Jump to content

Sharing the Wealth


No_Fear

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RangerM,

.....turn that criticism the other way: The conservative view - that the less fortunate will be taken care of out of the kindness and charity of the Christian heart - is also very naive about human nature......

 

I won't debate that with some people charity is an option often not exercised, however as evidenced by Arthur C. Brooks it often is exercised by the "red" states. Perhaps its what we see. I see those around me giving to others out of concern. You may not see that where you live. (NOTE: I am not inferring anything about you/your State, but I can only go by observation. Your view may differ).

 

In any case, what I was specifically talking about in the "abortion" issue was the fact that many conservatives have no compunction about killing in war (even ones launched on false pretexts) or capital punishment (George Bush presided over 152 executions as Governor of Texas - I believe that may be a record for any Governor in US history). Yes, these may be enemies, or criminals, or soldiers who understood the risks when they signed up. But they are living, breathing people with hopes and dreams and loves and fears. Unlike a fetus, which has none of those things. Their deaths are final and irrevocable. Contrary to what he may have some believing, I am pretty sure that GWB, who personally talks to God every morning evidently, does not have a divine mandate to take those lives. I see a disconnect between his professed faith and his actions.

 

I do not favor capital punishment myself, however as you will likely acknowledge, even Jesus advocated following the law (Note: I am Christian, therefore I will use it as my roadmap). The law has made capital punishment legal. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right (Judicial Law), and is also legal. Neither is moral. I would only say that the criminal is guilty of a crime against civilization and the unborn baby is innocent. The criminal made a conscientious decision to violate the law, and the unborn simply exist.

 

I would prefer the States' themselves decide what they will legalize.

 

As for war, I would/will kill in defense of myself, my family, or my country. You can make the case that Iraq was a war of aggression, however most don't see Afghanistan that way. It was possible to avoid bloodshed in Iraq. The President said, "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.". Had Saddam left power, do you believe the bloodshed would have happened on a similar scale? We can argue whether or not it was just to force Saddam Hussein from power, however the scale of the conflict could have been avoided. Was the case for war unsupported? Perhaps. Although there is evidence on both sides of that argument.

 

As for peoples unworthiness, and responsibility for what is happening to them in the current economic meltdown: The system has been juiced for years to hide fundamental economic decline. In the name of corporate profits and free-trade ideology, our government and financial leaders have allowed - no, promoted - a race to the bottom, in which the American standard of living has been forced to compete against Mexico, China, India .... against any and all comers. We could have put policies in place that raised those countries to our level (or just left them alone if they wanted to be left alone), but instead we allowed a regimen that is inexorably driving us to the lowest common denominator (the logical end is a per-capita income of around $7,500.00 / yr. if you're into the math). Coupled with supply side economics, we have an explosion of wealth at the top tiers, and a steady decline across the middle.

 

No one wants to deprive anyone of opportunity. I'm not sure where the worthy/unworthy part comes in. Either a person is brought up by his parents to value education, hard work, and a willingness to deprive onesself of instant gratification, or not. It seems today many are brought up in a system that does nothing to prepare people for life at all, often instilling them with a belief that because America is a "rich country" they are entitled to the fruits of society without sowing the seed.

 

We have masked this decline by sending all the women out to work, contributing to the GDP, while large portions of the "Social Economy": cooking, childcare, housekeeping, sewing, are also moved into the money economy - further promoting the illusion of economic growth, when in fact real wealth is steadily declining, and has been for years. One economist put it simply: "You can't stop making things and expect to maintain your standard of living." To maintain the trappings of an increasingly untenable middle class existence, we work harder and harder and borrow more and more (with the financial industry happily devising new "instruments" and pushing easy credit under the noses of a regulatory system asleep at the wheel.) It is quite clear now who has benefited, who is going to benefit, and who is going to pay the price. And frankly, it makes me sick. Ok - both parties have been complicit in this, but I know which one's core values: "government regulation is bad" "taxes are bad" "taxing the wealthiest and corporations will hamper economic growth" feed most strongly into this problem. In my estimation. And I will vote accordingly.

 

I sympathize with your first statement, but I am somewhat progressive in my attitude that a woman should be able to choose her path. My wife chose to stay home with our children (which I encouraged). It also means that I must deprive myself of certain things that I would otherwise find economically viable, but I could not be happier with the decision. We could all benefit from a little self-deprivation.

 

The Federal Government is necessary for public safety and common defense. Beyond that I don't have much use for the Federal Government. I would only ask that if others (in other States) wish to grow the size of THEIR State Governments, that they do not impose those values on my State. Let us in N.C. decide what we will. The Federal Government should have a miniscule place in our daily lives, yet many believe that a (one-time) $1,000 Federal tax "cut" for the middle-class is the panacea. I don't need a rebate. I'd prefer just to keep it to begin with, since it was mine to begin with.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't debate that with some people charity is an option often not exercised, however as evidenced by Arthur C. Brooks it often is exercised by the "red" states. Perhaps its what we see. I see those around me giving to others out of concern. You may not see that where you live. (NOTE: I am not inferring anything about you/your State, but I can only go by observation. Your view may differ).

 

 

 

I do not favor capital punishment myself, however as you will likely acknowledge, even Jesus advocated following the law (Note: I am Christian, therefore I will use it as my roadmap). The law has made capital punishment legal. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right (Judicial Law), and is also legal. Neither is moral. I would only say that the criminal is guilty of a crime against civilization and the unborn baby is innocent. The criminal made a conscientious decision to violate the law, and the unborn simply exist.

 

I would prefer the States' themselves decide what they will legalize.

 

As for war, I would/will kill in defense of myself, my family, or my country. You can make the case that Iraq was a war of aggression, however most don't see Afghanistan that way. It was possible to avoid bloodshed in Iraq. The President said, "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.". Had Saddam left power, do you believe the bloodshed would have happened on a similar scale? We can argue whether or not it was just to force Saddam Hussein from power, however the scale of the conflict could have been avoided. Was the case for war unsupported? Perhaps. Although there is evidence on both sides of that argument.

 

 

 

No one wants to deprive anyone of opportunity. I'm not sure where the worthy/unworthy part comes in. Either a person is brought up by his parents to value education, hard work, and a willingness to deprive onesself of instant gratification, or not. It seems today many are brought up in a system that does nothing to prepare people for life at all, often instilling them with a belief that because America is a "rich country" they are entitled to the fruits of society without sowing the seed.

 

 

 

I sympathize with your first statement, but I am somewhat progressive in my attitude that a woman should be able to choose her path. My wife chose to stay home with our children (which I encouraged). It also means that I must deprive myself of certain things that I would otherwise find economically viable, but I could not be happier with the decision. We could all benefit from a little self-deprivation.

 

The Federal Government is necessary for public safety and common defense. Beyond that I don't have much use for the Federal Government. I would only ask that if others (in other States) wish to grow the size of THEIR State Governments, that they do not impose those values on my State. Let us in N.C. decide what we will. The Federal Government should have a miniscule place in our daily lives, yet many believe that a (one-time) $1,000 Federal tax "cut" for the middle-class is the panacea. I don't need a rebate. I'd prefer just to keep it to begin with, since it was mine to begin with.

 

Very well put. Amen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but YOUR president has done nothing about that, either. it's neither liberal nor conservative. it's too much of a hot topic for either side to tackle. mr. bush probably doesn't want to touch it because he probably has used illegals to do much of his household work for years. that's called hipocracy in case it's too hard for you to grasp.

 

i'm a liberal and completely believe in the sovereignty of our borders, most liberals do. you're using a typical right wing tactic of finding the most objectionable, most radical liberal idea and spreading the word that all liberals believe the same garbage. welcome to the show, mr. hannity.

 

....now, repeat 'liberty' and 'freedom' 100 times and you might just start to believe that you're the only one who loves this country.

 

[see? you didn't come up with ANYTHING, you just bashed what you call a liberal idea. i love it when you make my points so easy to make!]

 

 

Uhmm, I don't want to bust your bubble but the President cannot enact laws or tariffs the congress has to do that. He, the President can veto legislation if he doens' t like it but the Congress is where all laws are made, the President has no power to force it the same as the economy, he can't raise or lower taxes with out congressional approval.

 

mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and yet, the right is running for the hills because obama will raise taxes, plunder the rich, take our guns, kill our babies, blah, blah, blah.

 

isn't it amazing that obama can do all of these things, but bush had nothing to do with anything bad that's happened to this country in the last 8 years? wow! cool trick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and yet, the right is running for the hills because obama will raise taxes, plunder the rich, take our guns, kill our babies, blah, blah, blah.

 

isn't it amazing that obama can do all of these things, but bush had nothing to do with anything bad that's happened to this country in the last 8 years? wow! cool trick!

 

Obama wants to let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire, including those who earn less than $250,000 per year. He also says he wants to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes.

 

In either case, your tax bill goes up regardless of income.

 

Just food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and my taxes won't go up if bush/mccain's wars go into the multiple trillions of dollars???

 

i'll take a tax hike for the services we want and need, i won't take one for grudge wars and chest thumping.

 

figure out how much the iraq war has cost, and i'll figure out how much a tax increase would be....i think your number will be bigger. and don't tell me war is good for the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and yet, the right is running for the hills because obama will raise taxes, plunder the rich, take our guns, kill our babies, blah, blah, blah.

 

isn't it amazing that obama can do all of these things, but bush had nothing to do with anything bad that's happened to this country in the last 8 years? wow! cool trick!

 

 

actually what that means is he can't do anything pertaining to laws "without congressional approval". Just like the bailout, it failed the first time, remember, it wasn't until they threw some pork in did the earmarkers decide it was a good thing.

 

Funny I didn't know we needed to remove any taxes so the boy scouts could buy some arrows. They must be really expense.

 

 

In short, it takes all three houses to make changes of law. Unless, martial law is declared then all government and liberties cease and the population is at the mercy of the declared military leader.

 

hang on for a not so fun roller coaster ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually what that means is he can't do anything pertaining to laws "without congressional approval". Just like the bailout, it failed the first time, remember, it wasn't until they threw some pork in did the earmarkers decide it was a good thing.

 

Funny I didn't know we needed to remove any taxes so the boy scouts could buy some arrows. They must be really expense.

 

 

In short, it takes all three houses to make changes of law. Unless, martial law is declared then all government and liberties cease and the population is at the mercy of the declared military leader.

 

hang on for a not so fun roller coaster ride.

Actually just two, the House and Senate which are our direct(or supposed to be) representatives. They can override the third one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and yet, the right is running for the hills because obama will raise taxes, plunder the rich, take our guns, kill our babies, blah, blah, blah.

 

isn't it amazing that obama can do all of these things, but bush had nothing to do with anything bad that's happened to this country in the last 8 years? wow! cool trick!

 

Well, considering he'll have a Democratic congress behind him, any agenda he puts forth through use of the bully pulpit will likely become the policy of congress also. That's where the root of the fear lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're saying only democrats raise taxes. only democrats. republicans are sweethearts with only your best interest at heart?? they lower taxes, give out guns at street corners, protect unborn babies, the country is in fincancial shambles and bush and company are just victims of those bad, bad democrats???....wow, the republicans ARE GREAT!!!

 

congress or not, the agendas that bush pushed for were put into place. his desires for this country were rubber stamped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're saying only democrats raise taxes. only democrats. republicans are sweethearts with only your best interest at heart?? they lower taxes, give out guns at street corners, protect unborn babies, the country is in fincancial shambles and bush and company are just victims of those bad, bad democrats???....wow, the republicans ARE GREAT!!!

 

congress or not, the agendas that bush pushed for were put into place. his desires for this country were rubber stamped.

 

 

Well $hiiittt, I missed the gun giveaway on the corner? Well The Lord giveth and the Obama taketh away :hysterical::hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and my taxes won't go up if bush/mccain's wars go into the multiple trillions of dollars???

 

i'll take a tax hike for the services we want and need, i won't take one for grudge wars and chest thumping.

 

figure out how much the iraq war has cost, and i'll figure out how much a tax increase would be....i think your number will be bigger. and don't tell me war is good for the economy.

 

I don't "want" many of the services the Feds have forced upon us... :hysterical:

 

We still need to spend more on the war..... I have some equipment that needs to be replaced.. :reading:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're saying only democrats raise taxes. only democrats. republicans are sweethearts with only your best interest at heart?? they lower taxes, give out guns at street corners, protect unborn babies, the country is in fincancial shambles and bush and company are just victims of those bad, bad democrats???....wow, the republicans ARE GREAT!!!

 

congress or not, the agendas that bush pushed for were put into place. his desires for this country were rubber stamped.

 

I don't recall saying the Republicans were any better. I'm just saying, with the same party in the executive and legislative branches, the chances of a single agenda being pushed through are much greater.

 

Heck, just try to imagine what would have passed if Bush had a Republican congress behind him. You think it's bad now.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RangerM,

In any case, what I was specifically talking about in the "abortion" issue was the fact that many conservatives have no compunction about killing in war (even ones launched on false pretexts) or capital punishment (George Bush presided over 152 executions as Governor of Texas - I believe that may be a record for any Governor in US history). Yes, these may be enemies, or criminals, or soldiers who understood the risks when they signed up. But they are living, breathing people with hopes and dreams and loves and fears. Unlike a fetus, which has none of those things. Their deaths are final and irrevocable. Contrary to what he may have some believing, I am pretty sure that GWB, who personally talks to God every morning evidently, does not have a divine mandate to take those lives. I see a disconnect between his professed faith and his actions.

This is what scares me about liberals running this country....you see no difference between someone who has by choice committed a capital offense being but to death and killing a fetus (I know calling it that helps assuage your guilt).....and your test for making this determination is that they are living (ever felt a baby move inside of its Mother?) breathing and with hopes and dreams....so why not use your test to rid ourselves of all the elderly that are such a drag on the healthcare system....I mean I'm sure they no longer have hopes and dreams....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what scares me about liberals running this country....you see no difference between someone who has by choice committed a capital offense being but to death and killing a fetus (I know calling it that helps assuage your guilt).....and your test for making this determination is that they are living (ever felt a baby move inside of its Mother?) breathing and with hopes and dreams....so why not use your test to rid ourselves of all the elderly that are such a drag on the healthcare system....I mean I'm sure they no longer have hopes and dreams....

 

To this day, I fail to see why abortion is even a part of party politics. What the heck is the relation of abortion to things like tax policy and size of government? It should really have nothing to do with politics. It's a personal decision and should in no way be a part of a "platform".

 

I'm conservative. I'm pro-choice. There's no party for me.

 

Now, why am I pro-choice? I'm not a woman. It shouldn't be up to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To this day, I fail to see why abortion is even a part of party politics. What the heck is the relation of abortion to things like tax policy and size of government? It should really have nothing to do with politics. It's a personal decision and should in no way be a part of a "platform".

 

I'm conservative. I'm pro-choice. There's no party for me.

 

Now, why am I pro-choice? I'm not a woman. It shouldn't be up to me.

somewhere the answer to your question Nick the word religion will pop up.....another topic that has become too embroiled in politics inner workings. Think about this sceanrio....do you think if a presidential candidate fessed to being an athiest that he would really have even a slim chance of being elected?

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason I'll never be president: I think a lot of voters are too dumb to be given the right. :hysterical:

NOT a lot of open minded people really...mention race, religion, sexual preference, gender, and abortion , just to name a few, and most have firm, if not over the top opinions/ beleifs....can sometimes cloud common sense when it comes to the voting booths....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think that the only way anything can be done in a reasonable amount of time is to, in this situation that we find ourselves, is to have a majority in both the Exec/Congress (to undo what the Rep majority did in the first six years of this century). For those uninformed, might I remind you that the Reps filibustered more than 90 times just in the last year, to keep anything that they didn't agree with-from even being discussed in the Senate. That cannot continue.

 

Let me remind you that even if you do not agree with any social changes that the Dems may, or may not make, they are not permanent, and can always be undone in the future - however, the attack on our rights and that of the Constitution of the current administration - well, rights are harder to get back once given up. McCain has yet to identify, expand, or quantify just how his policies would differ from Geo W - even though he has asked to do so countless times.

 

What is going to be interesting is what happens to the Rep party as many think that a civil war is about to happen within the Republican party - esp if it turns into a landslide. The so-called 'conservative' has changed rather drastically from the conservative of old. For example, in an effort to gain votes they have catered to the far right wing fundamentalist faction to the extent that CC Goldwater (grand-daughter of Sen Goldwater) wrote the following last week:

We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics. I learned a lot about my grandfather while producing the documentary, Mr. Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. Our generation of Goldwaters expects government to provide for constitutional protections.
We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives
, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket.

 

My grandfather
(Paka)
would never suggest denying a woman's right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930's, a cause my grandfather supported.
I'm not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms we hold so dear.

 

For a while, there were several candidates who aligned themselves with the Goldwater version of Conservative thought. My grandfather had undying respect for the U.S. Constitution, and an understanding of its true meanings.

 

There always have been a glimmer of hope that someday, someone would "race through the gate" full steam in Goldwater style. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, and
the Republican brand has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear.
Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician. The McCain/Palin plan is to appear diverse and inclusive, using women and minorities to push an agenda that makes us all financially vulnerable, fearful, and less safe.

 

Those who feel compelled to push their own personal religious dogma/beliefs on others (such as abortion) are actually against the very principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, they are not even versed in the Bible and yet they profess to be on the side of "God's Word".

 

In reality there is really overwhelming evidence that these same people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a selected verse to support a view they heard from someone else.

 

One would think that those religious Pro-Lifers would actually refer to and actually READ the Bible (without just focusing on selected verses taken out of context). Doing so, one would find out that during the time that the Bible was written, blood was viewed as the life force, or the fluid that contained the life force--Leviticus 17 (v11 & 14). Even when the Bible was written they knew that this process did not occur (when the embryo is infused with blood) until 18-20 days after fertilization (not at the moment of fertilization). On one hand they believe/profess that the Bible is the actual "Word of God" - and then on the other hand -- they discard it.

 

Religious dogma/beliefs have no place in our government. It's a little thing called 'separation of church and state' that our founding fathers believed in - and so do I. There are many, many other ways that we can minimize abortion occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think that the only way anything can be done in a reasonable amount of time is to, in this situation that we find ourselves, is to have a majority in both the Exec/Congress (to undo what the Rep majority did in the first six years of this century). For those uninformed, might I remind you that the Reps filibustered more than 90 times just in the last year, to keep anything that they didn't agree with-from even being discussed in the Senate. That cannot continue.

 

Let me remind you that even if you do not agree with any social changes that the Dems may, or may not make, they are not permanent, and can always be undone in the future - however, the attack on our rights and that of the Constitution of the current administration - well, rights are harder to get back once given up. McCain has yet to identify, expand, or quantify just how his policies would differ from Geo W - even though he has asked to do so countless times.

 

What is going to be interesting is what happens to the Rep party as many think that a civil war is about to happen within the Republican party - esp if it turns into a landslide. The so-called 'conservative' has changed rather drastically from the conservative of old. For example, in an effort to gain votes they have catered to the far right wing fundamentalist faction to the extent that CC Goldwater (grand-daughter of Sen Goldwater) wrote the following last week:

 

Those who feel compelled to push their own personal religious dogma/beliefs on others (such as abortion) are actually against the very principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, they are not even versed in the Bible and yet they profess to be on the side of "God's Word".

 

In reality there is really overwhelming evidence that these same people don't take time to read their own Bibles. People will listen to their pastors and to Christian radio broadcasters. They will skim through easy-to-read pamphlets and perhaps look up the one or two verses printed therein, but they don't actually read their Bibles and make up their own minds on issues such as abortion. They merely listen to others who quote a selected verse to support a view they heard from someone else.

 

One would think that those religious Pro-Lifers would actually refer to and actually READ the Bible (without just focusing on selected verses taken out of context). Doing so, one would find out that during the time that the Bible was written, blood was viewed as the life force, or the fluid that contained the life force--Leviticus 17 (v11 & 14). Even when the Bible was written they knew that this process did not occur (when the embryo is infused with blood) until 18-20 days after fertilization (not at the moment of fertilization). On one hand they believe/profess that the Bible is the actual "Word of God" - and then on the other hand -- they discard it.

 

Religious dogma/beliefs have no place in our government. It's a little thing called 'separation of church and state' that our founding fathers believed in - and so do I. There are many, many other ways that we can minimize abortion occurrence.

unfortunately ask McCain and Obama if they want to ignore the "religious" voting pool.....one HINT of dis-respect or questioning ones religious beleifs and you better beleive the vote goes the other way....hell hath no fury as a brainwashed "bible basher"......beleive what you want to beleive,,,,but DO NOT impress yopur religious beleifs on me.....I wish religion WERE totally removed from politics, but those days are gone.......

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...