ok conservatives

[Lao Tzu]

I have noticed from Sushi X's post, that he has become a liberal (or at least accepted the label 'liberal', which is a very vague label). Warik said that 'conservatives use logic' in his response to Sushi X.

I live in the mid west, and all the conservatives are the opposite of that. They are usually emotionally addicted to certain values & ideas (free trade, anti-environmentalism, etc) and live in a delusional world where the legal system only puts bad peopel in jail and any idea they don't like can be called 'liberal' and stored away in the closet for life, a far cry from cold logic. The only instance i can think of where conservatives used logic & liberals don't is with racial profiling (conservatives prefer it, liberals call it racist).

If you can show me how conservative policys are based on logic, i may shift my beliefs too. Just imagine the power your party will gain. I will sit on this board and support your cause(s).

Seriously, i prefer a good discussion. Show me conservative logic.

 

[RyanH]

Seriously, i prefer a good discussion. Show me conservative logic.

Don't hold your breath. For instance, conservatives allege that "government should remain out of our lives." Yet, how many departments have they attempted to create: Department of Homeland Security, Department of Marriage and abstinence, etc.

Conservatives actually love government regulation so long as it suits their own ends.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Is that the french flag in your profile?



I have heard from people that conservatives are logical, but as far as i can see it is mainly just a 'life for today', use straw man arguments and experience emotional addiction to outcome A or B philosophy.

 

[Sushi X]

keeping your emotions in check when making political and other critical decisions is essential. if we make all political decisions and policies based on emotion, the entire middle east would be the world's largest mirror right now and we'd be in the middle of WWIII, with us being our only ally. i can personally atest to using emotions to make decisions rather than logic. it's human nature but that must be kept in check in politics and our most important and critical decisions in life.

i can see my conversion from right to left has people in a real uproar and has stirred things up. to think, my insignificant self has gotten this much attention. lol, wish i could in the real world, i might be out tonight instead of on my pc.

 

[spentagn]

Honestly nordstrom, you appear to have a negative predisposition to "conservative ideology." That and Ryan would most likely try to ban you if you did "switch."

I will address the issue, but only in the area I am most familiar with: macroeconomics. Speaking generally of course, conservatives favor less government intervention in the business cycle. Conservatives support the idea that businesses drive the economy, not the government and employees. For example, profitable businesses need more employees to expand production and fulfill customer demands, thus causing a growth in the economy. One ways businesses become more profitable is by reducing their taxable income. Hence the often criticized "business welfare" and lower taxes supported by Republican administrations.

Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, tends to support a higher tax rate on businesses (and usually individuals as well) to fuel government-run social programs. While social programs sound great to the end user, they have to be paid for. Unfortunately, the majority of the people who pay for these programs see little or none of the services. The higher taxes only lower business profits, and can in turn restrict economic growth. Raising minimum wage requirements have the same effect. In turn, businesses are forced to raise prices to meet profit levels, hence inflation. This inflation causes a devaluation of the dollar, which hurts both the common man and businesses alike.

 

[VicTusDeuS]

Very Good Post

Honestly nordstrom, you appear to have a negative predisposition to "conservative ideology." That and Ryan would most likely try to ban you if you did "switch."

I will address the issue, but only in the area I am most familiar with: macroeconomics. Speaking generally of course, conservatives favor less government intervention in the business cycle. Conservatives support the idea that businesses drive the economy, not the government and employees. For example, profitable businesses need more employees to expand production and fulfill customer demands, thus causing a growth in the economy. One ways businesses become more profitable is by reducing their taxable income. Hence the often criticized "business welfare" and lower taxes supported by Republican administrations.

Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, tends to support a higher tax rate on businesses (and usually individuals as well) to fuel government-run social programs. While social programs sound great to the end user, they have to be paid for. Unfortunately, the majority of the people who pay for these programs see little or none of the services. The higher taxes only lower business profits, and can in turn restrict economic growth. Raising minimum wage requirements have the same effect. In turn, businesses are forced to raise prices to meet profit levels, hence inflation. This inflation causes a devaluation of the dollar, which hurts both the common man and businesses alike.

 

[huntmaster]

Re: Re: ok conservatives

Don't hold your breath. For instance, conservatives allege that "government should remain out of our lives." Yet, how many departments have they attempted to create: Department of Homeland Security, Department of Marriage and abstinence, etc.

Conservatives actually love government regulation so long as it suits their own ends.

Yeah, Dept of HOmeland Security--what the HELL ARE THEY THINKING???? WHAT A FINE EXAMPLE!

We dont need that do we. How soon we forget. Are you willing to risk the lives of the innocent women and children of this country for your politacal stance??? How noble of you.

 

[Warik]

Both political parties as a whole are mostly full of mindless automatons with not a sound thought in their entire being.

The conservative party, however, tends to have a greater number of non-mindless automatons who are actually capable of rational thought on some occasions.

We do not really see true logic at work in politics until one reaches my level or that of a few other privileged few on Elite.

-Warik

 

[The Dude]

I have noticed from Sushi X's post, that he has become a liberal (or at least accepted the label 'liberal', which is a very vague label). Warik said that 'conservatives use logic' in his response to Sushi X.

I live in the mid west, and all the conservatives are the opposite of that. They are usually emotionally addicted to certain values & ideas (free trade, anti-environmentalism, etc) and live in a delusional world where the legal system only puts bad peopel in jail and any idea they don't like can be called 'liberal' and stored away in the closet for life, a far cry from cold logic. The only instance i can think of where conservatives used logic & liberals don't is with racial profiling (conservatives prefer it, liberals call it racist).

If you can show me how conservative policys are based on logic, i may shift my beliefs too. Just imagine the power your party will gain. I will sit on this board and support your cause(s).

Seriously, i prefer a good discussion. Show me conservative logic.

I do believe you are delusional. Who in the hell things the justice system is flawless?!? Want to look at things logical...man, you're on the wrong end of the spectrum. Liberalism comes at thing from an emotional viewpoint, conservatism uses thinking, logical thought processes, to arrive at it's viewpoints.

 

[RyanH]

Honestly nordstrom, you appear to have a negative predisposition to "conservative ideology." That and Ryan would most likely try to ban you if you did "switch."

I will address the issue, but only in the area I am most familiar with: macroeconomics. Speaking generally of course, conservatives favor less government intervention in the business cycle. Conservatives support the idea that businesses drive the economy, not the government and employees. For example, profitable businesses need more employees to expand production and fulfill customer demands, thus causing a growth in the economy. One ways businesses become more profitable is by reducing their taxable income. Hence the often criticized "business welfare" and lower taxes supported by Republican administrations.

Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, tends to support a higher tax rate on businesses (and usually individuals as well) to fuel government-run social programs. While social programs sound great to the end user, they have to be paid for. Unfortunately, the majority of the people who pay for these programs see little or none of the services. The higher taxes only lower business profits, and can in turn restrict economic growth. Raising minimum wage requirements have the same effect. In turn, businesses are forced to raise prices to meet profit levels, hence inflation. This inflation causes a devaluation of the dollar, which hurts both the common man and businesses alike.

Spentagn, you are worried about business profits? about the amount of taxes businesses pay? I don't know why. General Motors, Ford, Wal Mart, and GE continue to pay very low taxes in comparison to their earnings. Further, businesses continue to make substantial enough earnings to pay their C.E.O's outrageous sums, while paying many of their workers less than stellar salaries. In addition, businesses continue to fleece investors while lining the pockets of those executives at the top (Remember, Enron, a Texas favorite).

I'd be interested in looking at the tax burden some of America's major corporations paid last year and comparing that with the amount of income received and salaries paid to those at the top.

Fact of the matter is that government regulation over businesses is necessary to prevent injustices to America's investors and consumers---a principle that has been proven time and time again. Businesses even complained about the 33' securities laws, arguing that they would destroy the corporate model with "its many restrictionis and regulations." Well, I don't know about you, but I'd would say that American businesses have done just fine since the enactment of those regulations. Government regulation, when done logically and sensibly, benefits everyone.

And finally, those social programs you have such disregard for, are essential, particularly when companies like Wal Mart pay their employees minimum wage. How will someone retire with that salary? The answer---Social Security will help. If not Social Security, what is your suggestion? Putting the elderly on the street?

 

[RyanH]

Is that the french flag in your profile?

I was French in another life.

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

Yeah, Dept of HOmeland Security--what the HELL ARE THEY THINKING???? WHAT A FINE EXAMPLE!

We dont need that do we. How soon we forget. Are you willing to risk the lives of the innocent women and children of this country for your politacal stance??? How noble of you.

Umm, how effective do you believe another government department is going to be when the existing ones, such as the CIA and FBI, can't even properly perform their jobs? Don't conservatives believe that the answer to government inefficiency is to just get rid of government? Or do you now want to replace government inefficiency with government inefficiency? Sounds relatively inconsistent to me. No?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: ok conservatives

I do believe you are delusional. Who in the hell things the justice system is flawless?!? Want to look at things logical...man, you're on the wrong end of the spectrum. Liberalism comes at thing from an emotional viewpoint, conservatism uses thinking, logical thought processes, to arrive at it's viewpoints.

Sure, that's why conservatives still pursue a pointless war on drugs.

 

[spentagn]

Spentagn, you are worried about business profits? about the amount of taxes businesses pay? I don't know why.

No, I'm worried about continuous growth in GDP. My original post outlined it fairly simplisticly. Sorry if it didn't meet your requirements.

General Motors, Ford, Wal Mart, and GE continue to pay very low taxes in comparison to their earnings. Further, businesses continue to make substantial enough earnings to pay their C.E.O's outrageous sums, while paying many of their workers less than stellar salaries. In addition, businesses continue to fleece investors while lining the pockets of those executives at the top (Remember, Enron, a Texas favorite).

I like your assertion that GM et al "continue to pay very low taxes in comparison to their earnings," yet later admit you have no evidence when you say "I'd be interested in looking at the tax burden some of America's major corporations paid last year and comparing that with the amount of income received and salaries paid to those at the top." Corporations pay taxes on these "outrageous" salaries, and these taxes can't be avoided. These are the taxes that fuel your beloved Social Security. I guess it would make sense to cut back their salaries, and in turn reduce tax revenues for the Federal Government.

As far as Enron goes, that is corruption to the nth degree. I'm not sure if you mentioned this because I'm from Texas, or the President is, but whatever the case, it is irrelevant, as neither of us have oversight into either Enron or its former accountants.

When you claim that employees are paid "less than stellar salaries," how do you quantify a stellar salary? Heaven forbid an employee is paid less than they think they're worth.

Fact of the matter is that government regulation over businesses is necessary to prevent injustices to America's investors and consumers---a principle that has been proven time and time again. Businesses even complained about the 33' securities laws, arguing that they would destroy the corporate model with "its many restrictionis and regulations." Well, I don't know about you, but I'd would say that American businesses have done just fine since the enactment of those regulations. Government regulation, when done logically and sensibly, benefits everyone.

Modern businesses don't need as strict of Government oversight as those of yesteryear. Global economic markets provide seemingly infinite employment opportunities. If you aren't happy where you work, look elsewhere. While some government oversight may be necessary, as in the case of the SEC, it is historically inefficient. Regulation of economic markets is not the Government's strength. Since the cornerstone of international markets is comparative advantages, why should the Government opperate any differently?

And finally, those social programs you have such disregard for, are essential, particularly when companies like Wal Mart pay their employees minimum wage. How will someone retire with that salary? The answer---Social Security will help. If not Social Security, what is your suggestion? Putting the elderly on the street?

It is amusing you mention Wal Mart paying minimum wage. The Wal Mart down the road from me hires employees at a minimum of $9/hr. Hardly minimum wage. It would also surprise me that a company that has been recognized as among the "100 best to work for" on multiple occaisions would treat their employees so poorly.

As far as my suggestions on Social Security, you're welcome to do a search under my name and that topic. I have discussed at length the short comings of our current Social Security Administration, and given my suggestions on what reforms should be initiated. Briefly, the SSA has published reports predicting insolvency by 2034. Increasing immigration due to things such as NAFTA only speed up this process. What do you suggest to do with the poor elderly when the lock box sinks? Put them on the streets.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Thank you spentagn, That was thoughtful.

For all the other conservatives, i'm referring to things like free trade, anti-communism, the drug war, etc. there seems to be little logic. It is just knee jerk responses. The democrats do it to, but i don't see why conservatives are a reasonable party while the democrats aren't. Both spentagn & ryanH seem to have a debate backed up with facts. They aren't just assuming 1 sniff of crack = death, or that white people who live in the suburbs have to worry about crime, or that america spends 400 billion a year on foreign aid, or that getting shot in school is a realistic event, etc.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Republican is NOT conservative.

Democrat is NOT liberal.

Both parties are in bed with varied interests and cloak themselves under those headings.

Please do not degrade the discussion by introducing politics under teh heading of philosophy.

 

[p0ink]

Umm, how effective do you believe another government department is going to be when the existing ones, such as the CIA and FBI, can't even properly perform their jobs? Don't conservatives believe that the answer to government inefficiency is to just get rid of government? Or do you now want to replace government inefficiency with government inefficiency? Sounds relatively inconsistent to me. No?

give me a break. the whole purpose of the new department is to collect information received from the various agencies, since it has been illegal for the fbi and cia to share information thanks to the democrats that passed the FISA act. if the fbi and cia were allowed to work together in the first place, none of this would have been an issue.

 

[Lao Tzu]

give me a break. the whole purpose of the new department is to collect information received from the various agencies, since it has been illegal for the fbi and cia to share information thanks to the democrats that passed the FISA act. if the fbi and cia were allowed to work together in the first place, none of this would have been an issue.

This is kind of what i mean. Is there any evidence that FISA is a democratic bill, or are they just being blamed? what about Executive Order 12949? Hard logic isn't big in the conservative field, it is usually just straw man arguments and delusions of grandeur (no offense p0ink). I'm not sure the liberals are any different, whatever party philosophy (libertarian, green, liberal, democratic) seems to be the most grounded in reality is the one i want to look into.

 

[p0ink]

The FISA bill was a product of closed-door negotiations lasting several months between legislators and the Justice Department. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who had attempted to regulate the power of warrantless surveillance in four different sessions, sponsored the FISA legislation. The FISC concept was a compromise between legislators who wanted the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA), the only two agencies affected by the FISA statute, to follow the standard procedure for obtaining a court order required in criminal investigations and legislators. The federal agencies believed that they should be completely unfettered in conducting their foreign intelligence surveillance work inside US borders. Hence, the FISC was born.<2>

FISA was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978. Executive Order 12139,<3> signed by President Carter several months later, officially chartered the FISC. The legislation established an authorization procedure for the FISC to issue surveillance orders without probable cause. It also set up a “minimization” procedure for communications by US citizens inadvertently intercepted by the agencies. With the passage of FISA, the NSA was bound for the first time to a process of judicial review before initiating domestic surveillance operations

Circumventing the Bill of Rights

The most troubling aspect of FISA surveillance and searches is that they circumvent explicit Constitutional guarantees expressed in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and to peaceable assembly. However, under the FISA statute, a US citizen may be subject to a FISC surveillance order for political statements and views that are determined to be unpopular – yet legal – by unelected government officials in violation of the First Amendment.

In addition, physical searches without reasonable cause are specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But the expansion of the FISC by the Congress and the Clinton Administration through the Intelligence Appropriation Act of 1995 and Executive Order 12949 permits black bag fishing expeditions – without cause. FISC physical search orders authorized by these legislative and executive actions allow government agents to scour a suspect’s home, papers and effects indiscriminately and without reasonable cause.

It is hard to imagine that our Constitution’s framers, carrying with them the fresh reminders of intrusive searches conducted by British military and governmental personnel for British “national security” interests, would have approved the activities allowed by FISA when they ratified the Bill of Rights with its explicit prohibitions of unreasonable, indiscriminate searches.

The Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to act as a witness against oneself is significantly harmed when those under surveillance have full expectation of privacy in their conversations and personal communications but subsequently have their conversations recorded and analyzed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. FISC orders may be (and typically are) enacted without cause, and yet these wrongfully acquired surveillances may be used in criminal trials.

This is one dimension to the “Catch-22” problem discussed earlier. If surveillance is conducted with cause and criminal prosecution result, the government should be required to meet the same Title III surveillance requirements imposed upon all other law enforcement efforts conducted on the federal, state and local level in order to present that evidence in a criminal trial.

A final direct Constitutional concern is that a citizen’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront accusers, to review evidence against him, and to legal counsel are frequently violated. In all of the criminal trials involving FISC orders, evidence is sealed from review from both the accused and their legal counsel. This is heightened further by the requirement to keep this evidence from the view of juries. In the case of Richard Johnson, the judge instructed the jury that evidence against Johnson existed, and yet would not be presented for “national security” reasons, requiring the jury to rely on the “testimony” of the judge. This prevented Johnson’s attorneys from challenging evidence that was not available to them but was testified to by the judge himself.

 

[specter]

Honestly nordstrom, you appear to have a negative predisposition to "conservative ideology." That and Ryan would most likely try to ban you if you did "switch."

I will address the issue, but only in the area I am most familiar with: macroeconomics. Speaking generally of course, conservatives favor less government intervention in the business cycle. Conservatives support the idea that businesses drive the economy, not the government and employees. For example, profitable businesses need more employees to expand production and fulfill customer demands, thus causing a growth in the economy. One ways businesses become more profitable is by reducing their taxable income. Hence the often criticized "business welfare" and lower taxes supported by Republican administrations.

Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, tends to support a higher tax rate on businesses (and usually individuals as well) to fuel government-run social programs. While social programs sound great to the end user, they have to be paid for. Unfortunately, the majority of the people who pay for these programs see little or none of the services. The higher taxes only lower business profits, and can in turn restrict economic growth. Raising minimum wage requirements have the same effect. In turn, businesses are forced to raise prices to meet profit levels, hence inflation. This inflation causes a devaluation of the dollar, which hurts both the common man and businesses alike.

This is quite a clever argument, but since you're comparing apples to oranges it's also completely nonsensical.

Let's take a closer look. On the one hand, you're looking at how great it is that conservative philosophy encourages growth in GDP by offering corporate tax cuts and welfare. This is simply classic trickle-down theory; that whatever benefits the corporation benefits the economy.

Then, rather than providing the countering liberal viewpoint on GDP growth you offer an explanation of how liberals screw corporations to support social programs.

For the record, liberals favor the consumer rather than the corporation, believing that tax cuts and welfare targeted at the consumer provide a bigger boost to GDP than the supply-side economics favored by conservatives.

 

[spentagn]

For the record, liberals favor the consumer rather than the corporation, believing that tax cuts and welfare targeted at the consumer provide a bigger boost to GDP than the supply-side economics favored by conservatives.

Classical Keynesian arguement, does supply create demand or vice versa? Neither, IMHO. I supply to a monetarian philosophy. But, generally speaking, liberals do not favor tax cuts for consumers.

 

[specter]

Classical Keynesian arguement, does supply create demand or vice versa? Neither, IMHO. I supply to a monetarian philosophy. But, generally speaking, liberals do not favor tax cuts for consumers.

Well, as a means of using fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, I'm afraid they do. You seem to be of the opinion that tax cuts are exclusive to the conservative agenda which is simply not true.

It's true that liberal economic philosophy, again in terms of stimulating the economy, also favors government spending and/or incentives in labor-intensive economies such as public works and manufacturing. But let's also bear in mind that the last stimulus bill put forth by our supposedly conservative president included hundreds of millions of dollars for many of the country's largest corporations.

 

[the nature boy]

interesting. It seems if modern policticians cannot stay on the conservative path, be it liberal or conservative.

Too bad the passing of the recent farm subsidies bill and free trade restirctions on steel are totally politically motivated.

 

[cockdezl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

Umm, how effective do you believe another government department is going to be when the existing ones, such as the CIA and FBI, can't even properly perform their jobs? Don't conservatives believe that the answer to government inefficiency is to just get rid of government? Or do you now want to replace government inefficiency with government inefficiency? Sounds relatively inconsistent to me. No?

RYAN, you need to monitor your computer. I think that someone got into your room and posted the above message, which I actually agree with

Good point, but then why do liberals scream for increased spending on Departments or programs that are miserable failures?, such as public education, welfare programs, etc.

 

[cockdezl]

Spentagn, you are worried about business profits? about the amount of taxes businesses pay? I don't know why. General Motors, Ford, Wal Mart, and GE continue to pay very low taxes in comparison to their earnings. Further, businesses continue to make substantial enough earnings to pay their C.E.O's outrageous sums, while paying many of their workers less than stellar salaries. In addition, businesses continue to fleece investors while lining the pockets of those executives at the top (Remember, Enron, a Texas favorite).

RYAN, why can't a CEO make outrageous amounts of money? If the company decides that person is worth "x" amount of dollars, why should they not be able to pay them "x"? Also, what do you believe a starting salary should be for the lower rungs in a company? Give us a salary ballpark.

I'd be interested in looking at the tax burden some of America's major corporations paid last year and comparing that with the amount of income received and salaries paid to those at the top.

But RYAN, remember that statistics show that the majority of personal income tax is payed by these same high payed CEO's, which then goes to support the hand-out programs that you so love.

Fact of the matter is that government regulation over businesses is necessary to prevent injustices to America's investors and consumers---a principle that has been proven time and time again. Businesses even complained about the 33' securities laws, arguing that they would destroy the corporate model with "its many restrictionis and regulations." Well, I don't know about you, but I'd would say that American businesses have done just fine since the enactment of those regulations. Government regulation, when done logically and sensibly, benefits everyone.

And finally, those social programs you have such disregard for, are essential, particularly when companies like Wal Mart pay their employees minimum wage. How will someone retire with that salary? The answer---Social Security will help. If not Social Security, what is your suggestion? Putting the elderly on the street?

If a person works for WalMart for 20+ years and stays at bag-boy level, the what the fuck was he/she doing? People do move up the ladder if they stay and work hard. They may not become Bill Gates or Sam Walton, but they do move up. Also, I guess your mommy never read you Aesop's Fables (every child should be required to read them). Remember "The Ant and the Grasshopper"? Great story for teaching the concept of personal responsibility.

 

[RyanH]

Specter hit most of the points very well in responding to Spentagn, with the exception of a few:

Corporations along with the wealthy DO receive very favorable tax treatment. Please do a search and you'll find that GM among other major corporations pay low taxes in relation to their earnings because of tax handouts/breaks given by the government.
Moreover, we give HUGE breaks to major corporations everyday in ways that we will ultimately pay the price for. Example: allowing GM, Ford, and Chrsyler to continue producing large, fuel-inefficient SUVs because it's profitable for them, even though the end result is a hole in the ozone and more destruction to areas such as Alaska (where the temp has risen 7 degrees in the last few decades). Who'll eventually foot the bill for corporate negligence while CEOs enjoy multi-million dollar homes and yachts? The taxpayers will, of course.

Or, surely you've read about President Bush's refusal to resign the superfund clean-up legislation enacted under the Clinton Adminstration. The legislation sensibly required big polluting corporations to contribute money to a fund annually to help pay for clean-up costs. Well, President Bush dismissed that idea by deciding that the costs should instead be carried by the taxpayers. And, you are worried about corporate profits? I'm worried about having to open my bank account to pay for environmental messes I did not create.

Moreover, the wealthy routinely find shelters for their money, which the IRS constructively allows. Instead of auditing the poor and middle-class in proportion to the wealthy, the IRS statistically audits the poor at a much higher rate in proportion to the wealthy. Thus, little sympathy is warranted for those at the upper end of the spectrum.

Wal-Marnopoly is NOT known as a company that treats its employees well. Over half of its workforce is part-time. Why? They don't have to provide health insurance and benefits to its hard-working employees. Also, each Wal-Mart store will vary in its payroll expenses, while one store may offer $9 salary per hour, that is not necessarily the salary for every store.

Assuming arguendo that Wal-Marnopoly does pay 9 bucks a hour----------WOW. Maybe a part-time employ will draw 130 bucks per week. Have you tried supporting your family off that salary, Spentagn?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

RYAN, you need to monitor your computer. I think that someone got into your room and posted the above message, which I actually agree with

Good point, but then why do liberals scream for increased spending on Departments or programs that are miserable failures?, such as public education, welfare programs, etc.

What do you think is the alternative to public education? private education? privating the entire educational system? Well, that's already been proven to be a failure. A few weeks ago in the TIMES, there were statistics showing that test scores from school systems that had been privatized were no higher than the test scores from public schools. Perhaps, one solution to cleaning-up public schools is attracting bright minds which, in turn, requires higher pay.

As for welfare---didn't President Clinton enact welfare reform legislation that has drastically reduced the number of Americans receiving welfare benefits?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

RYAN, you need to monitor your computer. I think that someone got into your room and posted the above message, which I actually agree with

You see, I told you I'm no partisan.

 

[cockdezl]

Specter hit most of the points very well in responding to Spentagn, with the exception of a few:

Corporations along with the wealthy DO receive very favorable tax treatment. Please do a search and you'll find that GM among other major corporations pay low taxes in relation to their earnings because of tax handouts/breaks given by the government.

I personally favor an abolishment of the income tax, since it penalizes productivity and favors dependancy. We as a country did fine without it for 100 years, but the powers-that-be craved an unlimited source of revenue to increase federal powers and we have this piece of shit tax that working people just love.

Moreover, we give HUGE breaks to major corporations everyday in ways that we will ultimately pay the price for. Example: allowing GM, Ford, and Chrsyler to continue producing large, fuel-inefficient SUVs because it's profitable for them, even though the end result is a hole in the ozone and more destruction to areas such as Alaska (where the temp has risen 7 degrees in the last few decades). Who'll eventually foot the bill for corporate negligence while CEOs enjoy multi-million dollar homes and yachts? The taxpayers will, of course.

I do not favor corporate bail-outs or tax breaks, not because of the ridiculous idea you postulate, but because it is favoritism. I don't believe that GM or Enron or whoever should get special treatment, when smaller companies get the finger routinely.

But your assertion that GM and Ford are causing global warming with Tahoes and Expeditions is ridiculous. The science of environmental change is not reliable, we have such sketchy, shody information that changes with every passing day. Your assertion that these companies should be held accountable for things that we do not understand is even more laughable.

Or, surely you've read about President Bush's refusal to resign the superfund clean-up legislation enacted under the Clinton Adminstration. The legislation sensibly required big polluting corporations to contribute money to a fund annually to help pay for clean-up costs. Well, President Bush dismissed that idea by deciding that the costs should instead be carried by the taxpayers. And, you are worried about corporate profits? I'm worried about having to open my bank account to pay for environmental messes I did not create.

I don't believe that companies should be forced to fund something that they do not believe in, just as I do not believe that individuals should be forced to pay for altruistic programs.

Moreover, the wealthy routinely find shelters for their money, which the IRS constructively allows. Instead of auditing the poor and middle-class in proportion to the wealthy, the IRS statistically audits the poor at a much higher rate in proportion to the wealthy. Thus, little sympathy is warranted for those at the upper end of the spectrum.

Since you support the existance of the IRS, through your support of progressive taxation, then you are the cause of this problem, not me. But I don't see a problem in placing one's money in shelters or offshore accounts to protect one's earnings from the jack-booted thugs you so love to support.

Wal-Marnopoly is NOT known as a company that treats its employees well. Over half of its workforce is part-time. Why? They don't have to provide health insurance and benefits to its hard-working employees. Also, each Wal-Mart store will vary in its payroll expenses, while one store may offer $9 salary per hour, that is not necessarily the salary for every store.

Assuming arguendo that Wal-Marnopoly does pay 9 bucks a hour----------WOW. Maybe a part-time employ will draw 130 bucks per week. Have you tried supporting your family off that salary, Spentagn?

It is not the responsibility of a company to provide a leisurely lifestyle for anyone who so wishes. They have business needs that vary: "x" number of managers, "x" number of loading/unloading crew, "x" number of cashiers, etc. Not all of these are high-paid or full-time, but there is no responsibility for them to offer this.

If you have a part-time job at Wal-Mart that pays little AND you have a family, then I suggest a second job and maybe a third. It is not the responsibility of the world to hold your damn hand, because you CHOSE to have a family, yet not have any means to support them. I don't buy into this collectivist shit.

 

[Sushi X]

in alabama, if you are caught littering the highways, you can be fined up to 500 bucks. that's just for dumping trash onto a major highway. now, imagine how many corporations would be a little more enviromentally conscience if they had to pay for the clean up or clean it up themselves. it's about taking responsibility for your actions. you mess it up you either clean it or pay to have it done. it's fair. why should tax payers not only have to pay for their services but for their clean up as well?

 

[cockdezl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

What do you think is the alternative to public education? private education? privating the entire educational system? Well, that's already been proven to be a failure. A few weeks ago in the TIMES, there were statistics showing that test scores from school systems that had been privatized were no higher than the test scores from public schools. Perhaps, one solution to cleaning-up public schools is attracting bright minds which, in turn, requires higher pay.

I find no problems in giving tax vouchers for education, so that families that wish to put their children in private schools may do so. This would allow for a transition, since all parents would not pull their children away from public education. Then we could see who would win out in a more even playing field, private education or public.

I have not read the article, but I am skeptical, (in fact when you stated that it is a proven failure, I knew I smelled shit) especially since I am a graduate of a private school in a city that has a very strong private education system, New Orleans. Parents have two options in New Orleans, put your kid in public school, which gives a great prison preparatory program, or private school which sends a large percentage to college. Also, since the demand for a good education in N.O. is so large the market has produced schools that are not outrageously priced; my father was a mechanic, not a doctor or lawyer that are so often believed to be the sole users of private education.

You mentioned that the article showed that this study showed that the two institutions faired the same in scores, but did it look at cost per student. Most statistics show that private education does significantly better at a much lower cost per student, thus shooting holes in your argument that the solution is increased pay for the shitty results. What I find most interesting is the fact that studies are showing that home-schooling is often times outperforming both private and public education at a fraction of the cost. These kids are routinely whipping ass and taking names in National Spelling Bees, Geography Tournaments, Science Fairs, etc.

As for welfare---didn't President Clinton enact welfare reform legislation that has drastically reduced the number of Americans receiving welfare benefits?

Then why didn't he cut my taxes with all of this new money that he freed up with his welfare reform?

 

[RyanH]

RYAN, why can't a CEO make outrageous amounts of money? If the company decides that person is worth "x" amount of dollars, why should they not be able to pay them "x"? Also, what do you believe a starting salary should be for the lower rungs in a company? Give us a salary ballpark.

Fine, allow CEOs to make whatever the board of directors decides they ought to earn. However, the quid pro quo is that investors ought to have FULL disclosure as to a corporation's financial condition, and a corporation ought to provide its employees with a living wage and fair benefits. In addition, corporations should pay their fair share of the tax burden and pay for the environmental messes they leave behind. If a corporation expects fair treatement--it must give fair treatment in return.

But RYAN, remember that statistics show that the majority of personal income tax is payed by these same high payed CEO's, which then goes to support the hand-out programs that you so love.

Are you familiar with the multiple loopholes available for any savvy high-paying tax payer?

If a person works for WalMart for 20+ years and stays at bag-boy level, the what the fuck was he/she doing? People do move up the ladder if they stay and work hard. They may not become Bill Gates or Sam Walton, but they do move up.

Are you forgetting the we are living in the era of corporate "downsizing"---a synonym for firing dedicated employees to avoid paying respectable retirement salaries? Hard work and productivity is not always rewarded, which is why it's the government's role to see that it is. If not the government, then who else will protect the employee's interests? Unions? Well, they've been under Republican attack for years now.

 

[spentagn]

Maybe a part-time employ will draw 130 bucks per week. Have you tried supporting your family off that salary, Spentagn?

Umm, yes. For going on two years. Plus I pay for school. And my apartment. Have you ever done any of this? It's easy to be liberal with other people's money.

 

[RyanH]

Have you ever done any of this? It's easy to be liberal with other people's money.

that's what I thought when President Bush started talking about building multi-billion dollar missile defense shields, at taxpayer expense.

 

[spentagn]

that's what I thought when President Bush started talking about building multi-billion dollar missile defense shields, at taxpayer expense.

He pays taxes, too. Even more than you. Thanks for avoiding the question, though.

 

[RyanH]

He pays taxes, too. Even more than you. Thanks for avoiding the question, though.

I'm always eager to answer relevant questions.

 

[cockdezl]

Fine, allow CEOs to make whatever the board of directors decides they ought to earn. However, the quid pro quo is that investors ought to have FULL disclosure as to a corporation's financial condition, and a corporation ought to provide its employees with a living wage and fair benefits. In addition, corporations should pay their fair share of the tax burden and pay for the environmental messes they leave behind. If a corporation expects fair treatement--it must give fair treatment in return.

I have no problem with corporations being held accountable for things that are PROVEN hazards, not things that are not proven, such as your assertion that the automotive industry should be forced to produce cars that the US does not wish to buy, due to boogey-men such as ozone depletion and global warming.

Also, you have never stated what is a "living wage". This is a relative term and has no meaning, since one person can do fine on a wage, while another could not make ends meet. How do you guarantee a "living wage" when you cannot control how that person spends their money? My wife and I make near six figures, but we don't have the spendable cash that some of my friends have who make less. This is due to debts that we have incurred from schooling and frivolous items. And since we make more than your beloved "poor" we are penalized for our productivity, with higher taxes. Yet your "poor" purchase items that I do not have the ability to buy. And lets not forget that my child is penalized since his inheritance shall be raided by your beloved "grave robber" tax.

Are you familiar with the multiple loopholes available for any savvy high-paying tax payer?

I sure am, and I support it whole heartedly, but you still forget that the top 1% of wage earners still pay the majority of all income taxes. Loopholes are the legal equivalent of what your "poor" do all the time when they get things like "earned income credit" and never pay any income taxes. Why is it OK to steal from one to pay for another? Why is the collective good better than the individual good? If you don't understand this, then you will remain a socialist forever, and a threat to freedom.


Are you forgetting the we are living in the era of corporate "downsizing"---a synonym for firing dedicated employees to avoid paying respectable retirement salaries? Hard work and productivity is not always rewarded, which is why it's the government's role to see that it is. If not the government, then who else will protect the employee's interests? Unions? Well, they've been under Republican attack for years now.

I am not forgetting about this, I recognize that this happens all the time, but why should the majority be penalized for the misfortune of the few? The above does not happen to the extent that you wish to believe, so why should everyone else be forced to pay for this? The number of programs that you wish to provide for will only burden the middle class even further and drive them further into economic despair. But I forget, this will increase the Democratic vote, since they will be the answer to all the world's ills.

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: ok conservatives

For instance, conservatives allege that "government should remain out of our lives."

Wrong as usual. You shouldn't try to speak for conservatives, you are way out of your lane.

We do advocate a smaller, more efficient govt that focuses on constitutionally mandated responsibilities, such as the common defense. Establishing a Homeland Defense Dept is supposed to eliminate redundancy found in various depts now. Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen.

 

[Prometheus]

Are you familiar with the multiple loopholes available for any savvy high-paying tax payer?

name one.