Page 6 of 8 [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

12 Mar 2014, 9:16 am

Shrapnel wrote:
My conservative concerns are purely economic.


Most of my concerns come from a long-term economic standpoint. Reducing the deficit this year by $10 billion means nothing if those cuts are going to end up costing taxpayers $100 billion in ten years.

That is why I am dead set against eliminating social programs, because in the long run that would just cost the government more in terms of long term drains on the economy. I am, however, in favor of a comprehensive reform of social programs to improve efficiency and reduce wasteful spending of time and resources. I also think that the SSA should be rolled into the HHS, along with all government benefits (including the entire VA system). The combining of infrastructure alone would save trillions over the course of a generation. It just bothers me to see so many advocates of slashing parts of the budget that are going to cost more in terms of increased crime, increased poverty, and a higher degree of discontent and anger spreading through the populace. I am also extremely perturbed by the fact that every penny in spending reduction that the current Republicans have achieved has been coupled with backdoor increases in government spending for larger businesses and people who already have substantial wealth and assets. Long term economic dvelopment and growth relies on a strong consumer base. To improve the economy long term, the most efficient and most effective method would be to reduce poverty. That would reduce government spending on social programs as well as provide higher tax revenue (and decreased tax credits/deductions).


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

12 Mar 2014, 9:44 am

Shrapnel wrote:
billiscool wrote:
do,Conservative have rights any more,or do
only Liberals have rights now a day.
Why do Liberals hate conservative opinion,
so much,That any time a conservative disagree
with a Liberals.Liberals try to censored them.


What's inevitably displayed is the liberal tendency to stifle debate through intellectual elitism and condescension. So arrogant in their belief that there is only one side to any argument since they view all conservatives as toothless, knuckle dragging, drooling, illiterate oafs. Even going so far as cite psychological theories of political attitudes to use pejoratively against conservatives, they see their condescension as justified. That people unlike them need not be taken seriously seems intrinsic to liberals. And it is exactly this manifestation of liberal condescension that suffocates the public debate that could help to unite Americans of all persuasions. It may be erroneous to assume that is the goal.


Got any dressing to go with that word salad?



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

12 Mar 2014, 11:09 am

sonofghandi wrote:
To improve the economy long term, the most efficient and most effective method would be to reduce poverty.


I've condensed your comment.
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure, it now seems to have transformed into a war on prosperity.

Both parties are guilty of the practice and the campaign promise of eliminating earmarks, yet the status quo still exists. Our federal government remains a collection of America’s most incompetent because a narrow perception of self-interest is what always seems to motivate voters. When our household encounters a cash flow problem we must adjust our spending habits accordingly. Unfortunately, when government has the ability to plunder the pockets of future generations through taxation, there isn't much incentive to do that. They keep demanding a greater slice of the pie, and the concept of creating a larger pie is inconceivable when the government implements roadblocks through over-regulation. Does regulation preserve market mechanisms or supersede them? I don’t know, but I do know that multi-national corporations will park their money where taxation and regulation is less, while declaring their losses where taxation is greatest. Can this be blamed on Conservatism or common sense?



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

12 Mar 2014, 12:34 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
To improve the economy long term, the most efficient and most effective method would be to reduce poverty.


I've condensed your comment.
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure, it now seems to have transformed into a war on prosperity.


That is because anti-poverty programs don't address the causes of poverty; they only treat some of the symptoms. We need to reduce the numbers of people falling into poverty, not just maintain them when they get there.

As for a war on prosperity: poppycock!
The only way you could see things as a war on prosperity is if you find it perfectly acceptable for businesses to rely on the government to pick up the tab for the low wages/no benefits employees. Food assistance cuts and the expiration of jobless benefits have already impacted the economy negatively.

It is not a war on prosperity. It is more of a war on corrupt business practice. In FY 2012 Wal Mart could have more than doubled their payroll expenses for the dollar value of the dividends it paid to its investors. The total bonuses (not including the $1.2 million salary) paid to their CEO in 2010 alone would have been enough to create over 1200 full time minimum wage jobs. And yet Wal Mart is one of the companies largely responsible for so many full time workers qualifying for income based assistance. You want to cut social spending programs? Raise the minimum wage and index it to the poverty line.

We cannot continue to concentrate wealth within a tiny fraction of the population at the expense of the rest. Even with the most creative maths, it is simply unsustainable. The consumer base will eventually decline to a point that further economic growth is impossible and civil unrest will become the norm.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,561
Location: Aux Arcs

12 Mar 2014, 2:40 pm

Image


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,561
Location: Aux Arcs

12 Mar 2014, 2:42 pm

Image


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

12 Mar 2014, 2:53 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Image


oh I used to have a tee shirt I screen printed with Eat the rich when I was a teen, I loved it so much.


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Mar 2014, 3:23 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure

That is not correct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1653433800
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

12 Mar 2014, 4:46 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Image


With the ascension of Mao Tse Tung, his comrades killed all factory owners and all landlords and all farmers who employed at least one employee.
After that, they went after "the rich". They took the farms of large farmers and killed the farmers. After that, "the rich" included any farmer who owned his own land. They took that land too. Finally, "the rich" was defined as any peasant who owned a pig.
We will each be considered "the rich" after those who were above us are harvested. Class Warfare is like a grass fire...it is difficult to keep it from spreading and getting out of control.

LKL wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure

That is not correct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1653433800
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success


You've provided three links to op-ed pieces, I hope you understand that they are nothing more than someone else’s opinion. I can do that as well. So I have provided four op-ed links to dispute your three. I also find it interesting that one of your links is to the Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox. I know that the majority of people here on WP delight in ridiculing Fox, accusing them of being untruthful in all things. So it’s rather odd that you would use something they’ve published to bolster your point. Or perhaps they are more balanced than people are willing admit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/busin ... .html?_r=0
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... l-failure/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... as-failed/
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/krugman ... as_failed/



Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

12 Mar 2014, 8:01 pm

billiscool wrote:
do,Conservative have rights any more,or do
only Liberals have rights now a day.
Why do Liberals hate conservative opinion,
so much,That any time a conservative disagree
with a Liberals.Liberals try to censored them.


Oh, poor picked on conservatives. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: They only control every single major media organization in the US. But that is not enough for you.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-MURWDpyzU[/youtube]



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

12 Mar 2014, 9:43 pm

Maybe it has to do with the rhetoric Conservatives use to express their opinions. Conservatives enjoy using rhetoric that is derogatory, disrespectful, reckless, irresponsible. Conservatives seem to go out of their way to be offensive, and to piss people off who disagree with them, as in Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut", just as an example. With the likes of Limbaugh I could bring complete chapters of his uncivilized dialogue. I often post in CL politics forum where 95% of anything critical of Conservative ideology is immediately flagged. While commenting on the right-wing interference with the Tennessee union voting which recently took place, could say I was flagged easily 25 times over a 10 day period for saying nothing other than outside interference by State politicians should be investigated by the DOJ. Not to mention the disgusting names I am routinely called by Conservatives, and threats of violence. Perhaps not here on WP, but in other political forums. And the disgusting behavior of Conservative politicians like Darrell Issa having the microphone shut off rather than allow ranking Democrat sitting right next to him to make a statement. Censorship? During the budget fiasco last fall, Congressional Republicans changing the rules of the floor in secret then refusing to allow a Democrat to call for a vote on an issue based on the previous rule, when no one had been told the rules were changed. Perhaps if Conservatives learned to behave like civilized human beings instead of like wild dogs fighting over a pork chop in a back alley. I have heard the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk bragging about how they love pissing Liberals off. Then they invoke the "Christian moral superiority BS". I'm sorry but I think you need to look in the mirror. Conservatives love using rhetoric that is intended to be threatening, intimidating, incendiary and provocative. It is Conservative strategy to brutalize Liberals with language in hopes that Liberals will back down because things are too rough and tumble. If Liberals fight back using similar tactics, it is on. Liberals are not permitted in the sewer slinging the same crap Conservatives sling. As I have mentioned before, your "avatar" symbolizes your manner of discourse, and personality. It is not always necessary to force feed your opinion. But if brute force is what you are going to exert, don't whine when you feel resistance.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

12 Mar 2014, 10:00 pm

[youtube]http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/cbs-sets-mega-3-season-renewal-for-the-big-bang-theory-1201129964/[/youtube]



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Mar 2014, 10:28 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
With the ascension of Mao Tse Tung, his comrades killed all factory owners and all landlords and all farmers who employed at least one employee.
After that, they went after "the rich". They took the farms of large farmers and killed the farmers. After that, "the rich" included any farmer who owned his own land. They took that land too. Finally, "the rich" was defined as any peasant who owned a pig.
We will each be considered "the rich" after those who were above us are harvested. Class Warfare is like a grass fire...it is difficult to keep it from spreading and getting out of control.

Mao was responsible for vast chaos, death, and destruction, but your description is ahistorical.
Quote:
LKL wrote:
Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty has been ongoing for 50 years and has been an utter failure

That is not correct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1653433800
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success

You've provided three links to op-ed pieces, I hope you understand that they are nothing more than someone else’s opinion.

Can you contradict the facts that they're based on?

Quote:
I also find it interesting that one of your links is to the Wall Street Journal which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox.

I deliberately try to find non-liberal sources so that people like you can't say that they're "all left-wing."

I have to wonder if you actually read the links you cited. For example here's about half of the content of the last one:
Quote:
Krugman comments, “progressives have stopped apologizing for their efforts on behalf of the poor, and have started trumpeting them instead. And conservatives find themselves on the defensive.” At its crux, Krugman’s argument Friday stresses the importance of a social safety net in reducing poverty, highlighting that antipoverty programs have been significant in aiding the lives of low-income Americans.

Krugman locates the unsolved problem of poverty within the broader question of inequality — a spiraling problem for which the poor cannot be blamed. Krugman notes:
'At this point, the rise of the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else is so obvious that it’s no longer possible to shut down any discussion of rising inequality with cries of “class warfare.” Meanwhile, hard times have forced many more Americans to turn to safety-net programs. And as conservatives have responded by defining an ever-growing fraction of the population as morally unworthy “takers” — a quarter, a third, 47 percent, whatever — they have made themselves look callous and meanspirited.'


Here's the entire text of another of your links:
Quote:
Safety net lifts millions out of poverty
Without government programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance, the poverty rate would grow from 16.0% to 28.7%, causing the ranks of the poor to swell from 50 million to 90 million people.
This year marked the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, launched by Lyndon B. Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union address, and it has prompted a wide-ranging debate on whether that battle has succeeded or failed. Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio have called it a failure, citing the official Census poverty rate, which shows basically no improvement in the last half-century.
On its own merits, the measurement is misleading. As has been well-documented, the official poverty rate fails to take into account significant parts of the nation's safety net. In reality, as you can see in the interactive chart above, the safety net has reduced the poverty rate from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. The chart is using a measure of poverty developed by economists at Columbia University and elsewhere that analyzes how many people fall below the poverty line once taxes and transfers (such as food stamps) are factored in.
So, to the degree that the War on Poverty was a war to ensure that more Americans have the resources to meet the most basic needs of their lives -- even if that required a massive increase in the size of the welfare state -- the effort has been a resounding success. Millions upon millions of Americans have lived a more decent life because of taxpayer support.
But to the degree that the War on Poverty should have led U.S. companies to pay their workers adequate wages and prompted sufficient enough demand to ensure full employment, the war has been a failure. If you return to the interactive chart above, and click on "poverty rate without the safety net," you'll see that 28.7 percent of the country would be in poverty today without government policies to help them -- actually higher than it was 50 years ago.
And so, in that sense, it's hard to say we've won the War on Poverty when nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks, without the government's help, the sustenance necessary to meet the basic needs of life.

There's a good graph in there, too, that isn't included in my citation.



luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

12 Mar 2014, 10:31 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conservatives don't claim the authority to compel your behaviour at gunpoint, unless you try and murder.


Or gamble, or smoke marijuana, or buy a beer on Sunday morning (or at all, some places). Or marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't libertarians who until recently, historically speaking, made simply being homosexual a criminal act.

Those rules aren't enforced at gunpoint. Unless the USA is worse for that sort of stuff than the UK is.

Of course, the illegality of such things is a great wrong in itself (except perhaps for some forms of gambling, like those machines that exist to eat the money of gambling addicts), but exaggerating to say that behaviour is controlled at gunpoint, well, it makes you look like a shrill.


Ad hominems do not strengthen your argument.

Perhaps in the UK some laws are no more than polite suggestions, and their violation will merely bring PC Featheringstonehaugh round for a cuppa and a genteel discussion of the social contract. In the US, however, all laws are backed by the threat of government violence. Flout them consistently enough, ignore the summonses and other official documents which then come your way, and eventually men with guns will show up to drag you away and lock you in a cage. This is not to say that all laws are unjust, but to mention that they are backed by force is not being a "shrill," it is recognizing reality. There are many laws which people would have little reason to obey were it not for fear of punishment meted out by the government.

It's the first time I have seen "shrill" used as a noun. Divided by a common language again no doubt.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

12 Mar 2014, 10:37 pm

luanqibazao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conservatives don't claim the authority to compel your behaviour at gunpoint, unless you try and murder.


Or gamble, or smoke marijuana, or buy a beer on Sunday morning (or at all, some places). Or marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't libertarians who until recently, historically speaking, made simply being homosexual a criminal act.

Those rules aren't enforced at gunpoint. Unless the USA is worse for that sort of stuff than the UK is.

Of course, the illegality of such things is a great wrong in itself (except perhaps for some forms of gambling, like those machines that exist to eat the money of gambling addicts), but exaggerating to say that behaviour is controlled at gunpoint, well, it makes you look like a shrill.


Ad hominems do not strengthen your argument.

Perhaps in the UK some laws are no more than polite suggestions, and their violation will merely bring PC Featheringstonehaugh round for a cuppa and a genteel discussion of the social contract. In the US, however, all laws are backed by the threat of government violence. Flout them consistently enough, ignore the summonses and other official documents which then come your way, and eventually men with guns will show up to drag you away and lock you in a cage. This is not to say that all laws are unjust, but to mention that they are backed by force is not being a "shrill," it is recognizing reality. There are many laws which people would have little reason to obey were it not for fear of punishment meted out by the government.

It's the first time I have seen "shrill" used as a noun. Divided by a common language again no doubt.


Yes, if only the IRS asked people committing tax fraud to pretty, pretty please stop being big meanies.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

13 Mar 2014, 3:42 am

khaoz wrote:
Maybe it has to do with the rhetoric Conservatives use to express their opinions. Conservatives enjoy using rhetoric that is derogatory, disrespectful, reckless, irresponsible. Conservatives seem to go out of their way to be offensive, and to piss people off who disagree with them, as in Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut", just as an example. With the likes of Limbaugh I could bring complete chapters of his uncivilized dialogue. I often post in CL politics forum where 95% of anything critical of Conservative ideology is immediately flagged. While commenting on the right-wing interference with the Tennessee union voting which recently took place, could say I was flagged easily 25 times over a 10 day period for saying nothing other than outside interference by State politicians should be investigated by the DOJ. Not to mention the disgusting names I am routinely called by Conservatives, and threats of violence. Perhaps not here on WP, but in other political forums. And the disgusting behavior of Conservative politicians like Darrell Issa having the microphone shut off rather than allow ranking Democrat sitting right next to him to make a statement. Censorship? During the budget fiasco last fall, Congressional Republicans changing the rules of the floor in secret then refusing to allow a Democrat to call for a vote on an issue based on the previous rule, when no one had been told the rules were changed. Perhaps if Conservatives learned to behave like civilized human beings instead of like wild dogs fighting over a pork chop in a back alley. I have heard the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk bragging about how they love pissing Liberals off. Then they invoke the "Christian moral superiority BS". I'm sorry but I think you need to look in the mirror. Conservatives love using rhetoric that is intended to be threatening, intimidating, incendiary and provocative. It is Conservative strategy to brutalize Liberals with language in hopes that Liberals will back down because things are too rough and tumble. If Liberals fight back using similar tactics, it is on. Liberals are not permitted in the sewer slinging the same crap Conservatives sling. As I have mentioned before, your "avatar" symbolizes your manner of discourse, and personality. It is not always necessary to force feed your opinion. But if brute force is what you are going to exert, don't whine when you feel resistance.


Re-read your post, carefully, then look in the mirror.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit