I don’t disagree with any of those numbers. But those numbers had a lot more to do with unionization and the fact that we were the only country that came out of the second World War with an intact industrial base.
You cite percentages, which is a little misleading. Yes, corporate taxes have gone down, but individual taxes have gone up, because the government spends more. Social Security only used to be a 1% tax. Now it’s a 12% tax, and it’s still going broke.
I guess the question I would ask, do you think taxation is for paying our obligations, or for redistributing wealth?
And I guess the question I would ask you, if I gave a shit about your specious self-serving answer, would be “Do you see value in any governmental program that doesn’t impact on your own personal life?” Living in a just society that looks out for the interests of the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged means a lot to me.
Perhaps Recovered Republican may want consider Relapsing Republican as a new name? Hey relapses happen and we are here for you!
Anyway - Palin is so last election cycle. Seriously, she had her time as the TP darling and she is now passe. Her drive was to milk her fame for as many dollars as she could with as little work as she could and she didn’t too bad of a job of it. If she jumped in now she would be perceived as being Bachmann’s spoiler by the TP faithful who are deluded enough to think that anyone of that extreme pole really has a chance to take the nomination, let alone a general Presidential election. The can’t turn away from a car crash clicks are Bachmann’s now. The difference is that I think Bachmann actually believes in what she says, whereas Palin was more of an opportunist.
As to the asides - Relapsing … Recovered Republican - taxation is meet our obligations. Do you believe that our obligations include looking out for each other? I do and much of what you may consider redistributing wealth I consider meeting those obligations.
Well, all you guys have really accomplished so far is reminding me why I became a Republican in the first place. Now, I’ll admit, I may have lost sight of that in the last few years refuting ridiculous batshit crazy on places like Town Hall where you hear stuff like “Obama was born in Kenya, and he’s part of a socialist plot to destroy America!!!”
You guys have reminded me why Democrats can’t really be trusted.
Well, sorry, if you are paying people to breed and vote for Democrats, you are kind of defeating that purpose. When working folks have to limit themselves to two kids and welfare folks are having multiple ones by multiple fathers because the government picks up the tab, you are really defeating the purpose, aren’t you?
The purpose should be to reinstill a work ethic into those folks. Now I’m not a fan of a lot of our economic system, where I am essentially busting my hump to make the stockholders rich. But I’m not a fan of a system that the government takes from the producers and pays the non-producers.
As I said before, how is it in their interest to make them dependent.
Let’s look at what your system does.
Pays their mother to have them out of wedlock. Remember all those ghetto kids who joined the army, and “Unknown” was the father of all of them. Oh, they had a different last name than their mothers, but they had no idea who their fathers were really.
Puts them in a public school that doesn’t bother to teach them to read or any other basic skills.
Tells they deserve money, building on resentments for things that happened to their ancestors.
He suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form, the belief the world owes him a living. - Robert A. Heinlien.
I did enjoy the way RR’s racism is beginning to show. I wrote about “the interests of the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged” and he comes back at me with the racist crap quoted above. Maybe I’m all worked up about the interests of white folks from your exact racial background, **RR **
, the ones who are handicapped or elderly or orphaned, ever think of that possiblity? I’m not, I’m including the poor and vulnerable and disadvantaged of all races, but it’s fascinating how quickly you jump to your conclusion, all the while explaining that the Tea Party is not racist, and you’re not aligned with the Tea Party, and you certainly haven’t a racist bone in your body. But the truth will out.
Look, there’s nothing more essential to the guy than government NOT telling people how to live. And if he has to have the gummint tell them how to live to make that happen, well that’s just because he doesn’t want the gummint to tell people how to live.
What don’t you understand, you stupid librul prick?
Really, with statements like that you fit in just fine with the “socialist plot” folk you allegedly deride.
But rather than take the bait to address every stereotypic Right Wing radio pseudofactoid you throw out there (several in a single breath, very impressive!), let’s keep this at the level of principles -
Do you agree, in principle, that we, as a society, have an obligation to look after each other, at least to some degree?
Your response implies, but does not state explicitly, that you do.
If so, then characterizing any attempt to do so as “redistribution of wealth” is counterproductive to any meaningful dialogue.
If you accept that we have such an obligation we can instead have a reasonable discussion regarding the extent of our obligation and whether or not meeting that obligation is also in the long term best interest of those of us who are more high income producers.
Despite your image that food stamps and public housing has caused an epidemic in Black teens having baby after baby, the teen pregnancy rate has actually overall dropped by half since 1990 and for Black teens went from about 85 births/1000 females 15 to 17 years old to 32.
Your general concept seems to be that poor individuals having multiple children is a rational decision, that if mothers knew that additional children would make them more likely to all suffer from malnutrition and/or homelessness, that they would then behave rationally and either not have sex or at least be better at birth control. Of course human nature does not work so rationally. Across the world and across history the best predictors of large family size is poverty, economic insecurity, and female low educational status. It may be counterintuitive but it is true.
If it is in society’s best interest (and the best interest of those of us who are higher income producers) to decrease the number of children born into poverty around us, then the most effective approach to do so is to reduce economic insecurity among our most poor and to raise the educational level of our most poor, especially of poor females. In empiric reality attempts to have a “family cap” on benefits by multiple states have not worked.
Could we do that job better than we currently do it? Can you find anecdotes of those who abuse the system? Of course we can improve and of course there are those who find ways to game any system. But a discussion of how to improve the execution of meeting our obligation to look after each other is a very different one than one that describes doing so as income redistribution and that evokes false stereotypes.
I just thought I’d repeat the OP.
Speculating, I think the relatively tepid response to her bus tour (tepid compared to the coverage it would have received a year ago), the short media attention to the gotcha-ya bus/Alaska/Iowa scheduling, and Bachman’s apparent eclipsing of her pigeon hole have her convinced that not running is the smarter economic choice at the moment. However, as she fades from the headlines and sees her income (speaking engagements, endorsement deals, etc.) diminish, she may be tempted to do something to stay ‘newsworthy’ and bolster her importance.
I think she is a vapid ignoramus of average intelligence, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t conniving or capable of making some astute speculations. An option she must be considering is that Obama’s reelection is (apparently) more likely than not, and the troubles with the economy are global in nature (i.e., despite talking points he is not to blame for everything). But economies generally cycle, and she could be in a better place to campaign in 2017[sup]*[/sup] and take credit for an upturn.
That is an excellent summary of the issue **DSeid **.
[Begin Satire] Tragically, it is too much to fit on a bumer sticker so it must be excluded from any thought process. For the sake of our right-wing breathen whose political education is apparently derived through attack radio, please be sure to address complex issues in 10 words or less. Preferably under Five. With sufficient shouting and dripping derision of any answer other than your own. Thank you. [End Satire]
You’re forgetting a core piece of her personality - she’s lazy. Really fucking lazy. Her bus trip was to have turned into a spontaneous wave of adulation that lifted her to the White House. Instead, she got a rather tepid response from the same bunch of low-class yahoos that she can get anywhere. She can get that from people who will give her six-figure checks to just show up and blather whatever she has scribbled on her sweaty little paws.
Why bother? It got her no new attention, and it probably got her less money. And it took effort. Eew.
Hmmm… Last time you made this comment it was accompanied by your belief that many CEOs make their hiring decisions by asking “Do I personally like the President” rather than “Are additional employees likely to increase corporate profits,” so I guessed “Inability to understand economics” for the reason you became a Republican in the first place.
This time, it’s accompanied by “evil welfare queen” anecdotes, so I’m going to revise my guess to “Because Republicans were more willing to cater to your desire for simple answers in a complex world.”
So, will there be a prize for the first person to figure out your reason correctly?
That is an excellent insight that had not occurred to me. That’s the whole ballgame right there. There’s no way she can win the presidency. It would take too much prolonged effort.
It’s not like he’d be ashamed. You need to remember that when someone like him gets some sort of assistance, it’s because he needed a hand up. When it’s one of “those people” it’s a hand out.
