World Politics

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
TRDean said:
Ok...so I am a conservative...I have been labelel an evil person by quite a few of you...who don't even know me...let me set the record straight...

I used to live in a town...too crowded so me and my family moved way out into the country. Not even there a year and the "government" says they are taking a huge swath of land through my property so that high tension power lines can be put in. This has done two things...it has uglied my property...it has dropped my home value by god knows what...and there are very real health issues related to being within 100 feet of these power lines. They said they did this by imminent domain...for the greater good of society. Interesting.

I don't make a lot of money...I didn't get into my career to become rich...but I did have to put myself through graduate school. During that time I went to school, and worked a job on the side to prepare for my family. During that time I had no insurance...my wife needed surgery. I am still paying off that bill because it is the right thing to do...I will be paying it off for quite a while!

I am a church going American. I give the church 10% of our income. I also have 5% of my income automatically taken from my pay that goes to the charity of my choice.

I am raising 2 children who are growing up educated and productive in our society.

Now some of you think I am evil...how much more should I have to give? I don't give enough? What is enough? I don't need anyone telling me or acting as my moral compass!! You people have not even a clue as to my background and what I have done in life...

And for the nimrod liberal who wants to kick my ***...I live in NC...just let me know. And for the record...you are the one who acted like the ***.

Anyone on this board or in life can disagree with my or anyones opinions. However, when you attack me personally with name calling or whatever it crosses the line. I have not attacked anyone here personally...just given my position. I don't care if you agree with it or not...you are not me and never will be.

By the way Washington DC needs an enima...calling the Pres a liar was wrong..now a congressman saying republicans are nuckle dragging neandrithals? Yea...sounds like some on this thread.
I hear what you are saying, and you sound reasonable.

But know this, I to am a Christian, and I donated almost 15% of my gross income to church and charity last year. I also give of my time. I also believe that the government holds the necessary responsibility of taking some of my money for the common good. Unfortunately, history has shown that we cannot rely on the generosity of the wealthy. There is no real world example you can point to that will show this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
You mean like this IRS data?

Table 5.--Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI and Total Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2005
[All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles
Item, tax year Total Top Top Top Top Top
1 percent 5 percent 10 percent 25 percent 50 percent
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Number of returns: [1]
1986 102,087,623 1,020,876 5,104,381 10,208,762 25,521,906 51,043,811
1987 106,154,761 1,061,548 5,307,738 10,615,476 26,538,690 53,077,380
1988 108,872,859 1,088,729 5,443,643 10,887,286 27,218,214 54,436,429
1989 111,312,721 1,113,127 5,565,636 11,131,272 27,828,181 55,656,361
1990 112,812,262 1,128,123 5,640,613 11,281,226 28,203,066 56,406,132
1991 113,804,104 1,138,041 5,690,205 11,380,410 28,451,026 56,902,052
1992 112,652,759 1,126,528 5,632,638 11,265,276 28,163,190 56,326,380
1993 113,681,387 1,136,814 5,684,069 11,368,139 28,420,347 56,840,694
1994 114,989,920 1,149,899 5,749,496 11,498,992 28,747,480 57,494,960
1995 117,274,186 1,172,742 5,863,709 11,727,419 29,318,546 58,637,093
1996 119,441,767 1,194,418 5,972,088 11,944,177 29,860,442 59,720,884
1997 121,503,284 1,215,033 6,075,164 12,150,328 30,375,821 60,751,642
1998 123,775,831 1,237,758 6,188,792 12,377,583 30,943,958 61,887,915
1999 126,008,974 1,260,090 6,300,449 12,600,897 31,502,244 63,004,487
2000 128,227,143 1,282,271 6,411,357 12,822,714 32,056,786 64,113,572
2001 128,817,051 1,288,171 6,440,853 12,881,705 32,204,263 64,408,526
2002 128,323,986 1,283,240 6,416,199 12,832,399 32,080,997 64,161,993
2003 128,609,786 1,286,098 6,430,489 12,860,979 32,152,447 64,304,893
2004 130,371,156 1,303,712 6,518,558 13,037,116 32,592,789 65,185,578
2005 132,611,637 1,326,116 6,630,582 13,261,164 33,152,909 66,305,819
Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):

The top 1% of wage earners pay 39.38% of all collected income tax.
The top 5% pay 59.67% of all collected income tax.
The top 10% pay over 70%
The top 25% pay 85.99%


How much more do you want? These are not tax rates, this is TOTAL tax collected. If the top 1% pay nearly 40% of ALL TAXES COLLECTED what do you suppose their effective rate of taxation is? 65%, 70%? WTF???
Its funny, that almost resembles the EXACT statistics on the distribution of WEALTH. Not income, but WEALTH. I think its pretty fair actually. I will find the citation later, but have to go to work now.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
titan_90 said:
I agree with you for the most part but, many people are completely oblivious to the real world and live in their own fantasy land and don't perceive other peoples or societies problems as their own. And, then there are other people who simply don't care about other people as we have seen in this thread.

I am a progressive who is a reformed and enlightened former selfish and greedy conservative(I was never a right-wing fringe lunatic to be clear). You just can't reason with conservatives because they just aren't reality based. Something personally devastating is the only thing that will change their belief system and for them to see reality.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but things in this country will have to get much worse before they will get better. However, I would love to be proved wrong. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
You see...the problem with everything you have said is that it is nothing but name calling...that you are a reformed conservative...WTF? Conservatives are not reality based? WTF? You have said nothing of value in your post...you have just basically said that conservatives are a disease or something like it. I'm happy that you feel morally superior to people who identify with conservative thought.

Here is a thought...I work in a predominantly liberal setting...(environmental protection)...we have a week called diversity. We try to see other points of view whether it be religion, ethnicity, sexual preference. Funny how that does not extend to politics....the conservatives are continually slammed...why? No room for opposing views? This is the very thing that they are trying to promote!! I say we do it here...I like hearing other views...whether I agree or not...but discourse without civility is no discourse at all.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
I hear what you are saying, and you sound reasonable.

But know this, I to am a Christian, and I donated almost 15% of my gross income to church and charity last year. I also give of my time. I also believe that the government holds the necessary responsibility of taking some of my money for the common good. Unfortunately, history has shown that we cannot rely on the generosity of the wealthy. There is no real world example you can point to that will show this.
I appreciate that TFF...I am reasonable...and in no way did I mean to indicate that I was any more generous than you or anyone else...just stating my case. I believe we are roughly the same age...will we get social security? I do not mind reform of the health care system...small steps...I do not want or trust the government in this issue. Small steps like tort reform...among others. Why does everything have to be done in one felled swoop.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I find it iteresting and puzzling how the class warfare in this country has evolved. I'm not wealthy by any measurement but I am an employer and am in the cross-hairs of this current administration.

Just like millions of small business owners I have taken incredible financial risks to grow my company. I employ people, pay them more than a competitive wage, provide benefits including long term care insurance. I do what I can afford to do and as/if my business grows I will be in a position to do more. Yet, I am the problem in this country. I am selfish, short sighted, can't see the greater good, etc. I somehow don't pay my fair share. I present factual data from the IRS but accused of lying with statistics. I pay a ridiculous amount of my net income in taxes. I believe in lifting the bottom up, not tearing the top down. Our economy is not a zero sum game. As bad as our situation is currently we still have the richest poor people in the history of the world. Does this mean the situation should not be improved? No, but a little perspective would be helpful.

I care about my clients. During the last really bad wildfire scene here in southern cal (2007) I spent a week at the disater relief center helping folks that had been displaced from their homes. I did the same in 2003. I give money and time to multiple charities and foundations because I can and I should. I spend time and money with the local high school to mentor kids that are about to start secondary education and/or enter the job market. All of this does not make me better or worse than any one of you but for this, I and folks like me are demonized.

TFF, you are correct stating that the insurance market is not a true free market. It is so incredibly regulated that it barely functions. Catastrophic coverage policies are not offered not because the industry does not want to. There are hundreds of free market ideas that could be implemented but will never even be discussed because 1) they are not "free" as in re-distributed wealth, 2) require more contol to be placed in the people's hands rather than central govt, and 3) don't keep the political elite in office forever.

The idea that those who have succeeded financially in this country have somehow done it on the backs of others.... while this is likely true is some cases it certainly in not universally the case. Look at Microsoft, Dell Computers, Wal-Mart, Nordstroms, Starbucks... One could name thousands of first generation wealth creators that provide millions of jobs and untold societal benefits yet all of those companies are targeted by the left for various reasons. I'm left to scratch my head because for the life of me I don't undersand why intelligent people can't seem to figure out what the logical conclusion of these collectivist policies will be especially when there is plenty of history to suggest exactly what will happen.
 
Mar 17, 2009
157
0
0
TRDean said:
During that time I had no insurance...my wife needed surgery. I am still paying off that bill because it is the right thing to do...I will be paying it off for quite a while!
TRDean - From your post you sound like a reasonable hardworking type person and I'm sorry your wife got sick and that you have a financial burden from that.

If the USA could manage to get universal health care like we have here in Canada, your wife would have had her surgery and your hospital bill would be zero dollars because the cost is spread around through everyone's taxes.
 
Scott SoCal said:
As bad as our situation is currently we still have the richest poor people in the history of the world. Does this mean the situation should not be improved? No, but a little perspective would be helpful.
The US does not have the richest poor people in the world. Western European countries and Canada have much better social security systems which help people at the bottom. If someone gets sick in the UK, Ireland, France etc. and go to a hospital they will be looked after. No public hospital, and the vast majority of people rely on the public system, is going to deny anybody treatment based on their income or whether they are insured or not. Health is rightly seen as a basic human right.

The US is one of the least poor friendly country in the developed world.

If I were poor, thankfully I'm not, I would not like to live in the US.

ruamruam
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
I must say, I find the development of the thread much better than expected. As long as we can be civil, it should be fine to slam one another with arguments. A thread with only liberals, would be like - as we say in the Netherlands - preaching to ones own parish. To put things into perspective, I think many US Democrats would be (slightly) right-winged liberals or right winged centrists in the Netherlands.

As someone who only recently moved to the US, coming from Europe, and having lived in several different European countries, I must say that I am somewhat amused by the politics, the themes and the arguments put forth in this country.

What I always find interesting is the way 'socialism' is defined (ie lacking any definition, it just connotates pure evil) and introduced into the debate, in such a way as if many are still under the influence of the evil system embodied by the Russian Red Bear, looming across Palin's Alaska. This threat seems to be invoked whenever possible, just to defuse all arguments for better or more goverment operations.

I also chuckle when I hear the term 'tax-payers' money. As if citizens are only consumers who spend money, or put negatively, tax payers whose consumption patterns are negatively affected by taxes. Indicative perhaps, the DC metro asks 'customers' to make way for people who exit the trains, while in the UK, those same people are referred to as 'passengers'.

Obviously I am biased, and most of all, European countries are all (slightly) different in how they achieve their goals and 'take care of their citizens', but I can't fathom the way certain things work in the US. I mean, where I am it looks a bit like this:

Health Care: mixed private/public; everyone is required to purchase their own HC, selection from different insurance companies who have to accept you; gov subsidizes those who live below a minimum income. I reckon it costs around 120E per month, with a 250E deductible/out of pocket. General practicioners serve as gatekeepers, so referals are generally needed to go to hospitals, preventing the 'emergency room' overload. Unless of course, you have an immediate emergency.

Public education: College, 1500-2000E tuition fee per year, government at this point still, guarantees a basic scholarship per year of 300E per month for living expenses. Government loans for additional funding are accesible to anyone, but depends on your parent's income and amount of support they can give you. So parents rich - no/low loan available, assuming they can help you out. Designated vocational schools for people who won't pursue a college degree. Quality standards to ensure that education (high school; secondary etc.) is identical 'country wide', which allows for easy transfers and better access to college (No such thing as a GRE or LSAT that tests your ability to memorize tips and tricks to identify the best answer; what good is that in college anyway?)

Work: 36-40 hrs work week; 2 holidays per month, almost 24 days minimum per year (excluding official holidays like christmas), as opposed to 10 in the US. Some companies even have 'moving days' if you move to another appartment; % traveling expenses reimbursed for your daily commute (train tickets/metro/bus or fuel). Maternal leave and child care provisions are what I thought quite advanced. Although Germany seems to top the bill with paternal leave (?).

Strong consumer protection: goverment, or the EU, has set minimum standards for production. That means that the cereal that contains asbestos or other carcineogenics never reaches the shelves, so that you don't have to read all the fine print on each and every product you purchase to see if it'll harm you.

And that's in the Netherlands, while many would even say that Scandinavian countries are the heavenly places to live. Obviously there are still lots of things that could be changed/improved/tweaked, otherwise we would not need politicians anymore, but I always felt the arrangement works out quite well. And guess what, many of these 'socialist countries' are still quite productive. How's that possible with 36-40 hrs work week and 24-30 days off per year, do Europeans just work more efficiently?

And yes, the tax rates are a little steeper, but then again, you don't have to waste time making 'free and informed decisions' from choice overload, and you can spend most of your freedom 'living it'.

On top of that, you also pay less 'out of pocket' for many things, because taxes have paid for it already.

An interesting article about the so acclaimed American 'consumer freedom' User-friendliness; the Economist. Although, the telecom cartel run by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile locking your type of hardwear (your phone) to a similarly priced contract doesn't really shout consumer freedom...

USA would do well to copy and incorporate certain ideas, and improve them or tailor them to the US culture/market/government... As LA said, 'lots to learn'?
 
I find it both ironic and hypocritical that so many conservative American church goers (I presume in the Christian faith), who claim that because they practice their faith and indeed "give 10% of what they earn to the church," while at the same time espose an ideological culture that is in nature against the teachings of the Christ, can feel so self rightous in their behavior. As if simply by "going to church" they have earned extremely high quota in the morality market. That and the fact that they have always been "hard workers."

Nevermind that their conservitive ideology, based on the justice of the mighty, capitalist greed, with a rather disdainful outlook on the weak, makes a mockery of their religious beliefs. So we have to separate "moralism" from true morality.

I also find it curious and disgusting how those in the moral majority and republicans in general, who are the champions of unregulated market capitalism when it's profitable, the moment that their excessive greed and ruless practices leads to the kind of fianacial disaster that has afflicted first Wall Street and then the world, they immediatly become a rather perverse form of socialist when asking fo billions of tax payers money to bail out the system.

However making sure taxation goes to real social programs like healthcare is branded by them as un-American, in many cases un-Christian, as if Christ himself would approve of deregulated financial capitalism but not socialized medical care.

Their hyocricy knows no bounds, whereas their explotation of religion as an alibi for their conservative ideology which for them transforms criminal practice into moral virtue is abhorant and perverse.

In this sense I have known many a progressive atheist, without God or religion, who in their world views comport themselves much more in keeping with the moral teachings of the religious institutions. Who are hands down more virtuous than the hypocritical mass of church goers and yet, get branded by the latter as wicked because god-less.

It should also be remembered that if everyone were to find "success," there would be nothing to measure that success in relation to everyone else. In other words, the successful and the wealthy should remember that they can only be so because many, many others can not find success or become wealthy. In this sense the very nature of the lower social statuses, allows for those at the top or closer to it to thrive. Consequently this basic truth should invite many a successful, or moderately successful, conservative member in society toward self-reflection and thus to be less egocentristic, less disdainful of the weaker and more objective in their views toward the collective public.

But I have yet to have met a true conservative, especially a religiously practicing one, who is either self-reflective or objective.
 
Murray said:
If the USA could manage to get universal health care like we have here in Canada, your wife would have had her surgery and your hospital bill would be zero dollars because the cost is spread around through everyone's taxes.
And the ironic thing it would work out cheaper for the ordinary citizen.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
rhubroma said:
I find it both ironic and hypocritical that so many conservative American church goers (I presume in the Christian faith), who claim that because they practice their faith and indeed "give 10% of what they earn to the church," while at the same time espose an ideological culture that is in nature against the teachings of the Christ, can feel so self rightous in their behavior. As if simply by "going to church" they have earned extremely high quota in the morality market. That and the fact that they have always been "hard workers."

Nevermind that their conservitive ideology, based on the justice of the mighty, capitalist greed, with a rather disdainful outlook on the weak, makes a mockery of their religious beliefs. So we have to separate "moralism" from true morality.

I also find it curious and disgusting how those in the moral majority and republicans in general, who are the champions of unregulated market capitalism when it's profitable, the moment that their excessive greed and ruless practices leads to the kind of fianacial disaster that has afflicted first Wall Street and then the world, they immediatly become a rather perverse form of socialist when asking fo billions of tax payers money to bail out the system.

However making sure taxation goes to real social programs like healthcare is branded by them as un-American, in many cases un-Christian, as if Christ himself would approve of deregulated financial capitalism but not socialized medical care.

Their hyocricy knows no bounds, whereas their explotation of religion as an alibi for their conservative ideology which for them transforms criminal practice into moral virtue is abhorant and perverse.

In this sense I have known many a progressive atheist, without God or religion, who in their world views comport themselves much more in keeping with the moral teachings of the religious institutions. Who are hands down more virtuous than the hypocritical mass of church goers and yet, get branded by the latter as wicked because god-less.

It should also be remembered that if everyone were to find "success," there would be nothing to measure that success in relation to everyone else. In other words, the successful and the wealthy should remember that they can only be so because many, many others can not find success or become wealthy. In this sense the very nature of the lower social statuses, allows for those at the top or closer to it to thrive. Consequently this basic truth should invite many a successful, or moderately successful, conservative member in society toward self-reflection and thus to be less egocentristic, less disdainful of the weaker and more objective in their views toward the collective public.

But I have yet to have met a true conservative, especially a religiously practicing one, who is either self-reflective or objective.
Talk about hate!!! You have a serious issue. You probably have never met a true conservative that is self-reflective or objective because you make no effort to...You are the most judgemental person and not ashamed about it at all. I never realized that being successful in a chosen career was against the teachings of Christ. I believe the teaching is to basically do what you can...

"It should also be remembered that if everyone were to find "success," there would be nothing to measure that success in relation to everyone else. In other words, the successful and the wealthy should remember that they can only be so because many, many others can not find success or become wealthy." This quote is exactly what socialism is...it removes success out of the equation and makes everything and everyone equal...so nobody works hard...nobody starts companies....and we are all a single class society...nice in a utopian world...I don't live in some textbook. Your theoretical world is just that.

Read what SoCal says...what if he does get rich...employs 100 people...gives them health care....some of those people become very well off...etc. etc. Yea SoCalScott seems like a really bad guy to me.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
ruamruam said:
And the ironic thing it would work out cheaper for the ordinary citizen.
Unless that "ordinary citizen" happens to take home a handsome paycheck from our Health Care Industry!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"We have nothing to fear from the sky. If you want to look up, look up at Capitol Hill and fear that."
 
Jun 24, 2009
464
0
0
TRDean said:
Ok...so I am a conservative...I have been labelel an evil person by quite a few of you...who don't even know me...
Hey, one last thought on your pathetic a$$ . We don't care about all that nonsense I didn't read about you.
This is the REAL deal: The United States of America, in fact all of America, was not founded on Conservative principles. From the first settlers on these shores, it was settled by Bold, Courageous people, pioneers, that set out into territories unknown with no idea whether they would be successful or not,or more importantly whether they would live or die, period. There's nothing conservative about that
I'm sorry that I have so much contempt for you, but you asked for it. Your self-righteous, self-centered attitude begged for that contempt. The way you framed it, before you started back pedaling is reprehensible. If most Americans thought like you, we wouldn't be the country we've grown to be.
For Health Care to be framed by insurance companies as a "for profit" venture is absolutely disgusting, and the end of that farce would be the best thing for all Americans.These are people's lives and health we are talking about.
The stupid Americans that have jumped onto the reform efforts and labeled them socialist, nazi, marxist etc. are totally missing the true point. And like Medicare, I hope reform, that will squeeze out the middle man (called: insurance companies), is shoved down America's throat. Because, in the end, All Americans will realize that it was a good thing to rid itself of the insurance giants who are ripping us all off. And have the option to get good health insurance, for a price everyone can afford. Nothing less should be demanded.
This is a compassionate Nation. Why do you think we've been trying to give countries around the world "freedom"? Or why we've been concerned about women's rights around the world? Compassion! fools.
And let me finish by adding. The cost for those compassionate efforts has been the lives of many fine young Men and Women. The cost of health care will only be $$$$$$, and that's cheap, in the end.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
Its funny, that almost resembles the EXACT statistics on the distribution of WEALTH. Not income, but WEALTH. I think its pretty fair actually. I will find the citation later, but have to go to work now.
"Now, uhhh, if I had called Thoughtforfood and said, 'TFF, we have no food' he would have said, 'Fasting is good for your soul'."
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
racerralph said:
Hey, one last thought on your pathetic a$$ . We don't care about all that nonsense I didn't read about you.
This is the REAL deal: The United States of America, in fact all of America, was not founded on Conservative principles. From the first settlers on these shores, it was settled by Bold, Courageous people, pioneers, that set out into territories unknown with no idea whether they would be successful or not,or more importantly whether they would live or die, period. There's nothing conservative about that
I'm sorry that I have so much contempt for you, but you asked for it. Your self-righteous, self-centered attitude begged for that contempt. The way you framed it, before you started back pedaling is reprehensible. If most Americans thought like you, we wouldn't be the country we've grown to be.
For Health Care to be framed by insurance companies as a "for profit" venture is absolutely disgusting, and the end of that farce would be the best thing for all Americans.These are people's lives and health we are talking about.
The stupid Americans that have jumped onto the reform efforts and labeled them socialist, nazi, marxist etc. are totally missing the true point. And like Medicare, I hope reform, that will squeeze out the middle man (called: insurance companies), is shoved down America's throat. Because, in the end, All Americans will realize that it was a good thing to rid itself of the insurance giants who are ripping us all off. And have the option to get good health insurance, for a price everyone can afford. Nothing less should be demanded.
This is a compassionate Nation. Why do you think we've been trying to give countries around the world "freedom"? Or why we've been concerned about women's rights around the world? Compassion! fools.
And let me finish by adding. The cost for those compassionate efforts has been the lives of many fine young Men and Women. The cost of health care will only be $$$$$$, and that's cheap, in the end.
You are an idiot...what did I say that was self rightous or self centered you rump ranger? What I don't believe in your ideals?

For your information this country was settled and formed by self starters...people who looked out for themselves...did for themselves. They didn't move west hoping the government would be there to bail them out if they failed...they are the exact type of people you have contempt for...they asked for nothing!!!!

And for the record...I am not back pedaling...quite the opposite...you just keep up with you idiotic rants and you make it easier for me to laugh at you.

Who said anything about compassion? Did I say I wasn't...NO...you azz pirates keep putting words into peoples mouths...see what happens. Womens rights? WTF? For the record...I have lost a relative in every war this country has been in starting with the Revolution...and not including Korea or the current situation. Don't dare claim that you have more compassion or patriotism than I do...

Funny...Bush was called a Nazi...rightly so maybe...and that was OK...but not now? Inexplicable double standard turd burglar!!

Yea...lets put the insurance companies out of business...how many people do the insurance companies employ you dill hole? I'm sure they want to be on the street.
 
TRDean said:
Talk about hate!!! You have a serious issue. You probably have never met a true conservative that is self-reflective or objective because you make no effort to...You are the most judgemental person and not ashamed about it at all. I never realized that being successful in a chosen career was against the teachings of Christ. I believe the teaching is to basically do what you can...

"It should also be remembered that if everyone were to find "success," there would be nothing to measure that success in relation to everyone else. In other words, the successful and the wealthy should remember that they can only be so because many, many others can not find success or become wealthy." This quote is exactly what socialism is...it removes success out of the equation and makes everything and everyone equal...so nobody works hard...nobody starts companies....and we are all a single class society...nice in a utopian world...I don't live in some textbook. Your theoretical world is just that.

Read what SoCal says...what if he does get rich...employs 100 people...gives them health care....some of those people become very well off...etc. etc. Yea SoCalScott seems like a really bad guy to me.
It is so typical that those that practice religion, are the ones that usually know the least about it. And they often like to appropriate only those aspects of it that allow them to feel good about themselves and exist in their self-rightousness, while at the same time disregarding those difficult and uncomfortable things that make them look look shamefully hypocritical. So typical.

Whereas your assessment of socialism demonstrates a rather ametuerish comprehension of the various political ideologies. For yours is in reference to marxism, not socialism. And one doesn't speak of pure socialism anymore these days, but a third avenue between marxism and capitalism, whereby the State doesn't interfere with ones sacred right to earn bucks, but that it ensures that through public funds the basic dignity of all is a primary criteria for how those public funds are spent: which thus becomes in this sense "socialized" government spending.

By contrast what we have gotten in American capitalism since Reganism (and I make note that the so called liberal democrats were just as "conservative" in their approach to deregulation at the financial markets), has been to place the interests of the few individuals (in the corporate-financial world) that drive the economy over the needs of society as a whole. Well these Master's of the Universe have driven the economy well now don't you think? So well that your children and mine, your childrens' children and mine, etcetera, will be paying for their greed and the national debt that has resulted from it.

Nice system. And what a nice way to spend taxes. Not on healthcare, no that's too sinister and oh dear - unAmerican - but on paying for the accumilated private depts of the greedy few who ahve gotten us all into this mess.

Hate? No, just some sane critcal anger toward the ideologically inhumane, the greedy and the hypocritical.

BalaVerde is right, American society still has a lot to learn. And that's coming from an American which probably makes me hated, and this yes real hate, by those in the States whose fragile egos and patriotism makes them incapable of looking beyond their own front yards. This in addition to them not being able to elaborate one critcal though based upon real objectivity, which thus sometimes makes me I wonder if their hate just isn't based upon their own sheer stupidity.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
rhubroma said:
It is so typical that those that practice religion, are the ones that usually know the least about it. And they often like to appropriate only those aspects of it that allow them to feel good about themselves and exist in their self-rightousness, while at the same time disregarding those difficult and uncomfortable things that make them look look shamefully hypocritical. So typical.

Whereas your assessment of socialism demonstrates a rather ametuerish comprehension of the various political ideologies. For yours is in reference to marxism, not socialism. And one doesn't speak of pure socialism anymore these days, but a third avenue between marxism and capitalism, whereby the State doesn't interfere with ones sacred right to earn bucks, but that it ensures that through public funds the basic dignity of all is a primary criteria for how those public funds are spent: which this becomes in this sense "socialized" government spending.

By contrast what we have gotten in American capitalism since Reganism (and I make note that the so called liberal democrats were just as "conservative" in their approach to deregulation at the financial markets), has been to place the interests of the few individuals (in the corporate-financial world) that drive the economy over the needs of society as a whole. Well these Master's of the Universe have driven the economy well now don't you think? So well that your children and mine your childrens' children and mine, etcetera, will be paying for their greed and the national debt that has resulted from it.

Nice system. And what a nice way to spend taxes. Not on healthcare, no that's too sinister and oh dear - unAmerican - but on paying for the accumilated private depts of the greedy few who ahve gotten us all into this mess.

Hate? No, just some sane critcal anger toward the ideologically inhumane, the greedy and the hypocritical.

BalaVerde is right, American society still has a lot to learn. And that's coming from an American which probably makes me hated, and this yes real hate, by those in the States whose fragile egos and patriotism makes them incapable of looking beyond their own front yards. This in addition to them not being able to elaborate one critcal though based upon real objectivity, which thus sometimes makes me I wonder if their hate just isn't based upon their own sheer stupidity.
I understand you hate the system...but your outright hate of me...someone you don't even know is disturbing...period. I'm hypocritical?...read some of the things I have said...how about if you get assistance you do some sort of service for the community or country? I have gotten no replies to that...how about small measured changes to the system...no huge jumps that have proven in the past to end up a boondogle...lastly...we could easily fund health care for everyone, just like Europe, Canada, and others...just quit giving money to countries all over the world. I was in the Republic of Georgia 3 years ago and the US was giving them 500 million dollars...this is just one small country. I wonder how much some of these other countries give around the world? Maybe a lot..I don't know... Cut those amounts in half and fund healthcare. I have progressive ideas...they just don't revolve around me having to give up more and more....
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
rhubroma said:
It is so typical that those that practice religion, are the ones that usually know the least about it. And they often like to appropriate only those aspects of it that allow them to feel good about themselves and exist in their self-rightousness, while at the same time disregarding those difficult and uncomfortable things that make them look look shamefully hypocritical. So typical.

Whereas your assessment of socialism demonstrates a rather ametuerish comprehension of the various political ideologies. For yours is in reference to marxism, not socialism. And one doesn't speak of pure socialism anymore these days, but a third avenue between marxism and capitalism, whereby the State doesn't interfere with ones sacred right to earn bucks, but that it ensures that through public funds the basic dignity of all is a primary criteria for how those public funds are spent: which thus becomes in this sense "socialized" government spending.

By contrast what we have gotten in American capitalism since Reganism (and I make note that the so called liberal democrats were just as "conservative" in their approach to deregulation at the financial markets), has been to place the interests of the few individuals (in the corporate-financial world) that drive the economy over the needs of society as a whole. Well these Master's of the Universe have driven the economy well now don't you think? So well that your children and mine, your childrens' children and mine, etcetera, will be paying for their greed and the national debt that has resulted from it.

Nice system. And what a nice way to spend taxes. Not on healthcare, no that's too sinister and oh dear - unAmerican - but on paying for the accumilated private depts of the greedy few who ahve gotten us all into this mess.

Hate? No, just some sane critcal anger toward the ideologically inhumane, the greedy and the hypocritical.

BalaVerde is right, American society still has a lot to learn. And that's coming from an American which probably makes me hated, and this yes real hate, by those in the States whose fragile egos and patriotism makes them incapable of looking beyond their own front yards. This in addition to them not being able to elaborate one critcal though based upon real objectivity, which thus sometimes makes me I wonder if their hate just isn't based upon their own sheer stupidity.

Your last sentence leaves me confused...what hate have I expoused? Hate that you yourself have given to me? The only one that keeps bringing up hate is you....you have a mirror?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TRDean said:
Your last sentence leaves me confused...what hate have I expoused? Hate that you yourself have given to me? The only one that keeps bringing up hate is you....you have a mirror?
"You're not gods 'cause for one thing... God ain't got no big head like Elmer Fudd."
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
Rhubroma...

I am going to tone it down a little...you don't have to if you don't want. Anyway, this country is great because there are opposing points of view. The right and left made this country great, not just one...and if the country goes down it will lay at the feet of both parties.

We both have one thing in common...we both love this country!!

Rock on!
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
TRDean said:
For your information this country was settled and formed by self starters...people who looked out for themselves...did for themselves. They didn't move west hoping the government would be there to bail them out if they failed...they are the exact type of people you have contempt for...they asked for nothing!!!!
More factually correct, the country was formed through 'capitalist' expansion, or in other words globalization, possibly initiated in Europe, and driven by an English empire.

The greatest pecentage of people who arrived were amongst others:

- poor, lower class multi-ethnic workers
- an excess of farmers whose common fields had been expropriated by a ruling class absorbed by libertarian and Lockean thought.
- indentured servants, convicts
- White, black and any other colour slaves
- religiously prosecuted groups of many nations
- women, prostitutes, seedy sailors and pirates

While a much smaller percentage consisted of:
- white wealthy investors
- white land and slave owners and planters
- white home country government officials to rule, govern and extract resources for the benefit of the monarchy/home country

the latter whom were mainly interested in capital gains, profits and the prevention of solidarity between the workers made up in the former group, while creating a dispossed group of American natives.

It's better to describe the majority of the people who arrived as proletarians (socialists), and though racially different, their interconnectedness and initial interracial solidarity was much more based on the social position they occupied in society. On top of that, they in many ways, loathed (monarchical and Empire) home government as much as capitalist/libertarian/Lockean thought that disrupted anbd terrorrized their livelihoods at home and abroad.

It would be too far besides the truth to reduce the mythical origins of the emergence of USA to what is in the best interest or defense of contemporary interpretations of society.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
Bala Verde said:
More factually correct, the country was formed through 'capitalist' expansion, or in other words globalization, possibly initiated in Europe, and driven by an English empire.

The greatest pecentage of people who arrived were amongst others:

- poor, lower class multi-ethnic workers
- an excess of farmers whose common fields had been expropriated by a ruling class absorbed by libertarian and Lockean thought.
- indentured servants, convicts
- White, black and any other colour slaves
- religiously prosecuted groups of many nations
- women, prostitutes, seedy sailors and pirates

While a much smaller percentage consisted of:
- white wealthy investors
- white land and slave owners and planters
- white home country government officials to rule, govern and extract resources for the benefit of the monarchy/home country

the latter whom were mainly interested in capital gains, profits and the prevention of solidarity between the workers made up in the former group, while creating a dispossed group of American natives.

It's better to describe the majority of the people who arrived as proletarians (socialists), and though racially different, their interconnectedness and initial interracial solidarity was much more based on the social position they occupied in society. On top of that, they in many ways, loathed (monarchical and Empire) home government as much as capitalist/libertarian/Lockean thought that disrupted anbd terrorrized their livelihoods at home and abroad.

It would be too far besides the truth to reduce the mythical origins of the emergence of USA to what is in the best interest or defense of contemporary interpretations of society.
Points take Bala...however they were when they came here, what resulted was a population of people who made the best of what they had...they expanded west (globalization or whatever) and were self starters. This is not debatable.
 
TRDean said:
Your last sentence leaves me confused...what hate have I expoused? Hate that you yourself have given to me? The only one that keeps bringing up hate is you....you have a mirror?
I hate you, really? That's news to me.

And seriously I'm not the one who brought up hate. In fact, you did. Read my original post, the word hate never came up in it. That word did, however, in your response to it. Just to be clear.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,694
0
0
Stay on topic boys. You can PM each other off forum grounds and settle your differences privately, but stop polluting the threads with this garbage. Or, just put each other on your ignore lists and be done with it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 11
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS