Quote: Originally posted by Chance This sarcastic little bit is awful presumtious. You are acting exactly the way the Democratic leadership wants you to act. For God's sake, do you really think the average everyday voting Republican is against: a. rape/incestual abortions b. education support c. worthy loans/grants d. rebuilding communities e. civil rights f. respsonsible government spending??? Sure I was being over the top, maybe too much, sorry if I offended more modest and/or moderate folks. However, I never said the "average republican" supports these things, of course I don't think the average Republican does. However, the "average republican" is not driving the republican political agenda nor mobilizing the ground troops that were very effective this election. That is what concerns me--favors owed to them. I wouldn't be too worried if independent conservatives like McCain, Collins, Domenici (or say Jack Kemp) were in charge of our nation's direction (folks you know whose concience would get in the way of passing really bad measures) --but those folks are not the one in charge, it is the more extreme folks and those who themselves might be moderate but who owe favors to the extreme folks (perhaps like both Bush's). Personally I don't think the Democrats were partisan and nasty enough--they needed to greater identify and carve up the domestic agenda the powers in the Republican party really want. It isn't "scare tactics" to say many Republicans want tax reform that most benefits the wealthy, it isn't scare tactics to say many republicans want no limitations or regulations on the personal ownership of all weapons on the slightly less devastating side of an RPG or Stinger, it isn't scare tactics to say Roe Vs Wade is at risk, it isn't scare tactics to say many Republicans want to militarize the border, it isn't scare tactics to say many Republicans want major reform to social security and medicare with unknown consequences for those most at risk for changes, and it isn't scare tactics to claim the Republicans are more likely to spend less on student aid and other aspects of educational infrastruture especially helpful to those with less family resources. (Note--I didn't even bring up further liberal fair about welfare, civil rights, etc). Many of ya'll say that isn't what republicans want--but a substantial of them do want many of these things--and it is more pronounced in the party leadership and high profile candidates than for rank and file registered Republican. Just go back to the rhetoric at the Republican presidential primary debates about 2 years go, or ask about any moderate Republican in the Sunbelt who have tried to be a major influence within their local or state party. In short, Democrats need to find an identity and dig in the way the Republicans did in the early 90's when Clinton was in office (and the way the Republics treated Max Cleland this election). The niceness should be over and kid gloves taken off until Bush's agenda moves to the center, pure and simple. Democrats have been acting like the only thing at stake is which Senators get first dibs on tee time for too long, it is time for them to grow some balls and get serious about serious business. Chance I appreciate your effort to tone down the rhetoric also.
Wow. There is a lot of agreement here, and it's even easing my horrible hangover. Two main points emerge here: * overall, people think Ashcroft is a nut, not good for the country, and most people hope that judicial appointments have little in common with him. * the Dems have no coherent msg and desperately need one. RM95, I disagree that there's "a lot of time" before 2004. On the current vector, Dems will be chirping about prescription drugs and what-not. Pathetic! I watched Pelosi last night after she won the local house election here in SF. I am a fan (not the point), but she was horrible. She literally prattled on about how sad it would be for the country to not have a new prescrip. drug policy, blah blah blah. Is it possible that a brilliant Repulican mole has infiltrated the Dems and set up this gibberish platform? Is Gephart (sp) a robot built in the laboratories of Dick Cheney? Hmmm.
Maybe not scare tactics...but certainly less than accurate. You point to these statements...but where did you find them? You didn't. Not a single Republican has said any of them, save and except for getting tighter control over the borders (which is a common sense thing to do). If I'm wrong, point me to a quote showing that I'm wrong...otherwise I'll go ahead and assume that you are merely drawing your own inferences.
I love the whole 'tax cuts for the wealthy' bit. It's tax cuts for EVERYBODY. And I also love it when they say disproportionate cuts for the wealthiest 25% of Americans. Aren't the top 25%household incomes something like $45,000 per year or more? That's just everyday folks. The Republicans want smaller government. This is less expensive. We are paying a certain amount of cashola out of every check right now. A smaller gov't requires less money. So EVERYBODY pays less. The fact that the people that were paying more will now be paying (this is confusing the **** outta me and I am typing it) less of the more seems to escape the southpaws.
Precisely! If there is a 5% across the board cut, it shakes out like this: Person A making $20,000 pays $1,000 less. Person B making $1M pays $50,000 less. Clearly a tax cut for the wealthy, right? 5% is 5%...no matter how you slice it. The Dems base their claims on the very deceptive nominal dollar figures. They know what the facts are and they are using deception tactics.
First, there's no mandate but there's certainly no reason the Republicans shouldn't behave as though there were a mandate. There's no mandate, because it wasn't a campaign of issues. That's not the Republicans' fault. It's the opposition party's fault. When the president's party and the opposition party both say they agree with the president on all issues of substance (deferring only to say the economy's in lousy shape, but offering no alternatives), why wouldn't the average voter vote the way the president says to vote? The president doesn't receive his mandate from the voters here. He receives it from the Democrats. That's not to lessen the victory -- we'll never know how the public would have reacted if anyone had campaigned against the administration's policies, since no one did. I disagree with you guys about the tax cut, but you know that. I disagree with many things the Bush admin has done and even more with what they'd like to do. But none of that matters too much. I'm gonna follow my party's lead and shut up for a while (maybe a year, maybe a day) on issues of substance. I can't win any of these arguments alone (or even with the assistance of my favorite back-slapping cadre members). I'm not even in politics. And the only guy who made an argument against this administration's policies is dead. Sincere congratulations to the Republicans and their supporters, leavened with sincere hope that the Republicans and the Republicrats either treat the country right over the next couple years or receive a meaningful challenge at term's end.
The original post from Phi83 that you replied to said 'as compared to other countries.' NOT 'as compared to other economies.'
Originally posted by Batman Jones ... There's no mandate, because it wasn't a campaign of issues. I agree... http://207.44.140.146/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44783
Refman, I'm sorry, but this is incredibly weak. Yes, mathematically, 5% is 5%. But who the hell really NEEDS their 5% more to get by in the world. Um, let me go out on a limb. The person who will have $19,000 after taxes needs $1000 much more than a person who will have $950,000 after taxes needs another $50,000! "Proportionate" taxes disproportionately benefit those who don't need the benefit. Only an economic darwinist like Trader_Jorge can really argue with this needs argument, IMHO. If you too are a social/economic darwinist and say "well it just sucks to be poor, work harder," then okay. I can't argue with that in terms of pure logic, and I won't argue with that view on the basis of compassion -- it only yields heartburn (mine!).
Where did that come from, that is some funny stuff. But, I am now finding out two things: 1) I never had a heart 2) I am wise beyond my years
B-Bob, I would not characterize myself as an economic darwinist. My view of wealth is that it is a return on capital invested. Whether that capital be human capital (education), political capital, motivational capital, or simply time invested, economic benefit is derived from investment and contribution to society. In a perfectly competitive economy in which total wages is equivalent to total value created (or contribution to society), a truly wealthy individual is one who contributes the most to his society -- and thus earns the wages. While I realize that the US is not a perfectly competitive economy, it is an approximation. I do not understand giving money, or rewards, to individuals who provide no value to the economy. I also do not understand the process of providing financial disincentives, in the form of progressive taxation, to individuals who contribute greatly to our economy.
So we can assume you are against those who inherit their money, rather than earn it themselves? Would it be ok to take that money and redistribute it in order to help more people create value in our society/economy (through education, etc)? Doesn't quite seem to match the Republican party's ideals.
key difference...and believe me, i'm not advocating for TJ on this one...but i have to point it out...the guy who earned the money...who provided the value to the economy...yeah, that guy...that guy has the right to do damn well whatever he wants with his money. it's his. if he wants to leave it to he lazy son, fine. see how that's different from the govt coming in and seizing the money after the death for redistribution? it's called freedom, liberty and all that crap.
If only it was really that simple. Do baseball players really contribute more than elementary school teachers? Do all the suits in data processing really contribute more than sanitation workers? Who decides what is a "worthy" contribution and what isn't?
I am an economic Darwinist. And a social Darwinist. I've been to the other side of the tracks and it sucking f4cked. I relied not on government money. Not on handouts. Not on some piece of crap program. I climbed out of the cellar and now I look at the people that are still in that cellar and are blaming everyone but themselves and I say, "To hell with you." If I can get out so can you. Let me preface this by saying that I do not consider the military a government job. I know it is technically. I despise my tax money going towards enabling a person. I despise my tax money being given (unearned) to a lazy person. And yes I said and mean with all of my heart LAZY. If you want money from the government you will work your ASS off and get paid poorly. If you stop working, good luck hunting rats. If you abuse a program you're out. If you commit a crime while receiving your crappy paycheck you are out.
I'm sure we'll get his interp in a little while. Until then, he said "I do not understand giving money, or rewards, to individuals who provide no value to the economy." I don't understand how someone who INHERITS money has created value to the economy. They haven't. Nor do they meet his criteria as outlayed: "In a perfectly competitive economy in which total wages is equivalent to total value created (or contribution to society), a truly wealthy individual is one who contributes the most to his society -- and thus earns the wages." Someone who INHERITS their money has not created value, nor made contributions to society. This criteria would only apply to self-made fortunes. In fact, it would seemingly invalidate those who inherit their fortunes.
Immaterial. The person that inherits the money got it because the person that earned it wanted it that way. Another person went through the rigors of earning (I know, foreign concept) and chose to spend the money how he saw fit. He shose to spend it by giving it to another person.
