Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Lol at Ted Cruz. I can't even take some guys seriously anymore.

HA. This coming from the guy who in the past 48 hours has proclaimed that Fidel Castro is a Republican and Texas is responsible for global warming. This is why I blow off 85% of your posts.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
HA. This coming from the guy who in the past 48 hours has proclaimed that Fidel Castro is a Republican and Texas is responsible for global warming. This is why I blow off 85% of your posts.

I never said Castro was a republican. I said Cubans are often republican because of the anti Castro sentiment.

I said Texas is below par compared to California when it comes to carbon emissions. Your translation is that I think Texas is soley responsible for the climate crisis.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton had much bigger problems with "fluids" than Marco Rubio. Also, if he were a democrat he'd be praised for being the first Latino to give a party response to the state of the union. But since he's a Republican, he's mocked for taking a sip of water.

Nah. It was a bit like Howard Dean (a democrat) being mocked in the election because of his odd scream. No substance to the point, but he looked weird. It was sort of a funny moment.

Rubio looked really bad up there...sweating, wiping his mouth, and then the awkward drink. It was all optics, so it's not really important. It's just what people will remember. It was a funny moment.

Substantively, he was pretty much delivering a boiler plate Romney stump speech.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Nah. It was a bit like Howard Dean (a democrat) being mocked in the election because of his odd scream. No substance to the point, but he looked weird. It was sort of a funny moment.

Rubio looked really bad up there...sweating, wiping his mouth, and then the awkward drink. It was all optics, so it's not really important. It's just what people will remember. It was a funny moment.

Substantively, he was pretty much delivering a boiler plate Romney stump speech.

I like Howard Dean I actually think he would have made a good president. That was a total gaff though lol.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D5FzCeV0ZFc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Okay I do not know where to start.

First off they criticize statements he made years ago on Israel. Yes he struggled in the hearing by being to non confrontational. Here's the thing though. It is not his policies that matter it his ability to run the Pentagon and he has the resume for that. President Obama sets the foreign policy not the secretary defense.

Second they did not even ask about some major things that secretary of defense actually does handle without having to got to the president on. Like getting this issue of female troops being raped by male troops under control.

Third Senator Graham said he was holding up the nominee for info on Bengazi. Dude there have been multiple hearings several classified Senate briefings and 10k page report released to the Senate. Also Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with Bengazi!

This a ploy to kill time and block President Obama's agenda that the people voted for.

I will be the first to admit that the R's are using him as a hostage. That is clear as day. It sucks and it shouldn't come to that.

But to suggest that the country has all the info they need on what happened in Benghazi is just not true. The more information that comes out, the more we figure out we don't know what happened. Why weren't forces sent in? Why did the cables pleading for help prior to the attack go ignored? Why didn't Dempsey or Panetta have any conversations with Clinton during the attack? Why hasn't the FBI briefed Congress on the the information gathered from the FBI interviews of the survivors? etc.

I am not thrilled with holding this nomination up. But, American's lost their lives in this attack and we still don't know the whole story. I get that R's have been on a witch hunt for some scandels the past 5 years and this may not be any different. But, I wouldn't be shocked at all to find out that some of the assumptions are true about how the President responded to this. The story doesn't add up at this point. However, since R's have been on prowl for scandel so long, this makes their effort now look petty and diminishes their effort. They have no one to blame for this but themselves, but I do think something isn't right in the stories that have been told to Congress.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I will be the first to admit that the R's are using him as a hostage. That is clear as day. It sucks and it shouldn't come to that.

But to suggest that the country has all the info they need on what happened in Benghazi is just not true. The more information that comes out, the more we figure out we don't know what happened. Why weren't forces sent in? Why did the cables pleading for help prior to the attack go ignored? Why didn't Dempsey or Panetta have any conversations with Clinton during the attack? Why hasn't the FBI briefed Congress on the the information gathered from the FBI interviews of the survivors? etc.

I am not thrilled with holding this nomination up. But, American's lost their lives in this attack and we still don't know the whole story. I get that R's have been on a witch hunt for some scandels the past 5 years and this may not be any different. But, I wouldn't be shocked at all to find out that some of the assumptions are true about how the President responded to this. The story doesn't add up at this point. However, since R's have been on prowl for scandel so long, this makes their effort now look petty and diminishes their effort. They have no one to blame for this but themselves, but I do think something isn't right in the stories that have been told to Congress.

May these guys should have showed up to the intelligence briefings.

I do want to say I agree that you make a fair point about the country not having enough info on what happened in Bengazi as there has not been a great deal of transparency to the public.

I don't buy though that the Senate particularly the Senate Intelligence committe has not gotten enough info. It is just that is all classified so we don't know what they know.

Lindsey Graham and John Mccain had a press conference to complain about not having enough information on Benghazi. What was happening at the exact same time? A private classified Senate briefing on Benghazi. Yes they missed an opportunity to get information because they had have a press conference about not having enough information. It is almost to stupid to be true.

McCain Misses Classified Briefing While Blasting White House over Benghazi - ABC News

This tea party Senator missed the briefing too.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mw1tdpx-y3w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
May these guys should have showed up to the intelligence briefings.

I do want to say I agree that you make a fair point about the country not having enough info on what happened in Bengazi as there has not been a great deal of transparency to the public.

I don't buy though that the Senate particularly the Senate Intelligence committe has not gotten enough info. It is just that is all classified so we don't know what they know.

Lindsey Graham and John Mccain had a press conference to complain about not having enough information on Benghazi. What was happening at the exact same time? A private classified Senate briefing on Benghazi. Yes they missed an opportunity to get information because they had have a press conference about not having enough information. It is almost to stupid to be true.

McCain Misses Classified Briefing While Blasting White House over Benghazi - ABC News

This tea party Senator missed the briefing too.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mw1tdpx-y3w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In that same article you linked, Susan Collins ( One of the more level headed R's) said the information wasn't helpful. I get there are classified documents, but something isn't right here.

"Even if he had attended, McCain was unlikely to be satisfied with what he heard.

After the briefing was over, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Susan Collins, was asked if she was satisfied with the hearing.

“I really wasn’t,” Collins answered. “There are many, many unanswered questions. I feel that we’ve only scratched the surface through the briefings that we had today.”
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
In that same article you linked, Susan Collins ( One of the more level headed R's) said the information wasn't helpful. I get there are classified documents, but something isn't right here.

"Even if he had attended, McCain was unlikely to be satisfied with what he heard.

After the briefing was over, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Susan Collins, was asked if she was satisfied with the hearing.

“I really wasn’t,” Collins answered. “There are many, many unanswered questions. I feel that we’ve only scratched the surface through the briefings that we had today.”

What kind of information would need to be given for Mccain to be satisfied.

I don't think anyone is satisfied with what happened mistakes were made, Hillary Clinton said mistakes were made in her testimony.

Mistakes were made on 9-11 or when the USS Coal was blown up in 90s. Sometimes people who don't like the United States do bad things to the United States. While you would hope we would to prevent all these things sometimes the government Fs up on stuff.

If republicans want Obama to get in front of the camera and say my adminstration messed up on this one. Well that is just not going to happen. It didn't happen when 9-11 happened with Bush, it didn't happen with Clinton when the USS Coal got blown up.

What we did do in those is taken action against those responsible in both instances which I don't think we have done so yet. So if you are advocating for a retalitory response of some sort okay I'm with you. Not necessarily a war. When the Coal got blown up Clinton did drop some bombs and shoots some missiles at Al Quida bases in Afghanistan.
 

In Lou I Trust

Offseason gon' be long
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
188
From Ted Cruz:
Today the Senate rightly voted to continue debate on Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination. There is no reason to rush his nomination to a vote until he has adequately responded to multiple requests from members of the Armed Services Committee for additional information.

Twenty-five senators have asked Senator Hagel to disclose the personal compensation that he has received the past five years, and twice he has flat-out refused regarding what he was paid in 2008, 2009, and 2010. This is within his direct control, and his refusal to comply with this reasonable request is troubling. Both Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton were asked similar questions, and given the vital importance of the Secretary of Defense to our national security, Sen. Hagel should not be held to a lesser standard.

Once Senator Hagel responds to these reasonable requests to disclose whether and to what extent he has any foreign financial conflicts of interest, I am confident that a bipartisan majority of the Senate will move forward to the timely consideration of the merits of his nomination.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
From Ted Cruz:

This is within his direct control, and his refusal to comply with this reasonable request is troubling.

The same guys who are demanding this information were defending Mitt Romney for not releasing his income tax returns during the presidential election. The blatant hypocracy is astounding.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Also, Ted Cruz is a complete moron.

bumping this^ post because it is so true.

Ted Cruz voted against John Kerry. Now you may be against John Kerry polictical views but I do not think any level headed person would say that John Kerry is not qualified to be our Secreatary of State with his experience.

Ted Cruz though didn't think John Kerry was a good choice though.

John Kerry passed 94-3. Ted Cruz was one of the 3 morons that voted no.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
This is within his direct control, and his refusal to comply with this reasonable request is troubling.

The same guys who are demanding this information were defending Mitt Romney for not releasing his income tax returns during the presidential election. The blatant hypocracy is astounding.

Are they the same tho? I am not defending them, but I think it's apples and oranges. In one case, we were concerned about how much tax burden one guy has versus where someone got their compensation. IMO, that isn't similar.

However, in Romney's case, there was precident to release tax returns and he should not have put up the fight. Likewise, there is preciden for Hagel to be forthcoming or pay the consequence. Henry Kissinger's nomination to the 9/11 commission was withdrawn because he did not wish to disclose his clients and Hillary Clinton voluntarily disclosed foreign donors to the Clintons' charity.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Lets see if we can get a compromise on 50/50.

So the Senate has plan to delay the massive cuts that almost all economist agree if they occurred all at once would kill the economy.

The Senate plan to delays sequester till next year will offset the sequester in savings that are 50/50 spending cuts and revenue increases. So the 85 billion in cuts this year would be replace with a plan that saves 110 billion over ten years.

Cuts come from agriculture and military.

Also the fact that Congress is taking a vacation with this thing looming is BS by both parties.

(CBS News) CBS News has learned that the Senate Democrats' long-awaited plan to avert the sequester, which leaders will present to their caucus today, would replace the 10-year sequester for the rest of 2013 -- 10 months -- with $120 billion in spending cuts and new tax revenue, split 50-50.


Most of the revenue would come from implementing what's known as the Buffett Rule, named after investor Warren Buffett. The rule would cap deductions and loopholes for millionaires so they pay at least 30 percent of their salary in taxes. Senate Democrats tried and failed to pass the Buffett Rule last year.


The spending cuts would come from eliminating agriculture subsidies and from trimming the defense budget, though not as drastically as the sequester would.


House Republicans passed a bill last year that would replace most of the defense cuts in the sequester with more domestic cuts, such as trimming the food stamp program and cutting federal worker pay. In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Barack Obama said this about the Republican plan: "Some in Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits. That idea is even worse."


Millionaires just saw their taxes go up two months ago when they lost their Bush-era tax cuts. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told us repeatedly this week that "the president got his tax revenue" in the fiscal cliff deal, and that Republicans won't give any more. But at some point, the two sides need to start dealing if they want to avert the sequester, which kicks in March 1.

That's just two weeks away, and Congress isn't even in session next week.

For more on the plan with Nancy Cordes, watch the video in the player above.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57569338/dems-plan-to-avoid-sequester-$120b-in-spending-cuts-new-tax-revenue/
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Are they the same tho? I am not defending them, but I think it's apples and oranges. In one case, we were concerned about how much tax burden one guy has versus where someone got their compensation. IMO, that isn't similar.

However, in Romney's case, there was precident to release tax returns and he should not have put up the fight. Likewise, there is preciden for Hagel to be forthcoming or pay the consequence. Henry Kissinger's nomination to the 9/11 commission was withdrawn because he did not wish to disclose his clients and Hillary Clinton voluntarily disclosed foreign donors to the Clintons' charity.

I think the issue with Romney tax returns was trying to see if his rhetoric about paying "every penny" he owed in taxes, especially when the only set of tax returns he did release showed that he had money in Swiss bank accounts and in Cayman islands and payed a lesser tax rate that me and you. There were also issues that would have been revealed about which companies he made money from by shutting them down. I think Chuck Hagel should answer disclose where he got the compensation, just as I think Romeny should have released his tax returns, if for no other reason than it looks like you are hiding something when you do not follow precedent. I don't see as big a distinction in the two scenarios as you do. In both cases, there is clear precedent established to disclose financial information and in both cases the person seeking the office are refusing to disclose it. I shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are pounding Hagel and were defending Romney. This is just par for the course for them.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Lets see if we can get a compromise on 50/50.

So the Senate has plan to delay the massive cuts that almost all economist agree if they occurred all at once would kill the economy.

The Senate plan to delays sequester till next year will offset the sequester in savings that are 50/50 spending cuts and revenue increases. So the 85 billion in cuts this year would be replace with a plan that saves 110 billion over ten years.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57569338/dems-plan-to-avoid-sequester-$120b-in-spending-cuts-new-tax-revenue/

Help me with the details here. They implement a permanent tax on what amounts to investment income in exhchange for delaying cuts for one year?

Also, if my math is correct, this would essentially guarantee that taxes on investments increase from 15% in 2012 to 33.8% in 2013?
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I think the issue with Romney tax returns was trying to see if his rhetoric about paying "every penny" he owed in taxes, especially when the only set of tax returns he did release showed that he had money in Swiss bank accounts and in Cayman islands and payed a lesser tax rate that me and you. There were also issues that would have been revealed about which companies he made money from by shutting them down. I think Chuck Hagel should answer disclose where he got the compensation, just as I think Romeny should have released his tax returns, if for no other reason than it looks like you are hiding something when you do not follow precedent. I don't see as big a distinction in the two scenarios as you do. In both cases, there is clear precedent established to disclose financial information and in both cases the person seeking the office are refusing to disclose it. I shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are pounding Hagel and were defending Romney. This is just par for the course for them.

Personally, I think both sides are being hypocritical. R's like you mentioned, and D's for not demanding it in both circumstances. You can't choose who you want to disclose. Everyone should disclose and both parties should demand it all the time.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Personally, I think both sides are being hypocritical. R's like you mentioned, and D's for not demanding it in both circumstances. You can't choose who you want to disclose. Everyone should disclose and both parties should demand it all the time.

I agree, both sides are playing politics and look like hypocrits. Disclosing financial information is part of holding office at these levels of government and there should never be an argument. I am of the opinion that someone who is fighting disclosure is hiding something. In that circumstance, the only way you could convince me otherwise is to disclose and prove me wrong.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Help me with the details here. They implement a permanent tax on what amounts to investment income in exhchange for delaying cuts for one year?

Also, if my math is correct, this would essentially guarantee that taxes on investments increase from 15% in 2012 to 33.8% in 2013?

Well the capital gains tax is 15% and after the fiscal cliff deal went up to 20% for those making 400k or more on capital gains.

Yes it would go up for Mitt Romney. If you are true millionare and make 70% of income on capital gains then yes it will go up to around 33%.

So if you are a wage or salary worker that invests on the side. Your taxes will not go up on investments because the majority of your income comes from working. However if make a large portion of your living soley on investsments then yes your taxes will go up.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Well the capital gains tax is 15% and after the fiscal cliff deal went up to 20% for those making 400k or more on capital gains.

Yes it would go up for Mitt Romney. If you are true millionare and make 70% of income on capital gains then yes it will go up to around 33%.

So if you are a wage or salary worker that invests on the side. Your taxes will not go up on investments because the majority of your income comes from working. However if make a large portion of your living soley on investsments then yes your taxes will go up.

I really urge you to read this report. In it you will see that between 1999-2007, 50% of the people who reported income over $1m in any given year only did it for one year only. Additionally, those who reported $1m in income, 51% did so via partnerships or S-corps. This suggests that making $1m is more a one time event than having a few select fat cats that are portrayed in the discussion. These are the people that will be hit with that tax. While you mention Mitt Romney, the reality is that it will impact him much less than the retiring store owner who grew her business for 30 years and sells it. She will now get 15% less, that could have better funded his/her retirement.

Who Are America's Millionaires? | Tax Foundation
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
February 14, 2013, 7:43 p.m. ET

Generational Theft Needs to Be Arrested
A Democrat, an independent and a Republican agree: Government spending levels are unsustainable
By GEOFFREY CANADA, STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER AND KEVIN WARSH

We come from different backgrounds, parties and pursuits but are bound by a common belief in the promise and purpose of America. After all, each of us has been the beneficiary of the choices made—and opportunities created—by previous generations of Americans.

One of us grew up poor in the South Bronx of the 1960s and went on to lead a children's antipoverty program in Harlem. Another grew up in a small town in South Jersey, and went on to be a leading money manager. The third grew up in a small suburb in upstate New York and found his way to serve in the government amid the financial crisis.

One of us is a Democrat; one, an independent; another, a Republican. Yet, together, we recognize several hard truths: Government spending levels are unsustainable. Higher taxes, however advisable or not, fail to come close to solving the problem. Discretionary spending must be reduced but without harming the safety net for our most vulnerable, or sacrificing future growth (e.g., research and education). Defense andhomeland security spending should not be immune to reductions. Most consequentially, the growth in spending on entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare—must be curbed.

These truths are not born of some zeal for austerity or unkindness, but of arithmetic. The growing debt burden threatens to crush the next generation of Americans.

Coming out of the most recent elections, no consensus emerged either to reform the welfare state or to pay for it. And too many politicians appear unwilling to level with Americans about the challenges and choices confronting the United States. The failure to be forthright on fiscal policy is doing grievous harm to the country's long-term growth prospects. And the greatest casualties will be young Americans of all stripes who want—and need—an opportunity to succeed.

Three main infirmities plague Washington and constitute a clear and present danger to the prospects for the next generation.

First, the country's existing entitlement programs are not just unaffordable, they are also profoundly unfair to those who are taking their first steps in search of opportunity. Social Security is one example. According to Social Security actuaries, the generational theft runs deep. Young people now entering the workforce will actually lose 4.2% of their total lifetime wages because of their participation in Social Security. A typical third-grader will get back (in present value terms) only 75 cents for every dollar he contributes to Social Security over his lifetime. Meanwhile, many seniors with greater means nearing retirement age will pocket a handsome profit. Health-care spending through Medicare represents an even less equitable story.

The government has an obligation, of course, to support needy seniors. But this pension system is ripe for common-sense reforms, including changing eligibility ages and benefit structures for those with greater means, ridding the Social Security disability program of pervasive fraud, and removing disincentives for those who would rather work in their later years.

Powerful, vested interests portray reformers as avowed enemies of seniors. But, the status quo is, in fact, tantamount to saddling school-age children with more debt, weaker economic growth, and fewer opportunities for jobs and advancement.

Second, while many in Washington pay lip service to the long term, few act on it. The nation's debt clock garners far less attention than the "fiscal cliff" clock. Elected officials continue to allow the immediate to trump the important. Washington appears poised to forego fundamental reform at the altar of the expedient, yet again. This could have tragic consequences.

In successive administrations, the country has spent trillions in temporary tax credits and short-term "stimulus" to goose growth by the next election. What do we have to show for this spending surge? Modest growth, declining incomes and a level of national debt that undermine our long-term prospects.

The Federal Reserve's policies reinforce this short-term orientation. To offset weak economic conditions, the Fed's principal policy objectives appear to be twofold: suppress interest rates and raise stock prices. As a result Congress may be missing market signals and failing to see the costs of its spending addiction in time to undertake real reforms. Ultimately, economic fundamentals—not the promises of central banks—will determine the prices of stocks and bonds.

But the deeper failing is one of essential fairness. The benefits of rising stock prices accrue to those who have already amassed wealth at the expense of those who are struggling to save. And failing to deal with runaway spending will burden the country's children with higher interest rates and a debt bomb that will come due in their lifetimes.

Third, too many politicians appear more eager to divide the spoils of electoral victory among their own than to increase the size of the economic pie for all. The grab-bag of special tax favors under the guise of the recent fiscal-cliff deal is only the latest example.

Crony capitalism and corporate welfare aren't just expenses we cannot afford. They are an anathema to economic growth. They deny opportunities to aspiring people and companies who seek to better their lot. They ration opportunity based on things other than merit and hard work. They further ensure that poor children—who already are disadvantaged by failing schools, inadequate health care and little access to necessary resources—will never get the chance to break the cycle of generational poverty through education.

Some individual Americans are surely better off than they were many years ago. The more probing question is whether America is better off. That can only be true if the hopes and aspirations of the next generation are achievable.

The country must find the courage, conviction and compassion to fix what ails it. The opportunity to advance real reform is still possible. But failure to reform the entitlement culture, reaffirm long-run objectives, and re-establish a common purpose will mean a dimming of opportunities for American children today and for future generations. And a great nation will have ceded more than its greatness, but its goodness.

Mr. Canada is president of the Harlem Children's Zone. Mr. Druckenmiller is the former president of Duquesne Capital. Mr. Warsh is a former Federal Reserve governor.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
I am not going to take credit for that point.

Thom Hartman who I listen to on the radio made that point.

Thom is a very smart outside the box liberal. He is not your typical Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow who liberals that just give the democratic party talking points. He really goes into the philosophy of our constitution.

The concept of government by the people for the people is an important one.

What is the government?

The constitution use phrase like we the people, common defense, and general welfare. The framers envisioned a we society not I got mine so I am good society. While liberals are often petrayed as anti constitution. Yet the John Locke view of government that Thomas Jefferson subscribe too as well is that government is there not only protect but to serve society. Government is there to promote the common good of society as a whole. Being progressive or liberal is basically saying that you believe government is there to serve the needs of society.

Really? When I read the excerpt that your posted it just looked like the same old "liberals are great because we care while conservatives are awful because they hate poor people" boilerplate. I think he'd be right at home with Maddow, Schultz, and the rest of the MSNBC crowd.

Believe it or not, most conservatives believe in individual dignity and freedom. We don't want citizens to become wards of the state any more than we want them to be wards of the corporate world. We don't believe that you should go around with your hand out. Now true need is one thing and those who are hungry, sick, and infirm should be helped. That's the decent thing to do. But it's also decent to encourage people to stand on their own two feet, even if it means that they'll get smacked around by life here and there. Sometimes the best lessons are the hard lessons and shrouding people in the cloak of the ever-expanding state minimizes that. Bottom line, the best things in life are what you worked for and earned, not what got handed to you because someone decided that you are just too weak, too dumb, too underprivileged to do it on your own.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Really? When I read the excerpt that your posted it just looked like the same old "liberals are great because we care while conservatives are awful because they hate poor people" boilerplate. I think he'd be right at home with Maddow, Schultz, and the rest of the MSNBC crowd.

Believe it or not, most conservatives believe in individual dignity and freedom. We don't want citizens to become wards of the state any more than we want them to be wards of the corporate world. We don't believe that you should go around with your hand out. Now true need is one thing and those who are hungry, sick, and infirm should be helped. That's the decent thing to do. But it's also decent to encourage people to stand on their own two feet, even if it means that they'll get smacked around by life here and there. Sometimes the best lessons are the hard lessons and shrouding people in the cloak of the ever-expanding state minimizes that. Bottom line, the best things in life are what you worked for and earned, not what got handed to you because someone decided that you are just too weak, too dumb, too underprivileged to do it on your own.

Hartman actually does not believe in unemployment benefits at least not long term. He believes that everyone needs to seek jobs and if they can't find any the government should be the employer of last resort give people work. However if you chose not seek work then you are on your own. Basically he supports are a constitutional right to a job, something FDR wanted. Only people can not work like disabled people would be able to receive government welfare.

I know this kind of out there for some but that is what I mean by outside the box.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Really? When I read the excerpt that your posted it just looked like the same old "liberals are great because we care while conservatives are awful because they hate poor people" boilerplate. I think he'd be right at home with Maddow, Schultz, and the rest of the MSNBC crowd.

Believe it or not, most conservatives believe in individual dignity and freedom. We don't want citizens to become wards of the state any more than we want them to be wards of the corporate world. We don't believe that you should go around with your hand out. Now true need is one thing and those who are hungry, sick, and infirm should be helped. That's the decent thing to do. But it's also decent to encourage people to stand on their own two feet, even if it means that they'll get smacked around by life here and there. Sometimes the best lessons are the hard lessons and shrouding people in the cloak of the ever-expanding state minimizes that. Bottom line, the best things in life are what you worked for and earned, not what got handed to you because someone decided that you are just too weak, too dumb, too underprivileged to do it on your own.

Sounds good on paper, but in practice people go hungry and can't afford medical treatment. And before I get the argument that nobody is turned away by hospitals, the fact is that MANY don't go to the hospital, even when they are sick or injured because they, too, believe in individual dignity. Conservatives do not have a moral monopoly on being proud or believing deeply in personal responsibility. The situations that many find themselves in give them no other choice than to accept help, no matter how dehumanizing and lowly it makes them feel. It does not help when conservatives' tough love rhetoric dehumanizes them even further. Your post above sounds good -- even reasonable -- in a vacuum, but the real world doens't exist in a vacuum. For many, it exists in crowded, dirty, crime ridden neighborhoods with poorly performing schools full of children of single parents and no current opportunities and none on the horizon. When republicans suggest that these folks should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stand up tall, and go out and make your way in life it comes off as insulting, out of touch and even mean spirited to people who are stuck in terrible circumstances with no prospects of improvement. These people came out in numbers and stood in line for hours to vote against the GOPs self-righteous approach to poverty as well as a slew of other issues in which the GOP looks down on others.
 
Last edited:

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
Hartman actually does not believe in unemployment benefits at least not long term. He believes that everyone needs to seek jobs and if they can't find any the government should be the employer of last resort give people work. However if you chose not seek work then you are on your own. Basically he supports are a constitutional right to a job, something FDR wanted. Only people can not work like disabled people would be able to receive government welfare.

I know this kind of out there for some but that is what I mean by outside the box.

What a great thought! OK we can give everyone in the country a job. Let's have half the population dig holes and the other half fill the holes in. We'll never run out of work! Brilliant!

Productivity be damned; we don't need to create wealth, just jobs.

Awesome outside the box thought...

not
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
We haven't paid one dollar on the principle of the debt since 1960.

So your economists can f*ck themselves. The problem is much bigger than austerity or not.

I got to ask this question. Does the national debt even matter?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
What a great thought! OK we can give everyone in the country a job. Let's have half the population dig holes and the other half fill the holes in. We'll never run out of work! Brilliant!

Productivity be damned; we don't need to create wealth, just jobs.

Awesome outside the box thought...

not

or we could put people to work rebuilding our aging infrastructure, or on manufacturing green technologies that might help reduce our dependency on foreign oil. There are many, many productive things that we could put people to work doing. This isn't a terrible idea, but it isn't a new one either. When FDR did this in the 1930s and early 40s, this country's infrastructure expanded dramatically, improving the productivity of future generations. He wasn't blocked at every turn when he tried things to pull the country out of economic disaster. Unfortunately, today's politicians are more concerned with party than they are with the progress of the country.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I got to ask this question. Does the national debt even matter?

tumblr_lpufthbIvG1qafrh6.gif
 
Top