Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

You are the one dreaming because I have never said the right wanted to compromise yet you demand they do while ignoring that the left has no interest in compromise

You are mistaken... Obama has all ready offered compromises that have been rejected. Compromise means both parties have to move their positions, not just one.

 

[Alien Allen]

You are mistaken... Obama has all ready offered compromises that have been rejected. Compromise means both parties have to move their positions, not just one.

examples please

and how did Pelosi and Reid feel about these?

 

[Accountable]

I said cooperate, but what I ment was compromise. The GOPpers have no interest in anything but dictating. The point is Boehner expresses an interest in working with Pakistan, but has no interest in working/compromising with the other party, something that is part of his job description.

If either side was sincere about their stated goals, then there would be more compromise. That tells me that things are going along quite well, from their point of view.

Who is making money off the current situation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would think that if Washington left it to the States, we'd have great regional success, instead of nationwide failure.

 

[Minor Axis]

If either side was sincere about their stated goals, then there would be more compromise. That tells me that things are going along quite well, from their point of view.

Who is making money off the current situation?

Who?

I would think that if Washington left it to the States, we'd have great regional success, instead of nationwide failure.

What makes State= good, Federal= bad? They are both bureaucracies, State Legislatures mirror the Federal Congress.

 

[Minor Axis]

An Empty Offer From the Super Rich- Newsweek.

Food for Thought. This is why Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes than the billionaire does. Even though I posted this under the "Republican Agenda" thread, I will admit, and it is mentioned in this article that Bill Clinton played a part in lowering capital gains taxes. While Democrats may have their moments of weakness , this is a religion for Republicans. Just another example of how conservatives have systematically reduced the income portion of the equation, adding to the current US Federal budget crisis.

 

[Alien Allen]

gawd Minor when will you ever see the light

the govt share of GDP has exploded over the years

Revenue continues to come in at greater and greater levels but they just spend more than is coming in.

Income is NOT the problem

Spending is

 

[Panacea]

Income is NOT the problem

Spending is

This is just a regurgitation of an elitist mind frame. Government spending could always use reformation and better prioritizing, and to be held accountable for bad timing and bad decisions, but the spending goes to the people (and should). Individuals do donate to charities, but often as a tax write off alone.

There has to be a balance.

 

[Alien Allen]

This is just a regurgitation of an elitist mind frame. Government spending could always use reformation and better prioritizing, and to be held accountable for bad timing and bad decisions, but the spending goes to the people (and should). Individuals do donate to charities, but often as a tax write off alone.

There has to be a balance.

The size of govt is a huge part of the problem

along with SS and Medicare which are not sustainable in their current form

Nothing elitist about that. Just the facts

 

[Accountable]

If either side was sincere about their stated goals, then there would be more compromise. That tells me that things are going along quite well, from their point of view.

Who is making money off the current situation?

Who?

I'm not really sure. Certainly the banks ... likely any multinational that deals with currency. It's worth investigating.

I would think that if Washington left it to the States, we'd have great regional success, instead of nationwide failure.

What makes State= good, Federal= bad? They are both bureaucracies, State Legislatures mirror the Federal Congress.

Centralized versus decentralized control. State bueaucracy is closer to the issues/problems than Washington. The decision-makers are more accessible.
:sarcasmAlso, they're not distracted by those national and international issues that the pesky Constitution unfairly saddled federal congress with.

 

[Accountable]

This is just a regurgitation of an elitist mind frame. Government spending could always use reformation and better prioritizing, and to be held accountable for bad timing and bad decisions, but the spending goes to the people (and should).

IT'S THE PEOPLE'S MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!! Rather than taxing The People only so that spending can go back to them, how's about not taking the money in the first place??
I know it's a radical idea, but give it a little thought.

Individuals do donate to charities, but often as a tax write off alone.

That's because gov't has taken over as our national charity. People feel as if they've already given at the office, so to speak. Get the gov't out of charity work, bring spending down to sane levels, and you'll see more donations to charities.

There has to be a balance.

Between what?

 

[Minor Axis]

gawd Minor when will you ever see the light

the govt share of GDP has exploded over the years

Revenue continues to come in at greater and greater levels but they just spend more than is coming in.

Income is NOT the problem

Spending is

Allen, ole bud, I just don't think we'll ever agree. Who you voting for next time around?

 

[Alien Allen]

Allen, ole bud, I just don't think we'll ever agree. Who you voting for next time around?

You just finally figuring that out

As to who I am voting for next time?

Too early to say because I don't know who will be there on the conservative side.

I think you know who I won't be voting for

 

[Panacea]

IT'S THE PEOPLE'S MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!! Rather than taxing The People only so that spending can go back to them, how's about not taking the money in the first place??
I know it's a radical idea, but give it a little thought.

It's an idea that doesn't work, is all. I'm of the fairly supported opinion societies need government intervention to function properly and without chaos; the size of which is up for debate, as well as evaluation of its success in doing so.

That's because gov't has taken over as our national charity. People feel as if they've already given at the office, so to speak. Get the gov't out of charity work, bring spending down to sane levels, and you'll see more donations to charities.

As a student of social science, I don't feel charity systems are the best way to give services to the most vulnerable citizens.

Between what?

Between government involvement and anarchy, basically.

 

[Accountable]

It's an idea that doesn't work, is all. I'm of the fairly supported opinion societies need government intervention to function properly and without chaos; the size of which is up for debate, as well as evaluation of its success in doing so.



As a student of social science, I don't feel charity systems are the best way to give services to the most vulnerable citizens.



Between government involvement and anarchy, basically.

It's kinda cute that you use government involvement as one extreme, rather than the balance itself.

We only disagree about scope and scale, rather than anything fundamental. I agree that government is necessary to a functioning society, but only insofar as to keep citizens from infringing on other citizens' rights and freedoms (basically keeping honest people honest) and protecting society from outside forces who would do the society harm. Government, imo, should create a shell within which we all move and do and be as free as possible.

Within that shell, the citizens are responsible for each other, as individuals. One citizen should not be forced to care for another, it should be expected. Social norms should establish and reinforce such behavior. Excessive government involvement in the form of social programs relieve the citizens of that responsibility and breeds resentment between those that benefit from the programs and those that don't.

 

[Alien Allen]

It's kinda cute that you use government involvement as one extreme, rather than the balance itself.

We only disagree about scope and scale, rather than anything fundamental. I agree that government is necessary to a functioning society, but only insofar as to keep citizens from infringing on other citizens' rights and freedoms (basically keeping honest people honest) and protecting society from outside forces who would do the society harm. Government, imo, should create a shell within which we all move and do and be as free as possible.

Within that shell, the citizens are responsible for each other, as individuals. One citizen should not be forced to care for another, it should be expected. Social norms should establish and reinforce such behavior. Excessive government involvement in the form of social programs relieve the citizens of that responsibility and breeds resentment between those that benefit from the programs and those that don't.

:homo:


:nod::nod::nod:


:thumbup


what the last forty plus years has done with all the social programs is to remove personal responsibility. The mind set is to let the govt take care of us.

has not worked very well. LBJ's programs started us on the path to ruin.

and it allowed a liberal like Nixon to get elected as a republican which used to be conservative.

 

[Tim]

You guys are out of your freaking minds if you believe that the social programs in place are bad for this country. There is very good reasons they are in place and maybe you should actually read about their inception.
Can you honestly sit there and say that social security is a bad program? Do you have any idea what it was like for millions of retired people before social security?

We the people ARE the government. If the majority of us want social security as a safety net for us when we retire, then that's the way it's going to be. The government you guys have a hard on for will never come to pass. You can bitch and moan all you want about limited government but it isn't going to happen. There will be times when the country has a lapse in judgement and votes in people like Scott Walker and Rand Paul, but they won't last long when they start stripping away the safety nets. Those safety nets that are in place for good reason.

 

[Accountable]

You guys are out of your freaking minds if you believe that the social programs in place are bad for this country. There is very good reasons they are in place and maybe you should actually read about their inception.

Have you? Maybe you could enlighten us, since I'm certain there are more history books with an FDR bias than there are really objective ones.

Can you honestly sit there and say that social security is a bad program? Do you have any idea what it was like for millions of retired people before social security?

Social security as a retirement program is a horrendous travesty. It was never meant to be a retirement program, but people fail to plan for their own retirement, thinking that the SS check will take care of everything. While most people are more aware today than before, that's the way it has been for decades. Even more harmful than that, SS is probably more responsible than any other social program for tearing apart the family social fabric. It used to be tradition that parents take care of their children, and children return the favor later in life. Now the children think the responsible thing is to find as many federal programs as possible so that they, not the children, can pay for the retirement home. It's sad and disgusting.

We the people ARE the government. If the majority of us want social security as a safety net for us when we retire, then that's the way it's going to be.

We the People fucked up. The safety net is made of toilet paper.

The government you guys have a hard on for will never come to pass. You can bitch and moan all you want about limited government but it isn't going to happen.

Of course it won't. When you grow up being spoon fed it takes a rare strength to want to feed yourself.

There will be times when the country has a lapse in judgement and votes in people like Scott Walker and Rand Paul, but they won't last long when they start stripping away the safety nets. Those safety nets that are in place for good reason.

I think you've got a little shmutz on your cheek there. Maybe Big Brother can wipe it off for you.

 

[Tim]

You seriously are going to blame social security for kids no longer taking care of their parents into retirement? Wow.

And once upon a time a father was able to make enough money to support his stay at home wife and 2 kids. Have a decent home and send the kids through college. After all that, there was money left over for retirement. Not anymore. The middle class is being squeezed so hard that both parents need to work their asses off and college is still out of reach for most of these families. And before you even chime in about the fact that we want more to today than the families of the past (ie TV, cell phones, recreation, etc) You need to look at the hard numbers. Take all of that away and it isn't even close.

 

[Tim]

And I feel I need to make something perfectly clear.

I do not need any of these social programs. I make good money, have my own home and will be able to provide for my retirement. I don't want these social programs in place for me or my family, I want them in place because I actually care about my fellow Americans. I don't have a problem with my hard earned tax dollars helping those in need and creating a safety net in case something drastic does happen to me or my family.
I am not so fucking selfish to want every dollar I earn in my pocket and fuck everybody else. I am a part of my community and I am not where I am in life because I did it all myself. And I understand that.

 

[Accountable]

You seriously are going to blame social security for kids no longer taking care of their parents into retirement?

Absolutely. What's your theory?

And once upon a time a father was able to make enough money to support his stay at home wife and 2 kids. Have a decent home and send the kids through college. After all that, there was money left over for retirement. Not anymore. The middle class is being squeezed so hard that both parents need to work their asses off and college is still out of reach for most of these families. And before you even chime in about the fact that we want more to today than the families of the past (ie TV, cell phones, recreation, etc) You need to look at the hard numbers. Take all of that away and it isn't even close.

Shouldn't make a claim unless you have something to back it up. Show me the hard numbers, please.

And I feel I need to make something perfectly clear.

I do not need any of these social programs. I make good money, have my own home and will be able to provide for my retirement. I don't want these social programs in place for me or my family, I want them in place because I actually care about my fellow Americans. I don't have a problem with my hard earned tax dollars helping those in need and creating a safety net in case something drastic does happen to me or my family.
I am not so fucking selfish to want every dollar I earn in my pocket and fuck everybody else. I am a part of my community and I am not where I am in life because I did it all myself. And I understand that.

Why are you so arrogant to believe that you are the exception rather than the rule? What makes you more special than the average person?