Top Priorities

[Foxfyre]

There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.

So you're saying that since time immemorial, the conservative ideology has never failed at anything. Gotcha.

As for the Reagan speech, sure, he always said the "right" thing to bring tears to the eyes of patriotic Americans. But he was also making a pitch for war. I do wonder what happened to the model for future conservatives who would treat their employees so generously, such as the one Reagan described in the speech. (I assume he was talking about Goldwater, with this story.) I think Henry Ford also believed that a strong workforce meant strong product and strong profit, and he kept his employees happy. So much for 'modern' conservatism, however.

From the speech:

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

Again Maggie you dishonestly misinterpret and misstate what I say. I really REALLY wish you wouldn't do that because it gets freaking boring having to call you on it every time you do.

And yes, Reagan did praise Goldwater for his altruistic relationship with his employees. But note that it was Goldwater who took the initiative. PRIVATE BUSINESS taking the initiative. Which is the way it should be done. Government cannot do it themselves as efficiently and effectively because for one thing it doesn't give a damn about those employees--it doesn't even know them--and it will siphon most of the money off in the bureacracy before the employees ever see a dime.

Perhaps you also noted that point Reagan made in his speech?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm pretty damn good with taxes and did the accounting for our small business. And I'm pretty sure that we didn't overlook a single deduction we could take off the gross before we had to pay taxes on the remainder. (A whole bunch of the deductible items, however, we paid various other taxes on them when we bought them.)

Net result: we paid probably 15-20% more in taxes as small business owners than we would have paid if we were working for wages. And we paid for all our benefits out of our own pockets--nobody furnished them to us.

So again Maggie, you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The following is just a fraction of the taxes we pay and it is noteworthy that almost none of these existed 100 years ago when the Federal and state budgets were balanced and the U.S. citizens were the most free, most productive, most innovative, most creative, and becoming the most prosperous people in the world:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
(indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
(FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
(42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense
(tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges
(tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties
(tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes
(Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
(SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone mi nimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines
(indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

You pay all of those? Wow, you need to turn your "tax talents" over to a qualified CPA with tax accounting expertise.

Every single one of those "taxes" helps PAY FOR the specific service or commodity or the administration thereof. It would be nice if we could all own private property with private well water in order to flush our toilets or were all on friendly terms with the one guy in town who owns a snow plow. But we don't, so we pay a sewer tax to the town and we pay transportation taxes through vehicle licenses and road fines (and tolls) to maintain the roads traveled by over 250 million vehicles per day.

You are totally off the wall irrational in your thinking.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hmmm what taxes do I actuall pay?

Federal Income Tax with that income now including my health insurance benefits (Thanks mr President)
State Income Tax
Medicare Tax
Social Security Tax
Local Property Tax
Sales Tax
Meals tax (Restaurants)
State per gallon Gas tax on top of sales tax on gas
Federal per gallon gas tax
annual Automotive excise tax
Annual automotive registration fee
Liscensing Fee for firearms and driving
Excise tax on my electric bill
Excise tax on my phone bill along with misc federal and state fees on the bill
Excise tax on my cable bill
Excise tax on my liquid propane bill in addition to a per gallon tax
Alcohol tax on top of a sales tax on alcohol.
Annual automotive safety inspection fee.

I think thats all of them.

 

[MaggieMae]

priority #1 is the economy and jobs. it is my impression that how the government pays off its credit cards has nothing to do with restoring my customer count to circa 2005 levels. while some americans might jump for joy that the government is taking self interested steps when the economy is underperforming, others will be upset.

at the moment, the tables are turned... that is, for you and those who want to see austerity from the government during an economic recovery. it is perceived by the rest of us that judgment from right of center with specific respect to the economy has lost the credibility which it had 30 years ago.

it might even occur to some that the same solutions might not fit with the dramatically different challenges the government and the economy are facing. for those folks amongst whom i count myself, a candidate like what you feel is ideal seems like he is out of touch with the top priority in your poll.

as far as obama goes, i don't get yours and spoonman's appraisal of his ineffectiveness. congress has ripped through many heavyweight legislations in the span of less than 2 years. i would say too much rather than not enough with regard to democratic lawmaking at the moment. the congress even passed a fiscal responsibility bill. it was a blur.

like you said, though: not a priority.

This week, C-Span's Washington Journal has been doing a five-part analysis of the financial reform bill and what effects it will have both on businesses and consumers. So far, the consensus has been among the experts who have dissected it is that it doesn't go far enough with installing new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis.

i'll bet this is because installing enough 'new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis' would cause a mortgage and banking crisis in and of itself. that would be like outlawing punching in boxing matches to mitigate head injuries. furthermore, the government doesn't have to be the only player considering risk. the idea is that risk is recognized and quantified in the market itself. that's where the money's at.

there will be another bust over financial services - for certain, but that will be because we are the financial services and commodities hub of the world still. there are other countries vying for that top position, and over-regulation will play right into their competitive advantage.

I don't think any global competitor wants to wind up in the same boat, frankly, so I would think they would welcome these changes.

With the exception of the new consumer protection agency, which will make sure consumers and investors are protected, most of the so-called 'new' regulations merely strengthen existing ones. A good part of the problem was lack of oversight by the SEC, as explained today by the former chief accountant for the SEC from 1998 to 2001. He said the regulations were there, but there was never enough staff to do the proper oversight of the major financial lending institutions. (Christopher Cox has said the same thing.) When Bear-Stearns crashed, then Lehman Brothers, it wasn't until then that the SEC realized the magnitude of the problem. And I would think any foreign competitor would not be looking forward to any similar surprises.

 

[Foxfyre]

The 'we' is a generic 'we'. We don't utilize all that personally, so no we personally don't pay them all, but people all across the country are paying them. And almost all didn't exist 100 years ago when the country was stable, growing, had little or no national debt, and the sky was the limit for just about everybody who had the skills and ambition to reach for their goals.

So the fact is, we're not getting our money's worth out of all those taxes that are paid. The conservative principles of smaller, leaner, more efficient, more effective, more economical government coupled with securing the rights of the people and then leaving them free to govern themselves as much as possible has not failed us yet. The idea that government can dictate the way people will live their lives and how their resources will be allocated has produced far more poverty, far less productivity, and far less happiness wherever and whenever it has been tried.

 

[MaggieMae]

There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.

So you're saying that since time immemorial, the conservative ideology has never failed at anything. Gotcha.

As for the Reagan speech, sure, he always said the "right" thing to bring tears to the eyes of patriotic Americans. But he was also making a pitch for war. I do wonder what happened to the model for future conservatives who would treat their employees so generously, such as the one Reagan described in the speech. (I assume he was talking about Goldwater, with this story.) I think Henry Ford also believed that a strong workforce meant strong product and strong profit, and he kept his employees happy. So much for 'modern' conservatism, however.

From the speech:

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

Again Maggie you dishonestly misinterpret and misstate what I say. I really REALLY wish you wouldn't do that because it gets freaking boring having to call you on it every time you do.
Then perhaps you can explain what you DID mean by this:

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

And yes, Reagan did praise Goldwater for his altruistic relationship with his employees. But note that it was Goldwater who took the initiative. PRIVATE BUSINESS taking the initiative. Which is the way it should be done. Government cannot do it themselves as efficiently and effectively because for one thing it doesn't give a damn about those employees--it doesn't even know them--and it will siphon most of the money off in the bureacracy before the employees ever see a dime.

Perhaps you also noted that point Reagan made in his speech?

I got that, but I think you didn't 'get' what I said about it (or asked the question--what happened?) At what point did private business stop looking out for its own employees if it was such a wonderful way to do business (which it is--no argument there)?

 

[MaggieMae]

Hmmm what taxes do I actuall pay?

Federal Income Tax with that income now including my health insurance benefits (Thanks mr President)
Then you're being screwed by someone. You should not be paying any new taxes because of insurance requirements under the new bill.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orms-hr-3590-health-insurance-pay-taxes/efits

State Income Tax
Medicare Tax
Social Security Tax
Local Property Tax
Sales Tax
Meals tax (Restaurants)
State per gallon Gas tax on top of sales tax on gas
Federal per gallon gas tax
annual Automotive excise tax
Annual automotive registration fee
Liscensing Fee for firearms and driving
Excise tax on my electric bill
Excise tax on my phone bill along with misc federal and state fees on the bill
Excise tax on my cable bill
Excise tax on my liquid propane bill in addition to a per gallon tax
Alcohol tax on top of a sales tax on alcohol.
Annual automotive safety inspection fee.

I think thats all of them.

Some of those are your choices: Don't eat out; don't buy alcohol. Some also look like state generated taxes, as I pay no additional tax on propane gas where I live.

 

[antagon]

This week, C-Span's Washington Journal has been doing a five-part analysis of the financial reform bill and what effects it will have both on businesses and consumers. So far, the consensus has been among the experts who have dissected it is that it doesn't go far enough with installing new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis.

i'll bet this is because installing enough 'new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis' would cause a mortgage and banking crisis in and of itself. that would be like outlawing punching in boxing matches to mitigate head injuries. furthermore, the government doesn't have to be the only player considering risk. the idea is that risk is recognized and quantified in the market itself. that's where the money's at.

there will be another bust over financial services - for certain, but that will be because we are the financial services and commodities hub of the world still. there are other countries vying for that top position, and over-regulation will play right into their competitive advantage.

I don't think any global competitor wants to wind up in the same boat, frankly, so I would think they would welcome these changes.

With the exception of the new consumer protection agency, which will make sure consumers and investors are protected, most of the so-called 'new' regulations merely strengthen existing ones. A good part of the problem was lack of oversight by the SEC, as explained today by the former chief accountant for the SEC from 1998 to 2001. He said the regulations were there, but there was never enough staff to do the proper oversight of the major financial lending institutions. (Christopher Cox has said the same thing.) When Bear-Stearns crashed, then Lehman Brothers, it wasn't until then that the SEC realized the magnitude of the problem. And I would think any foreign competitor would not be looking forward to any similar surprises.

no. a competitive advantage in attracting the world's banking activity is worth more than the risk of another such financial services event 20 years from now. are you kidding? hundreds of trillions of dollars more.

the SEC warned lehman and sterns about their leverage before they tanked. they were clear that those banks would not be rewarded a federal intervention.

like any boom, i think public and private concern was tied up in sustaining the good times more than retreating from the increasing risk. like any bust, this behavior has come back and bit them in their several asses. this will repeat itself as it has in the past, and if it is not mortgage futures next time, it will be something else.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you're saying that since time immemorial, the conservative ideology has never failed at anything. Gotcha.

As for the Reagan speech, sure, he always said the "right" thing to bring tears to the eyes of patriotic Americans. But he was also making a pitch for war. I do wonder what happened to the model for future conservatives who would treat their employees so generously, such as the one Reagan described in the speech. (I assume he was talking about Goldwater, with this story.) I think Henry Ford also believed that a strong workforce meant strong product and strong profit, and he kept his employees happy. So much for 'modern' conservatism, however.

From the speech:

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

Again Maggie you dishonestly misinterpret and misstate what I say. I really REALLY wish you wouldn't do that because it gets freaking boring having to call you on it every time you do.
Then perhaps you can explain what you DID mean by this:

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

And yes, Reagan did praise Goldwater for his altruistic relationship with his employees. But note that it was Goldwater who took the initiative. PRIVATE BUSINESS taking the initiative. Which is the way it should be done. Government cannot do it themselves as efficiently and effectively because for one thing it doesn't give a damn about those employees--it doesn't even know them--and it will siphon most of the money off in the bureacracy before the employees ever see a dime.

Perhaps you also noted that point Reagan made in his speech?

I got that, but I think you didn't 'get' what I said about it (or asked the question--what happened?) At what point did private business stop looking out for its own employees if it was such a wonderful way to do business (which it is--no argument there)?

It is not private business's business to look out for its employees other than to respect the rights of the employees to not be subjected to unnecessary risk or danger or harmful substances or conditions. Many, in fact most businesses, do provide what benefits they can for their employees because they compete with other businesses for the most competent labor force. The more the government mandates what business HAS to do, however, the fewer resources business has to work with and the less flexibility they have. And when the government takes over a lot of the benefits or aids and abets pet constituencies that are favored over others, business is taxes more and more to enable government to do that. But again, government returns only a fraction, often a tiny fraction of the taxes it collects. The rest is swallowed up in the bureaucracy.

I don't know why that is such a difficult concept for some to grasp.

 

[Foxfyre]

And as for what I meant by this:

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

you honestly can't understand that?

If in the past, certain policies or initiatives have produced many undesirable results and accomplished little of the promised benefits, only an idiot would think it would produce different results by implementing the same policy or initiative now.

 

[MaggieMae]

The 'we' is a generic 'we'. We don't utilize all that personally, so no we personally don't pay them all, but people all across the country are paying them. And almost all didn't exist 100 years ago when the country was stable, growing, had little or no national debt, and the sky was the limit for just about everybody who had the skills and ambition to reach for their goals.

So the fact is, we're not getting our money's worth out of all those taxes that are paid. The conservative principles of smaller, leaner, more efficient, more effective, more economical government coupled with securing the rights of the people and then leaving them free to govern themselves as much as possible has not failed us yet. The idea that government can dictate the way people will live their lives and how their resources will be allocated has produced far more poverty, far less productivity, and far less happiness wherever and whenever it has been tried.

A hundred years ago we didn't have such a massive transatlantic highway system, utility system, telecommunications, 100 times more children to educate, drunk drivers or just plain bad drivers, over-fishing of streams and lakes, nor the myriad other life-sustaining requirements because we now have double the number of people all vying for the same thing.

I also wouldn't suggest that people in other countries are less happy because government sees to it that its citizens have roofs over the heads, their children are schooled for free, and don't have to worry about huge medical bills, because you obviously haven't done your homework in that area either. Those governments don't "dictate" that's how it will be to their people; it is simply there because those governments exist to serve the people. The people, in turn, are just as "free" as we are to go about their daily business, work wherever they want, travel around, leave the country whenever they want, attend any house of worship they wish. Pretty simple, eh?

Over the past decade, however, the American eonomy has been sinking so fast that the middle and lower classes are ceasing to exist as contributors because we can't afford to do anything except wait for the high net worth individuals to call the shots.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well you're a liberal Maggie, so of course you want government to take care of you and everybody else and arrange your world the way you think you want it. That's what makes an American liberal a liberal.

A conservative values options, opportunity, choices, and freedom to govern himself/herself more than s/he values giving over those for government to control and dole out as it sees fit. That's what makes an American conservative a conservative.

History over the millenia has shown that there is far more misery and far less opportunity to escape it under a 'liberal' system than there is under a 'conservative' system. To assume that that is any different in 2010 just because it is 2010 is simply not credible to me.

 

[midcan5]

There can be no argument over which party is bad at job creation, the republicans win this hands down. Bush Sr and Jr have the worst record ever. Bush Sr can blame Reagan's inept economics but Jr destroyed prosperity in no time with tax relief for the wealthy and illegal wars. Why would anyone think they will change now?


But allow me a question, how many who selected 'jobs,' purchase America made cars made in the US? How many shop at stores that pay a fair wage? How many suppport Unions? How many look for made in America and pay the extra so a fellow citizen can work?


Good read: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Good-Society-Humane-Agenda/dp/0395859980/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Good Society: The Humane Agenda (0046442859981):…[/ame]


"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office." Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

"The Republican theology of tax giveaways for the wealthy has not yet translated into a recovery for workers, but the combination of these cuts and rising government is likely to generate some job creation along with faster economic growth, Bernstein and Mishel say. Still, dispiriting recent wage trends and depressed employment levels suggest that a "self-sustaining, robust recovery is not just around the corner," they say." Bush's Job-Loss Recovery the Worst on Record Since the Great Depression (October 7, 2003) - Working Life


'It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs'
CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs


PolitiFact | Rep. Steny Hoyer claims there were more job losses in Bush's last three months than last three under Obama

 

[Spoonman]

The 'we' is a generic 'we'. We don't utilize all that personally, so no we personally don't pay them all, but people all across the country are paying them. And almost all didn't exist 100 years ago when the country was stable, growing, had little or no national debt, and the sky was the limit for just about everybody who had the skills and ambition to reach for their goals.

So the fact is, we're not getting our money's worth out of all those taxes that are paid. The conservative principles of smaller, leaner, more efficient, more effective, more economical government coupled with securing the rights of the people and then leaving them free to govern themselves as much as possible has not failed us yet. The idea that government can dictate the way people will live their lives and how their resources will be allocated has produced far more poverty, far less productivity, and far less happiness wherever and whenever it has been tried.

A hundred years ago we didn't have such a massive transatlantic highway system, utility system, telecommunications, 100 times more children to educate, drunk drivers or just plain bad drivers, over-fishing of streams and lakes, nor the myriad other life-sustaining requirements because we now have double the number of people all vying for the same thing.

I also wouldn't suggest that people in other countries are less happy because government sees to it that its citizens have roofs over the heads, their children are schooled for free, and don't have to worry about huge medical bills, because you obviously haven't done your homework in that area either. Those governments don't "dictate" that's how it will be to their people; it is simply there because those governments exist to serve the people. The people, in turn, are just as "free" as we are to go about their daily business, work wherever they want, travel around, leave the country whenever they want, attend any house of worship they wish. Pretty simple, eh?

Over the past decade, however, the American eonomy has been sinking so fast that the middle and lower classes are ceasing to exist as contributors because we can't afford to do anything except wait for the high net worth individuals to call the shots.

Liberal entitlement programs are what make America weak. They are our single biggest issue outside of government corruption. America became great during a time when there were no entitlements. When you immigrated to this country you made it on your own through hard work. There were no handouts. No free medical. No welfare. No special language teachers. You came here and you learned the language. When blacks were free'd there was no welfare. They toughed it out and made it on there own. And people prospered and America prospered. It became know as the land of opportunity not because you were given handouts to survive but because you had the opportunity to make it on your own. Entitlements have created a class of sponges. Lazy worthless anchors. And they flock to this country to take advantage of what ever can be given to them. Interesting that the more 3rd world trash that comes into this country soaking up our resources the worse our econmy gets. The higher our crime rates go. They don't rise to the standards America had in the past, they pull us down to their level. And the entitlement sponge keeps on soaking up more and more. No one family fucked this country more than the Kennedy's. I couldn't be happier their political legacy is dead and I couldn't be happier it was Obama who put the final nail in their coffin.

 

[haileydavey]

Obama needs to ignore the republicans and do what he thinks is right. He allowed both the Stimulus bill and healthcare to be watered down with sections meant to appease Republicans who will not support it anyway.

Time to take off the gloves and press through your agenda

I would quit blaming the Republicans because the Democrats passed both bills without any help from them. You need to start looking into the Democratic party. I guess all the deal cutting to appease the senators was conveniently forgotten.

Don't worry though Bush did the same thing. Instead of getting what they want, they settled to insure passage. That is the problem with politics. If you are in a hurry to insure you legacy you make the mistake of compromise. It does not work out to often.

I know the health care bill was watered down. What was wanted that was not given in the Stimulus bill?

 

[Foxfyre]

So, given the really miserable job report out today, has anybody who didn't mark jobs and the economy as #1 priority changed their mind yet?

 

[Spoonman]

Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger
Obama needs to ignore the republicans and do what he thinks is right. He allowed both the Stimulus bill and healthcare to be watered down with sections meant to appease Republicans who will not support it anyway.

Time to take off the gloves and press through your agenda


I see the lunatic left remains as clueless as usual. You see Obama had this little thing called a super majority. He didn't need one Republican vote. His problem was he couldn't even get all the Democratic votes. Now on the Stimulus Bill, he didn't even include the Republicans or any of their ideas. Big Mistake. Pelosi and Reid ran all over Obama. Out of the box they showed how politically weak he was. They put together a pork laden package that was designed to do just enough to get the rich, who have money, spending. Scouping up bargains from a depressed economy and giving the impression that things were turning around just in time for the mid term elections. Well we all see how well the economy is doing *coughs* So now they are back to blame Bush.

Healthcare reform. There is no reform. Nothing was reformed. The watered down package was a direct result of Democratic in fighting. Stay in tune with current events will ya? Every single compromise was to buy a democratic vote. Everyone.

The current failures reside 100% with the democrats. They have failed to deliver with a super majority. Obama has the distinction of being the first president to be a lame duck in his freshman year and with a super majority. He couldn't fail more.

 

[antagon]

The 'we' is a generic 'we'. We don't utilize all that personally, so no we personally don't pay them all, but people all across the country are paying them. And almost all didn't exist 100 years ago when the country was stable, growing, had little or no national debt, and the sky was the limit for just about everybody who had the skills and ambition to reach for their goals.

So the fact is, we're not getting our money's worth out of all those taxes that are paid. The conservative principles of smaller, leaner, more efficient, more effective, more economical government coupled with securing the rights of the people and then leaving them free to govern themselves as much as possible has not failed us yet. The idea that government can dictate the way people will live their lives and how their resources will be allocated has produced far more poverty, far less productivity, and far less happiness wherever and whenever it has been tried.

A hundred years ago we didn't have such a massive transatlantic highway system, utility system, telecommunications, 100 times more children to educate, drunk drivers or just plain bad drivers, over-fishing of streams and lakes, nor the myriad other life-sustaining requirements because we now have double the number of people all vying for the same thing.

I also wouldn't suggest that people in other countries are less happy because government sees to it that its citizens have roofs over the heads, their children are schooled for free, and don't have to worry about huge medical bills, because you obviously haven't done your homework in that area either. Those governments don't "dictate" that's how it will be to their people; it is simply there because those governments exist to serve the people. The people, in turn, are just as "free" as we are to go about their daily business, work wherever they want, travel around, leave the country whenever they want, attend any house of worship they wish. Pretty simple, eh?

Over the past decade, however, the American eonomy has been sinking so fast that the middle and lower classes are ceasing to exist as contributors because we can't afford to do anything except wait for the high net worth individuals to call the shots.

Liberal entitlement programs are what make America weak. They are our single biggest issue outside of government corruption. America became great during a time when there were no entitlements. When you immigrated to this country you made it on your own through hard work. There were no handouts. No free medical. No welfare. No special language teachers. You came here and you learned the language. When blacks were free'd there was no welfare. They toughed it out and made it on there own. And people prospered and America prospered. It became know as the land of opportunity not because you were given handouts to survive but because you had the opportunity to make it on your own. Entitlements have created a class of sponges. Lazy worthless anchors. And they flock to this country to take advantage of what ever can be given to them. Interesting that the more 3rd world trash that comes into this country soaking up our resources the worse our econmy gets. The higher our crime rates go. They don't rise to the standards America had in the past, they pull us down to their level. And the entitlement sponge keeps on soaking up more and more. No one family fucked this country more than the Kennedy's. I couldn't be happier their political legacy is dead and I couldn't be happier it was Obama who put the final nail in their coffin.

the relationship between poor american history aptitude and hyper-conservatism is screaming out in this thread.

whether it's the nostalgia harking back to an era when the US and mexico ran neck and neck, the failure to recognize the pivotal policies which secured the generation to follow, or obstinacy in the face of the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on the globe NOW, and that this has only been definitive for the last 30 years, it is overwhelmingly evident that those who carry extreme conservative views, particularly on matters of economics, do so out of sheer ignorance.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hmmm what taxes do I actuall pay?

Federal Income Tax with that income now including my health insurance benefits (Thanks mr President)
Then you're being screwed by someone. You should not be paying any new taxes because of insurance requirements under the new bill.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...orms-hr-3590-health-insurance-pay-taxes/efits

State Income Tax
Medicare Tax
Social Security Tax
Local Property Tax
Sales Tax
Meals tax (Restaurants)
State per gallon Gas tax on top of sales tax on gas
Federal per gallon gas tax
annual Automotive excise tax
Annual automotive registration fee
Liscensing Fee for firearms and driving
Excise tax on my electric bill
Excise tax on my phone bill along with misc federal and state fees on the bill
Excise tax on my cable bill
Excise tax on my liquid propane bill in addition to a per gallon tax
Alcohol tax on top of a sales tax on alcohol.
Annual automotive safety inspection fee.

I think thats all of them.

Some of those are your choices: Don't eat out; don't buy alcohol. Some also look like state generated taxes, as I pay no additional tax on propane gas where I live.

They are all still taxes that I pay with the money the federal and state government already taxed when I earned it.

 

[Foxfyre]

whether it's the nostalgia harking back to an era when the US and mexico ran neck and neck, the failure to recognize the pivotal policies which secured the generation to follow, or obstinacy in the face of the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on the globe NOW, and that this has only been definitive for the last 30 years, it is overwhelmingly evident that those who carry extreme conservative views, particularly on matters of economics, do so out of sheer ignorance.

That would depend on what you would define as 'extreme conservative views'. The only conservative views I've seen promoted are the undeniable desire of people for freedom--for the power to govern themselves rather than be governed by others who may or may not have their best interests at heart.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is a federal government of the people that is small, lean and efficient and effective and fiscally responsible in securing the rights of the people but does not have power to dictate the sort of society the people wish to have.

The conservatism I have seen promoted is objection to a federal government who uses the people's money to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and is a poor steward of that money for the benefit of the people.

If that is what you refer to as 'extreme conservatism', it is the 'conservatism' of our Founders who implemented all of it in a great experiment to create the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most powerful nation on Earth. It is the first great nation on Earth in which the people would govern themselves rather than be governed and, short of infringing on the rights of others, nobody would be limited in what he or she could aspire to achieve.

In the view of the Founders and of American conservatives today, that is what freedom is.