PDA

View Full Version : Why Is It?



Kathianne
11-18-2008, 05:01 PM
So many want to punish the successful through tax burden, but bail out the failures? How is that going to 'trickle up'? It's anti-Darwinian, survival, make that life-support, of the weakest. :dunno:

Abbey Marie
11-18-2008, 05:06 PM
My guess:
1. Class envy
2. A huge voting block

Kathianne
11-18-2008, 05:13 PM
My guess:
1. Class envy
2. A huge voting block

Mine was simpler, mass stupidity. :laugh2:

Little-Acorn
11-18-2008, 05:13 PM
It's just typical modern liberalism, no different from the day-to-day wealth redistribution they constantly espouse. They're just doing it in a big way this month, and hanging a new label on it that says "Bailout".

But these people ALWAYS want to drain wealth away from those who produce the most, and give it to those who produce little or none. The draining-away part is the top part of their "progressive income tax", and the give-it-to-the-less-wealthy is the bottom part, where low-income people get lots of goodies from govt but pay little or no income tax to get it. Plus what used to be called "Welfare" and is now being resurrected as "a tax cut for people who don't pay taxes". In their ideal world, this goes on day after day, month after month, year after year. And so when it's suddenly boosted to a huge scale and labelled "Bailout", it's not a change in agenda, merely a change in scale.

Why?

Because they are hiking the burden on maybe 10% of the populace, to give goodies to the other 90%. By doing this, they are assured of the support of that 90%.

It's called "Buying votes". Permanent job security for liberal politicians (in both parties).

Until the top 10% get tired of it, give up and quit.

avatar4321
11-18-2008, 05:23 PM
So many want to punish the successful through tax burden, but bail out the failures? How is that going to 'trickle up'? It's anti-Darwinian, survival, make that life-support, of the weakest. :dunno:

The people are trading their wisdom for instant gratification and other distractions.

crin63
11-18-2008, 05:55 PM
The only, "trickle up" I can see working is the trickle up Chris Matthews leg when Obama speaks. :coffee:

Kathianne
11-18-2008, 05:56 PM
The only, "trickle up" I can see working is the trickle up Chris Matthews leg when Obama speaks. :coffee:

I don't really think I want to envision this! :eek:

crin63
11-18-2008, 05:59 PM
I don't really think I want to envision this! :eek:

Mea Culpa, I think that was a tingle not a trickle. The trickle followed the tingle when he wet himself.

Immanuel
11-18-2008, 07:10 PM
So many want to punish the successful through tax burden, but bail out the failures? How is that going to 'trickle up'? It's anti-Darwinian, survival, make that life-support, of the weakest. :dunno:

Call it what it is... "Flood the Basement" economics.

Immie

5stringJeff
11-18-2008, 08:55 PM
Because poor people keep voting for the party that promises to give them handouts from the US Treasury.

Joe Steel
11-19-2008, 08:03 AM
So many want to punish the successful through tax burden, but bail out the failures? How is that going to 'trickle up'? It's anti-Darwinian, survival, make that life-support, of the weakest. :dunno:

Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are one of the patriotic duties of citizenship.

Classact
11-19-2008, 09:03 AM
Taxes are not punishment.Then everyone should pay to play.
Taxes are one of the patriotic duties of citizenship. So you admit that the Democratic Party is promoting the masses of Americans to be unpatriotic? No representation without taxation I say! Don't pay taxes then don't get to vote.

Little-Acorn
11-19-2008, 11:42 AM
Taxes are not punishment.
That's good to hear. I'll send you the bill for mine (and you're in for a shock), and you can pay them, since it won't hurt you a bit.

To return to reality:

Taxes are a direct drain on whoever's paying them. They are to be levied only when the pain of NOT paying them would be worse for the individuals involved, than the pain of paying them. Such as, if an enemy is invading or threatening to invade, and an army must be raised and supported to prevent the invasion. Or if criminals are preying on people, and police, courts, and joails must be established and paid for to stop them. Or land is being surveyed and platted to avoid (or resolve) ownership conflicts. Plus a few other funtions.

Paying taxes for the purpose of having the money simply handed to others who perform none of those functions, is not their purpose, and is actually forbidden to the Federal govt by the Constitution. Just as gun-control laws are forbidden, Social Security is forbidden, and a host of other routinely-ignored bans. But these things aren't forbidden only because some paper says so. They are forbidden because the people who wrote and ratified that piece of paper, knew that they were injurious to society. That education is sadly lacking in much of today's populace... as evinced by little joesteel's ridiculous statement above.

manu1959
11-19-2008, 11:47 AM
Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are one of the patriotic duties of citizenship.

you sound like king george

stephanie
11-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are one of the patriotic duties of citizenship.

UGH!

I've heard a lot of stupid shit, but this takes the prize..

Des
11-19-2008, 11:54 AM
Liberalism? Do you not realize BOTH major presidential candidates and both parties worked together for the bailout?

darin
11-19-2008, 11:57 AM
Liberalism? Do you not realize BOTH major presidential candidates and both parties worked together for the bailout?

Republicans can't be Liberals? That what you're saying?

Liberal: TAX Heavy, Restrict Free Will/Choice, Support Race and Gender Bias, Protect Criminals, Kill Babies. America is a threat to the World. It's the duty of Government to restrict free will of the citizens to "Protect" them. that sorta thing.

Democrat: Tax and give to the lazy
Republican: Tax and give to Business.
Libertarian: "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve."

Conservative: Err on the side of freedom. Support tax breaks. Small Government. Citizens know best how to live their lives - NOT government. Nobody is OWED a job or a band aide if they hurt themselves. That sorta thing.

Des
11-19-2008, 12:05 PM
Republicans can't be Liberals? That what you're saying?

Liberal: TAX Heavy, Restrict Free Will/Choice, Support Race and Gender Bias, Protect Criminals, Kill Babies. America is a threat to the World. It's the duty of Government to restrict free will of the citizens to "Protect" them. that sorta thing.

Democrat: Tax and give to the lazy
Republican: Tax and give to Business.
Libertarian: "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve."

Conservative: Err on the side of freedom. Support tax breaks. Small Government. Citizens know best how to live their lives - NOT government. Nobody is OWED a job or a band aide if they hurt themselves. That sorta thing.

You might have to be clearer, I didn't quite get which one you really don't like.

darin
11-19-2008, 12:10 PM
You might have to be clearer, I didn't quite get which one you really don't like.

Which way of thinking I like or dislike is not important. The point is educating YOU to not use "Liberal" as a synonym for "Democrat" - it's insulting to some democrats.

Des
11-19-2008, 12:14 PM
Which way of thinking I like or dislike is not important. The point is educating YOU to not use "Liberal" as a synonym for "Democrat" - it's insulting to some democrats.

I don't understand what you are saying. I said that both major parties supported the bailout, not that all democrats were liberal.

darin
11-19-2008, 12:38 PM
I don't understand what you are saying. I said that both major parties supported the bailout, not that all democrats were liberal.




Liberalism? Do you not realize BOTH major presidential candidates and both parties worked together for the bailout?

That means: "Why are you saying this is the Liberals fault? Both major parties worked together for the bail out"

I wrote: The politicians Political party has no bearing on if they are liberals or not.

Des
11-19-2008, 12:46 PM
That means: "Why are you saying this is the Liberals fault? Both major parties worked together for the bail out"

I wrote: The politicians Political party has no bearing on if they are liberals or not.

Both parties, political conservatives and liberals alike, worked together to push the bailout through with little opposition. Yes, there are plenty of republicans who are conservative. A person with conservative political tendencies is just that...not someone belonging to a specific party. A person with liberal political tendencies is just that. There are plenty of conservative parties and people with diverse views...really, it means a person who tends to support the "status quo" and reject idealism (liberalism). I don't see how anything I said required me to be "educated".

darin
11-19-2008, 01:08 PM
Conservative and Liberal are NOT politcal parties, sweetheart. Get that right, first off, aight?

The ClayTaurus
11-19-2008, 01:12 PM
Citizens know best how to live their lives - NOT government.Except when it comes to certain social issues...

Des
11-19-2008, 01:12 PM
Conservative and Liberal are NOT politcal parties, sweetheart. Get that right, first off, aight?

I am right, if my response was read correctly...thus the term "tendencies".

Little-Acorn
11-19-2008, 01:30 PM
political conservatives.... worked together to push the bailout through

Conservatives didn't. Republicans did.

BIG difference, and getting bigger.

Des
11-19-2008, 01:33 PM
Conservatives didn't. Republicans did.

BIG difference, and getting bigger.

True, but it doesn't mean that the representatives in office didn't have "conservative tendencies" vs. liberal ones. Conservatives are people with similar tendencies vs. liberal ones...there isn't a cut and dry definition of it. That's all I was saying. :).

The libertarian party seems to be gaining some ground...

Little-Acorn
11-19-2008, 01:42 PM
True, but it doesn't mean that the representatives in office didn't have "conservative tendencies" vs. liberal ones.

Being a modern liberal (that is, someone who thinks that govt's job is to help us with the ordinary problems of life), is like being pregnant.

Someone with "liberal tendencies" like someone who is "a little bit pregnant". If you let govt help you a little bit, the effect will snowball, and govt will take over more and more, until you have a situation like... well, like the situation we have today, with the govt borrowing trillions to hand to people who didn't run their finances sensibly, and a socialist elected to the highest office in the land, who baldly stated that he wants to "spread the wealth around".

A conservative is someone who believes that govt should stick to only certain functions that private people or groups CANNOT do (defense, foreign relations, courts etc.), and must stay strictly away from the rest. Being " a little liberal" is like putting a little hole in a rubber balloon, only slightly slower.

Des
11-19-2008, 01:46 PM
Being a modern liberal (that is, someone who thinks that govt's job is to help us with the ordinary problems of life), is like being pregnant.

Someone with "liberal tendencies" like someone who is "a little bit pregnant". If you let govt help you a little bit, the effect will snowball, and govt will take over more and more, until you have a situation like... well, like the situation we have today, with the govt borrowing trillions to hand to people who didn't run their finances sensibly, and a socialist elected to the highest office in the land, who baldly stated that he wants to "spread the wealth around".

A conservative is someone who believes that govt should stick to only certain functions that private people or groups CANNOT do (defense, foreign relations, courts etc.), and must stay strictly away from the rest. Being " a little liberal" is like putting a little hole in a rubber balloon, only slightly slower.


Conservative tendencies vs. liberal ones meaning "having more conservative tendencies than liberal tendencies"...meaning, on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Little-Acorn
11-19-2008, 01:50 PM
Conservative tendencies vs. liberal ones meaning "having more conservative tendencies than liberal tendencies"...meaning, on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Right. Being only partly pregnant instead of completely pregnant.

darin
11-19-2008, 02:10 PM
I am right, if my response was read correctly...thus the term "tendencies".

If you are going to operate in your OWN world, where the meaning of words varies - and ultimately only YOU decide what words mean, then...sure...you're right...but you're never going to seem smart to the rest of the internet if you decide, arbitrarily to change the meaning of the words you choose.

Des
11-19-2008, 02:32 PM
Right. Being only partly pregnant instead of completely pregnant.

Politics isn't black and white, and the meaning of what a liberal and conservative tendency is doesn't vary based on the opinions of one person.

Des
11-19-2008, 02:34 PM
If you are going to operate in your OWN world, where the meaning of words varies - and ultimately only YOU decide what words mean, then...sure...you're right...but you're never going to seem smart to the rest of the internet if you decide, arbitrarily to change the meaning of the words you choose.

I'm not interested in seeming smart to the "rest of the internet". Liberal and conservative are words that describe political tendencies.

darin
11-19-2008, 02:35 PM
Politics isn't black and white, and the meaning of what a liberal and conservative tendency is doesn't vary based on the opinions of one person.

Black and white? Both Bears AND Tigers have caused the death of humans.


I'm not interested in seeming smart to the "rest of the internet". Liberal and conservative are words that describe political tendencies.

Right! But YOU used them to describe politcal PARTIES, cupcake.

Des
11-19-2008, 02:42 PM
Right! But YOU used them to describe politcal PARTIES, cupcake.

No, I didn't.

crin63
11-19-2008, 02:50 PM
The Republicans that supported the bailout were moderates to liberals they were not Conservatives. They are what has become the face of the Republican Party which is not by any means Conservative at this point in time. If you think they are conservatives then it just goes to show how far removed from actual conservatism they really are.

darin
11-19-2008, 03:19 PM
No, I didn't.

(sigh)

When you said "(why blame) Liberalsm? Both PARTIES worked (and aggreeed) on the bailout!" That's using Liberal to describe one of the Parties.

www.hop.com - might help ya, hero.

Hull
11-19-2008, 06:20 PM
My guess:
1. Class envy
2. A huge voting block


Mine was simpler, mass stupidity. :laugh2:

Liberals.

avatar4321
11-19-2008, 08:42 PM
Politics isn't black and white, and the meaning of what a liberal and conservative tendency is doesn't vary based on the opinions of one person.

I think politics is more black and white then most people want to admit.

What's the middle ground between being in favor of abortion and being against?

What's the middle ground between favoring gay marriage or opposing it?

What's the middle ground about wanting a bigger government and shrinking government?

What's the middle ground between wanting higher taxes and lower taxes?

Hull
11-20-2008, 12:07 AM
I think politics is more black and white then most people want to admit.

What's the middle ground between being in favor of abortion and being against?

What's the middle ground between favoring gay marriage or opposing it?

What's the middle ground about wanting a bigger government and shrinking government?

What's the middle ground between wanting higher taxes and lower taxes?

If the question was too hard for others, I'll take a crack at it.... NOTHING! There is no middle ground. You're either for or against such issues. Evidently that's what McCain didn't understand, as he kept railing about during his campaign about reaching across the isle and being a maverick. Well guess what John, you lost. That didn't work out very well for you did it? Conservatives don't want someone that openly proclaims they're going to CAVE to the liberals. Conservatives want someone that says they're going fight tooth and nail for conservative values and not give an inch. The next conservative that comes down the pike that proclaims he's going to stand hard and true and fight the liberals from sun up to sun down and never give in is going to win in one of the largest land slide elections this country has ever seen. Problem is we need to find one first.

Joe Steel
11-20-2008, 08:32 AM
That's good to hear. I'll send you the bill for mine (and you're in for a shock), and you can pay them, since it won't hurt you a bit.

I've suspected you of being disloyal and unpatriotic so this attempt to shirk your duty is no surprise.

Classact
11-20-2008, 08:42 AM
If the question was too hard for others, I'll take a crack at it.... NOTHING! There is no middle ground. You're either for or against such issues. Evidently that's what McCain didn't understand, as he kept railing about during his campaign about reaching across the isle and being a maverick. Well guess what John, you lost. That didn't work out very well for you did it? Conservatives don't want someone that openly proclaims they're going to CAVE to the liberals. Conservatives want someone that says they're going fight tooth and nail for conservative values and not give an inch. The next conservative that comes down the pike that proclaims he's going to stand hard and true and fight the liberals from sun up to sun down and never give in is going to win in one of the largest land slide elections this country has ever seen. Problem is we need to find one first.Oh!!! I think you nailed it! We need a conservative to be the + for the oposing - force in America... If we go to war we need rules of engagement that end it quickly... Falluja harboring terrorists ...nuke it don't send in great Marines to sort them out... let the liberals wring their hands later... Need to end government waste... close Dept. of Education and send the money to the states. Stop stealing money and close down wasteful government and manage the remaining government well.

Little-Acorn
11-20-2008, 01:42 PM
I think politics is more black and white then most people want to admit.

It is indeed. And the most basic issue of all, is just as B&W as the others you mentioned:

Do you trust ordinary people to run their own lives, enough to keep government small and unobtrusive and handing only the few functions people CANNOT handle privately (defense, courts, etc.)?

Or do you believe they will do a poor enough job of running their lives, that government must step in and "help" them in every area, from health insurance to retirement funding to land usage to fireplaces to toilet operation?

If you trust them to handle their own affairs, you are a conservative.

If you don't, you are a liberal to some degree. Which as I've pointed out elsewhere, is like being pregnant to some degree.

The American ideal was built (way back in the 1700s) on the basic principle that we CAN trust people to run their own affairs and control their own government, via a representative democracy (aka republic). And the government was FORBIDDEN to intrude into most of people's affairs, except for a few carefully-specified fields, that had to be listed in the govt's founding document (the Constitution) for the govt to be able to regulate them.

Incredibly, that most basic of all American principles, is now under attack. Rather than being the settled question it had been for so many generations, some people (aka liberals) are trying to change it, and trying to set up government that takes care of everyone's ordinary problems in life, based on the idea that govt can do it "better" than the people themselves can... and therefore SHOULD do it.

It's as black-and-white as you can get. Do you trust people to handle most of their own affairs without government intrusion, or don't you?

Des
11-20-2008, 01:56 PM
It is indeed. And the most basic issue of all, is just as B&W as the others you mentioned:

Do you trust ordinary people to run their own lives, enough to keep government small and unobtrusive and handing only the few functions people CANNOT handle privately (defense, courts, etc.)?

Or do you believe they will do a poor enough job of running their lives, that government must step in and "help" them in every area, from health insurance to retirement funding to land usage to fireplaces to toilet operation?

If you trust them to handle their own affairs, you are a conservative.

If you don't, you are a liberal to some degree. Which as I've pointed out elsewhere, is like being pregnant to some degree.

The American ideal was built (way back in the 1700s) on the basic principle that we CAN trust people to run their own affairs and control their own government, via a representative democracy (aka republic). And the government was FORBIDDEN to intrude into most of people's affairs, except for a few carefully-specified fields, that had to be listed in the govt's founding document (the Constitution) for the govt to be able to regulate them.

Incredibly, that most basic of all American principles, is now under attack. Rather than being the settled question it had been for so many generations, some people (aka liberals) are trying to change it, and trying to set up government that takes care of everyone's ordinary problems in life, based on the idea that govt can do it "better" than the people themselves can... and therefore SHOULD do it.

It's as black-and-white as you can get. Do you trust people to handle most of their own affairs without government intrusion, or don't you?

Many people who profess to have conservative viewpoints are more interested in legislating other peoples affairs than they'd like to admit.

Little-Acorn
11-20-2008, 02:09 PM
Many people who profess to have conservative viewpoints are more interested in legislating other peoples affairs than they'd like to admit.

What does that tell you about their professions?

Des
11-20-2008, 02:33 PM
What does that tell you about their professions?

First of all, it tells me that there are varying degrees of political tendencies. I know a lot of conservative Christians who want to legislate their religious beliefs that interfere with the lives of others...which would be fine if it were done through the church, not the government.

Little-Acorn
11-20-2008, 02:37 PM
First of all, it tells me that there are varying degrees of political tendencies. I know a lot of conservative Christians who want to legislate their religious beliefs that interfere with the lives of others...which would be fine if it were done through the church, not the government.

BZZZZT.... wrong answer, sorry.

It tells you that some people have a mistaken idea of what conservatism is.

.

Des
11-20-2008, 02:43 PM
BZZZZT.... wrong answer, sorry.

It tells you that some people have a mistaken idea of what conservatism is.

.

May I ask you a (stupid) question, just to see if I can understand where you're coming from better?

If a (made up religion) wants to sign into law something that forbids someone to own a fly for a pet, for example, because they see owning flies as an abomination, they wouldn't be a true conservative to you, I'm assuming...?

But if a Christian wants to sign into law something that forbids someone to marry another consenting adult of the same gender because they see it as an abomination, they would be a "conservative", or not?

Is your definition more in line with libertarian views or what "I" usually see as Christian-conservative views?

Little-Acorn
11-20-2008, 04:05 PM
If a (made up religion) wants to sign into law something that forbids someone to own a fly for a pet, for example, because they see owning flies as an abomination, they wouldn't be a true conservative to you, I'm assuming...?
Correct.


But if a Christian wants to sign into law something that forbids someone to marry another consenting adult of the same gender because they see it as an abomination, they would be a "conservative", or not?
Not.


Is your definition more in line with libertarian views
Ask them.


or what "I" usually see as Christian-conservative views?
See my previous post.

BTW, if someone wants to sign something into law that forbids someone to marry another consenting adult of the same gender because they know that a marriage is not a union of two people of the same sex, then this does not disqualify them from conservatism.

Similarly, if he wants to make a law saying blue is not red, that also does not disqualify him from conservatism. Just makes you wonder about the sanity of the people who were insisting that blue WAS red... and demanding that we rewrite textbooks accordingly.

Des
11-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Correct.


Not.


Ask them.


See my previous post.

BTW, if someone wants to sign something into law that forbids someone to marry another consenting adult of the same gender because they know that a marriage is not a union of two people of the same sex, then this does not disqualify them from conservatism.

Similarly, if he wants to make a law saying blue is not red, that also does not disqualify him from conservatism. Just makes you wonder about the sanity of the people who were insisting that blue WAS red... and demanding that we rewrite textbooks accordingly.

But wouldn't a true conservative prefer to go back to the times when the government didn't issue marriage licenses at all, and marriage was either a religious or civil union (common-law type?), rather than continue to push forward with making more and more laws? That's what I don't understand.

Little-Acorn
11-20-2008, 05:44 PM
But wouldn't a true conservative prefer to go back to the times when the government didn't issue marriage licenses at all, and marriage was either a religious or civil union (common-law type?), rather than continue to push forward with making more and more laws? That's what I don't understand.

A true conservative would have that as an ultimate goal - no government involvement at all, no benefits for married couples so nothing for same-sex couples to get jealous over, etc. Are you about to tell me that if we don't cure ALL ills with this system in one fell swoop, then the plans are no good?

First we prevent any more laws from being made, especially silly ones that call red blue. Later we start repealing the intrusive laws already on the books.

The iffen-it-ain't-perfect-then-it-ain't-shit crowd is the darling of the liberals who want to expand government, because that crowd can never accomplish anything. A true conservative is one who will get it DONE.

Des
11-20-2008, 08:35 PM
A true conservative would have that as an ultimate goal - no government involvement at all, no benefits for married couples so nothing for same-sex couples to get jealous over, etc. Are you about to tell me that if we don't cure ALL ills with this system in one fell swoop, then the plans are no good?

First we prevent any more laws from being made, especially silly ones that call red blue. Later we start repealing the intrusive laws already on the books.

The iffen-it-ain't-perfect-then-it-ain't-shit crowd is the darling of the liberals who want to expand government, because that crowd can never accomplish anything. A true conservative is one who will get it DONE.

I see what you're saying, but I still don't completely understand, I think it was just a bad issue to bring up :)