You really have no grasp of history. By the time FDR was inaugurated unemployment was 25% and GDP dropped by 50% since 1929. FDR's policies reversed the misery. There was a good reason he was elected in four landslide elections.yeah quote the guy responsible for more small business failures than any President in our history with his NRA legislation that SCOTUS had to stop but they were tool late
Really, is that why all those hispanics risk their lives to cross the border illegally knowing they have a job when they get here?
the programming is deep in this one
You really have no grasp of history. By the time FDR was inaugurated unemployment was 25% and GDP dropped by 50% since 1929. FDR's policies reversed the misery. There was a good reason he was elected in four landslide elections.
I stand by what I said. those who want handouts or to control other people tend to vote for Democrats
I'd say your last sentence applies more to thee than me - because I used to be one of you. I voted for Reagan and Bush 41. I was a strong conservative for many years.
No, guy, it was me who broke out of my conservative programming when I began seeing past the wall of BS.
And as for your first sentence, where is it that they go to find many, perhaps most of those jobs? Farms and orchards, where they do the backbreaking work that most Americans won't do. Now think about this, guy - where are those farms and orchards? Almost exclusively in rural areas. And what political stripe is strongest in rural areas? Conservative. So...why aren't the CONSERVATIVES in those rural areas doing the work? There's a lot of unemployed there, too, you know.
Look at a list sometime and see which STATES have the highest rates of poverty, lowest rates of education, highest rates of divorce, highest rates of teenage pregnancy, and lowest income? Generally speaking, it's RED states.
In other words, you really need to force yourself to look at the REAL statistics, compare how well the red states are doing compared to the blue states - whether socially or economically - and ask yourself, WHY is it that despite being conservative ever since before the Civil War, WHY is the Deep South still the poorest, most backward region of the nation? If being conservative is an advantage for a society, then the Deep South should be on top, rather than being on the bottom...and the blue states should all be on the bottom, rather than mostly being better off than the red states.
Challenge yourself, guy - ask yourself the hard questions that you normally don't want to hear.
You really have no grasp of history. By the time FDR was inaugurated unemployment was 25% and GDP dropped by 50% since 1929. FDR's policies reversed the misery. There was a good reason he was elected in four landslide elections.
I would wear that badge with honor.sadly many voters get all the benefits and privileges but don't pay nearly enough dues
FDR is pretty much the mother of all turds to those of us who prefer a limited federal government as the founders intended
Really?
Tell me, guy - what's the most successful, best-educated, highest-earning ethnic group in America? Here's a clue - it's not the Whites.
It's the Asians...but according to YOU, the reason why they voted most strongly for Obama was...they just want a handout.
We don't have to shove. If you'll check, the great majority of young adults are quite liberal. The change is happening, and nothing this side of a right-wing coup or something that shuts down the entire internet can stop it. The efforts of the Right, such as gerrymandering and voter suppression, are nothing more than delaying actions.
Really?
Tell me, guy - what's the most successful, best-educated, highest-earning ethnic group in America? Here's a clue - it's not the Whites.
It's the Asians...but according to YOU, the reason why they voted most strongly for Obama was...they just want a handout.
I would wear that badge with honor.
Also, you put words into the founder's mouths the way a TV evangelist uses scripture to justify bad behavior. The idea that the founders wanted a limited federal government is a crock. They saw the failure of a limited federal government in the Articles of the Confederation and didn't want to repeat the mistake in the Constitution.
How can I possibly counter that display of wit?Über Dung.
How can I possibly counter that display of wit?
We don't have to shove. If you'll check, the great majority of young adults are quite liberal. The change is happening, and nothing this side of a right-wing coup or something that shuts down the entire internet can stop it. The efforts of the Right, such as gerrymandering and voter suppression, are nothing more than delaying actions.
You could pretend your opinion is fact. Like when you claim FDR was not a complete failure.
Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.
The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.
Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
and
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.
Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.
That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.
Could you elaborate on this?
"any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person."
About that 'limited unemployment benefits' observation. You do know, don't you, that there are three people actively looking for work for every single job that's available, right? So two out of those three ain't going to get a job no matter what...and that's even assuming that the lucky ones all qualify for the jobs that are available.
Let's say we cut off those unemployment benefits - what happens to those who have no job and absolutely no money? They (and all too often, their family) are out on the street. So how, then, are they supposed to get a job? How easy is it for a homeless person to get a job? If it was very difficult before they were homeless, now it's damned near impossible since they no longer have a way to take a shower and shave, much less maintain decent clothing.
So what happens? More crime. More problems for businesses and homes near where those homeless are. And higher taxes and retail costs for the rest of us to pay for the increased law enforcement and business insurance costs.
In other words, YOU PAY ANYWAY. Whether the people are receiving unemployment benefits or on the streets, YOU PAY ANYWAY. One way, there's still hope that someday they'll get a job - the other way, there's almost no way they'll get a job, and a much greater chance that they'll become part of the largest and most expensive prison system in the world.
YOU PAY ANYWAY, guy. You just have to ask yourself which is the wiser choice in the macroeconomic picture?
Really?
In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Historically, the percentage of liberals are 20 points below the percentage of conservatives, it would seem.
Or perhaps you are reflecting wishful thinking?
* 50 percent believe that conservatives support gun control or are not
sure.
* 46 percent think that conservatives support affirmative action or are
not sure.
* 23 percent think that conservatives support abortion rights or are not
sure.
* 19 percent think that conservatives support gay rights or are not sure.
* 15 percent believe conservatives support same-sex marriage or are not
sure.
Take two people, one that is poor, only earning the minimum wage, and one that is rich.
The poor person may not be paying any federal or state income taxes...but he does pay a lot of other taxes - sales tax, utility taxes, gas taxes, et al - and these taxes take up a much greater proportion of a that poor person's income than they do of a rich person's income. Of course, one might argue that these are only 'use taxes'...but if you think about it, all taxes are 'use taxes'...and any rich person uses FAR more of America's taxpayer-funded infrastructure than any poor person.
Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", recognized this when he said:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
and
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
But in today's political Right, the "Father of Capitalism" would be branded a bleeding-heart liberal socialist.
Be that as it may, conservatives are right about one thing - taxes ARE wealth redistribution. But when the rich pay the extra taxes, do those dollars go up in a puff of smoke? Of course not. When the poor get money - through whatever means, but preferably through work - they SPEND that money...and the money they spend helps to support their local businesses, which supports the local economy, which helps the national economy. HOWEVER, if a rich person decides to send their money to the Caymans or opens factories in China, those dollars are - as far as the American economy goes - WASTED.
That is why it is good for the nation - in morality and in effect - that the rich pay higher progressive taxes.
For example, 5% of tax payers pay 60% of income taxes (and a larger share of other federal taxes). Do they use more than 60% of spending?
They find them in high end hotels, Chicago for instance. Most of the high end hotels downtown have many non english speaking staff, the restaurants downtown are full of hispanics, are they all illegal, probably not, but reason suggest some are. people that want to work are working, people that want subsidy are drawing it.
There are reasons why Asian Americans vote this way. This is especially true of the Chinese American and Korean American community in Los Angeles (young and old alike), whether new legal immigrants or established multi-generational Americans.
You would be astonished at some of the reasons why they voted for Gov. Moonbeam and Obama, based on issues that many in these communities feel is quite significant, yet many of which are politically incorrect.
That's why we own guns and ammunition.
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?