PDA

View Full Version : McCain pulling his commie crap again



gator
06-10-2008, 12:52 PM
This is the kind of Left Wing crap we hear out of Obama.

What concern is it of the government what businesses pay their hired help?




Reuters
McCain wants low corporate taxes, regulated CEO payTuesday June 10, 6:46 am ET
By Jeff Mason
biz.yahoo.com/rb/080610/usa_politics_mccain.html?.v=4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican White House candidate John McCain will promise on Tuesday to lower corporate tax rates if he wins the U.S. presidency and ease the tax burden on middle-class workers to help revive the faltering economy.

The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives' pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.

"No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change?" McCain will tell a conference for small businesses, referring to his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

"Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers?" he will say, according to excerpts released before his speech.

McCain will pledge to act quickly to lower corporate taxes from "the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners to keep businesses and jobs in this country."

He will propose a law to allow companies to expense new equipment and technology in their first year.

He supports keeping capital gains taxes low, doubling a tax exemption for children, and phasing out the "alternative minimum tax" which he said would save some 25 million middle-class families up to $2,000 in a year.

On Monday Obama drew a sharp contrast with McCain, his opponent in the November election, accusing him of wanting to widen President George W. Bush's tax cuts and plunge the United States deeper into debt.

He charged that McCain's support for extending Bush's tax cuts would allow $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks.

U.S. taxes were too complicated overhaul, McCain will say in his speech, in which he will argue for an alternative system.

"As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so," he will say.

"Everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction."

McCain criticizes Obama for wanting to increase dividend and capital gains taxes and aiming to raise the minimum wage and link it to an index.

But he also takes aim at top corporate executives with big salaries and excessive severance packages.

"Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.

"If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he will say.

Molon Labe
06-10-2008, 12:59 PM
Why would this suprise anyone familiar with McCain's brand of "conservatism".

gator
06-10-2008, 01:05 PM
Why would this suprise anyone familiar with McCain's brand of "conservatism".

We have a name for it. It is called NeoConservatism and there isn't much difference between it and Liberalism.

Goldwater
06-10-2008, 01:12 PM
CEO pay should be regulated if the company has to be in one of these deals with the Fed to save it, same for nationalisation.

Molon Labe
06-10-2008, 01:53 PM
We have a name for it. It is called NeoConservatism and there isn't much difference between it and Liberalism.

Agreed. Neo conservatism is just a nasty form of Wilsonian Idealism. I'm currently reading P.Buchanan's book "The Unneccessary war"....which pretty much slams Wilsononian Idealism for creating the conditions that lead to WW2. He makes the comparison that busy bodies like Bush have fallen into the trap of unnecessary wars and destroyed conservatism while making things much more dangerous.

gator
06-10-2008, 03:05 PM
Agreed. Neo conservatism is just a nasty form of Wilsonian Idealism. I'm currently reading P.Buchanan's book "The Unneccessary war"....which pretty much slams Wilsononian Idealism for creating the conditions that lead to WW2. He makes the comparison that busy bodies like Bush have fallen into the trap of unnecessary wars and destroyed conservatism while making things much more dangerous.

A year ago I would not have understood what you are talking about. Now I understand. The NeoCons are just as dangerous as the Liberals.

I mean why in the world a shitass like McCain would be talking about a Socialist concept like controlling the wages of high paid Americans is beyond me. Like Bush and others he has his little Liberal agenda like protecting the goddamn illeagls.

Molon Labe
06-10-2008, 03:22 PM
I wouldn't have even entertained any of this even 4 years ago either. I voted for Bush twice. :o

But I've learned alot in 8 years.
I was also a fan of Neo conservatism during college. At one time I was totally convinced by the statistics about Democratic peace theory and it's potential for pacification...until I learned that there were people who thought it should be implemented by the sword and have done so in some f'ed up type of 21st century Manifest destiny.
I am very surpised at how many people (some at this site) talk the Neo con platitudes and have no understanding of Fukuyama.

LibraryLady
06-10-2008, 04:18 PM
I would love to see some polling data on this (I bet McCain has). I think the majority of Americans are repulsed by the hyper inflated incomes of some of these poorly performing CEOS.

Kevin Drum wrote this 4 years ago: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005302.php)


Got that? A full ten percent of corporate earnings go to the top five people in the company. The. Top. Five.

Don't you think it's about time shareholders and workers started making some noise about this? I'm guessing that America's senior managers could probably make a perfectly good living on a measly 5% of total corporate profits, don't you?

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias says, fine, but what should we do about this? (http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/executive_pay.html) After all, government regulation of CEO salaries doesn't sound like such a great idea.

I agree, and I'd never suggest such a thing. But there are other options. First, if conservatives actually agreed that this was a problem — which I doubt — they'd at least speak out about it. That is, they'd try to shame their fellow conservatives into keeping their compensation demands somewhere south of the stratosphere. They'd try to persuade them that gold-plated executive washroom fixtures and salaries that are 500x the median are rather too close to Gilded Age arrogance for comfort.

Second, there's government regulation and then there's government regulation. We might not want to directly regulate CEO compensation, but we can certainly enact policies that motivate companies to pay their executives differently. Transparency of pay plans, stock option accounting, deductibility of perks, tax treatment of capital gains and dividends, and progressive taxation in general are obvious starting places.

Some interesting comments and suggestions at the Yglesias site.

Gluesniffer
06-10-2008, 04:42 PM
I think he's probably right on this one. The US is the country with the highest CEO wages in the world, so it shouldn't bring any problem for America's competitiveness in the global talent war. And there is absolutely no economic logic that justifies the rising of CEO wages by a multitude of average wage rises over the past few decades. Nobody needs a few ten million dollars a year, and you don't deserve it if you're not even the one taking any risks.

Molon Labe
06-10-2008, 04:56 PM
I would love to see some polling data on this (I bet McCain has). I think the majority of Americans are repulsed by the hyper inflated incomes of some of these poorly performing CEOS.

Kevin Drum wrote this 4 years ago: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005302.php)



Some interesting comments and suggestions at the Yglesias site.

So he's going to sock it to the CEOs but he doesn't say anything about ending federal subsidies to corporations. Isn't that like punching yourself in the face?

The fact that government creates conditions that allow corporations to free ride on the backs of federal corporate welfare subsidies hurts the free markets much more than what someone pays their CEO. McCain suggesting that it is somehow the Feds responsibility to prosecute is a backwards as is the current corporate system. I'm a pretty altruisitic person. I doubt I could take even 5% myself and I could probably get by on about 1%. But that's probably why I'm not in business

gator
06-10-2008, 05:03 PM
I think he's probably right on this one. The US is the country with the highest CEO wages in the world, so it shouldn't bring any problem for America's competitiveness in the global talent war. And there is absolutely no economic logic that justifies the rising of CEO wages by a multitude of average wage rises over the past few decades. Nobody needs a few ten million dollars a year, and you don't deserve it if you're not even the one taking any risks.

Spoken like a Socialist.

Why does a baseball player "deserve" to get $10 million a year? Because other people are willing to give it to him to see him hit homeruns and it is none of the business of the government, is it?

Not everybody has the skills to run a company and those that do are in such short supply that they can demand large wages for their time. Just because you can't demand as much money for your time does not make it unfair.

I think a lot of things are "unfair" but I don't expect the role of the govenment to be to correct each and every one of them. For instance, it is unfair that Rev Wright preaches racial hatred but yet lives in a bigger house than me.

Goldwater
06-10-2008, 05:08 PM
I would love to see some polling data on this (I bet McCain has). I think the majority of Americans are repulsed by the hyper inflated incomes of some of these poorly performing CEOS.

Kevin Drum wrote this 4 years ago: (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005302.php)



Some interesting comments and suggestions at the Yglesias site.

But at the end of the day, if they're not being bailed out by the Fed and not doing anything illegal, they can pay themselves/each other whatever the shareholders are ok with.

lacarnut
06-10-2008, 05:59 PM
Spoken like a Socialist.

Why does a baseball player "deserve" to get $10 million a year? Because other people are willing to give it to him to see him hit homeruns and it is none of the business of the government, is it?

Not everybody has the skills to run a company and those that do are in such short supply that they can demand large wages for their time. Just because you can't demand as much money for your time does not make it unfair.

I think a lot of things are "unfair" but I don't expect the role of the govenment to be to correct each and every one of them. For instance, it is unfair that Rev Wright preaches racial hatred but yet lives in a bigger house than me.

Some of those prima donna sports figures make over 40 million plus they only work 6 to 8 months a year. Plus these dudes have job security with their long term contract; also, they have a union to protect them. So if they get into trouble with the law or the league, they have free representation. Also, there is no comparison between the responsibility of a ball player making this kind of money with a CEO of a large Corp. They also work long hours. Although I do not advocate capping anyone's salary, it is my opinion that a ball player is only worth about 1/4 the amount of a top CEO.

Eyelids
06-10-2008, 06:07 PM
Some of those prima donna sports figures make over 40 million plus they only work 6 to 8 months a year. Plus these dudes have job security with their long term contract; also, they have a union to protect them. So if they get into trouble with the law or the league, they have free representation. Also, there is no comparison between the responsibility of a ball player making this kind of money with a CEO of a large Corp. They also work long hours. Although I do not advocate capping anyone's salary, it is my opinion that a ball player is only worth about 1/4 the amount of a top CEO.

NFL players do not have guaranteed contracts and can have be terminated at any time without penalty for the team.

If the rich/poor gap in this country keeps getting worse it will be 1929 all over again. And while this country has shown the ability to recover from something like that, I'd rather not live through it.

LogansPapa
06-10-2008, 06:17 PM
Regulated CEO pay idea is just ridiculous. Of all the problems this country has - economically and politically - it’s still a land of free choice. What shareholders or team owners choose to pay their top people is their business.

Sure as Hell not the government’s. :mad:

Eyelids
06-10-2008, 06:23 PM
What shareholders or team owners choose to pay their top people is their business. :

Not when it starts to affect me.

Phillygirl
06-10-2008, 06:27 PM
Not when it starts to affect me.

And how has it effected you thus far?

LogansPapa
06-10-2008, 06:33 PM
Not when it starts to affect me.

You’ll need to educate me on your importance in the system and why effecting you should direct various corporations on how much to compensate their executives.

Zathras
06-10-2008, 07:37 PM
And how has it effected you thus far?

Business on his paper route is down.

Goldwater
06-10-2008, 08:43 PM
Not when it starts to affect me.

It doesn't affect you, unless it's a bailout by the fed, or companies are using influence to distort markets.

Eyelids
06-10-2008, 08:45 PM
If you dont think the rich/poor gap affects the bottom 98% of this country you've been so brainwashed by Ronald Reagan I cant even understand how you wake up in the morning anymore.

Goldwater
06-10-2008, 08:55 PM
If you dont think the rich/poor gap affects the bottom 98% of this country you've been so brainwashed by Ronald Reagan I cant even understand how you wake up in the morning anymore.

Please, we live better than ever before, if anything Americans are guilty of too much consumption.

When did the pain threshold drop so much?

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 02:30 AM
It doesn't affect you, unless it's a bailout by the fed, or companies are using influence to distort markets.
Or if they use board influence to get what they want, that's also a form of market distortion.

AmPat
06-11-2008, 06:08 AM
NFL players do not have guaranteed contracts and can have be terminated at any time without penalty for the team.

If the rich/poor gap in this country keeps getting worse it will be 1929 all over again. And while this country has shown the ability to recover from something like that, I'd rather not live through it.

Well I guess the poor better start working harder. You don't expect the rich to stand still to decrease this alleged gap do you?:cool:

du freeper
06-11-2008, 07:16 AM
We have a name for it. It is called NeoConservatism and there isn't much difference between it and Liberalism.

There is quite a bit of difference.

Liberalism is socialism. Everyone should have their "fair" share even without working their "fair" share. If Liberals had their way religion would be outlawed because they are offended by moral clarity.

NeoConservativism is about boosting the Military Industrial Complex to which there is no end in sight. All our NeoCon leaders have to say is that a rogue nation is threatening us and we are willing to give up our rights and liberties and march off to conquer that nation. I too used to be a NeoCon. Both NeoCons and liberals are hell bent on destroying the Nation our forefathers have blessed us with.

gator
06-11-2008, 07:17 AM
There is quite a bit of difference.

Liberalism is socialism. Everyone should have their "fair" share even without working their "fair" share. If Liberals had their way religion would be outlawed because they are offended by moral clarity.

NeoConservativism is about boosting the Military Industrial Complex to which there is no end in sight. All our NeoCon leaders have to say is that a rogue nation is threatening us and we are willing to give up our rights and liberties and march off to conquer that nation. I too used to be a NeoCon. Both NeoCons and liberals are hell bent on destroying the Nation our forefathers have blessed us with.

NeoCons do the same things the Liberals do at the end of the day. They just justify it another way.

du freeper
06-11-2008, 07:28 AM
NeoCons do the same things the Liberals do at the end of the day. They just justify it another way.

If you mean tear down the institutions of this mighty Nation I agree.

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 07:33 AM
NeoCons do the same things the Liberals do at the end of the day. They just justify it another way.

One difference would be that liberalism makes less people die.

du freeper
06-11-2008, 07:37 AM
One difference would be that liberalism makes less people die.

Yeah, there are millions and millions of babies whose voices will never be heard to disagree with you.

du freeper
06-11-2008, 07:39 AM
One difference would be that liberalism makes less people die.

I guess we don't even need to mention the Anally Injected Death Sentence that was spread by liberals, "do as you please" attitude.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-11-2008, 08:04 AM
One difference would be that liberalism makes less people die.

What an absolute crock of shit.

Tell that to the 60 million plus that died due to liberalism in Russia.

Tell that to the 2 million plus that died in Cambodia due to liberalism.

Tell that to the millions upon millions that are dying today because of liberalism in Africa

Hell, tell that to the people that are ALIVE today that WOULD have been dead if the liberals had their way in Iraq!!!!

WHAT???? You mean you didn't know that our presence in Iraq cut the violent death rate of Iraqi citizens by something like 70%?"???????

OF COURSE you didn't know that - you listen to LIBERALS who LIE.

Here is a bit of truth that you idiots need to know.

Under Saddam, between 60,000 and 70,000 people died PER YEAR due DIRECTLY to Saddam.

Since we have been there it took nearly 5 years for us to approach the number that Saddam killed every year!!! That is HUGE reduction in deaths and it INCLUDES the normal murders that occur in every city while the numbers under Saddam do not.

Oh, and by the way, FEWER of our SOLDIERS are dying under President Bush than what died under President Carter also.

Doesn't it suck to be so ignorant????

Constitutionally Speaking
06-11-2008, 08:12 AM
NFL players do not have guaranteed contracts and can have be terminated at any time without penalty for the team.

If the rich/poor gap in this country keeps getting worse it will be 1929 all over again. And while this country has shown the ability to recover from something like that, I'd rather not live through it.


Except there is a MAJOR difference between now and 1929 that the liars on the left conveniently forget to mention.

The gap between rich and poor has indeed widened but that is simply because the wealthy had more money to begin with so a 2.9% growth in income seems to be greater but the reality is the lower classes ARE GAINING at a much faster rate!!

You see, the left used your envy and the poor and ignorants envy to LIE to them and to create animosity amongst us. It is the same thing they do with tax cuts the wealthy got a 5% cut under President Bush, while 4 million or so of the POOREST taxpayers got a 100% income tax cut. Yet the left used the ignorance of people to say the tax cuts were "for the rich".

Here is the TRUTH.


http://bp1.blogger.com/_L6VaBfpm8Vw/R2w1q5RcFNI/AAAAAAAAAW0/fMvu4muzE5M/s1600/111307chart%2Bupward%2Bmobility.gif



EVERYONE is doing better EXCEPT those that were already wealty, but the left tries to build resentment because SOME are doing better than others.

The wealthiest group actually show the highest % of DOWNWARD income mobility!! - The wealthy of today are NOT the same wealthy people that existed before! They are NEWLY rich people - people from the lower and middle classes, The poor don't tend to stay poor either, the group of poor that are poor today are different people than the poor a few years ago. The mobility between the income quintiles is quite significant. There are exceptions to this and they are generally people stuck in the welfare trap - you know the ones trapped there by LIBERAL policies.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1418.cfm

http://www.econweekly.com/2007/12/income-mobility-in-us.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/mobility.htm

Can't you libs do ANYTHING without trying to divide people and creating resentment???

Molon Labe
06-11-2008, 08:20 AM
One difference would be that liberalism makes less people die.

?


If Liberalism in it's most radical form is collectivism...

Then...100 million dead people in this century will have to disagree.

gator
06-11-2008, 09:11 AM
What an absolute crock of shit.

Tell that to the 60 million plus that died due to liberalism in Russia.

Tell that to the 2 million plus that died in Cambodia due to liberalism.

Tell that to the millions upon millions that are dying today because of liberalism in Africa

Hell, tell that to the people that are ALIVE today that WOULD have been dead if the liberals had their way in Iraq!!!!

WHAT???? You mean you didn't know that our presence in Iraq cut the violent death rate of Iraqi citizens by something like 70%?"???????

OF COURSE you didn't know that - you listen to LIBERALS who LIE.

Here is a bit of truth that you idiots need to know.

Under Saddam, between 60,000 and 70,000 people died PER YEAR due DIRECTLY to Saddam.

Since we have been there it took nearly 5 years for us to approach the number that Saddam killed every year!!! That is HUGE reduction in deaths and it INCLUDES the normal murders that occur in every city while the numbers under Saddam do not.

Oh, and by the way, FEWER of our SOLDIERS are dying under President Bush than what died under President Carter also.

Doesn't it suck to be so ignorant????

Wherever you have Left Wing governments you have death. Not only in th places you mentioned but also in Africa, Central and South America. Communist have killed a lot more people than anybody else, including the Nazis.

For instance, one of the things the Left never talks about is the fact their commie buddies killed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese during an invasion.

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 10:06 AM
What an absolute crock of shit.

Tell that to the 60 million plus that died due to liberalism in Russia.

Tell that to the 2 million plus that died in Cambodia due to liberalism.

Tell that to the millions upon millions that are dying today because of liberalism in Africa



What kind of grotesque intellectual dishonesty is that? Liberalism isn't the same as communism, far from it actually. Everybody knows that, but it is a typical thing for the ridiculous partisanship in American politics to say otherwise. That would be like me replying that the Nazis (right-wing, so they must be the same as conservatives) also killed lots of people, of which I have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is a bullshit comparison. My point is that starting wars kills more people than spending money on universal healthcare. I suppose you got that already, but you're just not quite down with reasonable discussion.

Molon Labe
06-11-2008, 12:21 PM
What kind of grotesque intellectual dishonesty is that? Liberalism isn't the same as communism, far from it actually. Everybody knows that, but it is a typical thing for the ridiculous partisanship in American politics to say otherwise. That would be like me replying that the Nazis (right-wing, so they must be the same as conservatives) also killed lots of people, of which I have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is a bullshit comparison. My point is that starting wars kills more people than spending money on universal healthcare. I suppose you got that already, but you're just not quite down with reasonable discussion.

Oh...I think there's quite a good argument that Nazism, which is simply another form of collectivism and statism, isn't right wing at all. (I'm not talking about Jonah Goldberg's piece either). There is a great argument that Soviet Russia and Fascist Italy and Germany were no different.
I presume you're not speaking about classic liberalism....

If one of the core principles of the liberalism is collectivism and socialism, then there is a very intellectually honest comparison.
See...the problem with collectivism/ socialism is that it inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Whether that collectivism does so under the guise of the struggle against the bourgeouise or under the search for Lebensraum is arguing over "details". You really should read some F. Hayek. He offered a fantastic account of this argument over half a century ago.

LogansPapa
06-11-2008, 02:07 PM
McCain vows to restrain big business

By Andrew Ward in Washington
Published: June 10 2008 21:52 | Last updated: June 10 2008 21:52

"For too long, government has been the voice of big business," he told a small-business conference in Washington. "Even when very large businesses violate their trust, they seem to be held to a different standard – getting away with conduct that would leave any small-business owner broke."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0b00372-372b-11dd-bc1c-0000779fd2ac.html

Constitutionally Speaking
06-11-2008, 02:31 PM
What kind of grotesque intellectual dishonesty is that? Liberalism isn't the same as communism, far from it actually. Everybody knows that, but it is a typical thing for the ridiculous partisanship in American politics to say otherwise. That would be like me replying that the Nazis (right-wing, so they must be the same as conservatives) also killed lots of people, of which I have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is a bullshit comparison. My point is that starting wars kills more people than spending money on universal healthcare. I suppose you got that already, but you're just not quite down with reasonable discussion.

It is GROSS intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise.

The war we "started in Iraq" has saved lives already and probably will end up saving millions of lives via the supression of radical islam. Of course you ignored the FACTS I laid out that PROVED the Iraq war has actually SAVED Iraqi lives.

Communism IS liberalism PERIOD. Universal Healthcare will KILL people because we will never develope cures for diseases that would otherwise be developed and people will not get treated who would otherwise get treated.



Liberalism led to the banning of DDT - the lack of use is directly responsible for millions of fatalities due to Malaria.

Liberalism is responsible for much of the drug problems and crime and poverty that we have here in the US and the deaths associated with those issues.

Liberals are ALL about FORCING people to do things they would otherwise not do. It is no different than the despotic systems of Communism and Naziism - it just has better public relations ability.

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 02:33 PM
If one of the core principles of the liberalism is collectivism and socialism, then there is a very intellectually honest comparison.


But it isn't, that's the whole point. Liberalism stands for some forms of government ownership, like healthcare and unemployment insurance. It does not stand for government control of all production though, far from it. Certainly in America, where the most left-winged big party is still farther to the right than the any serious right-winged party in any European nation.

gator
06-11-2008, 02:48 PM
More Commie crap from McCain



June 11, 2008 --

Sen. John McCain praised Mayor Bloomberg yesterday - talking up Hizzoner as a strong candidate for governor and refusing to rule him out as a vice presidential candidate.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112008/news/nationalnews/mac__mike_still_in_veepstakes_114982.htm

Molon Labe
06-11-2008, 02:56 PM
But it isn't, that's the whole point. Liberalism stands for some forms of government ownership, like healthcare and unemployment insurance. It does not stand for government control of all production though, far from it. Certainly in America, where the most left-winged big party is still farther to the right than the any serious right-winged party in any European nation.

That is entirely too much statism IMO. Once you start down that path, it get's rather slippery.... it is increasingly likely that other areas of your life will be under so called "government ownership".

Goldwater
06-11-2008, 03:33 PM
But it isn't, that's the whole point. Liberalism stands for some forms of government ownership, like healthcare and unemployment insurance. It does not stand for government control of all production though, far from it. Certainly in America, where the most left-winged big party is still farther to the right than the any serious right-winged party in any European nation.

Maybe you should take another look at some of those politicians in the EU. That and if we go back in time, politicians like Thatcher make them all look moderate.

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 04:18 PM
That is entirely too much statism IMO. Once you start down that path, it get's rather slippery.... it is increasingly likely that other areas of your life will be under so called "government ownership".

That's like saying that going down the path of conservatism can only result in a zealous theocracy. Are you willing to accept that unmistakeable parrallel?





Maybe you should take another look at some of those politicians in the EU. That and if we go back in time, politicians like Thatcher make them all look moderate.

Thatcher, yes. Continental Europe, no.
Most continental European nations already have far-reaching social security systems, labour regulation and government provisions in health care etc. Even libertarian or christian-democratic parties (the right) do not want to change the essence of these things
In the US you're a commie for raising the minimum wage or talking about universal healthcare. It's a mixture of a far more right-winged ideology and a ridiculous amount of partisanship.

Molon Labe
06-11-2008, 04:51 PM
That's like saying that going down the path of conservatism can only result in a zealous theocracy. Are you willing to accept that unmistakeable parrallel?

Nonsense...
You believe classical conservatism somehow means what?... Establishing a Religion?

Belief in the importance of religion as it relates to morality and equality is far different than over trustworthy Liberals who wish to take one of the largest segments of the economy (medicine) and place it under the parental hand of the Fed. That is what you suggested...right? And that is on the Democratic platform in most federal elections - reform of the healthcare system under the public domain right?

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen one of the goals of the Republican, Libertarian, or even the reform party platforms as one of Establishment of a particular religion.

My understanding of Conservatism simply means that we respect foundations that established Liberal Democracy AKA..the Republican form of government we have.

Unfortunately for many liberals that means we accept the fact that those foundations for equality and freedom had as much to do with the Christian religion as it did with Greek culture beliefs in rule by the people and Western civilization in general.

Where many on the left see these institutions as needing to be torn down..the conservative says that destruction of those foundations will ultimately lead to liberties demise.
So if you're going to be intellectually honest about discussing heritage and institutions that made this country great, you're going to have to speak about religious freedom and which religion it was that helped colonize and eventually write the
I can't speak for Theocrats, but I'll guarantee you, you should be more concerned about a gargantuan Fed that controls any segment of your daily life under the guise of security or helpfulness than any Theocrats.

AlmostThere
06-11-2008, 11:32 PM
Let me get this right. You've got a problem with the shareholders (owners) of a company having a say in how much a CEO (employee) should get paid? And you think it's perfectly fine that the current SOP can reward a CEO with incredible wealth regardless of his performance. The only real requirement currently is that the CEO has buddies on the board of directors. Did I miss something or does that sum it up?

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 12:20 AM
But it isn't, that's the whole point. Liberalism stands for some forms of government ownership, like healthcare and unemployment insurance. It does not stand for government control of all production though, far from it. Certainly in America, where the most left-winged big party is still farther to the right than the any serious right-winged party in any European nation.


Really???? Then why are we not allowed to drill for oil in the areas SPECIFICALLY set aside for drilling for oil.


Is that not controlling production??? Why does govt MANDATE certain products be manufactured instead of others that the consumers want???? Is that not controlling production???

Why should we lower ourselves to European standards????

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 12:23 AM
That's like saying that going down the path of conservatism can only result in a zealous theocracy. Are you willing to accept that unmistakeable parrallel?






Thatcher, yes. Continental Europe, no.
Most continental European nations already have far-reaching social security systems, labour regulation and government provisions in health care etc. Even libertarian or christian-democratic parties (the right) do not want to change the essence of these things
In the US you're a commie for raising the minimum wage or talking about universal healthcare. It's a mixture of a far more right-winged ideology and a ridiculous amount of partisanship.

And most European countries usually lag FAR behind the United States in income mobility and in economic growth.

Eyelids
06-12-2008, 12:32 AM
There is quite a bit of difference.

Liberalism is socialism. Everyone should have their "fair" share even without working their "fair" share. If Liberals had their way religion would be outlawed because they are offended by moral clarity.

NeoConservativism is about boosting the Military Industrial Complex to which there is no end in sight. All our NeoCon leaders have to say is that a rogue nation is threatening us and we are willing to give up our rights and liberties and march off to conquer that nation. I too used to be a NeoCon. Both NeoCons and liberals are hell bent on destroying the Nation our forefathers have blessed us with.

Whoa I wouldn't say Liberalism is socialism. Its a method of controlling the rich/poor gap and ensuring that everyone who works hard will have enough for essential things like healthcare, food, shelter and maybe a little left over for improving their quality of life. Its wealth distribution, not socialism. If somebody works hard 10 hours a day 5 days a week they've done enough to quality for all of the things I listed. Equal opportunity regardless of socio-economic class, kids born into poverty still deserve a shot at life.

Eyelids
06-12-2008, 12:33 AM
And most European countries usually lag FAR behind the United States in income mobility and in economic growth.

Americans have a certain something that nobody else in the world really has... it's been bailing us out of bad presidents for years and luckily the whole "green revolution" assures us of it doing it again.

Gluesniffer
06-12-2008, 01:26 AM
And most European countries usually lag FAR behind the United States in income mobility and in economic growth.

Definitely not in income mobility, look up the numbers.
Growth, yes, except when you compare to the Scandinavian countries, where growth is as big as in America and government spending as big as in continental Europe.
But of course growth isn't everything, there's a trade-off to be made between efficiency and equality.

AmPat
06-12-2008, 01:44 AM
Whoa I wouldn't say Liberalism is socialism. Its a method of controlling the rich/poor gap and ensuring that everyone who works hard will have enough for essential things like healthcare, food, shelter and maybe a little left over for improving their quality of life. Its wealth distribution, not socialism. If somebody works hard 10 hours a day 5 days a week they've done enough to quality for all of the things I listed. Equal opportunity regardless of socio-economic class, kids born into poverty still deserve a shot at life.

I work hard many more hours than this. I worked extremely hard to improve my lot in life. I PAY for my children out of MY wages, not somebody else's. I don't expect others to pay for MY children. If I cannot afford to have children and do anyway, it is MY FAULT and I should have to FIX IT. I SHOULD NOT and WOULD NOT bitch about the level of generosity of the taxpayers who bail my irresponsible A** out.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 07:23 AM
Whoa I wouldn't say Liberalism is socialism. Its a method of controlling the rich/poor gap and ensuring that everyone who works hard will have enough for essential things like healthcare, food, shelter and maybe a little left over for improving their quality of life. Its wealth distribution, not socialism. If somebody works hard 10 hours a day 5 days a week they've done enough to quality for all of the things I listed. Equal opportunity regardless of socio-economic class, kids born into poverty still deserve a shot at life.

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs. I take it back, it is more like communism.

Let's look at the chance people in Europe have to move up the income ladder as compared to here. IT AIN'T EVEN CLOSE. Liberalism/Socialism/Communism instead of striving to bring the lower classes up, instead works to bring the wealthy down.

Conservatives know that by allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor and removing the barriers, we bring a far greater number of the poor UP.

Zathras
06-12-2008, 07:37 AM
From each according to their ability to each according to their needs. I take it back, it is more like communism.

Let's look at the chance people in Europe have to move up the income ladder as compared to here. IT AIN'T EVEN CLOSE. Liberalism/Socialism/Communism instead of striving to bring the lower classes up, instead works to bring the wealthy down.

Conservatives know that by allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor and removing the barriers, we bring a far greater number of the poor UP.

Which is why liberals like the gutless liar Eyelids need to be stopped. They're too stupid to be allowed to lead.

Gluesniffer
06-12-2008, 07:42 AM
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Neoliberalism and Income Mobility

The US and the UK are supposed to be countries following an "Anglo-Saxon" or "neoliberal" economic model. According to this model, the gap between the haves and have-nots is tolerable for it rewards those who work hard enough with upward mobility. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, "It is our job to glory in inequality and see that talents and abilities are given vent and expression for the benefit of us all." But, the evidence suggests this is not so. The US has the highest Gini (inequality) coefficient of all OECD countries, while the UK has the highest for Western European countries. So far, there's no surprise. Worse yet, it also turns out that the US and the UK not only have highly unequal societies, but also are bound to stay that way. From the Economic Mobility Project's
"American Dream Report" (they're kidding, right?) we have this figure comparing relative income mobility in a number of industrialized nations:

The graph that follows isn't working. Click on the link below to view it.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_IzGDYJE7jOs/RlesczdEWmI/AAAAAAAAAXc/3Vramr-OJyg/s1600-h/inequity.jpg

http://ipezone.blogspot.com/2007/05/neoliberalism-and-income-mobility.html


So you appear to be completely wrong about the mobility thing. What is your response to this?

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 08:07 AM
Definitely not in income mobility, look up the numbers.
Growth, yes, except when you compare to the Scandinavian countries, where growth is as big as in America and government spending as big as in continental Europe.
But of course growth isn't everything, there's a trade-off to be made between efficiency and equality.


I just showed a link showing 90.5% income mobility from the lowest class. I dare say that you will not find anything even close in Europe.


Here it is again from the WSJ:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010855


There are difficulties because the standards used vary from country to country so that may be part of your confusion.

Molon Labe
06-12-2008, 08:18 AM
Whoa I wouldn't say Liberalism is socialism. Its a method of controlling the rich/poor gap and ensuring that everyone who works hard will have enough for essential things like healthcare, food, shelter and maybe a little left over for improving their quality of life. Its wealth distribution, not socialism.

What you have defined is Collectivism in it's Socialist form. The only way you achieve your ends involves coercion by the State for the benefit of a group over the individual. ( in your example...controlling the rich/poor gap thorough wealth distribution)

Sacrificing the individual for the sake of the group?

Congratulations...you just defined the very method s that have led to the creation of a totatlitarian state.
If you believe Wealth distribution is different than socialism, then you many not fully understand Marx.

Gluesniffer
06-12-2008, 11:41 AM
Sacrificing the individual for the sake of the group?

Congratulations...you just defined the very method s that have led to the creation of a totatlitarian state.


How would you explain joining the army in that perspective? It must be a communist thing to do.

Molon Labe
06-12-2008, 11:58 AM
How would you explain joining the army in that perspective? It must be a communist thing to do.


Isn't the military is supposed to be subservient to the political realm in a Republic? I thought this was about McCain's commie talk and we were talking about the role of government in a society? At least that's what I was replying to in the post. Let's stay on topic for now.

Gluesniffer
06-12-2008, 04:51 PM
Isn't the military is supposed to be subservient to the political realm in a Republic? I thought this was about McCain's commie talk and we were talking about the role of government in a society? At least that's what I was replying to in the post. Let's stay on topic for now.

HAHAHA

You're trying to bail out now.

What you said:


Sacrificing the individual for the sake of the group?

Congratulations...you just defined the very method s that have led to the creation of a totatlitarian state.

What I said:


How would you explain joining the army in that perspective? It must be a communist thing to do.


Now let's hear you response shall we?

dixierat
06-12-2008, 04:56 PM
Whoa I wouldn't say Liberalism is socialism. Its a method of controlling the rich/poor gap and ensuring that everyone who works hard will have enough for essential things like healthcare, food, shelter and maybe a little left over for improving their quality of life. Its wealth distribution, not socialism. If somebody works hard 10 hours a day 5 days a week they've done enough to quality for all of the things I listed. Equal opportunity regardless of socio-economic class, kids born into poverty still deserve a shot at life.

And if somebody just does the minimum needed or decides to draw welfare instead of working?

How about the guy who works 80-100 hours a week building and nurturing their business? I guess they should just be taxed more to pay for the other folks?

Liberalism is leading our country into socialism, just as it has Europe. Don't piss on my back and try to convince me it's raining.

:cool:

Eyelids
06-12-2008, 05:51 PM
And if somebody just does the minimum needed or decides to draw welfare instead of working?
Unfortunate and unavoidable hang up. Luckily it amounts to a drop in the bucket when it comes to our budget.

Molon Labe
06-12-2008, 06:22 PM
HAHAHA

You're trying to bail out now.
Now let's hear you response shall we?


Oh no...not bailing...just trying to stay focused... which some people have difficulty doing. Must be all those hormones in food or something.

Like I said. Your comparing apples to oranges. The military isn't a Democratic institution correct? Should it be? How does that concept inherant in military structure affect your liberties? It doesn't...because the military is supposed to be outside the political realm. Sam Huntington said it best.


Politics is beyond the scope of military competence… The area of military science is subordinate to, and yet independent of, the area of politics … The military profession exists to serve the state … The superior political wisdom of the statesman must be accepted as a fact - Huntington 1957 -


Although I would dissent on one of his points and suggest that the "military exists to serve the people".

Is it impossible for some to grasp how collectivism should be a concern of a free society...or what used to be in our case?


I also happened to notice you had little to say on my post disagreeing with your Theocracy drivel.

bmovies
06-12-2008, 10:25 PM
NFL players do not have guaranteed contracts and can have be terminated at any time without penalty for the team.

If the rich/poor gap in this country keeps getting worse it will be 1929 all over again..

Just what the hell is the "rich/poor gap". I see this phrase thrown around, but no one gives an exact definition of it. What more specifically is it? How is it measured?

Eyelids
06-13-2008, 12:37 AM
Just what the hell is the "rich/poor gap". I see this phrase thrown around, but no one gives an exact definition of it. What more specifically is it? How is it measured?

The middle class is shrinking, people are polarizing on either side of the upper and lower middle class and it's leaving a vacuum where once dependable consumers used to be.

Elspeth
06-13-2008, 01:06 AM
And if somebody just does the minimum needed or decides to draw welfare instead of working?

How about the guy who works 80-100 hours a week building and nurturing their business? I guess they should just be taxed more to pay for the other folks?

Liberalism is leading our country into socialism, just as it has Europe. Don't piss on my back and try to convince me it's raining.

:cool:

Amen. And how about the woman or the new immigrant family trying to run a shop or business? The red tape is amazing for small businesses.

Socialism punishes achievement in the long run. That is why I have never been one.

Eyelids
06-13-2008, 01:21 AM
Income would still have a strong correlation to quality of living... its not like I'm saying make everybody the same. Just level the playing field a bit, people making $5+ mil a year need to be taxed much more than they currently are.

Gluesniffer
06-13-2008, 01:42 AM
Oh no...not bailing...just trying to stay focused... which some people have difficulty doing. Must be all those hormones in food or something.

Like I said. Your comparing apples to oranges. The military isn't a Democratic institution correct? Should it be? How does that concept inherant in military structure affect your liberties? It doesn't...because the military is supposed to be outside the political realm. Sam Huntington said it best.

-
Although I would dissent on one of his points and suggest that the "military exists to serve the people".

Is it impossible for some to grasp how collectivism should be a concern of a free society...or what used to be in our case?


That's all besides the point. You said that any form of sacrificing one's own wealth or whatever would lead to collectivism, communnism and thus totalitarianism.

How does joining the army not fit into personal sacrifice with altruistic motives? Joining the army is for communnists, according to your reasoning.


Nonsense...
You believe classical conservatism somehow means what?... Establishing a Religion?

Belief in the importance of religion as it relates to morality and equality is far different than over trustworthy Liberals who wish to take one of the largest segments of the economy (medicine) and place it under the parental hand of the Fed. That is what you suggested...right? And that is on the Democratic platform in most federal elections - reform of the healthcare system under the public domain right?

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen one of the goals of the Republican, Libertarian, or even the reform party platforms as one of Establishment of a particular religion.

My understanding of Conservatism simply means that we respect foundations that established Liberal Democracy AKA..the Republican form of government we have.

Unfortunately for many liberals that means we accept the fact that those foundations for equality and freedom had as much to do with the Christian religion as it did with Greek culture beliefs in rule by the people and Western civilization in general.

Where many on the left see these institutions as needing to be torn down..the conservative says that destruction of those foundations will ultimately lead to liberties demise.
So if you're going to be intellectually honest about discussing heritage and institutions that made this country great, you're going to have to speak about religious freedom and which religion it was that helped colonize and eventually write the
I can't speak for Theocrats, but I'll guarantee you, you should be more concerned about a gargantuan Fed that controls any segment of your daily life under the guise of security or helpfulness than any Theocrats.

Conservatives want the government to be the morality police. They want the government to be able to tell what can go on in the bedroom and what cannot. They want to limit people's choices. I'm not saying that will in reality lead to a totalitarian regime, but according to your logic, anything must lead to a totalitarian regime, since moderation is not possible.

How come America isn't communnist after Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton?

AmPat
06-13-2008, 04:45 AM
Income would still have a strong correlation to quality of living... its not like I'm saying make everybody the same. Just level the playing field a bit, people making $5+ mil a year need to be taxed much more than they currently are.

And exactly how much should that be?
Why do they need to pay more?
Do you know how much as a percentage rich and wealthy pay in taxes?

When these rich people create jobs they also create incomes. Those incomes turn into consumers. Consumers create demand. Rich people with money then fill the demand by creating more jobs.

Taxing the creators of the jobs discourages business creation and thereby decreases incomes/ consumers/demand/. Next comes job loss/welfare/bitching at the Republican President who allowed the liberal morons to increase taxes that started the whole fiasco in the first place.

The World According to Bill:cool:

Gluesniffer
06-13-2008, 06:48 AM
And exactly how much should that be?
Why do they need to pay more?
Do you know how much as a percentage rich and wealthy pay in taxes?

When these rich people create jobs they also create incomes. Those incomes turn into consumers. Consumers create demand. Rich people with money then fill the demand by creating more jobs.

Taxing the creators of the jobs discourages business creation and thereby decreases incomes/ consumers/demand/. Next comes job loss/welfare/bitching at the Republican President who allowed the liberal morons to increase taxes that started the whole fiasco in the first place.

The World According to Bill:cool:

The mechanism you describe is correct, but it's still not going to help everyone, and taxing isn't going to disrupt it completely. Some transfers should be possible.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-13-2008, 06:51 AM
The middle class is shrinking, people are polarizing on either side of the upper and lower middle class and it's leaving a vacuum where once dependable consumers used to be.

Do you check your facts????

AmPat
06-13-2008, 10:15 AM
The mechanism you describe is correct, but it's still not going to help everyone, and taxing isn't going to disrupt it completely. Some transfers should be possible.

The "transfers" have been going on for decades. The War on Poverty has had hundreds of billions of money shoveled into its enourmous gut,,,,,,,,yet no substantial change in the percentage of poverty levels.

Still, the bottom line for me is the "transfers" themselves. Why should the rich be compelled to give their money to anybody?

Gluesniffer
06-13-2008, 10:48 AM
The "transfers" have been going on for decades. The War on Poverty has had hundreds of billions of money shoveled into its enourmous gut,,,,,,,,yet no substantial change in the percentage of poverty levels.

Still, the bottom line for me is the "transfers" themselves. Why should the rich be compelled to give their money to anybody?

Because perfect competition and fair compensation are an illusion. A lot of rich people get rich from what economists would call "net profit", or monopoly profit. And some people are born with more chances thatn others. Why would a person born in a poor family not have the chance to get a college degree?

AmPat
06-13-2008, 11:14 AM
Because perfect competition and fair compensation are an illusion. A lot of rich people get rich from what economists would call "net profit", or monopoly profit. And some people are born with more chances thatn others. Why would a person born in a poor family not have the chance to get a college degree?
You are not seriously suggesting that poor people don't have a chance to go to college, are you? Poor people have multiple opportunities and financial options that the middle classes cannot qualify for. The reason is they make too much money to qualify for financial aid.

I had this problem but eventually found a way to graduate. I was, and still am the only one in my immediate family that graduated from college. We run 50% on High school graduation.

Grabbing people's money to level the field will only result in the eventual re-transfer of the money back to the people who had it to begin with. Look at the lottery winners over the last couple of decades for some evidence.

If we eliminate the bottom tenth, there will only be another bottom tenth to replace them.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 11:17 AM
That's all besides the point. You said that any form of sacrificing one's own wealth or whatever would lead to collectivism, communist and thus totalitarianism.?

http://media.newschoolers.com/uploads/cache/images/1204695672-577768-400x320-picard-facepalm.jpg

Look...I'm not trying to confuse you. Perhaps if you reread the discussions you won't have to put words in my mouth. It would just be easier if you simply came out and said that you believe all conservatives should be labeled as Theocratic quasi fascists than to have to suggest over and over that I've said things that aren't so. You are mistaken that I somehow suggested that the government should be in your bedroom. Or that I suggested that "any form of sacrificing wealth" only leads to totalitarianism. What does that mean anyway?

I've already said in an earlier post that I believe that classic conservatism is not about establishing religion...that also means legislating morality. So...relax!.... I'm on your side. Strange that you would start to pick a fight with someone who agrees that you should not legislate morality.
What I did suggest is that the institutions that make your liberties so are grounded in Christian, Greek and Western culture and they are due some respect.


How does joining the army not fit into personal sacrifice with altruistic motives? Joining the army is for communist, according to your reasoning..

I have suggested no such thing. Sure it represents altruism. What does that have to do with a gargantuan fed's control over aspects of your daily lives. Unless you feel a threat by the size and scope of the military or whether the fed would potentially use it against the population?



Conservatives want the government to be the morality police. They want the government to be able to tell what can go on in the bedroom and what cannot. They want to limit people's choices. I'm not saying that will in reality lead to a totalitarian regime, but according to your logic, anything must lead to a totalitarian regime, since moderation is not possible.?

Who wants to limit peoples choices? How about working almost 5 months just to pay taxes you owe the federal government so they can be wasted and redistributed to others.... How does that work for ya' and your facade of "choice"? Sounds more like involuntary servitude. How about Goverment over regulation of the economy so that quasi monopolies are formed that hurt small business and limit choice? Those aren't "conservative" values...that's known as collectivism bub!

Who wants to be morality police? Let's not forget "the politics of meaning", "political correctness" and hate crime legislation Liberals tend to force as the "thought police" . I'll have you know it's collectivists, like FDR, and Wilson, and LBJ who were the first to find wisdom in implementing those un-freedoms. Not exactly whom I would hold up as bastions of wise leadership.

I'm a conservative. I don't want any one, least of all liberals or theocrats telling me what I can and can't do. I want the government as much out of my life and everyone else's as it was intended to be. I don't care what you think conservatism is or has been practiced...you've been misinformed. One principle is less government. Let me remind you which party has historically been more confident in the role of the all powerful Fed.
It would be wise for you to learn to make distinctions between the Theocratic busybodies you so evidently despise and conservatism in practice. Not everyone one of us..even as Christians.. believes that we should be forced to conform to a Theocracy.

And is moderation possible? Oh... for a little while it is, but the do gooders rarely stay on top for long and the crap of society has historically found it's way into leadership. So your faith that collectivism over the long haul can be moderated is more a chimera.



How come America isn't communnist after Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton?

You're pretty stuck on the commie thing......Why would communism have to be the only result of those polices? If you think what goes on in your daily lives is really what freedom is all about, then that's your misfortune. My experiences have shown me that there's something better than the talking heads on either side have given us lately.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free. - Göthe

At least you'll discuss these things. I'll give you that. ;)

gator
06-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Because perfect competition and fair compensation are an illusion. A lot of rich people get rich from what economists would call "net profit", or monopoly profit. And some people are born with more chances thatn others. Why would a person born in a poor family not have the chance to get a college degree?

When my older son applied for college he was ineligible for any assistance because we made too much money. There was tons of money available for children of the poor.

If you join the military nowadays and serve for three years you will have almost $50K available to you to go to college. That money and a part time job will get you through most state systems. You may have to do a couple years of Jr College but you will get your degree.

By the way, I signed up for a Jr. College course back in 2003. I wanted to learn how to use a milling machine and the course was part of a technology curriculum. It only cost me $35 tuition because I was a veteran. I doubt my total tuition to get the two year technology degree would have been much more than $500.

There is a ton of money available for student loans to supplement part time work and scholarships.

Do you actually know anybody in America that wanted to go to college that was prevented because of lack of funds? I sure don’t.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 12:57 PM
The "transfers" have been going on for decades. The War on Poverty has had hundreds of billions of money shoveled into its enourmous gut,,,,,,,,yet no substantial change in the percentage of poverty levels.
Still, the bottom line for me is the "transfers" themselves. Why should the rich be compelled to give their money to anybody?

Imagine if most of what you was confiscated from you by the in taxes were in your pocket and could be freely given to private charity. I have personally experienced how efficient private charities work and how much better they are at actually solving societal problems. But I am also not idealistic enough to believe that you can ever end poverty and suffering. But using money and resources efficiently and wisely is not something the state does well. I would be more than glad to give nearly 10 - 20 percent of my annual income to charity. I already give my 10% to my church...give me back what Uncle Sam takes and just see what we can do with it.

Lager
06-13-2008, 02:02 PM
It's too bad that the left has been so confused. Had they not taken a shift toward becoming so anti-business, they could have initiated some of the reforms that we might all agree are needed to address the fraud, monopolies and general sleezy corporate culture that we all know exists to some degree. When companies move work overseas, or close plants just to achieve minimal cost savings and then reward management with enormous bonuses and salaries, it is frustrating to people of all political persuasions. A left that wasn't so consumed by rhetoric and hyperbole might have been better positioned to accomplish more in this area.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-13-2008, 03:56 PM
Glue and Eyes seem convinced that conservatives want a theocracy yet the libs are the ONLY people I EVER hear talking about it.

I am VERY well connected in the Michigan Republican Party and fairly well connected with the national Party. I NEVER hear ANY discussion that even come close to suggesting a theocracy.

If they would get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually think, Eye's and Glue would realize that Govt. forced ANYTHING is an anathema to conservatives.

We want the smallest government possible and interfering with religion is one sure way to enlarge govt.

Those who claim conservatives want a theocracy are either stupid, VERY naive or are lying.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 04:13 PM
Glue and Eyes seem convinced that conservatives want a theocracy yet the libs are the ONLY people I EVER hear talking about it.

I am VERY well connected in the Michigan Republican Party and fairly well connected with the national Party. I NEVER hear ANY discussion that even come close to suggesting a theocracy.

If they would get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually think, Eye's and Glue would realize that Govt. forced ANYTHING is an anathema to conservatives.

We want the smallest government possible and interfering with religion is one sure way to enlarge govt.

Those who claim conservatives want a theocracy are either stupid, VERY naive or are lying.

Libs unfortunately see the Religious right's influence and believe that we will turn into the Vatican if they take control.
I once heard it explained that even if theocrats got everything they wished for it would take us back to the year......1957!!!:eek:

Hardly a theocracy.

What does concern me is trying to convince people at my local Republican party who've blindly accepted alot of the Federal growth and power because it was Bush with an R next to his name. That is what should be an anathema to them if they are truly conservatives.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-13-2008, 06:21 PM
Libs unfortunately see the Religious right's influence and believe that we will turn into the Vatican if they take control.
I once heard it explained that even if theocrats got everything they wished for it would take us back to the year......1957!!!:eek:

Hardly a theocracy.

What does concern me is trying to convince people at my local Republican party who've blindly accepted alot of the Federal growth and power because it was Bush with an R next to his name. That is what should be an anathema to them if they are truly conservatives.


I agree. Bush has been a very mediocre President. Far better than the alternatives, but not too impressive.

Gluesniffer
06-14-2008, 02:43 AM
First of all, I never said that conservatism should lead to theocracy (as should be clear to anyone who read my posts), I said that it applies to the same logic as saying that liberalism should lead to communnism (both of which are wrong statements).

If you believe in small government because of distrust, I certainly respect that opinion. It just makes me wonder why conservatives are always saying that they are "values voters" (meaning that they DO want the government to regulate what the right "values" are), and why they consider their presidents as Shakespearian superheroes for sitting behind a desk and deciding that a war should be started (really brave).

Constitutionally Speaking
06-14-2008, 10:28 AM
First of all, I never said that conservatism should lead to theocracy (as should be clear to anyone who read my posts), I said that it applies to the same logic as saying that liberalism should lead to communnism (both of which are wrong statements).

If you believe in small government because of distrust, I certainly respect that opinion. It just makes me wonder why conservatives are always saying that they are "values voters" (meaning that they DO want the government to regulate what the right "values" are), and why they consider their presidents as Shakespearian superheroes for sitting behind a desk and deciding that a war should be started (really brave).


No, "Values" voters want the candidates to POSSESS the Character that they see necessary to lead the country.

They see the Constitution as it was written as MEANING something, and the bastardization that has recently weakened the foundation of this country deeply disturbs them.

Take the first Amendment in regards to religion:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ---"


Now, the first thing you need to realize about our Constitution is that it applies to the FEDERAL government. Each State has their own. This country was founded as a collection of INDIVIDUAL states who agreed to combine to form one country, but they wanted a very limited Federal government and they wanted the State and local governments to be the main governmental factor in most peoples lives. This helps keep the politicians accountable and more easily in touch with their constituents. In addition, it prevents what the founding fathers feared mosts - an oppressive federal behemoth.

Lets look at the quote from the Constitution.

First you will notice it says CONGRESS. That is a specific portion of our federal government. It is also (because it IS the Federal constitution) applies ONLY to the US congress, not the State legislatures or any of the various forms of the local governments.

Why is this important??? Again, the founding fathers feared a central government meddling in the local affairs. The 10th Amendment backs this up.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In addition, a local government is far more responsive to the few citizens it serves whereas a Federal govt. cannot possibly be effective because of the differing interests and competing views of various regions. It would allow the citizens mobility toward the type of governments they preferred.


SO, state and local Governments are NOT covered by the establishment clause and as a seperate and sovereign entity unto themselves could decide otherwise.


Next, lets examine "establishing" and the context it was used in during the time of our country's founding.

The settlement of our country was largely due to various religious Christians fleeing the Anglican church in England. People from particular denominations of the Christian church tended to settle in areas where others of the same denomination were already settled. In Pennsylvania you had the Quakers,Amish, Presbyterians and Lutherans. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire you had the Congregationalists , Maryland was primarily settled by Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, Virginia, North and South Carolina were Primarily Anglicans and Presbyterians with the Huguenots forming a significant portion of South Carolina's population - and so on. As time passed other denominations migrated here but they kept to the same practice of settling in areas where they had the support and sense of community that they got from their church.

At the time of the writing of our Constitution, each denomination pretty much established themselves in their respective areas and they feared an all powerful federal government outlawing their own brand of Christianity in favor of a National religion - as had been their experience in England. Each denomination and hence each State, wanted to prevent that from happening here in the new Country.

That is the basis for the establishment clause. It REALLY did mean an official state religion. In other words, they OUTLAWED a national theocracy. But that is ALL they did. They specifically added the free exercise clause. Most liberals seem to forget that part.

Again, the Congress is prohibited from passing laws that interfered with the peoples right to worship how, when and where they chose.

If the intent of the founders was to eliminate religion from government entirely - why did the supposed champion of Separation actually authorize funding for churches for the expressed purpose of preaching to the American Indians?? It the current interpretation was to mandate to the States that they were prohibited from religious influence, why did most states actually have religious requirements for their elected representatives??

This is not to argue that we should have religious requirements, instead it is to argue that the federal government has WAY overstepped it's authority in this matter, and it has done so via the court system.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in our Constitution. It first makes it's appearance in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist congregation in Danbury Connecticut. They had written Jefferson regarding their concerns that the Constitution lacked specificity because the religious freedom had not been included in the "inalienable rights" and thus were merely favors granted by those in power. If their religious freedoms were merely favors, they could be taken away if the Govt so wished.

Thomas Jefferson's response was designed to assure the Danbury Baptists that government was prevented from interfering by the First Amendment. This has been turned on it head - 180 degrees from the meaning it intended. Instead of prohibiting the government from interfering in the affairs of the Church, it has come to be interpreted as the Church cannot even use govt. property. It is important to note also that the Capitol was REGULARLY used as a church - and by Jefferson himself.

As a matter of fact "separation of Church and State" only came into being when Justice Hugo Black used the bastardized version of Jefferson's Danbury letter to justify the decision in the 1947 Emmerson VS Board of Education decision. Why, if it is so integral to our Constitution did it take until 1947 to find it's way into our laws???

The left has railed against a theocracy from the right yet we have IN PLACE right NOW an official state religion - foisted on us by the LEFT. The state religion is secular humanism. It's tenets are codified into law and are being taught in our schools.

When religious groups on the right fight against this, THEY get labeled as "wanting a theocracy". The fact of the matter is they are fighting against the theocracy that the left has been establishing in our country.

Gluesniffer
06-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Secular humanism isn't a religion.

You either say you want separation of Church and state, which means that secular humanism will indeed be the official "philosophy", resulting in the fact that only scientifically proven theories should be thaught in science classes, for example. It doesn not mean that religion cannot be practiced, it just means that no religion should gain preferrence in any official way.

Or either you don't want separation of Church and State and we can all act like creationism is science and force people to learn arbitrary bullshit at schools. One result would be what conservatives are supposed to fear, namely that bureaucrats arbitrarily decide what accounts as science (ie creationism but not the flying spaghetti monster) without any establsihed requirements.

Whatever you choose, it should also not be based on what your "founding fathers" intended, but on what you think is right. I don't let Leopold I decide on what I should think.

Molon Labe
06-14-2008, 12:07 PM
First of all, I never said that conservatism should lead to theocracy (as should be clear to anyone who read my posts), I said that it applies to the same logic as saying that liberalism should lead to communnism (both of which are wrong statements).

If you believe in small government because of distrust, I certainly respect that opinion. It just makes me wonder why conservatives are always saying that they are "values voters" (meaning that they DO want the government to regulate what the right "values" are), and why they consider their presidents as Shakespearian superheroes for sitting behind a desk and deciding that a war should be started (really brave).


Historically, before Reagan, the so called values votes were much more in line with the Democratic party. Somehow that all changed when the Democratic party decided that religion wasn't really important and that institutions religious person's held in high esteem needed to razed to the ground.... so it isn't something unique or inherantly Republican. They needed a place to go in the ridiculous two party system.

And again. I'm not sure who's said Liberalism only leads to communism....but to clarify once more. There are two ways you can go...More individualism...or more collectivism. The extreme of individualism is Anarchy. Liberalism is collective. The extreme is Totalitarianism. Communism on paper is cute, but in reality it's totalitarianism. You can make of that what you wish.

Goldwater
06-14-2008, 12:55 PM
Secular humanism isn't a religion.

You either say you want separation of Church and state, which means that secular humanism will indeed be the official "philosophy", resulting in the fact that only scientifically proven theories should be thaught in science classes, for example. It doesn not mean that religion cannot be practiced, it just means that no religion should gain preferrence in any official way.

Or either you don't want separation of Church and State and we can all act like creationism is science and force people to learn arbitrary bullshit at schools. One result would be what conservatives are supposed to fear, namely that bureaucrats arbitrarily decide what accounts as science (ie creationism but not the flying spaghetti monster) without any establsihed requirements.

Seperation between church and state, not church and education.

Molon Labe
06-14-2008, 02:24 PM
Secular humanism isn't a religion.

You either say you want separation of Church and state, which means that secular humanism will indeed be the official "philosophy


The founders never intended for it to be an either or thing. The institutions the founders established, as they related to religion and government, were exactly as they felt they should be in order to represent a clear seperation of church and state. So why do liberal busy bodies continue to believe that there is more to do in the fight against "Church and State"? The term comes from letters the founders wrote in explanation of the 1st Amendment's importance and is nowhere found in the constitution.

The founders never intended for this nation to be secular, but to never make a law that financed a national religion or establish a religion such as the Church of England....which is what they were fighting against.
See..you've got to understand the rationale and historic precedents as to why it was important to the founders. To suggest that secular humanism was to be the offiicial philosophy is your bias and nowhere found in their works.

Gluesniffer
06-14-2008, 04:17 PM
Seperation between church and state, not church and education.

Are you saying that's what you're for?

I don't even have a problem with religion being taught at school, it can be mostly christian for all I care, the US is still a mostly christian country. Just don't mix it up with science, it doesn't make any sense.

Gluesniffer
06-14-2008, 04:18 PM
The founders never intended for this nation to be secular, but to never make a law that financed a national religion or establish a religion such as the Church of England....which is what they were fighting against.


What's the big difference? How can you be not secular without specifically benefitting a particular religion?

gator
06-14-2008, 05:01 PM
That is the basis for the establishment clause. It REALLY did mean an official state religion. In other words, they OUTLAWED a national theocracy. But that is ALL they did. They specifically added the free exercise clause. Most liberals seem to forget that part.



You have it right, as usual.

Liberals always become dumb when it comes to a discussion of "the free exercise thereof". Those morons don't have a clue that the Constitution ALLOWS both the community and the individual the free expression of religion. That means spending taxpayer's money for religious symbols if the community wants to do it. It means putting "In God We Trust" on our currency if we want. It means freely exercising religion as we see fit. The state cannot stop free religion according to the Constitution.

Goldwater
06-14-2008, 10:48 PM
Are you saying that's what you're for?

If the federal government isn't running the schools, then yeah.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-15-2008, 05:07 AM
Secular humanism isn't a religion.



Really???? It receives tax exempt status as a religion.



You either say you want separation of Church and state, which means that secular humanism will indeed be the official "philosophy", resulting in the fact that only scientifically proven theories should be thaught in science classes, for example. It doesn not mean that religion cannot be practiced, it just means that no religion should gain preferrence in any official way.

Nor should one be UNDERMINED - as the Religion of Secular Humanism DOES seek to do.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html



Or either you don't want separation of Church and State and we can all act like creationism is science and force people to learn arbitrary bullshit at schools.

This is complete bullshit non sequitor. These are not related in any way. Your Belief is being taught as fact.





Whatever you choose, it should also not be based on what your "founding fathers" intended, but on what you think is right. I don't let Leopold I decide on what I should think.

Our Constitution is the FOUNDATION of our Country. Do you know what happens to a foundation of a building if it shifts???

It falls.

The same is true for this. The Constitution has set methods for changing it, when those standards for amending the Constitution are ignored and subject to the whim of the day, they mean nothing.


I cannot finish this here, but Lets look at why God is CRITICAL to the very fabric of our nation and to the preservation of our rights. A hint. If man is the final authority on everything, then a bad men can do anything.

Molon Labe
06-16-2008, 12:14 PM
What's the big difference? How can you be not secular without specifically benefitting a particular religion?

I can't say it any better than the last several posters.
If it's your goal to quantify secular humanism as the only way to guard against establishment of religion then simply say so, but don't suggest that your beliefs are in line with the foundations of this country or the intent of the clauses.

You don't have to be have practice secular humanism to meet the standards of the following.
1. Free excercise thereof.... and
2. Make no law establishing