dude, do you even own a fuking house? And a "mobile home" doesn't count unless you took the wheels off and skirted the bottom.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Rise and Fall of the American Empire
- Thread starter Foxfyre
- Start date
dude, do you even own a fuking house? And a "mobile home" doesn't count unless you took the wheels off and skirted the bottom.
p kirkes
VIP Member
There are other major influences that may aid in the breakup of the American Empire.
Assuming the US completes the cycle to a socialist state in the next 12 years (Obama followed by Clinton) then the breakup will occur quickly, like the soviet union.
These influences may be but not limited to massive relocation by Latin American's to the CONUS. Unskilled work force, increased gap between the haves and have nots, loss of respect for law and order, melt down of the social order, mafia style rule and a barter economy. That's how I see it.
The reconstitution will be fragmented, violent, and territorial. I don't believe a foreign invasion would occur but Mexico may reclaim southern California, Arizona and New Mexico.
The Union will quickly dissolve but many individual states may remain intact and band with neighboring states to form blocks of mutual economic interests and security. This will be a process over time.
The territorial fallout from the breakup would be along the lines of north east coastal states inland to Ohio. The old south, the farm belt, the northwest to include northern California inland to Idaho. The southwest goes to either Mexico or bands together.
This is just a possible result of an American breakup there are of course many other scenarios.
Yes, I did save my Confederate money. This is an interesting and maybe prophetic thread.
Interested to see what others envision the future of the empire to be.
Assuming the US completes the cycle to a socialist state in the next 12 years (Obama followed by Clinton) then the breakup will occur quickly, like the soviet union.
These influences may be but not limited to massive relocation by Latin American's to the CONUS. Unskilled work force, increased gap between the haves and have nots, loss of respect for law and order, melt down of the social order, mafia style rule and a barter economy. That's how I see it.
The reconstitution will be fragmented, violent, and territorial. I don't believe a foreign invasion would occur but Mexico may reclaim southern California, Arizona and New Mexico.
The Union will quickly dissolve but many individual states may remain intact and band with neighboring states to form blocks of mutual economic interests and security. This will be a process over time.
The territorial fallout from the breakup would be along the lines of north east coastal states inland to Ohio. The old south, the farm belt, the northwest to include northern California inland to Idaho. The southwest goes to either Mexico or bands together.
This is just a possible result of an American breakup there are of course many other scenarios.
Yes, I did save my Confederate money. This is an interesting and maybe prophetic thread.
Interested to see what others envision the future of the empire to be.
.
"You people". Wow, Zeke, I thought you knew better.
By this logic, "the government" should just make things much less complicated and just give lots o' money out to anyone who asks for it. They'll spend it, that'll stimulate the economy. And let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, that'll be helpful, especially for the real estate market.
You're ignoring my points about the ripple effect of individual home purchases, the wide range of economy-stimulating effects of tax deductions and the negative cultural effects of such actions. I answered your questions, but it's clear you're a little too angry to have a reasonable conversation here.
Here's the good news: You're going to get your way. Enjoy.
.
No Mac, I am not ignoring anything. Every dollar that the government puts in the hands of the working poor, or UE insurance or even welfare gets spent.....to stimulate the economy.
But you label all those giveaways as "free stuff". And hate that it happens. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that hate that some get "free stuff" when mortgage holders are being given one of the most costly free give aways in the tax code.
How come you don't know this stuff? What business is it of the governments if I buy a house. Why should I be rewarded for doing that? Just because it helps "stimulate" the economy. Hell under that idea, the government should send us all a big check for something. Look how much stimulation that would bring.
Either people like you are interested in cutting the deficit by closing tax loopholes or you are not. I just get tired of seeing the working poor get hammered for doing the exact same thing you and I do; take advantage of the tax code.
Zeke, look at my posts. I'm not complaining about the financial costs of "free stuff". I couldn't even give you a good list of what the hell the "free stuff" is. You'll have to have that conversation with a hardcore rightwinger or a Tea Party enthusiast or whatever, that's their thing. I think they overplay that topic.
I responded to two specific points: First, I think the cultural costs of clearly increasing dependence on the government are high and getting higher by the day. Lowering standards for people, as I've said, hurts them more than it helps them. We can agree or disagree as to how dependent people are becoming, but that is my point there.
Second, and I don't really know how else I can say this but I'll try, a dynamic economy cannot exist without incentives to those who are positively contributing to the economy. It just simply cannot, and I don't know what else to tell you there. If a person is not positively contributing to an economy, if they are not "net makers", then they become a "net taker" and become a net drag on that economy.
Are there lots of people who are simply not equipped to be "net makers"? Hell yes, and I'm absolutely good with those costs, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But - and again, you may disagree with this - I see a culture in clear decay, and one element of that decay is a growing sub-culture of those who (a) are perfectly comfortable being net takers, (b) have many who support them in that attitude, and (c) are having their lives wasted by lowered standards and expectations. I hate seeing otherwise valuable lives wasted in the richest country on Earth. The financial costs to me are miniscule. That's not my point.
If you think I'm a hardcore rightwing Tea Party hypocrite for thinking this, and you appear to, there's not much else I can say.
.
Last edited:
No Mac I don't think you are to hard core right wingers. You just happen to be one of the most intelligent of those I think of as being on the "other side". As a result of your intelligence, more is expected of you in the way of sane thoughtful responses. You generally don't disappoint.
But you seem to be given way to much blame for the lack of motivation shown by members of our country.
What is the one of the single biggest factors that make people want to get out and improve their lot in life? Opportunity and attitude. Specifically optimism and confidence.
If you were a young middle class or lower middle class person, would you wake up each morning being full of confidence and optimism? When I was a young man back in the seventies, I could go out and find several good jobs each and every day. I could quit a job in the morning and have a new job after lunch. And I was not special. All the young men I grew up with could do that. Think young people today can do that? Hell no.
Things have gone seriously wrong. Look at our leaders. You think careening from one self inflicted financial crisis is good for us? That it makes us as a people feel good about our future?
The ultra rich have had it so good for so long and have the rest of us at each others throat, that unless we have a real populist come forth, we are all going to be working for just the benefit of the ultra wealthy. IMO.
But I digress. Still don't know why the government needs to give me such favorable tax treatment just because I borrowed money to buy a house. If I paid cash, I would still need to buy things for the house, improve the house etc. Wouldn't that spending still be stimulative? Matter of fact, I recently bought another rental, paid cash and am spending a ton to stimulate at least Home Depot. But you know that on my Sch E I will be taking advantage of every means possible to reduce my taxes. I would have still bought the house without all the favorable tax treatment. And as you know, a Sch E is a wonderful tax form.
But you seem to be given way to much blame for the lack of motivation shown by members of our country.
What is the one of the single biggest factors that make people want to get out and improve their lot in life? Opportunity and attitude. Specifically optimism and confidence.
If you were a young middle class or lower middle class person, would you wake up each morning being full of confidence and optimism? When I was a young man back in the seventies, I could go out and find several good jobs each and every day. I could quit a job in the morning and have a new job after lunch. And I was not special. All the young men I grew up with could do that. Think young people today can do that? Hell no.
Things have gone seriously wrong. Look at our leaders. You think careening from one self inflicted financial crisis is good for us? That it makes us as a people feel good about our future?
The ultra rich have had it so good for so long and have the rest of us at each others throat, that unless we have a real populist come forth, we are all going to be working for just the benefit of the ultra wealthy. IMO.
But I digress. Still don't know why the government needs to give me such favorable tax treatment just because I borrowed money to buy a house. If I paid cash, I would still need to buy things for the house, improve the house etc. Wouldn't that spending still be stimulative? Matter of fact, I recently bought another rental, paid cash and am spending a ton to stimulate at least Home Depot. But you know that on my Sch E I will be taking advantage of every means possible to reduce my taxes. I would have still bought the house without all the favorable tax treatment. And as you know, a Sch E is a wonderful tax form.
if two people make the exact same income and one person has to pay the full percentage owed and the other person DOES NOT have to pay his full percentage owed because he got to take a tax deduction on his mortgage payment but the other person could not take a tax deduction because he only paid rent....
Then the person taking the tax deduction is getting favoritism in the tax code, to allow him to pay less than the other guy...while the other guy is actually PAYING more than he should, to accommodate for the guy with the mortgage write off to pay LESS.
It's a gift, it's a freebie, to the mortgage holder that is not given to the non-mortgage holder....PERIOD.
There is absolutely no other way to view it.
OTHER THAN it really is a gift to the MORTGAGE BANKERS....they get more business due to you getting this write off....
The Rabbi should have looked at who these supposed 47% of supposed freeloaders are....24,000 of these non tax payers, those who pay zero federal income txes, are in the TOP 1% of income earners... a good portion are seniors who collect and live off of their social security, who paid income taxes their entire lives and paid in to Social security their entire lives...many are our Military, who make crap for pay and just don't owe any taxes, many are Disabled Vets....
that comment of romney's was nothing but a lie, 30% of those people so poor to owe no taxes were Romney supporters, and 50% of those seniors that owed no taxes were Romney supporters, and this Rabbi bought in to that lie hook line and sinker.
The "47%" is the BEGINNING of the Bullcrap tale...adding in the Empire, seals the deal....
No, do not agree with the Rabbi's premise...it's nothing but a cop out,
Romney didn't win because he was a flip flopper and stood for nothing longer than a blink of the eye, he swayed more than a palm tree in a hurricane....and he insulted many hard working Americans, and he came off as a dufas....awkward....I know that is hard for Romney supporters to see, but as an outsider, that's what I saw....
AND I DID NOT vote for Obama so no need to make any infantile remarks on that realm which are standard around here as of late....
Then the person taking the tax deduction is getting favoritism in the tax code, to allow him to pay less than the other guy...while the other guy is actually PAYING more than he should, to accommodate for the guy with the mortgage write off to pay LESS.
It's a gift, it's a freebie, to the mortgage holder that is not given to the non-mortgage holder....PERIOD.
There is absolutely no other way to view it.
OTHER THAN it really is a gift to the MORTGAGE BANKERS....they get more business due to you getting this write off....
The Rabbi should have looked at who these supposed 47% of supposed freeloaders are....24,000 of these non tax payers, those who pay zero federal income txes, are in the TOP 1% of income earners... a good portion are seniors who collect and live off of their social security, who paid income taxes their entire lives and paid in to Social security their entire lives...many are our Military, who make crap for pay and just don't owe any taxes, many are Disabled Vets....
that comment of romney's was nothing but a lie, 30% of those people so poor to owe no taxes were Romney supporters, and 50% of those seniors that owed no taxes were Romney supporters, and this Rabbi bought in to that lie hook line and sinker.
The "47%" is the BEGINNING of the Bullcrap tale...adding in the Empire, seals the deal....
No, do not agree with the Rabbi's premise...it's nothing but a cop out,
Romney didn't win because he was a flip flopper and stood for nothing longer than a blink of the eye, he swayed more than a palm tree in a hurricane....and he insulted many hard working Americans, and he came off as a dufas....awkward....I know that is hard for Romney supporters to see, but as an outsider, that's what I saw....
AND I DID NOT vote for Obama so no need to make any infantile remarks on that realm which are standard around here as of late....
Last edited:
if two people make the exact same income and one person has to pay the full percentage owed and the other person DOES NOT have to pay his full percentage owed because he got to take a tax deduction on his mortgage payment but the other person could not take a tax deduction because he only paid rent....
Then the person taking the tax deduction is getting favoritism in the tax code, to allow him to pay less than the other guy...while the other guy is actually PAYING more than he should, to accommodate for the guy with the mortgage write off to pay LESS.
It's a gift, it's a freebie, to the mortgage holder that is not given to the non-mortgage holder....PERIOD.
There is absolutely no other way to view it.
OTHER THAN it really is a gift to the MORTGAGE BANKERS....they get more business due to you getting this write off....
The Rabbi should have looked at who these supposed 47% of supposed freeloaders are....24,000 of these non tax payers, those who pay zero federal income txes, are in the TOP 1% of income earners... a good portion are seniors who collect and live off of their social security, who paid income taxes their entire lives and paid in to Social security their entire lives...many are our Military, who make crap for pay and just don't owe any taxes, many are Disabled Vets....
that comment of romney's was nothing but a lie, 30% of those people so poor to owe no taxes were Romney supporters, and 50% of those seniors that owed no taxes were Romney supporters, and this Rabbi bought in to that lie hook line and sinker.
The "47%" is the BEGINNING of the Bullcrap tale...adding in the Empire, seals the deal....
No, do not agree with the Rabbi's premise...it's nothing but a cop out,
Romney didn't win because he was a flip flopper and stood for nothing longer than a blink of the eye, he swayed more than a palm tree in a hurricane....and he insulted many hard working Americans, and he came off as a dufas....awkward....I know that is hard for Romney supporters to see, but as an outsider, that's what I saw....
AND I DID NOT vote for Obama so no need to make any infantile remarks on that realm which are standard around here as of late....
Oh thank god, some one that understands what I was trying to say. And you did it much better. Thank you. Now lets move on to how we got this deduction. Can people say "lobbyists"? As in lobbyists for the real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
There you go.. Another example of lobbyists getting an expensive give away that takes money from the Treasury. But no one with a mortgage wants to see it go away. They want the government to take something away from people who have less to give.
if two people make the exact same income and one person has to pay the full percentage owed and the other person DOES NOT have to pay his full percentage owed because he got to take a tax deduction on his mortgage payment but the other person could not take a tax deduction because he only paid rent....
Then the person taking the tax deduction is getting favoritism in the tax code, to allow him to pay less than the other guy...while the other guy is actually PAYING more than he should, to accommodate for the guy with the mortgage write off to pay LESS.
It's a gift, it's a freebie, to the mortgage holder that is not given to the non-mortgage holder....PERIOD.
There is absolutely no other way to view it.
OTHER THAN it really is a gift to the MORTGAGE BANKERS....they get more business due to you getting this write off....
The Rabbi should have looked at who these supposed 47% of supposed freeloaders are....24,000 of these non tax payers, those who pay zero federal income txes, are in the TOP 1% of income earners... a good portion are seniors who collect and live off of their social security, who paid income taxes their entire lives and paid in to Social security their entire lives...many are our Military, who make crap for pay and just don't owe any taxes, many are Disabled Vets....
that comment of romney's was nothing but a lie, 30% of those people so poor to owe no taxes were Romney supporters, and 50% of those seniors that owed no taxes were Romney supporters, and this Rabbi bought in to that lie hook line and sinker.
The "47%" is the BEGINNING of the Bullcrap tale...adding in the Empire, seals the deal....
No, do not agree with the Rabbi's premise...it's nothing but a cop out,
Romney didn't win because he was a flip flopper and stood for nothing longer than a blink of the eye, he swayed more than a palm tree in a hurricane....and he insulted many hard working Americans, and he came off as a dufas....awkward....I know that is hard for Romney supporters to see, but as an outsider, that's what I saw....
AND I DID NOT vote for Obama so no need to make any infantile remarks on that realm which are standard around here as of late....
Oh thank god, some one that understands what I was trying to say. And you did it much better. Thank you. Now lets move on to how we got this deduction. Can people say "lobbyists"? As in lobbyists for the real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
There you go.. Another example of lobbyists getting an expensive give away that takes money from the Treasury. But no one with a mortgage wants to see it go away. They want the government to take something away from people who have less to give.
Then the people that have less to give need to work harder so they can enjoy the benefits of such work ethic.
Incentive = productivity in the work place
-Geaux
huh? work harder for what? both people in my example earn the same income and make the same money and work just as hard, yet 1 is given favoritism and a lower tax burden than his income equal who doesn't own a home....if two people make the exact same income and one person has to pay the full percentage owed and the other person DOES NOT have to pay his full percentage owed because he got to take a tax deduction on his mortgage payment but the other person could not take a tax deduction because he only paid rent....
Then the person taking the tax deduction is getting favoritism in the tax code, to allow him to pay less than the other guy...while the other guy is actually PAYING more than he should, to accommodate for the guy with the mortgage write off to pay LESS.
It's a gift, it's a freebie, to the mortgage holder that is not given to the non-mortgage holder....PERIOD.
There is absolutely no other way to view it.
OTHER THAN it really is a gift to the MORTGAGE BANKERS....they get more business due to you getting this write off....
The Rabbi should have looked at who these supposed 47% of supposed freeloaders are....24,000 of these non tax payers, those who pay zero federal income txes, are in the TOP 1% of income earners... a good portion are seniors who collect and live off of their social security, who paid income taxes their entire lives and paid in to Social security their entire lives...many are our Military, who make crap for pay and just don't owe any taxes, many are Disabled Vets....
that comment of romney's was nothing but a lie, 30% of those people so poor to owe no taxes were Romney supporters, and 50% of those seniors that owed no taxes were Romney supporters, and this Rabbi bought in to that lie hook line and sinker.
The "47%" is the BEGINNING of the Bullcrap tale...adding in the Empire, seals the deal....
No, do not agree with the Rabbi's premise...it's nothing but a cop out,
Romney didn't win because he was a flip flopper and stood for nothing longer than a blink of the eye, he swayed more than a palm tree in a hurricane....and he insulted many hard working Americans, and he came off as a dufas....awkward....I know that is hard for Romney supporters to see, but as an outsider, that's what I saw....
AND I DID NOT vote for Obama so no need to make any infantile remarks on that realm which are standard around here as of late....
Oh thank god, some one that understands what I was trying to say. And you did it much better. Thank you. Now lets move on to how we got this deduction. Can people say "lobbyists"? As in lobbyists for the real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
There you go.. Another example of lobbyists getting an expensive give away that takes money from the Treasury. But no one with a mortgage wants to see it go away. They want the government to take something away from people who have less to give.
Then the people that have less to give need to work harder so they can enjoy the benefits of such work ethic.
Incentive = productivity in the work place
-Geaux
huh? work harder for what? both people in my example earn the same income and make the same money and work just as hard, yet 1 is given favoritism and a lower tax burden than his income equal who doesn't own a home....Oh thank god, some one that understands what I was trying to say. And you did it much better. Thank you. Now lets move on to how we got this deduction. Can people say "lobbyists"? As in lobbyists for the real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
There you go.. Another example of lobbyists getting an expensive give away that takes money from the Treasury. But no one with a mortgage wants to see it go away. They want the government to take something away from people who have less to give.
Then the people that have less to give need to work harder so they can enjoy the benefits of such work ethic.
Incentive = productivity in the work place
-Geaux
Then, person (B) needs to buy a home so they can enjoy the same tax break
-Geaux
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
The following is excerpted from a longer piece available at the link:
I wonder if anybody cares?The Rise and Fall of the American Empire
by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentive-izes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote.The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
Truer words were never spoken.
snopes.com: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky -- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
Nonsense.
Average Americas have been getting the shaft for going on about 30 years now since that idiotic economic idea (it's not a theory) of supply side economics took hold, and big money captured the electoral process. The trend has only accelerated in recent years,
And average Americans increasingly understood prior to the election that the game is stacked against them.
They took a look at Romney and his secretive overseas bank accounts, his carried interest earnings, and his tax rate of less than 15% of millions of dollars and knew one thing for sure: Romney wasn't a shill working for the big money men like a lot of current and former DC politicians. He WAS a big money man who had directly benefited from the new grafting of big money interests onto legislative agendas, and the American people could see where his sympathies were. (Hint: it wasn't with average folks)
So, average Americans asked themselves a question, and that question was this: How stupid am I? And the answer, quite unsurprisingly is that most of them were not stupid enough to vote for Romney.
Actually, according to your own spinning and twisting, Americans asked themselves, "How can I get MINE?"
They voted for Obama
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
huh? work harder for what? both people in my example earn the same income and make the same money and work just as hard, yet 1 is given favoritism and a lower tax burden than his income equal who doesn't own a home....Oh thank god, some one that understands what I was trying to say. And you did it much better. Thank you. Now lets move on to how we got this deduction. Can people say "lobbyists"? As in lobbyists for the real estate industry and the mortgage banking industry.
There you go.. Another example of lobbyists getting an expensive give away that takes money from the Treasury. But no one with a mortgage wants to see it go away. They want the government to take something away from people who have less to give.
Then the people that have less to give need to work harder so they can enjoy the benefits of such work ethic.
Incentive = productivity in the work place
-Geaux
Home ownership/buying is among the top tier of things that support our economy the best.
I'm sorry but renting an apartment just doesn't deserve the same tax break
- Thread starter
- #74
Mac has been making an eloquent argument that the 'free stuff' doesn't cost all that much and the cost is not the issue. It is the cultural breakdown that results from it that is the issue.
Care has been making an eloquent argument that it was Romeny's flaws that cost him the election and not 'free stuff'. She sees the problem that some get tax breaks while others don't.
And I think both are partly right and I think partly missing the mark.
I personally checked the 'partly right - partly wrong' option in the poll because I think the Rabbi is right about why Obama won, but I am not yet willing to concede that the cultural shift is irreversible.
I am sure that some did not vote for Romney because of his perceived flaws, but I have a hard time thinking more than a small handful then voted for Obama as an alternative. Those who voted for Obama wanted Obama. And the lure of 'free stuff' I believe was the motive for all but the most hard core leftwing Marxist sympathizers. And I believe there are too few hard core leftwing Marxist sympathizers to have swung an election just as I believe there were too few Romney haters to swing an election.
So I have to go with the 'free stuff' theory as the most plausible and most defensible theory. And it doesn't matter, Mac, how much the free stuff costs. It only matters that it is enough to make a person unwilling to give it up and therefore win that person's vote. It doesn't matter what is and what is not free stuff, Care, but it only matters that enough free stuff is doled out to buy enough votes to keep existing elected officials in office.
Those officials are using our money to increase their power, influence, authority, and personal wealth day by day, month by month, year by year. We no longer have public servants in office but we have career politicians who feed off of us for their own self serving interests. And they keep themselves there via enormous sums of money they bribe, coerce, and manipulate from the people to generate campaign support so that they can convince the people that they will lose their free stuff if the people don't keep them in office.
And we have a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions each and every day as a result.
What nation, empire, or entity can stand up under that?
Care has been making an eloquent argument that it was Romeny's flaws that cost him the election and not 'free stuff'. She sees the problem that some get tax breaks while others don't.
And I think both are partly right and I think partly missing the mark.
I personally checked the 'partly right - partly wrong' option in the poll because I think the Rabbi is right about why Obama won, but I am not yet willing to concede that the cultural shift is irreversible.
I am sure that some did not vote for Romney because of his perceived flaws, but I have a hard time thinking more than a small handful then voted for Obama as an alternative. Those who voted for Obama wanted Obama. And the lure of 'free stuff' I believe was the motive for all but the most hard core leftwing Marxist sympathizers. And I believe there are too few hard core leftwing Marxist sympathizers to have swung an election just as I believe there were too few Romney haters to swing an election.
So I have to go with the 'free stuff' theory as the most plausible and most defensible theory. And it doesn't matter, Mac, how much the free stuff costs. It only matters that it is enough to make a person unwilling to give it up and therefore win that person's vote. It doesn't matter what is and what is not free stuff, Care, but it only matters that enough free stuff is doled out to buy enough votes to keep existing elected officials in office.
Those officials are using our money to increase their power, influence, authority, and personal wealth day by day, month by month, year by year. We no longer have public servants in office but we have career politicians who feed off of us for their own self serving interests. And they keep themselves there via enormous sums of money they bribe, coerce, and manipulate from the people to generate campaign support so that they can convince the people that they will lose their free stuff if the people don't keep them in office.
And we have a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions each and every day as a result.
What nation, empire, or entity can stand up under that?
Last edited:
Spoonman
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2010
- 18,163
- 7,661
- 330
i think he is mostly right, but one critical element he left out, and possible the most influential - People are partisan. you are right or you are left. and most honestly don't know what the impact of their decision will really have. They are blindly right or blindly left, and that is how they will vote regardelss of the candidate, regardless of the platform they present.
Spoonman
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2010
- 18,163
- 7,661
- 330
Mac has been making an eloquent argument that the 'free stuff' doesn't cost all that much and the cost is not the issue. It is the cultural breakdown that results from it that is the issue.
Care has been making an eloquent argument that it was Romeny's flaws that cost him the election and not 'free stuff'. She sees the problem that some get tax breaks while others don't.
And I think both are partly right and I think partly missing the mark.
I personally checked the 'partly right - partly wrong' option in the poll because I think the Rabbi is right about why Obama won, but I am not yet willing to concede that the cultural shift is irreversible.
I am sure that some did not vote for Romney because of his perceived flaws, but I have a hard time thinking more than a small handful then voted for Obama as an alternative. Those who voted for Obama wanted Obama. And the lure of 'free stuff' I believe was the motive for all but the most hard core leftwing Marxist sympathizers. And I believe there are too few hard core leftwing Marxist sympathizers to have swung an election just as I believe there were too few Romney haters to swing an election.
So I have to go with the 'free stuff' theory as the most plausible and most defensible theory. And it doesn't matter, Mac, how much the free stuff costs. It only matters that it is enough to make a person unwilling to give it up and therefore win that person's vote. It doesn't matter what is and what is not free stuff, Care, but it only matters that enough free stuff is doled out to buy enough votes to keep existing elected officials in office.
Those officials are using our money to increase their power, influence, authority, and personal wealth day by day, month by month, year by year. We no longer have public servants in office but we have career politicians who feed off of us for their own self serving interests. And they keep themselves there via enormous sums of money they bribe, coerce, and manipulate from the people to generate campaign support so that they can convince the people that they will lose their free stuff if the people don't keep them in office.
And we have a $17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by billions each and every day as a result.
What nation, empire, or entity can stand up under that?
i think romney lost because he was painted as part of the 1%. the 1% was the bad guy in this election. on the heels od OWS, which i personally believe was either a campaign strategy or a timeley event that happened and was capitalized on for a campaign strategy. there was no way a member of the 1% was going to win the last election. Obama didtanced himslelf from the 1%, Romney was made the poster boy for the 1%. that decided the election in 2012
- Thread starter
- #77
i think he is mostly right, but one critical element he left out, and possible the most influential - People are partisan. you are right or you are left. and most honestly don't know what the impact of their decision will really have. They are blindly right or blindly left, and that is how they will vote regardelss of the candidate, regardless of the platform they present.
But what is partisanship other than picking sides on what the role of government is? Those on the right are those who at least philosophically agree with the Founders on that. Government is to secure our rights and initiate sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation. And then it will leave us strictly alone to live our lives in freedom and create whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
But even those on the right, once they receive free stuff from the government and get used to getting it, have a hard time willingly giving it up.
Those on the left see government as something that is supposed to regulate us and order and control the society and protect us from all evil and provide what we need. It's a no brainer that such people become dependent on government or the perceived security they think government provides and they defend it vigorously.
So it doesn't take a genius to see that those on the left will vote to keep the free stuff. And if you have just enough on the right who just can't bring themselves to risk even the small amount of free stuff they are receiving, it doesn't take a math wizard to come up with enough votes to keep the 'free stuff' people like Obama in power indefinitely.
Last edited:
Spoonman
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2010
- 18,163
- 7,661
- 330
i think he is mostly right, but one critical element he left out, and possible the most influential - People are partisan. you are right or you are left. and most honestly don't know what the impact of their decision will really have. They are blindly right or blindly left, and that is how they will vote regardelss of the candidate, regardless of the platform they present.
But what is partisanship other than picking sides on what the role of government is? Those on the right are those who at least philosophically agree with the Founders on that. Government is to secure our rights and initiate sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation. And then it will leave us strictly alone to live our lives in freedom and create whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
But even those on the right, once they receive free stuff from the government and get used to getting it, have a hard time willingly giving it up.
Those on the left see government as something that is supposed to regulate us and order and control the society and protect us from all evil and provide what we need. It's a no brainer that such people become dependent on government or the perceived security they think government provides and they defend it vigorously.
So it doesn't take a genius to see that those on the left will vote to keep the free stuff. And if you have just enough on the right who just can't bring themselves to risk even the small amount of free stuff they are receiving, it doesn't take a math wizard to come up with enough votes to keep the 'free stuff' people like Obama in power indefinitely.
those are the text book explainations of what the right and the left are all about. but in reality when the republicans are in power, welfare doesn't stop. it isn't even reduced. when the democrats are in power, corporations don't suffer.
but see, its all about perception. and the democrats have made themselves be perceived as the party of free stuff. Obamphones were original a reagan plan. Obamacare, Romney plan. the democrats have championed themselves ad the givers of the free stuff and as the benfactors of the growing demographics in this country. latino, black, entitled. in truth, they are really no better off when the democrats are in power. but they perceive they are. so a growing number are partisan to the left.
- Thread starter
- #79
i think he is mostly right, but one critical element he left out, and possible the most influential - People are partisan. you are right or you are left. and most honestly don't know what the impact of their decision will really have. They are blindly right or blindly left, and that is how they will vote regardelss of the candidate, regardless of the platform they present.
But what is partisanship other than picking sides on what the role of government is? Those on the right are those who at least philosophically agree with the Founders on that. Government is to secure our rights and initiate sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation. And then it will leave us strictly alone to live our lives in freedom and create whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
But even those on the right, once they receive free stuff from the government and get used to getting it, have a hard time willingly giving it up.
Those on the left see government as something that is supposed to regulate us and order and control the society and protect us from all evil and provide what we need. It's a no brainer that such people become dependent on government or the perceived security they think government provides and they defend it vigorously.
So it doesn't take a genius to see that those on the left will vote to keep the free stuff. And if you have just enough on the right who just can't bring themselves to risk even the small amount of free stuff they are receiving, it doesn't take a math wizard to come up with enough votes to keep the 'free stuff' people like Obama in power indefinitely.
those are the text book explainations of what the right and the left are all about. but in reality when the republicans are in power, welfare doesn't stop. it isn't even reduced. when the democrats are in power, corporations don't suffer.
but see, its all about perception. and the democrats have made themselves be perceived as the party of free stuff. Obamphones were original a reagan plan. Obamacare, Romney plan. the democrats have championed themselves ad the givers of the free stuff and as the benfactors of the growing demographics in this country. latino, black, entitled. in truth, they are really no better off when the democrats are in power. but they perceive they are. so a growing number are partisan to the left.
All good points and belong in the mix of the dynamics for sure.
But WHY do the latinos, blacks, and many other demographic groups vote mostly Democratic even when their situation usually worsens when the Democrats are in power?
You are right that it is perception. But what is the perception? It is because the Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility and bringing down the debt and reducing deficits and balancing budgets and how that would offer more prosperity and security for everybody.
The Democrats accuse the Republicans of throwing granny off the cliff, of snatching food from the mouths of babes, and invading the wombs of women even as they promise more and more and more free stuff.
To the uneducated and media brainwashed out there, the free stuff sounds a lot better.
RandallFlagg
PROUD Tea Party Member
- Dec 5, 2012
- 8,578
- 2,333
- 280
.
I don't think our decline is about "free stuff". The "free stuff" thing is a symptom of a larger problem - our culture is in rapid decline and it's pulling us down with it.
Look at our popular culture - Holy shit, I was going to give examples, but anyone who actually needs examples is in such denial that I would be wasting my time.
Look at our educational system - we're now seeing the predictable result of placing a higher priority on self esteem than on ability: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable
We continue to lower standards, make excuses, claim victimhood. So, we're in decline, we're reaping what we've sowed. Capitalism worked too well, it made us soft.
The "free stuff"? Meh. In the big picture, it doesn't really cost that much. What's killing us is a culture in decay.
.
Here is another one of my blogs at USA Carry which kind a addresses some of your thoughts? I go by One78Shovel at that site
-Geaux
Why I Am Losing Hope
8 Comments
by One78Shovel , 04-05-2013 at 06:04 AM (714 Views)
Because I was raised to love God & Country. My grandparents were hard working tobacco farmers for all their lives. They never ventured far from their home in Tennessee. During my youth, I spent my summers there working in the hot August fields and in the top of some bat and spider infested barns. But you know what? It felt like Utopia. The family would gather on Sundays for dinner (lunch down south) then retire to the vast fields for games of baseball until the lighting bugs blinked at sunset. America was a different place then. It was a place were a man was judged by the sweat off his brow and how he provided for his family. As grandma used to say; "I don't care if you dig a ditch for a living, just dig it to the best of your ability". They were true Americans who taught me the value and pride which comes from a hard days work.
I have tried to pass the culture to my son's. And to some extent, it is still a work in progress. It's just hard for them to see the forest through the trees. Some today get more fired up about a new release of the Ipad than it does at the prospects of employment. Sad
What would my grandparents think today of the America that turned it's back on their values? I picture the Indian with a tear in his eye (viewing litter) from the commercial years ago. The difference today is he would be reduced to a mere man on his knees viewing the cesspool society has manifested and nurtured.
The election was a referendum on the American Dream as my generation knew it. The shear fact that a little over half of us (America collectively) voted for the continued weakening of our National Sovernity is hard to stomach.
I can only hope the reason immigrants flock to America is because of the image it used to reflect, not the image of today. But as the subj: reads, I am on the slippery slope called hope and am growing more bitter by the day.
I, too, was raised similarly. My Father was a career military officer. My Mother was a Chemist. Our Grandparents (both sides) owned farms; a dairy farm and a truck farm.
We spent our summers as children on these farms learning how to be good, decent people. We worked hard, we played hard and we learned what "family" was all about. Both my parents and Grandparents lived through the great depression as blacks. They worked their fingers to the bones. They hunted and fished and they made it through. They never made an "excuse". Never once. They fought in World War I, World War II, and Korea. My Brother and I fought in Vietnam. Why? Because it was a debt OWED to our country for all that it had provided for US.
We were taught to believe in God, Country and Family. Your choice as to the particular order, yet that was the way the family placed priorities. Nothing - and I mean NOTHING, came between those three principles.
Look at the state of America today. Where is God? Where is Country? Where is Family?
You answer those three simple questions and you'll have your answer as to the decline of this country. It's really not so hard that it requires a team of Anthropology professors to write 5,000 word papers on the subject. It's right there; directly in front of our faces.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 61
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 124
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 249
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 488
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 520
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8208
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-