wedge issues.

Wedge issues, ie important issues that you cant address so you like to pretend they are just distractions.

Just because you dont like the issues, doesnt mean they arent important. Nor does it mean your pet issues are any less divisive.

 

[Zoomie1980]

PoliticalChic... Sorry you "feel" victimized and offended...LOL

BTW, don't you believe there are "groups" that need special protection?

No, any group that cannot take care of itself should just die and go away....

 

[AnnECUCherry]

I agree, Father Time.

Of course, Sassy didn't list conservative principles, just GOP wedge issues.

Wedge issues, ie important issues that you cant address so you like to pretend they are just distractions.

Not only can I address then, I can prove they are wedge issues; i.e., issues of little importance that are ramped up just to attract a certain segment of the electorate.

Just because you dont like the issues, doesnt mean they arent important. Nor does it mean your pet issues are any less divisive.

Abortion, for example, isn't "important."

Were it, while the GOP was in power -- as in all three branches of the federal government -- they'd have 'done something.' They didn't, because they need abortion to keep the far right riled up and eager to vote Republican.

Same with the Defense of Marriage amendment. No sooner than he began his second term, Bush declared that he would not seek a constitutional amendment defining marriage -- despite that the GOP had made that one of its bigger points during the campaign.

 

[Zoomie1980]

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

What you are describing is extreme poverty, not your citizen of ordinary means who enjoys the benefits of all those things you seem to believe only wealthy people enjoy. And still even the poorest of those people have the potential to benefit when they find themselves capable of pulling themselves out of their situation. The average person of average means enjoys the benefits of all those things more than the average very wealthy person whom you decry, simply because there are more average people on the bell-curve of wealth. Sadly those people you are most concerned about are usually people with some mental/emotional/drug problem which keeps them in their situation.

The "citizen of ordinary means" you're describing is the middle-class person. Previously, the middle class could occasionally enjoy at least some of the same things more well-to-do people could on a regular basis.

However, the middle class has been shrinking. There are far fewer people nowadays who can afford to travel and enjoy vacations.

Yet the government continues to provide roadways, waterways, and airways for personal travel -- all paid for in part by people who cannot afford to use them.

Most poorer people don't live in abject poverty. Most poorer people are the working poor, people who barely manage to sustain themselves and their families.

If you are poor, in the United States, and of sound mind and body, you DESERVE your fate. They are "poor" because they made bad life choices, attained no marketable skills or engaged in criminal or addictive behavior. Piss on them, they deserve their lot in life.

 

[garyd]

Sorry agna but Marginal utility has nothing rational to do with the subject at hand.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

What you are describing is extreme poverty, not your citizen of ordinary means who enjoys the benefits of all those things you seem to believe only wealthy people enjoy. And still even the poorest of those people have the potential to benefit when they find themselves capable of pulling themselves out of their situation. The average person of average means enjoys the benefits of all those things more than the average very wealthy person whom you decry, simply because there are more average people on the bell-curve of wealth. Sadly those people you are most concerned about are usually people with some mental/emotional/drug problem which keeps them in their situation.

The "citizen of ordinary means" you're describing is the middle-class person. Previously, the middle class could occasionally enjoy at least some of the same things more well-to-do people could on a regular basis.

However, the middle class has been shrinking. There are far fewer people nowadays who can afford to travel and enjoy vacations.

Yet the government continues to provide roadways, waterways, and airways for personal travel -- all paid for in part by people who cannot afford to use them.

Most poorer people don't live in abject poverty. Most poorer people are the working poor, people who barely manage to sustain themselves and their families.

If you are poor, in the United States, and of sound mind and body, you DESERVE your fate. They are "poor" because they made bad life choices, attained no marketable skills or engaged in criminal or addictive behavior. Piss on them, they deserve their lot in life.

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

 

[Agnapostate]

Sorry agna but Marginal utility has nothing rational to do with the subject at hand.

Y'know...there were five more pages.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The "citizen of ordinary means" you're describing is the middle-class person. Previously, the middle class could occasionally enjoy at least some of the same things more well-to-do people could on a regular basis.

However, the middle class has been shrinking. There are far fewer people nowadays who can afford to travel and enjoy vacations.

Yet the government continues to provide roadways, waterways, and airways for personal travel -- all paid for in part by people who cannot afford to use them.

Most poorer people don't live in abject poverty. Most poorer people are the working poor, people who barely manage to sustain themselves and their families.

If you are poor, in the United States, and of sound mind and body, you DESERVE your fate. They are "poor" because they made bad life choices, attained no marketable skills or engaged in criminal or addictive behavior. Piss on them, they deserve their lot in life.

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

If they did not pursue education or vocational schools for marketable skills, dropped out of school, took illegal drugs, engaged in criminal activity, refused to improve themselves......then,yes, they did. Most, didn't

 

[garyd]

Of course didn't really care you made a statement to which I responded Marginal utility does not adress the fact that the rich pay a far higher share of taxes than do the poor and in fact benefit no more from them than do the poor. In fact under the current socialist order they don't benefit as much.

 

[American Horse]

If you are poor, in the United States, and of sound mind and body, you DESERVE your fate. They are "poor" because they made bad life choices, attained no marketable skills or engaged in criminal or addictive behavior. Piss on them, they deserve their lot in life.

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

If they did not pursue education or vocational schools for marketable skills, dropped out of school, took illegal drugs, engaged in criminal activity, refused to improve themselves......then,yes, they did. Most, didn't

Amen! And it takes more than waiting for something good to happen, too. Sometimes you have to go out and make it happen, rattle the bushes, even go to another larger labor market, a regional city. Right now I know people who have gotten job offers in Indianapolis, 50 miles away but don't want to deal with the driving every day, so remain unemployed. That sucks!

NOTE to Ann, do you feel a need to yell at us? We hear you just fine.

 

[Avatar4321]

Abortion, for example, isn't "important."

Were it, while the GOP was in power -- as in all three branches of the federal government -- they'd have 'done something.' They didn't, because they need abortion to keep the far right riled up and eager to vote Republican.

Same with the Defense of Marriage amendment. No sooner than he began his second term, Bush declared that he would not seek a constitutional amendment defining marriage -- despite that the GOP had made that one of its bigger points during the campaign.

They did do something. For one they banned partial birth abortions. They didnt have enough votes on the Court to overturn Roe V Wade. They didnt have a fillibuster proof Senate. What exactly did you expect them to do?

 

[Agnapostate]

Of course didn't really care you made a statement to which I responded Marginal utility does not adress the fact that the rich pay a far higher share of taxes than do the poor and in fact benefit no more from them than do the poor. In fact under the current socialist order they don't benefit as much.

That's precisely what the diminishing rate of marginal utility is intended to represent. The wealthy have the means to pay greater tax rates than the poor because of the diminishing rate of marginal utility that characterizes significant capital accumulation. We don't have any "socialist order." The current model of capitalism practiced in the U.S. is a broadly liberal democratic model with Anglo-Saxon tinges.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

If you are poor, in the United States, and of sound mind and body, you DESERVE your fate. They are "poor" because they made bad life choices, attained no marketable skills or engaged in criminal or addictive behavior. Piss on them, they deserve their lot in life.

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

If they did not pursue education or vocational schools for marketable skills, dropped out of school, took illegal drugs, engaged in criminal activity, refused to improve themselves......then,yes, they did. Most, didn't

A "marketable skill" is worthless when employers discriminate against blacks -- or women or gays -- in hiring and promotions.

And what good is a "marketable skill" in an economy in which female former Wall Street execs are stripping to make ends meet.

And clearing six-figure incomes?!

You are refusing to allow reality to enter your perception of the situation.

You seem to believe that everyone has the same opportunity, but some choose not to take it.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Of course didn't really care you made a statement to which I responded Marginal utility does not adress the fact that the rich pay a far higher share of taxes than do the poor and in fact benefit no more from them than do the poor. In fact under the current socialist order they don't benefit as much.

They do "benefit as much."

Just in different ways.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Total BS.

You're saying that people who are born black "made bad life choices"?

If they did not pursue education or vocational schools for marketable skills, dropped out of school, took illegal drugs, engaged in criminal activity, refused to improve themselves......then,yes, they did. Most, didn't

Amen! And it takes more than waiting for something good to happen, too. Sometimes you have to go out and make it happen, rattle the bushes, even go to another larger labor market, a regional city. Right now I know people who have gotten job offers in Indianapolis, 50 miles away but don't want to deal with the driving every day, so remain unemployed. That sucks!

NOTE to Ann, do you feel a need to yell at us? We hear you just fine.

There. Is this better?!

As far as "mak[ing] it happen," do you not realize how difficult it is for people to "make it happen" when "it" is 50 miles away? Plenty of people can't afford that kind of commuting.

Some of you people sound positively clueless about the real world.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Abortion, for example, isn't "important."

Were it, while the GOP was in power -- as in all three branches of the federal government -- they'd have 'done something.' They didn't, because they need abortion to keep the far right riled up and eager to vote Republican.

Same with the Defense of Marriage amendment. No sooner than he began his second term, Bush declared that he would not seek a constitutional amendment defining marriage -- despite that the GOP had made that one of its bigger points during the campaign.

They did do something. For one they banned partial birth abortions. They didnt have enough votes on the Court to overturn Roe V Wade. They didnt have a fillibuster proof Senate. What exactly did you expect them to do?

There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion." That is not a medical term. It's a right-wing attempt to demonize abortion by focusing on a procedure almost never used.

The vast majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester.

And, no, I don't consider that the right-wing did anything about abortion while they had the chance. If abortion were actually a concern of the GOP, they've had overturned Roe v Wade while they were in control of the government.

They didn't, because they still need a hot-button item to keep their voting base eager to get out to the polls.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course didn't really care you made a statement to which I responded Marginal utility does not adress the fact that the rich pay a far higher share of taxes than do the poor and in fact benefit no more from them than do the poor. In fact under the current socialist order they don't benefit as much.

That's not true. The CON$ervative stats used to make such false claims are cooked by counting only the progressive income tax as a tax, and ignoring all regressive taxes like payroll taxes, to make their share of the taxes seem bigger. And only counting the earned income from wages as income, grossly underestimating the income of the wealthy who get most of their wealth from capital gains rather than wages. Capital gains are only counted as income when realized, so if your portfolio doubles from $10 million to $20 million, none of that $10 million increase in wealth is taxed or counted as income unless you sell some or all of it. Capital gains is like an unlimited IRA with no penalties for early withdrawal and reduced taxes even before retirement age.
And the wealthy STILL complain about capital gains taxes. They are never satisfied.