What do liberals want the US to be?

[kaz]

Yeah, I just love that "logic." Of course, it's just another example of the liberal propaganda technique where they accuse their critics of everything they are guilty of.

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.



They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

 

[Disir]

Anyone want to take a gander at how many "charities" receive tax dollars?

 

[rightwinger]

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.



They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

 

[rightwinger]

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

throughout the history of this great nation, people who had trouble making ends meet either got a second job, more education, more training, learned a skill or somehow made their labor more valuable to an employer. Instead or trying to buy a house or live in an expensive apartment, find a boarding house or rent a room from a relative. Damn, you libs want a free ride. I say **** that.

It is not the role of government to ensure that everyone has an income from a single job to support the lifestyle that he chooses for himself.

Once again you are offering up second jobs and better paying jobs that our current job market is unable to provide. There are 30 million working Americans that need government assistance to support their families. There are nowhere close to 30 million second jobs out there
Boarding houses, low rent apartments, renting a room, living with relatives....where do you think our working poor live? Park Avenue?

Apparently they are earning a living wage then.

Evidently not

 

[Mathbud1]

How is that a stupid response?

You said that the wealthy class has a " disproportional say in how legislation is crafted and who it helps."

I assumed that you meant they had such a say because they are able to spend their money to influence legislators.

How would you stop that?

I gave you two options that would stop that influence: eliminating wealth, or eliminating legislation. I also gave you the all-important third option: something else. A free pass to explain in your own words what you actually meant.

So?

Your response:
Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Totally unrelated to what I posted

What about it is unrelated?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

"in how legislation is crafted and who it helps." - > "Or do you want to eliminate legislation?"

I addressed two aspects of your complaint and invited you to explain your own resolution if neither of the ones I suggested fit your point of view.

Again, what about that is at all unrelated to what you posted?

What would you do to eliminate the "disproportional say" that the "wealthy class" has in our legislative process?

Eliminating wealth is not what you had in mind. Eliminating the legislative process is not what you had in mind. Ok. What did you have in mind?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

Your turn

How does advocating the wealthy have less political clout result in elimination of all wealth?

You did not say that you wanted to lessen their political clout. You said that they have too much political clout. Yes, that could be seen as implying that you want to lessen their political clout, but does not at all address how you would like to see that done. Since wealth contributes to their clout, eliminating that wealth would be a method for reducing their clout. Again, if you have some other method in mind for reducing their clout, you have been repeatedly invited to state it.

Will you?

I would start with campaign contributions. End them
Go with taxpayer funded campaigns. Everyone receives the same amount
This relieves elected politicians from the pressures of coming up with the money to fund their next election

Thank you for answering.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable step that might warrant some consideration. How much would you be willing to increase taxes to pay for the campaigns though? If the budget is too small will we be trading a possible wealth influence for a lower information vote? Is that a good trade to make?

 

[Redfish]

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

no, medicaid will pay for it. The church will probably help with food for you and you relatives as well as spiritual help during such a difficult time.

There is a difference between the govt helping for things like Katrina and Sandy and routine welfare to able bodied people.

nice try at analogy, but you fail once again

 

[rdean]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

I wish Red States would stop being welfare queens and value education as much as the rest of the world.

 

[Redfish]

Anyone want to take a gander at how many "charities" receive tax dollars?

you mean like planned parenthood (abortion central) and ACORN?

 

[Disir]

Anyone want to take a gander at how many "charities" receive tax dollars?

you mean like planned parenthood (abortion central) and ACORN?

Faith based initiatives.

 

[kaz]

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

Government paying $1 million for a heart transplant for anyone is just sick.

 

[Flash]

Bullshit. during those times the tax code was full of loopholes, deductions, and exemptions, no one paid 90% of his income to the govt. Most of those tax dodges have been eliminated now, so the actual amounts paid are very nearly the same.

Sorry but once again you are confused. You are confused a lot, aren't you? This sounds like a supply sider to me. Ronald Reagan would have agreed.

This administration intends to cut taxes in order to build the fundamental strength of our economy, to remove a serious barrier to long-term growth, to increase incentives by routing out inequities and complexities and to prevent the even greater budget deficit that a lagging economy would otherwise surely produce. The worst deficit comes from a recession, and if we can take the proper action in the proper time, this can be the most important step we could take to prevent another recession. That is the right kind of tax cut both for your family budget and the national budget…Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. JFK Radio and Television Report to the American People on the State of the National Economy, August 13, 1962

 

[rightwinger]

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

no, medicaid will pay for it. The church will probably help with food for you and you relatives as well as spiritual help during such a difficult time.

There is a difference between the govt helping for things like Katrina and Sandy and routine welfare to able bodied people.

nice try at analogy, but you fail once again

I was answering a question as to why churches and charities are unable to provide the level of relief that the government can

 

[Synthaholic]

What do liberals want the US to be?


Teabagger-free.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. during those times the tax code was full of loopholes, deductions, and exemptions, no one paid 90% of his income to the govt. Most of those tax dodges have been eliminated now, so the actual amounts paid are very nearly the same.

Sorry but once again you are confused. You are confused a lot, aren't you? This sounds like a supply sider to me. Ronald Reagan would have agreed.

This administration intends to cut taxes in order to build the fundamental strength of our economy, to remove a serious barrier to long-term growth, to increase incentives by routing out inequities and complexities and to prevent the even greater budget deficit that a lagging economy would otherwise surely produce. The worst deficit comes from a recession, and if we can take the proper action in the proper time, this can be the most important step we could take to prevent another recession. That is the right kind of tax cut both for your family budget and the national budget…Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. JFK Radio and Television Report to the American People on the State of the National Economy, August 13, 1962

Not my quote

 

[Listening]

What do liberals want the US to be?


Teabagger-free.

Then move to some place where the Tea Party does not exist....say Tehran.

That or get out your shotgun and we'll go for last man standing.

 

[rightwinger]

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

Government paying $1 million for a heart transplant for anyone is just sick.

Damn....not a bad estimate on my part
Going rate for a heart transplant is $997,700

Transplant Living Financing A Transplant Costs

 

[Listening]

60 pages and the posts all start to look like the same 100 posts that have been put up before. In 100 threads before.

Sorry.....but here are the facts.

In 2008, the GOP was a mess. That was, in large part, due to GWB and his stupid wars. Many conservatives didn't like going to war and we certainly didn't like the democratic like spending he was doing. He lost the house and senate in 2006.

In 2008, thank to GWB, Pelosi and Reid, we hit a wall and things tanked.

In 2008, running in the spirit of Hope and Change, BHO was elected POTUS of the United States.

The country was in a recession (not ascribing blame....simply stating)

In 2010, the unthinkable occured. The GOP (slated for obsolesence) took back the house. The GOP also gained six or seven seats in the senate.

In 2012, BHO was re-elected. The democrats actually gained two seats in the senate.

In 2014, the GOP took the senate (including "safe" seats in places like CO) and strengthened it's hold on the house.

All along the GOP has been steadily taking up state houses and governorships.

In all this, you see the federal government doing not much of anything.

While states like Wisconsin, under the leadership of Scott Walker are making strides (but by their own admission have much more to do).

I really don't give a rats ass who wins in 2016. Give back the senate or not, the GOP will hold the house stongly (and maybe will even win more) and the federal government, by the GOG will continue to do nothing.

If Obamacare continues on it's present course, it will be a side show in the years to come.

All of this looks pretty good to those of us who don't want a strong central government.

 

[Listening]

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

Government paying $1 million for a heart transplant for anyone is just sick.

Damn....not a bad estimate on my part
Going rate for a heart transplant is $997,700

Transplant Living Financing A Transplant Costs

What will it cost you to have your head pulled from your ass ?

 

[Listening]

Social Security will eventually go to a hand to mouth set up when the surplus goes away.

It won't go bankrupt. But all the seniors you've duped into living on 1000/month will be living on 759/month.

That's a raging success.

Eventually, we will do what we should have done all along- tax the rich appropriately to pay back those bonds and means test is so we aren't writing out huge checks to rich people.

^^^ typical liberal, government forces the 'rich' to pay into social security and liberals want to screw them out of the benefits they paid to receive, plus force them to pay back the money congress ahem "borrowed" from social security. Yeah, that's fair.

Won't happen.

Joe B forgets the rich own the government.

Thanks to liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

That would be nice

Churches and charities have proven themselves incapable of taking care of people in serious situations. They do what they can but quickly find themselves overwhelmed

I have known people who did quite well taking care of themselves until some catastrophy hits them. I have a neighbor who owned a small roofing company and was doing quite well until he fell off a roof and received a severe head injury. He was incapacitated and no longer able to work. His wife had to cut back on working to take care of him. With significant medical bills and no income having a "nanny government" to step in sure helps

Churches and charities are failures, government isn't. What a delusional world you live in.

I live on the Jersey Shore. Churches and charities were unable to handle a disaster of that magnitude
In an area of severe economic hardship, there are too many people needing help and too few people making donations for churches and charities to carry the load
If you need a heart transplant that costs $1 million and you have no insurance. Can you turn to your local church to pay?

Government paying $1 million for a heart transplant for anyone is just sick.

Damn....not a bad estimate on my part
Going rate for a heart transplant is $997,700

Transplant Living Financing A Transplant Costs

What will it cost you to have your head pulled from your ass ?

Why don't you look up there and tell us?