the S word

[joflier]

Date: 9/15/2008 11:22:58 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 9/15/2008 10:59:07 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/15/2008 10:26:44 PM
Author: beebrisk

Personally, I don''t want to have to rely on the government. I do not want them making these decisions for me. They do not know what is best for me. I do.

Do you feel this way about social issues as well?

I know this question wasn''t for me - but I''m going to answer (for myself) anyway and say yes. I''m a fiscally conservative Republican - I don''t want the government telling me how to spend my money or spending my money for me. I know what is best for me. Regarding social issues - I don''t feel it is any of the government''s business if I choose to have an abortion (I never have, and never plan to), it isn''t any of the government''s business if I choose to marry someone of the same sex (I''m already married - to a man), and it isn''t any of the government''s business (as a law abiding citizen) how many or what types of guns I choose to own (I don''t own any).

Ditto that

 

[diamondfan]

I have issues with the slow chipping away of things in a free country, so that is slowly becomes less about choice and more about dictated issues.

I have no issue paying taxes, but to be frank, as I have stated before, there are other options out there and trimming some fat and being a bit more careful about certain things are important.

I really do not wish to have MORE of my money taken under the guise of the overall betterment, when it is really not benefiting.

I would hate to end up living in a place where merit and ability and achievement are not important or rewarded, as to me, it ceases to motivate people to go forth and accomplish things if all people are reduced to a common denominator. No one should die of starvation in this land of plenty, no one should be without decent medical care, but some people do work harder than others and have drives and ambitions that are lacking in some people, and all it will do is cause them to stop trying.

 

[miraclesrule]

Personally, I would love to see and America where we cared more about education and health so that they could spend less money on machines that perpetuate violence,massacres, and killing. The war machine, defense industry, whatever name you have to put on it...(which is now being outsourced to Blackwater and the likes, so we the citizens can have an even harder time tracing the money) and we still can't find the one person we have spent gazillions of dollars trying to find...what's the point?

So, if you don't want a government to have any money to build and maintain infrastructure, safety and education, how would we thrive? I am trying to grasp how either party can solve the majority of American concerns. It appears most people are fiscally conservative, but recognize that not everyone sails through life and needs assistance (mainly because we don't build our social structure in a way that would reduce that need).

America needs to be blessed alright. Because we are living in a bubble that has popped. We are going to be the laughing stock and not the leader of the free world, if we don't get our heads and our hearts out of our moral ignorant judgmental arse.

ETA: I totally wasn't talking to you DFan, this was just a public service vent from yours truly...

 

[joflier]

Date: 9/16/2008 12:13:24 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Personally, I would love to see and America where we cared more about education and health so that they could spend less money on machines that perpetuate violence,massacres, and killing. The war machine, defense industry, whatever name you have to put on it...(which is now being outsourced to Blackwater and the likes, so we the citizens can have an even harder time tracing the money) and we still can''t find the one person we have spent gazillions of dollars trying to find...what''s the point?

So, if you don''t want a government to have any money to build and maintain infrastructure, safety and education, how would we thrive? I am trying to grasp how either party can solve the majority of American concerns. It appears most people are fiscally conservative, but recognize that not everyone sails through life and needs assistance (mainly because we don''t build our social structure in a way that would reduce that need).

America needs to be blessed alright. Because we are living in a bubble that has popped. We are going to be the laughing stock and not the leader of the free world, if we don''t get our heads and our hearts out of our moral ignorant judgmental arse.

ETA: I totally wasn''t talking to you DFan, this was just a public service vent from yours truly...

Sadly, I think that we already are. The chinese are laughing all the way to the bank (with our debt).

 

[HollyS]

Socialism has never been fully realized in the modern world? What constitutes the modern world to you; the 21st century? In historical terms, the modern world encompasses many decades, generations, and at least a century plus. There are quite a few examples of socialism within that time frame. Certainly, Cuba''s ''experiment'' in this first cousin to communism is an example that hasn''t quite reached the half century mark.

We (conservatives) are concerned about Obama''s ideas because he espouses socialist values. It all sounds so nice and caring to take money from the richest to give to the poorest; but it is socialism. He wants you (if you pay for your own insurance) to also pay for someone else''s because "why shouldn''t I be willing to pay for the one next to me that cannot afford it?" (His own words; I''m quoting directly from an interview). This is socialism. You take from those who have, and you redistribute to everyone equally. Sounds so egalitarian, doesn''t it? Except it never works. There are no ''working'' examples, past or present, that would lead us to believe that socialism is a good thing.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 9/16/2008 12:37:15 AM
Author: HollyS
Socialism has never been fully realized in the modern world? What constitutes the modern world to you; the 21st century? In historical terms, the modern world encompasses many decades, generations, and at least a century plus. There are quite a few examples of socialism within that time frame. Certainly, Cuba's 'experiment' in this first cousin to communism is an example that hasn't quite reached the half century mark.

We (conservatives) are concerned about Obama's ideas because he espouses socialist values. It all sounds so nice and caring to take money from the richest to give to the poorest; but it is socialism. He wants you (if you pay for your own insurance) to also pay for someone else's because 'why shouldn't I be willing to pay for the one next to me that cannot afford it?' (His own words; I'm quoting directly from an interview). This is socialism. You take from those who have, and you redistribute to everyone equally. Sounds so egalitarian, doesn't it? Except it never works. There are no 'working' examples, past or present, that would lead us to believe that socialism is a good thing.

Actually, it sounds a lot like a family unit... with a SAHM who relies on her husbands paycheck and job, assuming the economy still has the ability to create jobs and not send them all to China as joflier so aptly pointed out(or India, etc) In the family analogy, it would be like taking the family money as say Elliot Spitzer did, and instead of using it for the security of his family, he blew it on a mistress or pleasurable pursuit (sex) so that he could gain a short term "fix" over a long term gain. Except, of course, we are talking about our country and our communities, which of course, consist of families.

 

[joflier]

Date: 9/16/2008 1:04:46 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 9/16/2008 12:37:15 AM
Author: HollyS
Socialism has never been fully realized in the modern world? What constitutes the modern world to you; the 21st century? In historical terms, the modern world encompasses many decades, generations, and at least a century plus. There are quite a few examples of socialism within that time frame. Certainly, Cuba''s ''experiment'' in this first cousin to communism is an example that hasn''t quite reached the half century mark.

We (conservatives) are concerned about Obama''s ideas because he espouses socialist values. It all sounds so nice and caring to take money from the richest to give to the poorest; but it is socialism. He wants you (if you pay for your own insurance) to also pay for someone else''s because ''why shouldn''t I be willing to pay for the one next to me that cannot afford it?'' (His own words; I''m quoting directly from an interview). This is socialism. You take from those who have, and you redistribute to everyone equally. Sounds so egalitarian, doesn''t it? Except it never works. There are no ''working'' examples, past or present, that would lead us to believe that socialism is a good thing.

Actually, it sounds a lot like a family unit... with a SAHM who relies on her husbands paycheck and job, assuming the economy still has the ability to create jobs and not send them all to China as joflier so aptly pointed out(or India, etc) In the family analogy, it would be like taking the family money as say Elliot Spitzer did, and instead of using it for the security of his family, he blew it on a mistress or pleasurable pursuit (sex) so that he could gain a short term ''fix'' over a long term gain. Except, of course, we are talking about our country and our communities, which of course, consist of families.

Not saying this in a snarky way.....but, I''d like to see my money go to my own family. And your(you meaning whomever, not you personally) money go to you and your family''s needs. I''m a big believer in self sufficiency.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

I have a different take. My parents and most of the people I grew up with would be the ones extra taxed and frankly, we are ok with that if it is helping people in need. We came from poor stock and did well and because of that, we know what it is to help people. My father''s a copper miner''s son and he worked very hard to get where he is. If he is willing to pay more in taxes having earned his money, I don''t see how people out of that tax bracket have any cause for complaint. My first BF is now a storm chaser, he is also the son of a man who has been on the fobes richest list. His family came from nothing and invented hot pockets and frankly, I think the teachers who work hard by don''t get paid squat deserve the money a lot more than they did.

I work very hard but my health insurance comes through the school I teach at and doesn''t cover my meds. I hadn''t been paid yet due to an error in the system so I didn''t have a lot for the meds which cost well over $100 a month. I NEED those pills to survive, but were it not for me begging my well off parents, I would have gone without until my paycheck problem was fixed. It is not so bad for me, but what about my BFF or my FI? Their families have very little money and couldn''t help them. This isn''t a problem in socialist countries like Germany, France, etc. I tried to explain to some German friends that people in the US can and do die from the lack of medical treatment because they cannot pay and they were aghast. It truely never occured to them an industrial country could be so heartlerss as to abandon the people most in need of their help.

Or how about this, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html? This does not happen in socialist contries, only in the US.

Asfor the slippery slope of losing rights, I would say the far right took FAR more of our rights away with the patriot act. I can be put in jail for the rest of my life without a trial, charges, lawyer or due process because the government says so, that''s scary.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 9/16/2008 2:08:18 AM
Author: joflier

Date: 9/16/2008 1:04:46 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 9/16/2008 12:37:15 AM
Author: HollyS
Socialism has never been fully realized in the modern world? What constitutes the modern world to you; the 21st century? In historical terms, the modern world encompasses many decades, generations, and at least a century plus. There are quite a few examples of socialism within that time frame. Certainly, Cuba''s ''experiment'' in this first cousin to communism is an example that hasn''t quite reached the half century mark.

We (conservatives) are concerned about Obama''s ideas because he espouses socialist values. It all sounds so nice and caring to take money from the richest to give to the poorest; but it is socialism. He wants you (if you pay for your own insurance) to also pay for someone else''s because ''why shouldn''t I be willing to pay for the one next to me that cannot afford it?'' (His own words; I''m quoting directly from an interview). This is socialism. You take from those who have, and you redistribute to everyone equally. Sounds so egalitarian, doesn''t it? Except it never works. There are no ''working'' examples, past or present, that would lead us to believe that socialism is a good thing.

Actually, it sounds a lot like a family unit... with a SAHM who relies on her husbands paycheck and job, assuming the economy still has the ability to create jobs and not send them all to China as joflier so aptly pointed out(or India, etc) In the family analogy, it would be like taking the family money as say Elliot Spitzer did, and instead of using it for the security of his family, he blew it on a mistress or pleasurable pursuit (sex) so that he could gain a short term ''fix'' over a long term gain. Except, of course, we are talking about our country and our communities, which of course, consist of families.

Not saying this in a snarky way.....but, I''d like to see my money go to my own family. And your(you meaning whomever, not you personally) money go to you and your family''s needs. I''m a big believer in self sufficiency.

Oh, I am too. I am a single mom who raised my child all by myself without any support or college education. But I am fortunate. I wasn''t the single child of two parents who died in a car accident and had no extended family and had to go into foster care just to be abandoned at age 18 by the state that didn''t prepare you for life on your own. (I know all about this because I volunteered for kids that this did happen to) I didn''t contract a fatal disease. I wasn''t born with a mental or physical disability. Although I was born into a family where my mother had to raise 4 children on her own with the help of public assistance while she also worked full time to pay for a roof over our head, I thrived. But most Americans are fortunate, yet without sustainable and meaningful education, health care and community, a society will ultimately collapse. Unfortunately, accidents in life happen. My friend was rendered a quadraplegic after a roll over accident in a Ford Explorer, and he is an amazing individual even after that changed his life forever, but does that mean as a society we caste them out into a ditch because they cannot be self sufficient in the way that you and I can be? It''s not that simple, although I certainly wish it was. As Forrest Gump says "S*&t happens".

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/16/2008 2:27:10 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Oh, I am too. I am a single mom who raised my child all by myself without any support or college education. But I am fortunate. I wasn''t the single child of two parents who died in a car accident and had no extended family and had to go into foster care just to be abandoned at age 18 by the state that didn''t prepare you for life on your own. (I know all about this because I volunteered for kids that this did happen to) I didn''t contract a fatal disease. I wasn''t born with a mental or physical disability. Although I was born into a family where my mother had to raise 4 children on her own with the help of public assistance while she also worked full time to pay for a roof over our head, I thrived. But most Americans are fortunate, yet without sustainable and meaningful education, health care and community, a society will ultimately collapse. Unfortunately, accidents in life happen. My friend was rendered a quadraplegic after a roll over accident in a Ford Explorer, and he is an amazing individual even after that changed his life forever, but does that mean as a society we caste them out into a ditch because they cannot be self sufficient in the way that you and I can be? It''s not that simple, although I certainly wish it was. As Forrest Gump says ''S*&t happens''.

First congrates for dealing with your situation and raising your child. Bravo.
Second I am all for helping those in need.
But the government makes such a mess of it it isn''t funny.
The current system is broke.
The ones that really need the help often don''t get it and those that don''t deserve it are getting it.
I am all for providing:
Disability for those disabled. I would double the amount paid if I could.
Food for those that are hungry.
Medical help to those that need it, especially medical help to those that need it to get back to work after an injury which the current system fails very badly.
Housing help to those that need it.

What I do not and will never support is the welfare lifestyle to those of sound mind and body.

I also know from personal experience that the government does a very bad job of delivering all of the above.
I believe that private charities carefully monitored could and currently do a much better job.
They need to be audited to keep the crooks at bay and carefully watched but they could do it much better than the federal and state government do.

IL spent millions and millions setting up the link program and it doesn''t work 1/2 the time. (food stamp card that works like a credit card)
They would have been much better off partnering with Visa or MasterCard who is skilled at providing that type of service.
Taking all the money each state spent on setting up its own system and instead using one system set up by a company skilled in those systems would have left 100s of millions of dollars in the system to actually help people.

 

[strmrdr]

Another example:
A really successful local homeless program.
They were getting about 10% of their funding from hud.
They sat down and figured out how much the hud requirements that have nothing to do with directly helping people was costing them.
12% yes 12% of the total expenditures.

 

[miraclesrule]

I agree with you storm...

It''s a lot like what I deal with everyday in my career. The insurance companies pay the meritless claims that they should be disputing and could prevail if they weren''t incompetent and experienced, yet deny the truly legitimate claims that cause unnecessary delays and costs of litigation. It''s maddening.

If one is vigilant, it is not that difficult to differentiate the difference between the two. Yet, I have to fight this day in and day out to keep our company strong so that it can continue to provide jobs. And the saddest part is that the majority of my companies workforce is between the ages of 85 and 90. Many of them work because they need the social aspect and need to feel a sense of purpose and community. Sadly, many of them work because it is a necessity to meet their basic needs.

Again, it is all in the design of the programs and the diligence that it takes to root out fraud and help those that truly need it. Unfortunately, as decades go by, I am witness to the fact that it gets worse and becomes an exercise in mindless processing vs. thoughtful management. It seems we have systematically dummied down America. I wish I could wave a magic wand and fix it, but it may be beyond repair. The sides are so polarized that they refuse to budge and recognize that there can be a win-win if they allocate the resources properly and enforce the checks and balances intended to prevent abuse.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 9/16/2008 1:04:46 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 9/16/2008 12:37:15 AM

Author: HollyS

Socialism has never been fully realized in the modern world? What constitutes the modern world to you; the 21st century? In historical terms, the modern world encompasses many decades, generations, and at least a century plus. There are quite a few examples of socialism within that time frame. Certainly, Cuba''s ''experiment'' in this first cousin to communism is an example that hasn''t quite reached the half century mark.


We (conservatives) are concerned about Obama''s ideas because he espouses socialist values. It all sounds so nice and caring to take money from the richest to give to the poorest; but it is socialism. He wants you (if you pay for your own insurance) to also pay for someone else''s because ''why shouldn''t I be willing to pay for the one next to me that cannot afford it?'' (His own words; I''m quoting directly from an interview). This is socialism. You take from those who have, and you redistribute to everyone equally. Sounds so egalitarian, doesn''t it? Except it never works. There are no ''working'' examples, past or present, that would lead us to believe that socialism is a good thing.

Actually, it sounds a lot like a family unit... with a SAHM who relies on her husbands paycheck and job, assuming the economy still has the ability to create jobs and not send them all to China as joflier so aptly pointed out(or India, etc) In the family analogy, it would be like taking the family money as say Elliot Spitzer did, and instead of using it for the security of his family, he blew it on a mistress or pleasurable pursuit (sex) so that he could gain a short term ''fix'' over a long term gain. Except, of course, we are talking about our country and our communities, which of course, consist of families.

...Yes, it *sounds* like a family but it''s not. Socialism (as conceived by Karl Marx and executed by Castro and others) always *sounds* egalitarian, but it''s not. It is simply a way for the government, the state, to control YOU and YOUR family.

Socialism throughout history has done absolutely nothing but oppress the very people it claims to help. Cuba, China and North Korea are real utopias, huh??

I do NOT want to live in a society where the government has that kind of control of my life. Over the last 200+ years, our men have DIED to keep us from Socialism and all the other "isms" that separate the FREE United States from much of the rest of the world.

Let''s look at it on a smaller scale: The government has had control over our Social Security for 60+ years now and see how well they''ve done with THAT??

Imagine that on a larger --much larger-- scale.

I don''t know about you, but I find the idea of that, chilling.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

My issue with the redistribution of wealth and taxation has to do with:

1-the definition of "weath" who defines it and where does his/her/their allegiance align
and
2-my tax dollars going towards fraud-ridden antiquated social programs. Why should my hard earned lower-middle-class money go to people driving range rovers on welfare? The system is broken and is too full of fraud for me to be 100% confortable with throwing more money into it. I''m fine with paying taxes to build and maintain roads, defend our country (when it needs defending) and to assist in providing education (higher ed as well), but not social programs that have been proven broken time and time again. I strongly believe that a good portion of the people reaping the benefits of our social programs do NOT need it. They''re parasites on the system and I resent that more than I resent multi-billionaires being taxed at a 16% level. Don''t take MY hard earned money, when I live paycheck to paycheck and tell me YOU need it more when I see you driving around in a range rover with more bling than Cartier.

This is coming from someone who barely makes $40k in a metropolitan area of the US.

I support less government involvement and transparency in how our government uses our tax money. I want to see the budget at the start of the year and I want to see where we end up number-wise at the end of the year. As someone else said previously. Our government was created FOR the people, BY the people. Not the other way around. The government answers to ME, I don''t answer to IT.

 

[mimzy]

fully realized socialism doesn''t go hand in hand with dictatorship - has cuba, north korea, etc had both? yes, but that doesn''t mean that it has to be that way. look at sweden, norway, etc. those are still democratic countries. we still have a serious system of checks and balances in this country that would never allow for us to get to a point where we had no rights; there is always going to be a counterforce to any political or economic system, so even if one were implemented, i don''t believe that the others pushing against it would ever let up.

besides, like i asked earlier, do you really think that one man could do that to the USA in FOUR years?

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Uh...not to state the obvious, but look what Bush did in 4-8 years in office....

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/16/2008 8:17:17 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Uh...not to state the obvious, but look what Bush did in 4-8 years in office....

i know that the country is in rough shape, but i would hardly compare it to that of cuba or n.korea.

and his mess was made mostly due to bad foreign policy, etc. the changes obama wants to make would be subject to several more checks than the ones bush did. and as long as we are on the subject, does it look like the bush tax cuts did the country a lot of good? because this IS the alternative.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I think the concern is not with the US really turning into a socialist society (in the bad sense), but more about setting a precident that we allow extremes from either side socialist or capitalist to take the reigns (sp?). The term "everything in moderation" can be applied to nutrition, the government, and the economy. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I view the O-man's views as being well intended, but possibly too much of a good thing. But I can acknowledge that on the other side as well. That's why I vote for more transparency in how the government uses the money I give them. I can survive at my currect tax level, I don't *need* a cut. But I want to know that those dollars are going to help our country and not be used irresponsibly on antiquated policy and programs.

 

[joflier]

Date: 9/16/2008 2:27:10 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Oh, I am too. I am a single mom who raised my child all by myself without any support or college education. But I am fortunate. I wasn''t the single child of two parents who died in a car accident and had no extended family and had to go into foster care just to be abandoned at age 18 by the state that didn''t prepare you for life on your own. (I know all about this because I volunteered for kids that this did happen to) I didn''t contract a fatal disease. I wasn''t born with a mental or physical disability. Although I was born into a family where my mother had to raise 4 children on her own with the help of public assistance while she also worked full time to pay for a roof over our head, I thrived. But most Americans are fortunate, yet without sustainable and meaningful education, health care and community, a society will ultimately collapse. Unfortunately, accidents in life happen. My friend was rendered a quadraplegic after a roll over accident in a Ford Explorer, and he is an amazing individual even after that changed his life forever, but does that mean as a society we caste them out into a ditch because they cannot be self sufficient in the way that you and I can be? It''s not that simple, although I certainly wish it was. As Forrest Gump says ''S*&t happens''.

Kudos to you for taking care of yourself and your child. And I agree, that there are a lot of well deserving people that have met with unfortunate circumstance that do need assistance. I have no problem with that at all. Its needed, without a doubt. But it comes down to, where do you draw the line? There are so many people that, like Karl said, are of sound mind and body and are more than content to take handouts. And just listening to Obama speak, I feel like he is fanning the fire for the people that have that entitlement mentality. Our system is broke, but is making it bigger going to help the problem? I have no idea, but my thought is that no, its only going to create a bigger problem.
DH and I do a lot with real estate and rental properties, serveral of them being low income/gov assistance families. And it just saddens me to see the way some people take advantage of our system.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 9/16/2008 10:23:49 AM
Author: joflier

Date: 9/16/2008 2:27:10 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Oh, I am too. I am a single mom who raised my child all by myself without any support or college education. But I am fortunate. I wasn''t the single child of two parents who died in a car accident and had no extended family and had to go into foster care just to be abandoned at age 18 by the state that didn''t prepare you for life on your own. (I know all about this because I volunteered for kids that this did happen to) I didn''t contract a fatal disease. I wasn''t born with a mental or physical disability. Although I was born into a family where my mother had to raise 4 children on her own with the help of public assistance while she also worked full time to pay for a roof over our head, I thrived. But most Americans are fortunate, yet without sustainable and meaningful education, health care and community, a society will ultimately collapse. Unfortunately, accidents in life happen. My friend was rendered a quadraplegic after a roll over accident in a Ford Explorer, and he is an amazing individual even after that changed his life forever, but does that mean as a society we caste them out into a ditch because they cannot be self sufficient in the way that you and I can be? It''s not that simple, although I certainly wish it was. As Forrest Gump says ''S*&t happens''.

Kudos to you for taking care of yourself and your child. And I agree, that there are a lot of well deserving people that have met with unfortunate circumstance that do need assistance. I have no problem with that at all. Its needed, without a doubt. But it comes down to, where do you draw the line? There are so many people that, like Karl said, are of sound mind and body and are more than content to take handouts. And just listening to Obama speak, I feel like he is fanning the fire for the people that have that entitlement mentality. Our system is broke, but is making it bigger going to help the problem? I have no idea, but my thought is that no, its only going to create a bigger problem.
DH and I do a lot with real estate and rental properties, serveral of them being low income/gov assistance families. And it just saddens me to see the way some people take advantage of our system.

Just like there will always be a few guilty people who will be found innocent. Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man convicted. Again, you can''t let the few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. Eat them first, so you can enjoy the rest.

I think it''s unfair to continue to use the dictatorships and call them socialism. They are nothing alike. In fact, we are nearing a dictatorship in this country and because it is happening so slowly, the populace doesn''t even know it. The Patriot Act was childs play is stripping our civil liberties. The ability for the President to name me an enemy combatant because I referred to him as a Bozo could land me in a prison without representative for 3 years. Wake up, if that isn''t well into the throes of a dictatorship what is? They already suck me dry with taxation. Why is it not highway robbery to take greater % of taxes from middle class than they do for those in the highest tax bracket, yet when we discuss the opposite situation, it becomes robbing Peter to pay Paul? We have been robbing Paul so that a lot more Peters are even wealthier than ever.

If anyone buys into the fact that Democrats always want to make government bigger and the Republicans don''t, then they haven''t seen the government at work. They are two sides of the same coin, except when it comes to protecting civil liberties and the priorities for the government budget. If you love war and warmongering and are itchy for a fight, look back at each Republican presidency for the last two decades, or more even, even before 9/11 (and that could have been prevented). Personally, it''s a pipe dream if you think that one day our governmental system will be dismantled and purged of a lot of waste. If my tax dollars have to go somewhere, I would rather they go to help a single Mom who didn''t get an abortion or who had a husband killed by a drunk driver (like my aunt ) and help them survive. I would much rather do that with my money than go to war under a pretense that every country is just about ready to strike so we get to strike first, kill tons of innocent people. Tell everyone that they were a threat, even when the evidence proves they weren''t, they just didn''t live their lives the way America World Police believe they should. It sickens me that my money is being used that way. I personally think it should sicken a lot more Americans. It certainly sickens a lot of other nations. We are losing allies left and right. Make War not Love.... It makes no sense to me.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 9/16/2008 11:05:16 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 9/16/2008 10:23:49 AM
Author: joflier

Date: 9/16/2008 2:27:10 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Oh, I am too. I am a single mom who raised my child all by myself without any support or college education. But I am fortunate. I wasn't the single child of two parents who died in a car accident and had no extended family and had to go into foster care just to be abandoned at age 18 by the state that didn't prepare you for life on your own. (I know all about this because I volunteered for kids that this did happen to) I didn't contract a fatal disease. I wasn't born with a mental or physical disability. Although I was born into a family where my mother had to raise 4 children on her own with the help of public assistance while she also worked full time to pay for a roof over our head, I thrived. But most Americans are fortunate, yet without sustainable and meaningful education, health care and community, a society will ultimately collapse. Unfortunately, accidents in life happen. My friend was rendered a quadraplegic after a roll over accident in a Ford Explorer, and he is an amazing individual even after that changed his life forever, but does that mean as a society we caste them out into a ditch because they cannot be self sufficient in the way that you and I can be? It's not that simple, although I certainly wish it was. As Forrest Gump says 'S*&t happens'.

Kudos to you for taking care of yourself and your child. And I agree, that there are a lot of well deserving people that have met with unfortunate circumstance that do need assistance. I have no problem with that at all. Its needed, without a doubt. But it comes down to, where do you draw the line? There are so many people that, like Karl said, are of sound mind and body and are more than content to take handouts. And just listening to Obama speak, I feel like he is fanning the fire for the people that have that entitlement mentality. Our system is broke, but is making it bigger going to help the problem? I have no idea, but my thought is that no, its only going to create a bigger problem.
DH and I do a lot with real estate and rental properties, serveral of them being low income/gov assistance families. And it just saddens me to see the way some people take advantage of our system.

Just like there will always be a few guilty people who will be found innocent. Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man convicted. Again, you can't let the few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. Eat them first, so you can enjoy the rest.

I think it's unfair to continue to use the dictatorships and call them socialism. They are nothing alike. In fact, we are nearing a dictatorship in this country and because it is happening so slowly, the populace doesn't even know it. The Patriot Act was childs play is stripping our civil liberties. The ability for the President to name me an enemy combatant because I referred to him as a Bozo could land me in a prison without representative for 3 years. Wake up, if that isn't well into the throes of a dictatorship what is? They already suck me dry with taxation. Why is it not highway robbery to take greater % of taxes from middle class than they do for those in the highest tax bracket, yet when we discuss the opposite situation, it becomes robbing Peter to pay Paul? We have been robbing Paul so that a lot more Peters are even wealthier than ever.

If anyone buys into the fact that Democrats always want to make government bigger and the Republicans don't, then they haven't seen the government at work. They are two sides of the same coin, except when it comes to protecting civil liberties and the priorities for the government budget. If you love war and warmongering and are itchy for a fight, look back at each Republican presidency for the last two decades, or more even, even before 9/11 (and that could have been prevented). Personally, it's a pipe dream if you think that one day our governmental system will be dismantled and purged of a lot of waste. If my tax dollars have to go somewhere, I would rather they go to help a single Mom who didn't get an abortion or who had a husband killed by a drunk driver (like my aunt ) and help them survive. I would much rather do that with my money than go to war under a pretense that every country is just about ready to strike so we get to strike first, kill tons of innocent people. Tell everyone that they were a threat, even when the evidence proves they weren't, they just didn't live their lives the way America World Police believe they should. It sickens me that my money is being used that way. I personally think it should sicken a lot more Americans. It certainly sickens a lot of other nations. We are losing allies left and right. Make War not Love.... It makes no sense to me.

Miracles, you are absolutely right that we don't see how large our government has become because our civil liberties are taken away so slowly. When I was in college I would often to go the library of congress and read the debates they had over things like the income tax when it was first enacted (which at the time was 1%--even the democtrats agreed that 2% would "destroy" the economy). The real debate, however, was that it gave the government the POWER to tax our incomes...how much was somewhat irrelevant. The conservatives at the time believed this was unconstitutional and infringed on the right to one's own property. Anyway, my point is that we've come a long way--now the government tells us where we can smoke, force us to wear seatbelts, force us to apply for a permit to own a firearm...all these little things that are enacted on the basis of "fear" and chip away at our civil liberties.

Socialism is the exact opposite of what I believe in. I haven't always been a libertarian--I used to intern for lobbyist firms on K Street, haha! It wasn't until I really dived into our constitution and believed that freedom--not just to my own property, but to my rights and civil liberties--was what this country was founded on. What the revolutionists were willing to die for. And we let it slip through our fingers with every presidency.

ETA: I know that Obama is often referred to as a socialist--and he does have strong socialist ties (joined a Marxist group in Chicago, was endorced by the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America, campaigned for socialist senator Bernie Sanders of VT). I realize that many support his tax policy, but I can't understand the appeal. The top 1% of tax payers pay more than the bottom 90%. People talk about tax "breaks" for the wealthy--a break?!

They already shoulder the entire fiscal burden! In my opinion, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be argument enough for a flat tax. The fact that the wealthy (which I will never be) are taxed so heavily seems blatently unconstitutional to me.

 

[joflier]

Date: 9/16/2008 11:37:18 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Miracles, you are absolutely right that we don''t see how large our government has become because our civil liberties are taken away so slowly. When I was in college I would often to go the library of congress and read the debates they had over things like the income tax when it was first enacted (which at the time was 1%--even the democtrats agreed that 2% would ''destroy'' the economy). The real debate, however, was that it gave the government the POWER to tax our incomes...how much was somewhat irrelevant. The conservatives at the time believed this was unconstitutional and infringed on the right to one''s own property. Anyway, my point is that we''ve come a long way--now the government tells us where we can smoke, force us to wear seatbelts, force us to apply for a permit to own a firearm...all these little things that are enacted on the basis of ''fear'' and chip away at our civil liberties.

Socialism is the exact opposite of what I believe in. I haven''t always been a libertarian--I used to intern for lobbyist firms on K Street, haha! It wasn''t until I really dived into our constitution and believed that freedom--not just to my own property, but to my rights and civil liberties--was what this country was founded on. What the revolutionists were willing to die for. And we let it slip through our fingers with every presidency.

Sad but true. There aren''t too many true constitunionalists (in government) anymore. That was one of the things I liked about Ron Paul. Although he had a few radical ideas, he was definately a constitutionalist!

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 9/16/2008 11:42:59 AM
Author: joflier

Date: 9/16/2008 11:37:18 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Miracles, you are absolutely right that we don''t see how large our government has become because our civil liberties are taken away so slowly. When I was in college I would often to go the library of congress and read the debates they had over things like the income tax when it was first enacted (which at the time was 1%--even the democtrats agreed that 2% would ''destroy'' the economy). The real debate, however, was that it gave the government the POWER to tax our incomes...how much was somewhat irrelevant. The conservatives at the time believed this was unconstitutional and infringed on the right to one''s own property. Anyway, my point is that we''ve come a long way--now the government tells us where we can smoke, force us to wear seatbelts, force us to apply for a permit to own a firearm...all these little things that are enacted on the basis of ''fear'' and chip away at our civil liberties.

Socialism is the exact opposite of what I believe in. I haven''t always been a libertarian--I used to intern for lobbyist firms on K Street, haha! It wasn''t until I really dived into our constitution and believed that freedom--not just to my own property, but to my rights and civil liberties--was what this country was founded on. What the revolutionists were willing to die for. And we let it slip through our fingers with every presidency.

Sad but true. There aren''t too many true constitunionalists (in government) anymore. That was one of the things I liked about Ron Paul. Although he had a few radical ideas, he was definately a constitutionalist!

I know, and I live in Boston and find it disheartening that the same city that once had a tea party to protest taxes is now so eager to give up all rights to their property.

 

[movie zombie]

thanks for the label , Karl/Storm.

i agree that both parties are corporatists.

with the errosion of civil liberties and loss of habeus corpus during the course of the current administration, when does corporatism become fascism?


movie zombie

 

[partgypsy]

There are many ways a society can slide into trouble, on both sides, and feel fortunate I was born in the United States. We have many many things going for us. That said there was someone smart who said that democracy was a delicate thing. We have already discussed some dangers, one being the power of corporations, which have many of the rights of individuals but not the responsibilities. Having visited a country (in South America) that was a dictatorship, my simple rule if we are doing ok, having an equitable tax code, balancing the rights and freedoms along with protecting the more vunerable citizens, is whether our society promotes a thriving middle class. It seems countries I don''t want to live in (whether socialist or dictactorship) have lost their middle class so there is a large poor class and a very tiny wealthy class. If a tax code allows the middle class to succeed, thrive and prosper, I am all for it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/16/2008 1:13:25 PM
Author: movie zombie
thanks for the label , Karl/Storm.


i agree that both parties are corporatists.


with the errosion of civil liberties and loss of habeus corpus during the course of the current administration, when does corporatism become fascism?



movie zombie

When the people lose the 4 boxes of freedom and we are very close:
the jury box: gone! The jury can not be informed of their right to judge the law as well as the defendant if your allowed to have a jury or even a trial.

the ballot box: Gone! the government controls who gets on it and hanging chads and compromised voting machines.

the soapbox: close to gone: permits to assemble in public, free speech zones where one can only talk under the guns and behind the fences of the jbt's.
The web is a bright spot for now but is under attack.


cartridge box: close to gone: anti-gun laws, taxes and permits.

The founding fathers would not have stood for any of the above.

Both parties are just as guilty as the other in enacting the above.

 

[Odilia]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:14:37 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/15/2008 10:12:37 PM
Author: strmrdr

The problem with the US economy is that it has become a paper economy and we are paying for that now. (actually bits on a computer, its not even paper anymore).

An economy that does not produce anything can not survive!

This has worried me for quite some time. I am especially upset that we no longer seem to produce anything.

Me too.

 

[Odilia]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:57:04 PM
Author: mimzy

are you convinced that under obama you will eventually be taxed %50,

Hate to burst anybody's bubble, but I believe we are already taxed 50%, if you add up all the taxes we pay.

[BTW, I don't mean for that comment to sound snippy, mimzy; you have good questions (I am only skimming this thread quickly) - just came across that comment & wanted to point that out, since most people don't seem to realize we are already taxed that much.]

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 9/16/2008 5:45:40 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/16/2008 1:13:25 PM
Author: movie zombie
thanks for the label <corporatism>, Karl/Storm.


i agree that both parties are corporatists.


with the errosion of civil liberties and loss of habeus corpus during the course of the current administration, when does corporatism become fascism?



movie zombie

When the people lose the 4 boxes of freedom and we are very close:
the jury box: gone! The jury can not be informed of their right to judge the law as well as the defendant if your allowed to have a jury or even a trial.

the ballot box: Gone! the government controls who gets on it and hanging chads and compromised voting machines.

the soapbox: close to gone: permits to assemble in public, free speech zones where one can only talk under the guns and behind the fences of the jbt''s.
The web is a bright spot for now but is under attack.


cartridge box: close to gone: anti-gun laws, taxes and permits.

The founding fathers would not have stood for any of the above.

Both parties are just as guilty as the other in enacting the above.

the loss of habeus corpus wasn''t an accident or byproduct of this administration but an overt attack by said administration.

side note: the latest ballot box issue now is the repubs are going after the people whose homes were foreclosed upon in michigan to block them from the ballot box....much as they did with deployed soldiers in the last election.

i lay the cartridge box issue at the feet of the dems though, with repub cooperation.

however, i am in total agreement that none of these errosions would have happened without the cooperation of the other party.

re socialism: i find it much less scary than fascism and absolutely fascinated that people are worrying about socialism when fascism has already walked through the door, down the aisle and is wedded to our government. i don''t see a divorce in the near future.

movie zombie

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/16/2008 8:39:00 PM
Author: movie zombie

re socialism: i find it much less scary than fascism and absolutely fascinated that people are worrying about socialism when fascism has already walked through the door, down the aisle and is wedded to our government. i don''t see a divorce in the near future.


movie zombie

They both start out the same way.
Erode rights, disarm the people.
When fighting one your fighting the other at this stage.