None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[Bfgrn]

And there we have it.

The REAL difference between LIB v CON.

I must admit that I vascilate my sympathy between trusting the will of the people and not trusting the will of the people.

What I really know is that power corrupts and those with power will become drunk on it.

Doesn't matter what class they started out in, the social/legal/economic powers given to them are much like the RINGS OF TOLKEIN.

Their use of those powers ultimately makes them become evil.

If you want to make most good men evil?

Give them great power and responsibility.

Not all...

Yeah, that's a fair objection Bf. I was speaking generally, not specifically.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

Very true.

Abraham Lincoln

Case in point.

Beset with what appeared to be an insurmountable problem, Abe's response was WAR.

Often the greatest evil done by man to man, is done with the best of intentions.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

 

[editec]

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

Yup.

I didn't say he started the war.

I merely noted that he didn't back down.

He could have, you know.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is this the fantasy that plays out in your head? All those tee-shirted Tea Partiers are "aristocratic wannabees"?? You really should keep some of these thoughts to yourself.

Gladstone would send a fart in the general direction of what's left of Liberalism in America today. There isn't a leftist on this board that trusts people to feed their children, screw in a lightbulb, balance their checkbook, or salt their own soup without constant govt nannying. "trust of the people" my ass.

When he says conservatism is where an aristocracy rules society, what he means is where smart, hard working, competent people rule society.

Liberals just can't stand the idea of society being ruled by people who are competent to do it.

Really smart competent conservatives :

Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent or for that matter what she reads - if she does. And considering she's active in anti-abortion
campaigns, don't you find it a tad disconcerting she couldn't name Roe v. Wade as being one of the Supreme Court decisions with which she disagreed? I do.

Just about everything that pops out of the Michelle Bachmann wind-up doll should have been fact checked 10 days before she said it. And even then who knows. She's an unnatural disaster for which FEMA offers no assistance.

Rick Perry stood in the Reagan Library and told America that Social Security was a PONZi scheme. Of course, he forgot to include that this was so because of years and years of Federal Government mismanagement. He also must has forgotten or not known that it was Ronald Reagan who praised FDR for implementing Social Security.

As for GWB, there is endless entertainment on the World Wide Web giving insight into just how smart and competent that jackass was. He is a permanent sufferer of Open-Mouth-Insert-Foot Syndrome - or Open-Mouth-Insert-Both-Feet.

"Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Literacy test? George can't even spell literacy, much less pass a test on it.

Personally, smarts or competence is a Black Hole where the current stable of conservative hopefuls are concerned.

William F. Buckley was a smart, competent conservative. However, he never ran for public office. Probably because he had more productive ways to use his intelligence and competence than waste them on a bunch of political ignoramuses.

I have no problem with conservatives or a conservative view. I do have a problem with stupid and inane. Especially when an entire political party finds incompetency and stupidity to be perfectly acceptable qualifications for future leaders of this country.

You're quite selective aren't you? You passed on the meatier points I made and instead filtered out a few zingers from the pantry. Left out Joe Biden. Left out Maxine Waters. I prefer my political humor from Colbert. He picks on ANYONE that deserves it..

Look PolySci -- we've got all the anectdotal evidence we need right here on USMB. If you're actually trying to DEFEND the elite status of Leftist thought and competentcy -- please warn us so we can put the coffee down before we read your stuff..

 

[flacaltenn]

Bush was blocked 27 times from looking into the mortgage industry ..ie..Fanny and Freddie ... by a democratic controlled congress !! he was even called a racist by the CBC when he tried to get oversight !!

Bush put the theory of expanded home ownership (which had been a stable, tightly regulated program since 1977) on steroids. He did this to artificially stimulate the post 9/11 economy . . . so that he could get past Kerry.

Watch the video below.

Go to minute 4:23. It's the smoking gun. Bush clearly details his partnership with Fannie/Freddie, who - if you listen to his words - are designated as a major lending source for his "American Downpayment Assistance Act". Listen to his words. He gets these institutions to increase their commitment to minority home buyers by more than 400 billion dollars. He removes downpayment restrictions.

Please listen to Bush's words. Don't take my word for it. Rather than circulating tired propaganda about the Democratic Congress, listen to the man in charge. Listen to his words.

Just watch the video - especially where he talks about Fannie/Freddie at 4:23.

We know he's not responsible for the hole he put Obama in, but here is my question: is he responsible for any of the things that happened on his watch, when he controlled the Senate and House? Is he responsible for anything?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]

"On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act, which was aimed at helping approximately "40,000 families a year" with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market."

Bush ordered over 400 billion dollars to be poured into minority housing, and - if you listen to the video - he removes restrictions on lending and down payments. He ignites a nuclear bomb of this country. Why doesn't the GOP voter know this?

Who Controlled the US congress in 2003 when Bush dumped kerosene on the housing market?
House: 229 Republicans, 204 Democrats, 1 Independent
Senate: 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 "Other Party"

Yes -- it was GOVERNMENT policy and GOVERNMENT muzzling of the regulators that led to the bubble and the crisis.. Thanks for making the case. As a libertarian -- that's obvious. As a faithful party tool -- I can see why you're confused..

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn::

The history from Truman to here is pretty boring. Because it's filled with mindless partisian bickering like your multimedia presentation above.. Only one problem with your conclusion..

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

.... it's not true.. There were a handful of heroes on BOTH sides that pared down "asset forfeiture laws" that came out of the War on Drugs. There are even fewer heroes willing to speak out against the Patriot Act. The militiarization of local police was encouraged by BOTH sides. The Federalization of more crimes was bipartisian. That's WHY I refuse to support either party.

There is a nauseating lack of DIFFERENCE in retail politics during your lifetime when it comes to allowing GOVT to take an ever larger role in our lives. EXCEPT that your side CONDONES IT and Conservatives RESIST IT.. My guys would just simply END IT....

The American left can't go an HOUR without demanding more laws and regulations. And you're confused about how the Nanny State evolved???

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

When I started my company, I worked 16 to 20 hour days. I went out and I got clients that paid me good money to make their jobs easier for them. If I did a good job, then those clients told other clients and eventually, I had more work than I could handle. So I hired other people to help. Eventually, I owned a building and I had thirty five people doing what I started out doing. In that time, I had years where I made good money, and I had years when I didn't make as much. In the years that I made good money, I always tried to put a little away so that I could protect myself against years when I wouldn't make good money.

The goal was to make enough money so that I wouldn't have to worry about working anymore. I never really wanted to be a billionaire. I know people who have billions and they spend so much time worrying about crap that I just couldn't see myself doing that. I wanted to give my employees a fair salary and to take care of them. We had the BEST insurance and retirement system that money could buy. For employees, they didn't pay one red cent for insurance for themselves.

All the time I was expanding I gave NO LESS than 10% to the charities that I wanted to give it to. I gave to my church, to the diabetes foundation, AND I gave to several local food banks. Then the regulations, the visits from the federal agencies and the taxes and Obamacare came in. At the end I had to hire three people just to shuffle the freakin paperwork. And to make matters even worse, NO ONE could tell me what Obamacare would do. We KNEW that my expenses for employees were going to double, maybe even triple, but we couldn't fix a number. So I pulled out. Sold part of it and shut down the rest.

I am by no means, rich. I don't even know what that means, unless you are just talking about billionaires. Anyone who knows ANYTHING will tell you that you can't retire unless you've got over a couple million. I have a small ranch and it makes a little, but not very much. So now Obama whines because "millionaires and billionaires" are not paying their fair share. Because I'm semi-retired and I put away enough to live comfortably, that means ME. But why do YOU think that YOU or anyone else deserves the money that I worked so hard for and scrimped and saved to put away in a retirement account?

I can tell you right now that if you took all the money that supposed millionaires and billionaires have, it wouldn't fix the red ink in Washington. And what is a fair share? Is my fair share different from someone who is still working full time? If you fixed the DEFICIT SPENDING first, I wouldn't mind paying a little more, but you won't. You'll just collect more and you'll spend ten times more than you collect.

You want to steal from me to support your habit. It's just that simple...

 

[MiddleClass]

The combination of the 'greedy wealthy and entitled poor' have shrunk the middle class and created huge government deficits with gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy and bloated social programs for the poor.

It is high time the middle class stopped allowing the 'Wealthy' to frame the debate around tax cuts for the top 1%, and stopped allowing the leftwing of making us feel guilty about providing benefits for the ever growing illegal immigrant population that ultimately lower wages for all, and start uniting against those who have been trying to divide and conquer.

Stand up and Defend the Middle Class, and stop being misguided mouthpieces for the upper and lower classes.

 

[taichiliberal]

Bush was blocked 27 times from looking into the mortgage industry ..ie..Fanny and Freddie ... by a democratic controlled congress !! he was even called a racist by the CBC when he tried to get oversight !!

Bush put the theory of expanded home ownership (which had been a stable, tightly regulated program since 1977) on steroids. He did this to artificially stimulate the post 9/11 economy . . . so that he could get past Kerry.

Watch the video below.

Go to minute 4:23. It's the smoking gun. Bush clearly details his partnership with Fannie/Freddie, who - if you listen to his words - are designated as a major lending source for his "American Downpayment Assistance Act". Listen to his words. He gets these institutions to increase their commitment to minority home buyers by more than 400 billion dollars. He removes downpayment restrictions.

Please listen to Bush's words. Don't take my word for it. Rather than circulating tired propaganda about the Democratic Congress, listen to the man in charge. Listen to his words.

Just watch the video - especially where he talks about Fannie/Freddie at 4:23.

We know he's not responsible for the hole he put Obama in, but here is my question: is he responsible for any of the things that happened on his watch, when he controlled the Senate and House? Is he responsible for anything?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]

"On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act, which was aimed at helping approximately "40,000 families a year" with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market."

Bush ordered over 400 billion dollars to be poured into minority housing, and - if you listen to the video - he removes restrictions on lending and down payments. He ignites a nuclear bomb of this country. Why doesn't the GOP voter know this?

Who Controlled the US congress in 2003 when Bush dumped kerosene on the housing market?
House: 229 Republicans, 204 Democrats, 1 Independent
Senate: 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 "Other Party"

Yes -- it was GOVERNMENT policy and GOVERNMENT muzzling of the regulators that led to the bubble and the crisis.. Thanks for making the case. As a libertarian -- that's obvious. As a faithful party tool -- I can see why you're confused..

Actually, it was BAD gov't actions under the Shrub (i.e. de-regulations, paring down of oversight, 2 wars off the books, a prescription drug plan with no way to pay for it) that led to our current problems. In effect, the Shrub gave libertarians what they wanted,,,less gov't regs on the financial market. And in typical fashion, libertarians just go into their denial an double talk mode. Maybe Somalia would be more to their liking.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

We know he's not responsible for the hole he put Obama in, but here is my question: is he responsible for any of the things that happened on his watch, when he controlled the Senate and House? Is he responsible for anything?

[...]

One thing he is clearly responsible for are the deaths of nearly 5,000 American military personnel, the maiming and disfigurement of tens of thousands more. He is responsible for the deaths, maiming and disfigurement of untold thousands of innocent Iraqi people -- including women and children, who never did a thing to us and the destruction of their country. He is responsible for the ruinous cost of that ongoing carnage and waste, both in terms of money and our national reputation.

And the fact that Obama actively shielded Bush from prosecution for the many crimes of his administration makes Obama culpable in all of it.

 

[taichiliberal]

When I started my company, I worked 16 to 20 hour days. I went out and I got clients that paid me good money to make their jobs easier for them. If I did a good job, then those clients told other clients and eventually, I had more work than I could handle. So I hired other people to help. Eventually, I owned a building and I had thirty five people doing what I started out doing. In that time, I had years where I made good money, and I had years when I didn't make as much. In the years that I made good money, I always tried to put a little away so that I could protect myself against years when I wouldn't make good money.

The goal was to make enough money so that I wouldn't have to worry about working anymore. I never really wanted to be a billionaire. I know people who have billions and they spend so much time worrying about crap that I just couldn't see myself doing that. I wanted to give my employees a fair salary and to take care of them. We had the BEST insurance and retirement system that money could buy. For employees, they didn't pay one red cent for insurance for themselves.

All the time I was expanding I gave NO LESS than 10% to the charities that I wanted to give it to. I gave to my church, to the diabetes foundation, AND I gave to several local food banks. Then the regulations, the visits from the federal agencies and the taxes and Obamacare came in. At the end I had to hire three people just to shuffle the freakin paperwork. And to make matters even worse, NO ONE could tell me what Obamacare would do. We KNEW that my expenses for employees were going to double, maybe even triple, but we couldn't fix a number. So I pulled out. Sold part of it and shut down the rest.

I am by no means, rich. I don't even know what that means, unless you are just talking about billionaires. Anyone who knows ANYTHING will tell you that you can't retire unless you've got over a couple million. I have a small ranch and it makes a little, but not very much. So now Obama whines because "millionaires and billionaires" are not paying their fair share. Because I'm semi-retired and I put away enough to live comfortably, that means ME. But why do YOU think that YOU or anyone else deserves the money that I worked so hard for and scrimped and saved to put away in a retirement account?

I can tell you right now that if you took all the money that supposed millionaires and billionaires have, it wouldn't fix the red ink in Washington. And what is a fair share? Is my fair share different from someone who is still working full time? If you fixed the DEFICIT SPENDING first, I wouldn't mind paying a little more, but you won't. You'll just collect more and you'll spend ten times more than you collect.

You want to steal from me to support your habit. It's just that simple...

I am SO tired of these BS bootstrap stories by a bunch of neocon/teabagger toadies and parrots. No one just starts a company without some serious bucks...and the vast majority of start ups come by bank and/or gov't loans.....so it would be interesting to know just what YOU did to amass the amount of capital necessary to start your own business. But of course, we won't get that story, because more holes in your neocon hot air balloon would appear.

Since the majority of the Healthcare Reform Act has not taken affect yet and won't for another year, your BS about how you had shut down your business because of it is just that....BS. If you had such a great health insurance set up, then NO ONE was making you change it. The Reform is for those who are NOT offering healthcare insurance or those who individually don't have it. And for the small business there's tax credits to assist in implementing that. It cracks me up that business owners who are failing by their own actions and systems desperately try to use Obama as an excuse for their failure.

You do the usual pundit lie by confusing the proposed taxes on millionaires with the tax rate on those making above $250,000.....which would NOT cause a businessman to fire a worker. Do some real, honest homework on that one...because if you had to fire someone to pay an increase in taxes of less than 5%, you're not a very good businessman.

Sorry bunky, but that dog of yours just won't fly.

 

[taichiliberal]

[...]

We know he's not responsible for the hole he put Obama in, but here is my question: is he responsible for any of the things that happened on his watch, when he controlled the Senate and House? Is he responsible for anything?

[...]

One thing he is clearly responsible for are the deaths of nearly 5,000 American military personnel, the maiming and disfigurement of tens of thousands more. He is responsible for the deaths, maiming and disfigurement of untold thousands of innocent Iraqi people -- including women and children, who never did a thing to us and the destruction of their country. He is responsible for the ruinous cost of that ongoing carnage and waste, both in terms of money and our national reputation.

And the fact that Obama actively shielded Bush from prosecution for the many crimes of his administration makes Obama culpable in all of it.

Here's the thing: I believe it has to be put through the House and Senate to inact an investigation into crimes like those committed by the Shrub, Cheney and Rumsfeld. You and I both know that ain't gonna happen. So I would call Obama more of a political chicken not to try and initiate such...and the House & Senate just a bunch of wish washy enbablers.

 

[flacaltenn]

[...]

We know he's not responsible for the hole he put Obama in, but here is my question: is he responsible for any of the things that happened on his watch, when he controlled the Senate and House? Is he responsible for anything?

[...]

One thing he is clearly responsible for are the deaths of nearly 5,000 American military personnel, the maiming and disfigurement of tens of thousands more. He is responsible for the deaths, maiming and disfigurement of untold thousands of innocent Iraqi people -- including women and children, who never did a thing to us and the destruction of their country. He is responsible for the ruinous cost of that ongoing carnage and waste, both in terms of money and our national reputation.

And the fact that Obama actively shielded Bush from prosecution for the many crimes of his administration makes Obama culpable in all of it.

You gotta lot of damn gall chiming in here with your fake empathy for the suffering of the Iraqi people. For 12 years, I watch my country throw away the keys to the Iraqi economy and lock them into containment with a mad man. Bombing them almost daily for 12 years and starving the country of food and meds. Then I watched the horrifically immoral UN pervert a humanitarian "Oil for Food" program that STOLE oil money from the Iraqi people and gave it to cronies.

But the PEAK of my indignation came when Mad Albright was confronted with the estimate of 250,000 Iraqis dying undeer the terms of our "containment" and having her say "We think it is worth that cost"..

WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU FOR THOSE 12 YEARS MIKEY?????

SOMEONE needed the balls to make a decision.. The containment was crumbling and we now know it was based on the SAME EXACT phoney WMD claims as the invasion.. AT LEAST Bush decided to do what it took to END the containment. It was IMMORAL to continue the policy. And by making a decision -- he relieved the Iraqi people suffering under the embargo and the daily bombing, the UN extortion and the isolation. The decision was to

1) Let Saddam out of containment like the EU and others were already anticipating.

2) Remove Saddam and give the Iraqi people a chance to reorganize.

Do you know any AMERICAN group of politicians powerful enough to get NUMBER 1) implemented? Under Clinton or Bush. Of course you don't you fool.. Also choosing #1 would leave a country of 50Million American-hating Muslims to wish retaliation on us for 12 years of hell while we tried to convince the rest of the Arab world that our war was only with Al Queada.

Which choice Mikey?? Grow up and realize that a decade of BAD Foreign Policy GOT us to a BAD set of choices.

 

[Vanquish]

Great rationalization.

We spend ourselves to death to fix a non-immanent threat that the WORLD should be fixing together...yet over-spending is touted by the same group as our main problem.

That's rich.

 

[flacaltenn]

Great rationalization.

We spend ourselves to death to fix a non-immanent threat that the WORLD should be fixing together...yet over-spending is touted by the same group as our main problem.

That's rich.

I assume you were talking about the choices this country faced when the Containment was no longer viable or moral. MONEY at that point wasn't the deciding factor. The EXECUTION and GOALS of the OCCUPATION were poorly managed. That's where the financing crisis comes in.

"... the world should be fixing together." The "world" had already decided to let Saddam out of containment and normalize relations. Because they didn't believe the WMD lies that were the ENFORCING JUSTIFICATION for the embargo. I was with "the world" until 9.11.

When the US was facing a prolonged "war on terrorism" and trying to make the point that it was NOT gonna be a War against Islam -- we could no longer afford to let Saddam take revenge for 12 years of locking his country down and bombing him daily. Forget the OLD threats that Saddam did or did represent. We couldn't afford to press Al - Queda in 6 new Arab countries and watch our backs with this guy and the Bath Party left in power..

Leftist want to ignore the fact that A DECISION needed to be made. History will not.

And for the life of me, I don't know why the neo-cons keep beating the WMD and "old threats" that Saddam represented. They seem to be to stupid to realize that removing Saddam really WAS the best option at the time -- just based on the choices available..

 

[taichiliberal]

[...]

We know he's not responsible for the hole he put Obama in, but here is my question: is he responsible for any of the things that happened on his watch, when he controlled the Senate and House? Is he responsible for anything?

[...]

One thing he is clearly responsible for are the deaths of nearly 5,000 American military personnel, the maiming and disfigurement of tens of thousands more. He is responsible for the deaths, maiming and disfigurement of untold thousands of innocent Iraqi people -- including women and children, who never did a thing to us and the destruction of their country. He is responsible for the ruinous cost of that ongoing carnage and waste, both in terms of money and our national reputation.

And the fact that Obama actively shielded Bush from prosecution for the many crimes of his administration makes Obama culpable in all of it.

You gotta lot of damn gall chiming in here with your fake empathy for the suffering of the Iraqi people. For 12 years, I watch my country throw away the keys to the Iraqi economy and lock them into containment with a mad man. Bombing them almost daily for 12 years and starving the country of food and meds. Then I watched the horrifically immoral UN pervert a humanitarian "Oil for Food" program that STOLE oil money from the Iraqi people and gave it to cronies.

But the PEAK of my indignation came when Mad Albright was confronted with the estimate of 250,000 Iraqis dying undeer the terms of our "containment" and having her say "We think it is worth that cost"..

WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU FOR THOSE 12 YEARS MIKEY?????

SOMEONE needed the balls to make a decision.. The containment was crumbling and we now know it was based on the SAME EXACT phoney WMD claims as the invasion.. AT LEAST Bush decided to do what it took to END the containment. It was IMMORAL to continue the policy. And by making a decision -- he relieved the Iraqi people suffering under the embargo and the daily bombing, the UN extortion and the isolation. The decision was to

1) Let Saddam out of containment like the EU and others were already anticipating.

2) Remove Saddam and give the Iraqi people a chance to reorganize.

Do you know any AMERICAN group of politicians powerful enough to get NUMBER 1) implemented? Under Clinton or Bush. Of course you don't you fool.. Also choosing #1 would leave a country of 50Million American-hating Muslims to wish retaliation on us for 12 years of hell while we tried to convince the rest of the Arab world that our war was only with Al Queada.

Which choice Mikey?? Grow up and realize that a decade of BAD Foreign Policy GOT us to a BAD set of choices.

A fascinating bit of revisionism here. The Shrub was the savior of the Iraqi people? First off, the intial invasion under Daddy Bush was based on a lie...both to the UN about Kuwaiti babies being killed by Iraqi soldiers, then by Amb. Glaspie assuring Hussein that the USA policy would forbid us from interfering in border disputes of other nations. Clinton continues the same containment policy, and was vilified by the GOP for waiting for the UN inspection team to do it's job regarding WMD's.

And then the Shrub comes along....and tells MORE and BIGGER lies about ties to Al Qaeda and a functioning WMD system with a stockpile. He curtails the UN inspection team and invades, breaking UN and CONGRESSIONAL agreements for burden of proof for military action. So we pull troops out of Afghanistan, invade and occupy Iraq and lose 4000 soldiers and maim thousands more...the majority after we "won". The FIRST thing secured...the oil fields. Now we've got an "embassy" under construction the size of a football stadium....with the Shrub making noise at Iran, which gave that POS Ahmadinijad (spelling) enough local fodder to stay another term as President despite his piss poor performance for his people and disgruntling the mullahs.

If you're going to place blame, get facts straight. The Shrub couldn't give a damn for the Iraqi people, no more than he gave a second thought about executing a retarded man when he was governor.


Now back to the subject of this thread....are you STILL defending rich folks who couldn't give a damn about you personally or financially?

 

[flacaltenn]

TeeHeeLib::

Did you love the 12 years of Containment accounting for over 250,000 dead Iraqi babies and daily bombings? Didn't see you comment on ANY of the effects of THOSE 12 years or the UN graft and corruption that the Iraqis endured...

THere were 2 choices.. I gave them to you.. Which one were you backing?

All that other spewed crap dogma is just noise..