Quote:

---

"If you're going to extend and add new tax cuts, you should couple them with cuts in spending," the Kentucky Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Instead, we're coupling them with increases in spending, and I think that's the wrong thing to do. So I'd be leaning against voting for it."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:


I not in the hurry to decry divisiveness and/or throw out ill-informed memes about socialism....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Where ARE those fiscally-responsible Repubs, anyway? Oh yeah, that's right... jacking the deficit even higher.

---

No one seems willing to address this one. Hmmm....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

---

Quote:

---

Add to that the monthly demise of another country going bankrupt under European socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The way I see it, the right has no commitment to "fiscal responsibility" at all. "Fiscal responsibility" is just another term for "keeping the wealthy in cash", as are "free enterprise", "freedom", "small government", "accountability", "individualism" and "trickle down economics".

The real, basic motivation behind all of this is that some folks believe that society should be a gladiatorial sport for most, set up by a few very wealthy, on the ridiculous hope that they too might be one of the uber-wealthy tomorrow.

...

Rappy, Jongsstraw, DT, Wulfie, and Geezer. Your basic pro-corporate libertarian who has this notion that if only business could be business (without that pesky government interfering) then everything would be fine with the world. If I think about it longer, I'll come up with more.

---

Quote:

---

The Irish economy shows

The dangers of allowing a boom and bust in bank lending
the difficult of cutting budget deficit in recession. - Measures tend to be self-defeating unless you have some very powerful antidote.
The difficulty of adopting a common monetary policy for an area as diverse as the Eurozone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I just wanted to add... curiously, Rand Paul agrees with me!

Quote:

---

"If you're going to extend and add new tax cuts, you should couple them with cuts in spending," the Kentucky Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Instead, we're coupling them with increases in spending, and I think that's the wrong thing to do. So I'd be leaning against voting for it."

---

So, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

The way I see it, the right has no commitment to "fiscal responsibility" at all. "Fiscal responsibility" is just another term for "keeping the wealthy in cash", as are "free enterprise", "freedom", "small government", "accountability", "individualism" and "trickle down economics".

The real, basic motivation behind all of this is that some folks believe that society should be a gladiatorial sport for most, set up by a few very wealthy, on the ridiculous hope that they too might be one of the uber-wealthy tomorrow ... Rappy, Jongsstraw, DT, Wulfie, and Geezer. Your basic pro-corporate libertarian who has this notion that if only business could be business (without that pesky government interfering) then everything would be fine with the world. If I think about it longer, I'll come up with more.-Signy

And this is about as valid a generalization as saying that all the anti-capitalists here are pathetic losers who can't make it on their own, and want a 'Robin Hood' government that will rob from the rich (meaning anyone who has the drive, ability, and willingness to work hard to make a good living) and give to the deserving poor (meaning them). Because it's just not FAIR. Why should they have to work when other people have already worked for all that money that the government could take from them (since they don't really need or deserve it. Capitalist Swine) and redistribute?-Geezer

---

Quote:

---

I'd say most conservatives would agree w/ Rand here. Lower tax rates work, so long as there's responsible handling of the money the gov gets from the people. It's clear, that those in D.C. , GOP & DEM , cannot control themselves with OUR money. To compare them to drunken sailors is giving drunken sailors a bad name.

We need to cut taxes AND cut spending. Doing only half the job is like making your yacht water tight, but leaving the hatches off. The GOP needs leadership that'll actually do what it says, instead of trying to play footsie w/ the other side, and hoping they'll come to your way of thinking. ( Hello, No Child Left Behind )

---

Quote:

---

Well, let's say that we get rid of nearly all government spending. The poor get poorer. The rich get richer.

---

Quote:

---

Sig, The function of Gov't is not to redistribute the wealth.

---

Quote:

---

And no one of any worth or standing is remotely calling for abolishing all or most government spending. The founding fathers clearly understood that, as vile as government can become, it's still a necessary evil.

---

Quote:

---

Corporations aren't hiring because the economic future is so hazy, thanks in large part to Obama and the Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Projecting false claims of what I'M proposing or what I support doesn't make it true, either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Sig,
The function of Gov't is not to redistribute the wealth.

---

That is not a fact but an opinion. Government's can do all sorts of things, they can own utlilities, run industries, fund programs, housing, healthcare, roads. What you mean, is 'in my opinion, governments should not redistribute wealth'

Quote:

---

Corporations aren't hiring because the economic future is so hazy, thanks in large part to Obama and the Democrats.

---

I'm afraid that you cannot lay the GFC at the feet of Obama or the Democrats, seeing as it manifested itself on the brink of him coming to power and is a world wide phenomenum = albeit caused in the main by the US. You can criticise his handling of it, but it's not his to own.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Government is whatever we choose it to we.

---

Quote:

---

The function of Gov't is not to redistribute the wealth.

---

Quote:

---

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are, so it's not accurate to say "no one of any worth".

---

Quote:

---

In any case, you haven't answered my question: The rich get richer. The middle class gets poorer.

And then what?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Over time, the middle class aren't getting poorer, and more people are doing better, not worse. The US standard of living is still much better than what you'll find across the globe.

---

I'm not sure what you base that on. The US is one of many countries that have a reasonably high standard of living, although you rank 16th on the poverty index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

Most western democracies have a reasonable standard of living, regardless of their political leanings, so its clear that standard of living is about more than government policies. In addition, there are more ways of measuring whether citizens of a country are doing okay than by the GDP, which gives no indication of how that is spread across the population. Standards of happiness and quality of life are some thing different again. As you can see by some of the indexes, the US is usually in the top 20 but it doesn't universely rank no 1 on everything.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-re
alestate-gallup-table.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

I object to this seemingly pervasive view that the US is a beacon of light in a world of darkness. It's kind of ignorant about the rest of the planet and a bit insulting too.

Quote:

---

What next ? How about the return to freedom, for starters. That'd be a nice start. Let folks succeed and flourish on their own.

---

If there existed a time and place where people flourishing was entirely up to individual effort, then I might be able to agree with you. Realistically people flourish when they live in a well resourced, wealthy country that is free from major conflict and if they are lucky enough to have reasonable health, both psychologically and physically, amongst a number of other variables.
Those who believe their status in life is entirely self determined, should consider those people born into poverty and war, and whose concept of being lucky is to survive childhood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Those who believe their status in life is entirely self determined, should consider those people born into poverty and war, and whose concept of being lucky is to survive childhood.

---

Quote:

---

If you think freedom is a catch phrase, then I really have nothing left to say to you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I always thought the Indians saved their pathetic arses.

---

Quote:

---

I say if we have the resources so that everyone can have a basic standard of living, then good. I'd prefer to live in a society where there wasn't a great divide between rich and poor, or a small elite rich dominated a serf class of poor. I'd also prefer not to walk over homeless people, or know that shanty towns existed somewhere near my neighborhood, even if I was well off. But I guess we might differ on that one.

---

Quote:

---

But there's the rub. We DO have those resources, but you can't force folks to live as you wish. We're all individuals. Some can cope and live better than others. Just as in nature, not every thing is exactly the same. Not equal, not 'fair'. We, not being animals, can do better, but we have to choose to do so. Our goals are the same, but you think that we can mandate and throw money at the problem. I don't.

---

Quote:

---

Well, you were on the right path, but then went sideways. Family and communities support each other. NOT the Imperial Federal Gov't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was very specific saying "some" (not "all") and even more specific about the individuals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

communities used to be all there was, in simpler times. They made laws and enforced them too. Life has become more complex and interconnected, as much as we may not like it, we have to deal with the fact that people live in large conurbations, in densely populated countries, in an overpopulated world. Momma's homespun just doesn't fit any more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Hang on here, you want to force people to live the way you see fit. No welfare, no public health, don't know what your views on education and transport, police, libraries and any of the other zillion things that governments contribute to. You want control over the way things are as much as anyone, you just want it differently. Stop deluding yourself about who chooses what for who here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

communities used to be all there was, in simpler times. They made laws and enforced them too. Life has become more complex and interconnected, as much as we may not like it, we have to deal with the fact that people live in large conurbations, in densely populated countries, in an overpopulated world. Momma's homespun just doesn't fit any more.

---

The more you look towards an outside source for your basic existence, the less control you have over your own life. Why folks in New Orleans were looking towards D.C., which is over a 1000 miles away, instead of the state and regional assistance, is part of the problem.

When the quake of 1906 hit San Francisco, the very idea that they NEEDED help from clear across the country was an insult to civic pride.

Now, in the span of a hundred years, our culture has so flipped that not only do we expect the Federal Gov't to come to our aid, we expect them there, IMMEDIATELY , first and foremost !

---

Quote:

---

For my own part, I think it is important to remember that governments enable corporate abuses. If the power of government is attenuated, then the power of corporations is attenuated.

---

Quote:

---

If you think freedom is a catch phrase, then I really have nothing left to say to you.- Rappy

Oh, will you wrap yourself in the flag now? You know what they say about patriotism being the last refuse of the scoundrel, right? Anyway, you use the word "freedom" an awful lot like "capitalism". So, in your view, what is freedom? -Signy

(days later)....

The silence is deafening.-Signy

---

Quote:

---

Over time, the middle class aren't getting poorer, and more people are doing better, not worse. The US standard of living is still much better than what you'll find across the globe.

---

Quote:

---

What next ? How about the return to freedom, for starters. That'd be a nice start. Let folks succeed and flourish on their own.

---

Quote:

---

At the risk of sounding a bit Darwinian, what of it ? I mean, seriously, we don't live in a universe, or a world, we can expect everything simply handed to us, simply because we wish it were so. Life is hard. It takes work. It takes more work to succeed and flourish. And before you go getting all bent out of shape mistaking my position as being one of 'nature , red in tooth and claw', think again.

Best example I can give is the first thanksgiving, the real story. Of how the settlers tried 'communal living', and nearly starved to death. Then, when given their own land, and allowed to keep much of the fruits of their own labor, and they not only survived, but had more than they could enjoy themselves.

---

Quote:

---

But there's the rub. We DO have those resources, but you can't force folks to live as you wish. We're all individuals. Some can cope and live better than others. Just as in nature, not every thing is exactly the same. Not equal, not 'fair'. We, not being animals, can do better, but we have to choose to do so. Our goals are the same, but you think that we can mandate and throw money at the problem. I don't.

---

Quote:

---

The more you look towards an outside source for your basic existence, the less control you have over your own life. Why folks in New Orleans were looking towards D.C., which is over a 1000 miles away, instead of the state and regional assistance, is part of the problem.

---

Quote:

---

I don't know a lot of details about New Orleans only that my thoughts were that there appeared to be a lot more poverty in the US than I was aware and that the way it was dealt with, for whoever was responsible, looked like shite.

---

Quote:

---

Having said that, if people's lives are at risk, then I'd expect any service to attend, local, fed, state... until people are all safe. You analyse it all later and see what worked and what didn't, but if the state authorities are not up to it, then I'd expect the feds to step in to save lives. All citizens of your good country after all.

---

Quote:

---

"those were the days of the robber barons, when men, women and children worked 80 hours a week, or more for pennies under unsafe conditions, homeless roamed the streets, hundreds died in single horrific accidents and tens of thousands died yearly"

---

Quote:

---

"Really, read some history, son. You don't know what you're talking about, and that lets you continue with unrealistic notions."

---

Quote:

---

OK, first of all, your very first sentence negated everything you think is great about capitalism. On the one hand, you say that capitalism is the ultimate meritocracy, where hard work is rewarded by material gain. You believe that hard work SHOULD be rewarded by material gain. The very next thing you say is that hard work is meaningless, and those who are born unfortunate, altho working harder than the fortunate, should be scraped off the bottom of your shoe. Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems a contradiction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I understood Sig just fine, but then, it is Rappy....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The poverty is the result of gov't funded enslavement, if you want to get down to it.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that sounds all well and good, but there are times when no amount of services can take the place of the responsibility of able bodied people , doing for themselves. There are many particulars which were involved w/ the Katrina fiasco, which have been gone over and over, in the past 5 years, which I do not feel the need to rehash here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


This still happens. A large, robust government has not done anything to stop these things. In fact, global trade agreements practically ensure that this continues. Moreover, government won't do anything to stop these things for as long as corporate money fills political coffers. What government has accomplished in this regard is to ensure that this happens out of sight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Rap,

the republican line in the sand was not deficit, it wasn't no more unemployment...it was "give us the tax breaks for the rich, or else."

---

Quote:

---

That was the one issue that they wouldn't budge on, and they were quite willing to compromise on anything else to get it. 250,000 was too low, 1,000,000 was too low. You can say this is because they care about "small" business...hah...or they believe that this is what will stimulate the economy. You can say this...inspite of the fact that even while corporations are still posting record profits, they are hoarding more and more and spending less on creating jobs, kind of suggesting that having the money isn't the issue...having less and less competition is. The Republicans are insistant on keeping the playing field sloped...drastically. I'm not sure how else you can read this...but then, in some constructs, 2+2 can equal 5, so...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I think you are wrong in your assumption that government never makes laws that prevent employment exploitation just because companies and corporations are clever enough to continue to find ways of exploiting people for reasons of profit."

Hello,

It does not take a great deal of cleverness to outwit the government. These kinds of exploitations continue for three reasons:

1) Corporations use their dollars to support politicians who support them.

2) Politicians hence refuse to enact the simple laws that would prevent such abuses.

3) The average consumer cares more about affordable consumer products than they do about exploited workers.

In the third category, most people are complicit, including myself. In the end, the consumer only insisted on labor protection for people in the country. Even then, such protections are spotty, as most immigrant laborers can relate.

It's important to realize that the U.S. government is not just in charge of the U.S. government, but also helps to set international standards of trade. Those standards are set partially to ensure the influx of cheap goods made by exploited labor in unhealthful conditions. We have an interest in maintaining an exploited labor force beyond our borders.

--Anthony


Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

---