Obviously. :roll:No, those things are not progressive and stifle the progress of our society.
Make choices...lol, you mean horde what they can squeeze out of their workers? When a CEO makes 300-400% more than his lowest paid worker then he his taking advantage of that worker. He is stealing from that workers labor by not paying a fair wage for his labor. That kind of disparity creates wage gaps and social unrest as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. This kind of wage gap has never been so prevalent as it is now. What's wrong with getting back to a little less disparity? Conservatives always want to turn the clock back to the good old days, but in the good old days we had regulation and shame.You don't have a point, you merely want to call people who want to make choices with their earinings greedy for not wanting government to steal from them to redistribute to people who won't earn a living.
And of course as I pointed out, you conservatives seem to think that a CEO getting a little less will go to people who won't work. Naturally you skip over all the people who are working but struggle to make ends meet because their wage hasn't increased proportionally with the CEOs or inflation or lost their job because the CEO wanted to make MORE money by shipping that job to cheaper labor overseas. So instead of a decent wage with benefits they have to take a lower paying job or two to try and make it up. Obama NEVER said we need to take from the rich and give it to people who won't work, he said we need to (I'm paraphrasing) take a little off the top (ie. go back to the rates in the past, like under Reagan) and increase everyone else so that they can afford to buy the things the being sold which keeps the economy going. When consumers can't afford the good or services being sold we end up where we are now. This Christmas sucked for retailers... why? People don't have money to spend. Give the money to the people at the top so that they can create more jobs over seas is a losing cycle.
Yeah sure, and Joe the not so much a plumber was going to buy his bosses business... :roll:I don't care what you see in my post, I give to charitable causes constantly, many times at a sacrifice to a night out, I give more than money, I give time as well, so your opinion and the government's opinion of where my money should go....past what is constituitional is none of your business.
So let me make sure I understand this, you get all bent about me making assumptions about you and then you turn around and make assumptions about me... :dohYou really need to read more history, start with Huey P. Long, there was no "charity", rather they were populist methods of ensuring votes to the campaigns.
I am aware of who HPL is. Your claim that his populist position was a political ploy to get votes and not a real concern for the poor is nothing but rightwing pessimism and slander. Got any proof of your claim?
And what would cause people to start losing jobs? Oh because the CEOs and BoD want to maintain THEIR income so they will cut their work force instead of their own compensation? Hmmm... Instead we should just let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until there is a French Revolution here in America? Good plan for society you have there. Seems to me like we've been trying it your way for quite some time and it looks like it's ****ed things up pretty good.Ironically, people will start losing jobs when taxes go up, so more people will need welfare, sounds more like a sinking ship than a rising tide.
In other words, go ahead and take from the middle class and the poor instead? By means of lower wages and benefits? How enlightened...You want people's lives to improve, stop taking from those who hire, hint, they aren't the middle class or poor.
And if that system proves to be inadequate and people starve and die like in other countries, then what? Seems like we went down that road before which is what prompted Welfare, SS, medicare, etc. or did you have a plan B for when plan A fails... again.So let private charities and citizens do the job, they are better at it.
Well, you do actually by advocating the system that got us where we are.Who says I don't think they deserve a decent standard of living? That's not the point at all, but merely a liberal heart-string pulling talking point. Why do you feel that babies shouldn't live? I don't believe in socialism/communism, and neither should you. Read the actual account of the Piligrims in their first year.
Having lived in socialist Utopian countries like Germany, Finland and Sweden... Former east Germany and Poland after The Wall came down... Mexico and Kanuckistan... I know socialism all too well. I don't need a Kool-Aid consumer to tell me about socialism. I've seen its damage first hand on many fronts and degrees.
Obama is a socialist. He believes in government. "Spreading the wealth around" for him does not mean the private sector creating opportunity, it means government coercion, intrusion, penalization (for success), and the iron hand of government redistributing said wealth.
Look... Obama revealed who he is with three UNSCRIPTED MOMENTS:
This is rightwing hyperbole. Unfortunately, we tried letting people take care of each other and they didn't do it. So, for the sake and health of our society, the government must take over that responsibility. Since we are the government, we choose, collectively to help out those in need by paying taxes which fund the programs. As I said numerous times, always ignored, we tried it your way and it failed to work. This way seems to be much better, just ask anyone who is getting SS or disability, medicare etc.This would be great if it were not taken under threat of force by the government.
Each person earns according to his ability. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about a "right" to never be poor.Survival of the fittest huh? What are you a caveman? Why can't you consider the plight of the less fortunate? Does anything else factor into your opinion, like opportunity, bigotry, racism, class...? Basically you're saying that the weak or less intelligent deserve poverty. How enlightened of you.
Good, so we've finally gotten to a point where we can stop calling it charity because really, your mantra is that lazy people will get your tax dollars. The truth being that it's not charity, it's social morals where those who have, help those without instead of the conservative view which seems to be, get it if you can and to hell with my neighbor if necessary. If the private institutions of charity worked there would be no poverty... look around, it doesn't work and never has, people are just too greedy.In a free society it is not anyones call to make. Charity should be voluntary and not forced, otherwise it is no longer charity.
I do care for freedom of choice, to the point where that choice is harmful to our nation as it is currently. Too much choice to rip off the general populace.It is obvious you care little for freedom of choice and would rather see forced wealth distribution like early Communist Russia etc.
So, again, you don't -really- have an issue with imposing morality on others, so long as it is a morality you approve of.The truth being that it's not charity, it's social morals where those who have, help those without....
Oh really? Please detail that damage for oh... let's say Germany and Sweden. Go.Having lived in socialist Utopian countries like Germany, Finland and Sweden... Former east Germany and Poland after The Wall came down... Mexico and Kanuckistan... I know socialism all too well. I don't need a Kool-Aid consumer to tell me about socialism. I've seen its damage first hand on many fronts and degrees.
I would say he is more correctly a social democrat...Obama is a socialist. He believes in government. "Spreading the wealth around" for him does not mean the private sector creating opportunity, it means government coercion, intrusion, penalization (for success), and the iron hand of government redistributing said wealth.
In the early 20th century, however, a number of socialist and labor parties rejected revolution and other traditional teachings of Marxism and went on to take more moderate positions, which came to characterize modern social democracy. These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy.
LOL he was deceitful and instead of asking a question he created a fictional scenario. Now, please quote Obama's "bad mouthing" of Joe the not so much a plumber.LOL... he asks a question that gets Obama to reveal who he is, and typical of a socialist... he attacks the messenger. Obama left further quotes bad mouthing Joe, and McCain's use of him. What's that tell ya?
Yup, the cause of humanity. Thanks for the star.Let's give you a Gold Star and paste it on your forehead. You're a real trooper for the cause.
1. Candid and honestLook... Obama revealed who he is with three UNSCRIPTED MOMENTS:
1. Clinging to their guns and religion.
2. Spread the wealth around.
3. We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK
Only if you're an ignorant fool who doesn't understand what he was saying or a partisan hack who ignores the truth in favor of pandering to the lowest common denominator in our society.Only one moment was required, and Joe the Plumber scored the money quote.
Well, it started with a simple, who is this guy that McCain and Palin are exhalting? And when they took the initial look see, they found some interesting discrepancies which prompted further investigation. Don't you think it's McCain's fault for dragging the guy out into the public? No? Go figure.To watch the vultures in the press dig into Joe was a spectacle. Incredible really. Finally someone does the job the press should be doing and HE GETS INVESTIGATED!
And the best man for the job. :2wave:Obama... An American radical. Socialist.
Well, I'm qualifying it now since you're pressing me to be more exact. Now what?That's not what you said.
Your statement of opposition to the legislation of mroality had no qualifications.
Given that, why do you not oppose the Welfare State?
No, it's societies moral value. Xians have no exclusive claim to doing the right thing and in fact have a long history of doing the wrong thing so again I say, it's not xian values.It is based on the moral position that "it is the right thing to do" -- indeed, it is based on the Christian moral value of Charity.
My opposition to legislating morality is more an opposition to legislating xian morality and my opposition legislating social morality is not static. If it's good for the advancement of society then I may consider it.If you oppose the legislation of morality, as you do, you must then oppose said welfare state.
This is rightwing hyperbole.
Unfortunately, we tried letting people take care of each other and they didn't do it. Please feel free to post some proof of this ridicules assertion So, for the sake and health of our society, the government must take over that responsibility.
Since we are the government, we choose, collectively to help out those in need by paying taxes which fund the programs. As I said numerous times, always ignored, we tried it your way and it failed to work. This way seems to be much better, just ask anyone who is getting SS or disability, medicare etc.
Survival of the fittest huh? What are you a caveman? Why can't you consider the plight of the less fortunate?
Does anything else factor into your opinion, like opportunity, bigotry, racism, class...? Basically you're saying that the weak or less intelligent deserve poverty. How enlightened of you.
Good, so we've finally gotten to a point where we can stop calling it charity because really, your mantra is that lazy people will get your tax dollars. The truth being that it's not charity, it's social morals where those who have, help those without instead of the conservative view which seems to be, get it if you can and to hell with my neighbor if necessary. If the private institutions of charity worked there would be no poverty... look around, it doesn't work and never has, people are just too greedy.
I do care for freedom of choice, to the point where that choice is harmful to our nation as it is currently. Too much choice to rip off the general populace.
You love getting bitch slapped around these threads don't you. You do understand that the contract upon hiring dictates pay and in a free and open society you are paid what you accept right? If you as an employee are worth more than you move on or else accept your pay, socialism and nannyism take away those choices. But hey, intelligent free thinking people are incapable of that decision on their own according to you, right? Do let us know when you are ready to join us in adult land.Make choices...lol, you mean horde what they can squeeze out of their workers? When a CEO makes 300-400% more than his lowest paid worker then he his taking advantage of that worker. He is stealing from that workers labor by not paying a fair wage for his labor.I want to nominate this for asanine discredited talking point of the century. No part of that statement is even remotely true, so do us a favor and retire that tripe will you.That kind of disparity creates wage gaps and social unrest as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. This kind of wage gap has never been so prevalent as it is now.Apparently you've never seen the wage scale from the industrial revolution, but hey, if you advocate going back in history.....whatever.What's wrong with getting back to a little less disparity?The good ol' days, as you like to call them represent when the government of the U.S. followed the rule of law of the United States, you are advocating changing the system to make yourself and likeminded group thinkers feel good about yourselves.Conservatives always want to turn the clock back to the good old days, but in the good old days we had regulation and shame.
Typically does.And of course as I pointed out, you conservatives seem to think that a CEO getting a little less will go to people who won't work.Do you want some french cries with that little wah-burger of yours.Naturally you skip over all the people who are working but struggle to make ends meet because their wage hasn't increased proportionally with the CEOs or inflation or lost their job because the CEO wanted to make MORE money by shipping that job to cheaper labor overseas.Last I checked you don't HAVE to do anything of the sort in a free society.So instead of a decent wage with benefits they have to take a lower paying job or two to try and make it up.It's still theft, no matter how flowery the language, but I guess you would say someone who mugged you was just "taking a little off the top"Obama NEVER said we need to take from the rich and give it to people who won't work, he said we need to (I'm paraphrasing) take a little off the top (ie. go back to the rates in the past, like under Reagan) and increase everyone else so that they can afford to buy the things the being sold which keeps the economy going.I thought you said earlier that materialism was bad. So it's good when it justifies theft? Or is it just good when people buy goods with other people's earnings?When consumers can't afford the good or services being sold we end up where we are now.Most of that money you are bitching about comes bulk assets, which means budget money is lost, this means people will be budgeted out, it's basic economics.This Christmas sucked for retailers... why? People don't have money to spend. Give the money to the people at the top so that they can create more jobs over seas is a losing cycle.
That was the plan.Yeah sure, and Joe the not so much a plumber was going to buy his bosses business... :roll:
You make it so easy.So let me make sure I understand this, you get all bent about me making assumptions about you and then you turn around and make assumptions about me... :doh
I live in Louisiana, so I know the history, we are still suffering from Long politics, need proof, visit the state.I am aware of who HPL is. Your claim that his populist position was a political ploy to get votes and not a real concern for the poor is nothing but rightwing pessimism and slander. Got any proof of your claim?
They are the bosses, so it's their decision, and guess what, the little guy gets pinched, whether you like it or not that is reality.And what would cause people to start losing jobs? Oh because the CEOs and BoD want to maintain THEIR income so they will cut their work force instead of their own compensation?Why don't you actually see what taxation does to a household budget before you start spouting off on who's keeping the little guy down.Hmmm... Instead we should just let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until there is a French Revolution here in America?Good try, we haven't practiced constitutional free market economics in this country since the early 1900's, the problems mainly started after Wilsonian democracy.Good plan for society you have there. Seems to me like we've been trying it your way for quite some time and it looks like it's ****ed things up pretty good.
If you're gonna say in other words, at least grasp the original one's, you totally missed the point.In other words, go ahead and take from the middle class and the poor instead? By means of lower wages and benefits? How enlightened...
:roll: Wellfare rolls increased since "The Great Society" and poverty increased, so obviously your sides little programs don't work.:dohAnd if that system proves to be inadequate and people starve and die like in other countries, then what? Seems like we went down that road before which is what prompted Welfare, SS, medicare, etc. or did you have a plan B for when plan A fails... again.
In other words you want the government to be a self appointed babysitter? You do realize this is an arrogant stance right.This is rightwing hyperbole. Unfortunately, we tried letting people take care of each other and they didn't do it. So, for the sake and health of our society, the government must take over that responsibility.It worked great when people didn't lose investment money to excessive taxation.Since we are the government, we choose, collectively to help out those in need by paying taxes which fund the programs. As I said numerous times, always ignored, we tried it your way and it failed to work.LOL! Medicare is going broke, SS is broke, and disability is barely funded. Private retirement plans usually guarantee a return of 3-4% for at least ten years, with some fluxuation after that, SS guarantees a 1% "return" which in truth is nothing but interest, if I tried to sell a 1% guaranteed policy I'd still be in prison.This way seems to be much better, just ask anyone who is getting SS or disability, medicare etc.
So you only agree to choices you and your ilk approve of. Glad you conceded Gobieman's point.I do care for freedom of choice, to the point where that choice is harmful to our nation as it is currently. Too much choice to rip off the general populace.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdfOh really? Please detail that damage for oh... let's say Germany and Sweden. Go.
I could care less if he was a plumber or not. It's the merit of the questions that count. They were excellent questions that outed Obama.LOL he was deceitful and instead of asking a question he created a fictional scenario. Now, please quote Obama's "bad mouthing" of Joe the not so much a plumber.
You want to know what McCain's use of him tells us? That, McCain tried everything including pandering to the ignorance of the sheeple by elevating a liar in his effort to bring down Obama, since it was obvious he couldn't beat him on merit. :2wave:
Obama came TO HIS HOUSE. And Joe simply asked a guy hunting for votes some really good questions.Well, it started with a simple, who is this guy that McCain and Palin are exhalting? And when they took the initial look see, they found some interesting discrepancies which prompted further investigation. Don't you think it's McCain's fault for dragging the guy out into the public? No? Go figure.
Simple.Well, I'm qualifying it now since you're pressing me to be more exact. Now what?
I would say it is correct to say we are escaping fascism, and that is something to revel in.It must be a little insulting for you to see Obamaniacs characterizing his election as some sort of "velvet" revolution. I think Brokaw, today, was the most recent to do so drawing an equivalency between Obama's inauguration and Czech revolution.
Seriously, what is happening to otherwise reasonable people that they're compelled to suggest that the peaceful transition of power from Bush to Obama is some equivalent to escaping tyranny?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?