Republicans and Democrats

[clapper011]

guys, can we quit the trolling? other wise I will lock this.

[natty dread]

Not only changing the subject, but attacking DB's religious views for no reason, and in such a way that it is an attack on anyone's religious views. If YOU have a problem with DB lying about you, fine, but that is hardly a reason for someone else to attack his religious views. If you noticed, I wasn't telling natty off about his reponse to DB's lying, but to his religious attack. So feel free to ignore what I posted, but it doesn't do a damn thing for your position.

Being a young-earth creationist is not about religious views. It's about being willingly ignorant to actual reality, ignoring facts, spreading misinformation and indoctrinating children with blatant lies.

By extension, it's not unreasonable to assume that anyone who agrees with young-earth creationist views, has no problem with twisting facts, being willingly ignorant to actual reality, or living in an imaginary la-la-land inside his own head.

I don't have to be tolerant to every fucking idiocy in the world. If people think the world is flat, I'll tell them they are idiots, as there's overwhelming evidence that it is an oblate spheroid. An if that offends their "religious views", well... frankly, I don't care.

[PLAYER57832]

To get back to the subject, here is an interesting commentary on voters for all parties:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =138866731

In Debt Drama, Voters Play Key, If Overlooked Role
by The Associated Press

text size A A A WASHINGTON July 31, 2011, 03:43 pm ET Dear voter: Want to know why Democrats and Republicans in Congress find it so hard to work together to solve tough problems like the debt ceiling, health care and Social Security?

Look in the mirror.

Americans gripe about cowardly, self-serving politicians, and Congress doubtlessly has its feckless moments and members. But voters are quick to overlook their own role in legislative impasses that keep the nation from resolving big, obvious, festering problems such as immigration, the long-term stability of Medicare, and now, the debt ceiling.

Here's the truth: The overwhelming majority of senators and House members do what their constituents want them to do. Or, more to the point, they respond to people in their districts who bother to vote. Nothing is dearer to politicians than re-election, and most have a keen sense of when they are straying into dangerous waters.

For a growing number of senators and representatives, the only risk is in their party's primary, not in the general election. Most voters, and many news outlets, ignore primaries. That gives control to a relative handful of motivated, hard-core liberals (in Democratic contests) and full-bore conservatives (in GOP primaries).

In politically balanced districts, a hard-right or hard-left nominee may have trouble in the general election, when many independent and centrist voters turn out. But many House districts today aren't balanced, thanks largely to legislative gerrymandering and Americans' inclination to live and work near people who share their views and values.

The result is districts so solidly conservative that no GOP nominee can possibly lose, or so firmly liberal that any Democratic nominee is certain to win. In these districts, the primary is the whole ball game.

Republican lawmakers are under constant pressure to drift to the right, to make sure no fire-breathing conservative outflanks them in a light-turnout primary dominated by ideologues. The same goes for Democrats on the left.

So who turns up on Capitol Hill for freshman orientation? Democrats and Republicans who can barely comprehend each other's political viewpoints, let alone embrace them enough to pursue a possible compromise on big issues.

But what if a Republican and Democrat do decide to meet halfway in hopes of finding, say, a path to shore up Social Security for decades to come. What can they expect?

In some states and districts, they can expect to be drummed out of their party for the crime of engaging with "the enemy." That's what happened last year to Bob Bennett of Utah, a mainstream conservative Republican senator. A relatively small number of conservative activists, led by tea partyers, bounced him from the ticket at a GOP convention. They taunted Bennett with chants of "TARP, TARP." He had voted for the bipartisan bank bailout legislation pushed by Republican President George W. Bush. The Senate's GOP leaders also voted for the bill. But it was an unacceptable compromise in the eyes of Utah Republicans picking their Senate nominee.

In Alaska, GOP primary voters also kicked Sen. Lisa Murkowski off their ballot. She barely saved her seat with a scrappy write-in candidacy. Murkowski supported the bank bailout and, admittedly, is more moderate than the average congressional Republican. But her improbable write-in victory proved she is popular with Alaskans in general, even if her own party rejected her in the primary.

Tea party leaders spell out a warning in their periodic Washington rallies.

"The message is that we're watching, and we want you to vote based on our core values," Mark Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said at one such event.

When Democratic leaders were struggling earlier this year to strike a budget deal and avert a government shutdown, Phil Kerpen of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity said sharply, "No Republican better help them." The crowd cheered loudly.

Such threats are mainly aimed at Republicans for now, largely because of the tea party's rapid rise. But Democratic lawmakers also know liberal discontent might undo them if they stray too far to the center.

"It's astounding how often some Democratic leaders sacrifice principles when critical issues are at stake," said a writer for the liberal AmericaBlog. The column rebuked Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., for working with the bipartisan "Gang of Six" on a debt-reduction plan.

A McClatchy-Marist poll this year found that 71 percent of registered voters want political leaders in Washington to compromise to get things done. If those voters skip key primaries, however, they may have little say in the matter. Political enthusiasts, whether they wear peace signs or "Don't Tread On Me" T-shirts, will determine who gets elected in many districts before a wide swath of Americans even notice it's an election year.

Except for a recently appointed senator from Nevada, every member of Congress got there the same way: American voters elected them.

People may bristle at the notion that we get the government we deserve. But there's no denying we get the government we elect.

[thegreekdog]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

I'm surprised you would think I consider ANYONE currently in Congress as belonging to the group of "intelligent conservatism", to be honest.

Within Congresscritters in recent memory, the only one that comes to mind offhand is J.C. Watts, who quit out of frustration at the crap that was going on with the rest of the conservative politicians. I'm tempted to include Ron Paul, but he's not really conservative policy-wise.

In these fora, I would point to keiths31, luns101, Doc_Brown, daddy1gringo, thegreekdog, Nobunaga, and rockfist. I have a lot of respect for each of them, because I do believe they're very intelligent in their outlook while holding onto fairly strongly conservative viewpoints.

SCORE ONE FOR THE GREEK!

[Woodruff]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

Here you go, Night Strike...here is some "intelligent conservatism":
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/ ... index.html

[Timminz]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

Here you go, Night Strike...here is some "intelligent conservatism":
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/ ... index.html

Why don't reasonable people, like the writer of that article, get more coverage?

[thegreekdog]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

Here you go, Night Strike...here is some "intelligent conservatism":
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/ ... index.html

Why don't reasonable people, like the writer of that article, get more coverage?

Well, he makes some good points, but there are some weird statements, like:

(1) "Unemployment is a more urgent problem than debt." - I don't disagree with this, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the debt ceiling or the argument.

(2) "The deficit is a symptom of America's economic problems, not a cause." - I'm also not sure what this has to do with the debt ceiling or the argument; further, the deficit and the debt are different. Sure, the deficit goes up when the economy is bad and more people rely on the government. But how much is that incremental difference? Is it that big that it drives the debt up by $X trillions? There are no numbers here.

(7) "You can't save the system by destroying the system." - I think the point he's trying to make is that government spending is directly tied to the economy (it is) though he says things like how he's for a constitutional republic and free market system. I understand the time is not right to make these sorts of arguments that the more conservative Republicans are making, but his points still trouble me.

In sum, I'm not sure how much of a conservative this guy is. I think it's telling who he worked for (President Bush) and the policies of that president (namely increased spending without increased tax revenue).

[PLAYER57832]

I heard about a new supposedly "liberal Tea Party". However, I cannot seem to remember the name or find any link to it. Would any of you know?

[jimboston]

I heard about a new supposedly "liberal Tea Party". However, I cannot seem to remember the name or find any link to it. Would any of you know?

Isn't it called.

Player's House for Tea Anyone?

[BigBallinStalin]

Someday you'll group up and stop listening to idiots like Fox News, DangerBoy and Phatscotty and start listening at least to intelligent conservatism. I hope. Because honestly, it does not appear that you're doing so yet, based on so many of the things you post in these fora.

So what's "intelligent conservatism"? The people in Congress like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Because that's not conservatism.

I'm surprised you would think I consider ANYONE currently in Congress as belonging to the group of "intelligent conservatism", to be honest.

Within Congresscritters in recent memory, the only one that comes to mind offhand is J.C. Watts, who quit out of frustration at the crap that was going on with the rest of the conservative politicians. I'm tempted to include Ron Paul, but he's not really conservative policy-wise.

In these fora, I would point to keiths31, luns101, Doc_Brown, daddy1gringo, thegreekdog, Nobunaga, and rockfist. I have a lot of respect for each of them, because I do believe they're very intelligent in their outlook while holding onto fairly strongly conservative viewpoints.

SCORE ONE FOR THE GREEK!

TGD WINS!!!

[Lootifer]

Because most people who vote Republican know that the only way to get ahead is to work for it yourself instead of relying on the government to take it from others and give it to you. They know that a free society cannot exist while the government redistributes wealth.

There's redistribution of wealth and then there's simply most efficient use of resources.

Dont forget that Government spending isn't just about trying to acomplish one of these things.

[Phatscotty]

Yes but if that's the way it's going to be, there should be an option, if we want to call ourselves free anyways.

Freedom, yeah, it's okay I guess.

[Lootifer]

Yes but if that's the way it's going to be, there should be an option, if we want to call ourselves free anyways.

Freedom, yeah, it's okay I guess.

Paying taxes and being free (practically speaking) are muturally exclusive though?

[GreecePwns]

Keep what you got, Lootifer

[Lootifer]

I think there's some distortion around what Freedom actually means though.

I mean, theoretically you can pay 99% tax and still be free, so long as that disposable 1% enables it.

[Woodruff]

I think there's some distortion around what Freedom actually means though.

I mean, theoretically you can pay 99% tax and still be free, so long as that disposable 1% enables it.

Taxes are slavery!!!!

tremendously-patriotic-picture.gif

[PLAYER57832]

What you get from your taxes matters, too.

Its wrong to say that Democrats want big government. PEOPLE want food, a roof over their head, to be able to see the doctor when needed. Companies want to pay people as little as possible, as little healthcare as possible (except some wellness programs that tie directly in to savings on sick days and such -- though usually it is the insurance companies that promote these) so that their stockholders and CEOs can become or stay wealthy. They are obligated by law to look at making their stockholders money over all else.

Sure, companies provide jobs, but they are under no obligation to do so ... and the number of jobs they are offering as a result is shrinking. The jobs offered are often lower wage jobs, where machines reduce the skill needed. Trickle down has never worked, for that reason. The minute people lower down start making a bit, changes are made so the company is "more efficient". People's wages are cut, folks are laid off... again, so those at the top can keep their salaries, and this is not even a true option. Boards, CEOs can be brought into court for not making stockholders enough money.

[Night Strike]

PEOPLE want food, a roof over their head, to be able to see the doctor when needed.

Then go work for it. The government should NOT be providing them. If you aren't getting what you need, go find a new job. If you don't qualify for a new job, go get more education (either traditional or trade). You're right, companies are under no obligation to hire any particular person. And if they were, that would not be a free market. If a company won't hire you, go create you own job. Whatever happened to creativity and innovation that this country has always been known for?? Oh yeah, it's been turned into government dependency.

[Phatscotty]

Yes but if that's the way it's going to be, there should be an option, if we want to call ourselves free anyways.

Freedom, yeah, it's okay I guess.

Paying taxes and being free (practically speaking) are muturally exclusive though?

keep what you earn.

paying taxes is one thing. Forceful participation in a ponzi scheme is quite another.

[Phatscotty]

Keep what you got, Lootifer

You are getting the hang of it!

However, you would have gotten extra kudos for doing better justice to your quote.

Keep what you earn

I see your point is that it's Liberty and Freedom remain the best path for a human being to reach their full potential.

[Nobunaga]

I think there's some distortion around what Freedom actually means though.

I mean, theoretically you can pay 99% tax and still be free, so long as that disposable 1% enables it.

Taxes are slavery!!!!

tremendously-patriotic-picture.gif

... I know you're being sarcastic there, Woody, but how many days/weeks/months in a year do we, well, half of us anyway, work for nothing at all for ourselves (to pay taxes)? And how much of a say do we have in this?

... I understand the need for taxes, I'm not trying to go over the edge here, but the comparison to slavery is valid... to a degree.

... It is not the fact that we have taxes that bothers me. It is how so few pay so very much of the balance (what is a "fair share"?) and how that burden destroys U.S. job creation and our collective stable future with it. It is how that money is being spent. It is how I fear my children will be paying 50% or more in taxes by the time they get out of school - ending a traditional American dream, that our children will live better than did we (perhaps the saddest part of it).

... Just sayin'.

...

[Phatscotty]

I think there's some distortion around what Freedom actually means though.

I mean, theoretically you can pay 99% tax and still be free, so long as that disposable 1% enables it.

What would you think of someone you owned 99% of?

[Lootifer]

... I know you're being sarcastic there, Woody, but how many days/weeks/months in a year do we, well, half of us anyway, work for nothing at all for ourselves (to pay taxes)? And how much of a say do we have in this?

Zero, it's called PAYE for a reason.

... I understand the need for taxes, I'm not trying to go over the edge here, but the comparison to slavery is valid... to a degree.

How? You're distorting "freedom" to the extremes. Regardless of tax rate (as long as it's less than 100%) you can earn between 0 and some very large amount of money. The higher the tax, it's just the harder/smarter you have to work! but it certainly has nothing to do with Freedom. You're just as "free" getting taxed 10% as you are getting taxed 50%.

... It is not the fact that we have taxes that bothers me. It is how so few pay so very much of the balance (what is a "fair share"?) and how that burden destroys U.S. job creation and our collective stable future with it. It is how that money is being spent. It is how I fear my children will be paying 50% or more in taxes by the time they get out of school - ending a traditional American dream, that our children will live better than did we (perhaps the saddest part of it).

... Just sayin'.

...

A persons income is divided into two buckets: needs and wants, or, bills and disposable, or , fixed and variable, define it however you like really.

But a fact of life is that those on lower incomes have a higher proportion of their income dedicated to needs, things the must have to survive: the five necessities of life (food, water, shelter etc). Those on high incomes have a smaller proportion of their income dedicated to needs.

Most agree that the needs are a fairly basic human right: Even the crippled and infirm deserve a roof over their head, some water to drink and a meal at the end of the day. Thus most tax systems are based around the ideal that these needs should, by some kind of proxy or mechanic, be tax free. The easiest way to acomplish this (with as little regulation and bureaucracy) is through a progressive tax system. For example:

- Person A earns $15000pa
- Person B earns $150000ps
- The basic necessities of life cost $10000pa

-> Person A has a disposable income of $5000pa
-> Person B has a disposable income of $140000pa
-> Say the government agrees people should pay 20% tax on their disposable income

-> Person A pays $1000pa in tax: ie 6.67% of their total income
-> Person B pays $28000pa in tax: ie 18.67% of their total income

That is why most countries use a progressive tax. You don't have to agree with it. But it's a fact.

[PLAYER57832]

Most countries also have a reasonable minimum wage.. that is, a wage that allows people to get a roof over their head, food and even medical care without depending on government assistance. In this country, we do not. That is the real tragedy, MANY of those getting assistance are folks who work, even who work fulltime.

[thegreekdog]

Most countries also have a reasonable minimum wage.. that is, a wage that allows people to get a roof over their head, food and even medical care without depending on government assistance. In this country, we do not. That is the real tragedy, MANY of those getting assistance are folks who work, even who work fulltime.

Really? Please provide examples of countries with a reasonable minimum wage. Please also provide examples of not only income inequality in those countries, but how the poor live in those countries. I would specifically interested in the poor in the following countries: France, England, and China. Furthermore, once you've done this, compare that data with average wage data in the United States, minimum wage data in the United States, and how poor people live in the United States.

Once you've done all that, report back and retract your above statement.