I am an Agnostic Conservative Republican and proud of it
Quote: WongBoi guess we can blame ronald "deficits don't matter" reagan for starting us down that slippery slope of socialism.
didnt the federal government ballon under his administration? added a cabinet position and more bureaucracy.
same with bush2.
i guess its not all bazza's fault
Yeah, that explains why the left likes Reagan so much, he just kept expanding social programs. Isn't that lefties keep praising the 1980s???
Har har har.
Quote: weaselmanWhat hours? Everybody works 8 hours a day, even union members, it is nothing new. Or hire two teachers. Or a teacher and an assistant.
It has nothing to do with unions. Do you think private schools have longer days or more school days in a year? Think again. They have less usually. Or how many parents do you know who are looking to subscribe their kids to classes during summer break? That's just crazy! A kid got to have fun, right?
It is not the problem of financing, it's just how our culture is. We don't like working too much, and by extension, don't want our kids to work too much either.
Why bother comparing American schools to Chinese? Just compare Chinese American students to others, even in the same school. You'll get about the same (relative) result. In this case, the difference has obviously nothing to do with the school. It's the parents, their culture and dedication, that makes the difference.
In addition private school continually hit you up for money. My niece (16) and nephew (10) go to private school they pay 58k a year with multi child discount. However my mom the kids grandmother gets pledge requests monthly. And as parents they publish monthly what each family donated.
This isn't even the expensive school in the area either.
Quote: KeyserRonald Reagan was one of our nations greatest presidents.
google historic rankings of presidents, his aggregate score is 17th.
that puts him in the 62 percentile range.
hardly among the greatest
Quote: AZDuffman
Santorum was correct about higher education. When only just over 50% of students who start college finish it, there is a problem. If a student enters college and has a "general studies" major they probably would be better served doing something else until they decide what they want to do. All he did was speak the truth, same as CHeney did when he said conservation was noble but to meet our energy needs we need more supply. The American public can't handle the truth.
Truth is subjective. While santorum was accurate on his number he failed to say that the reason most students do not finish a bachelors degree is not that they fail out it is due to the cost. If the cost of college was reasonable the graduation rate would go up. Just using stats from the study santorum cherry picked his stats from.
But you cited NYC as having poor school. After 2 decades of republican mayors shouldn't that have changed by now?
Quote: Wongbogoogle historic rankings of presidents, his aggregate score is 17th.
that puts him in the 62 percentile range.
hardly among the greatest
Google? Seriously, are you joking? Are you really citing google as a good source for ranking presidents?
Sorry, but I don't think so.
Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, that explains why the left likes Reagan so much, he just kept expanding social programs. Isn't that lefties keep praising the 1980s???
Har har har.
Well he did speak out against the wealthy not paying their share. Also didn't the federal government swell under him at a pace not seen since WWII? The funny part now is if a GOPer said what Reagan said they would burn him at the stake.
The GOP would trash him because he was not opposed to working with the Democrats and he would even meet people half way.
Wall Street Journal/Federalist Society Survey (Feb.-March 2005):
Best and the Worst Presidential Leadership in History
(scale: 1 = worst; 5 = best)
President Rank (Score) in History*
1. George Washington 1 - 4.94
2. John Adams 13 - 3.33
3. Thomas Jefferson 4 - 4.23
4. James Madison 17 - 3.07
5. James Monroe 16 - 3.24
6. John Quincy Adams 25 - 2.66
7. Andrew Jackson 10 - 3.58
8. Martin Van Buren 27 - 2.63
9. William Henry Harrison ----------**
10. John Tyler 35 - 2.23
11. James K. Polk 9 - 3.59
12. Zachary Taylor 33 - 2.30
13. Millard Fillmore 36 - 1.85
14. Franklin Pierce 38 - 1.73
15. James Buchanan 40 - 1.31
16. Abraham Lincoln 2 - 4.67
17. Andrew Johnson 37 - 1.75
18. Ulysses S. Grant 29 - 2.57
19. Rutherford B. Hayes 24 - 2.73
20. James A. Garfield --------- **
21. Chester A. Arthur 26 - 2.65
22. Grover Cleveland 12 - 3.34
23. Benjamin Harrison 30 - 2.54
24. Grover Cleveland
25. William McKinley 14 - 3.32
26. Theodore Roosevelt 5 - 4.08
27. William Howard Taft 20 - 2.97
28. Woodrow Wilson 11 - 3.41
29. Warren G. Harding 39 - 1.64
30. Calvin Coolidge 23 - 2.77
31. Herbert Hoover 31 - 2.50
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt 3 - 4.41
33. Harry S Truman 7 - 3.95
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower 8 - 3.67
35. John F. Kennedy 15 - 3.25
36. Lyndon B. Johnson 18 - 3.05
37. Richard M. Nixon 32 - 2.40
38. Gerald R. Ford 28 - 2.61
39. James E. Carter 34 - 2.24
40. Ronald W. Reagan 6 - 4.03
41. George H. W. Bush 21 - 2.95
42. William J. Clinton 22 - 2.93
43.George W. Bush 19 - 3.01
44.Barack H. Obama
** Garfield, Harrison excluded - Terms too short
Conclusion:
Great: Washington, Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt
Near Great: Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Reagan, Truman, Eisenhower, Polk, Jackson
Above Average: Wilson, Cleveland, Adams, McKinley, Kennedy, Monroe
Average: Madison, L. Johnson, G. H. W. Bush, Taft, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, Coolidge, Hayes
Below Average: J. Q. Adams, Arthur, Van Buren, Ford, Grant, B. Harrison, Hoover, Nixon, Taylor, Carter, Tyler
Failure: Fillmore, A. Johnson, Pierce, Harding, Buchanan
The source is the Wall Street Journal. (A far more reputable source.)
-Keyser
not one of the greatest.
wall street journal/federalist society? really?
i would consider that more of a biased poll than an aggregate of multiple polls.
(schlesinger, chicago tribune, siena, c-span, london times, WSJ)
gw bush, average? average for the bottom 10 maybe
As for comments about the US being Socialist since 2008... not even -CLOSE-.
You do need to sort out your tax codes though.
By that, can I assume you are talking about being the most corrupt ?
Quote: s2dbakerRonald Reagan was one of the worst Presidents that the United states ever had.
Why would that be? Standing up to government unions? Cutting taxes? Leadership that made patriotism acceptable again? Destroying communism? Strong leaddership? Dramatic cut in inflation?
Come on, tell us why! Those on the right on this board can give any number of reasons why Obama has been THE WORST POTUS of most of our lifetimes. Give us a reason for your statement.
B. Increasing the deficit by 186.1%
C. Voodoo Economics (As said by H.W. Bush before his joining the team)
D. His inexperience in the political world
E. His "Second Coming of Christ" excuse in response to slack environmental efforts
F. All of the Above
Quote: AZDuffmandestroying communism?
I'm a bit confused. The Right keeps calling President Obama a communist.
Intellectually, Reagan gave chimpy a run for his money. He was vacuous. He was shallow. He was incurious. He was a puppet and a door stop for a group of sick ideologues who really ran the country. He was a shitty actor and foolish tool.
Ideologically, he was a hater and an imperialist and far-right loony-tune. He hated the poor. He hated gays. He hated leftists. He hated communists - and he was pretty sure you were one if you disagreed with him. He hated and he hated and he hated. Just ask his own kids. He hated them and himself and his ex-wife. Ronald Reagan was a twisted unrepentant closed-minded shit-bag hate monger. And that's just for starters.
The foreign policy of Ronald Reagan did more to impoverish and kill the poor and helpless humans of the world than any world leader before or since - with the possible exception of our current chimpking. Reagan just didn't give a shit. He was going to defeat communism (which was already falling of it's own weight) and he didn't care how many children were burned alive or how many people starved to death on the way. Let em die. Reagan was a moron.
On Reagan's watch the military budget of the U.S. grew to the proportions of a heaping pile of 10,000 week-old dead and bloated Blue Whales. And it stunk just as bad. The practice of rewarding incompetent cronies with gigantic useless contracts for unneeded military hardware was elevated to art form under Reagan. Reagan's legendary megalomania, hubris and abject ignorance led him to believe the tales of any crackpot who managed to slither past the goons who comprised his inner circle. Star-wars missiles, atomic shields, space-age death rays. You name it - that dumb piece of shit would fall for it - and blow billions of your tax dollars on it.
And on the domestic front - holy shit the domestic front. Ronald Reagan was a force for the rampaging evil of anti-human destructiveness. He never met a social program he didn't scorn. He never met an American in need he didn't shit directly upon. His response to the AIDS epidemic is one of the most sickening cold-blooded expressions of pure murderous political evil in the history of the earth. Genghis Khan could only dream of such depravity and indifference to human suffering. There is so much more, but, hell, if you don't already know about this shit, then go read a book or two.
Then there was Iran-Contra - the infamous orgy of unfettered criminality at the heart of the Reagan legacy. Again, look it up. Rogues, liars, crooks, murderers and ignorant heartless scum surrounded Reagan at all times. Alli Babba would've been shamed. But Ronald Reagan was shameless.
Oh, did I mention The War on Drugs and it's ballooning of the prison/criminal industrial complex and the rise of brainless goon-like authoritarianism? Or the destruction of the modern labor movement including the cowardly firing of the Air Traffic Controllers? Or the beginnings of the current trend of packing the Judiciary with corrupt freakish pseudo-fascist stoolies? Or the repugnant rapes of Lebanon and Grenada? Or the dim-witted goofball junk science that came to known as "Reaganomics?" Or grant rigging at the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Or James Watt and the whole-hearted attempt to destroy the earth and all it's inhabitants at the expense of greed mongers and corporate whores? Or the largest white collar theft in the history of planet Earth - the Savings and Loan Bailout? And on and on and on and on.
Quote: buzzpaffA. Iran-Contra Affair
B. Increasing the deficit by 186.1%
C. Voodoo Economics (As said by H.W. Bush before his joining the team)
D. His inexperience in the political world
E. His "Second Coming of Christ" excuse in response to slack environmental efforts
F. All of the Above
To be fair because of Iran Contra the coke in this country was just incredible and freaking cheap. Keep in mind the era. Coke was still the rich white guy drug.
Quote: Wavy70Truth is subjective. While santorum was accurate on his number he failed to say that the reason most students do not finish a bachelors degree is not that they fail out it is due to the cost. If the cost of college was reasonable the graduation rate would go up. Just using stats from the study santorum cherry picked his stats from.
Not what I saw when I was in college. Some drank their way out. Some asked, "what am I doing here?" and left. Some failed out. Some found it more lucrative to take a job than hang around. Some knocked someone up or got knocked up. All Santorum stated was that for most the cost/benefit was not there and we should stop making college be "13th grade." Once again, the American public can't handle the truth.
Quote:But you cited NYC as having poor school. After 2 decades of republican mayors shouldn't that have changed by now?
NYC has not had a GOP Mayor since Rudy left in 2002. Bloomberg was a RINO and became an indie years ago. But since you brought it up, I would suggest you take a look at what NYC was before and after Rudy. The guy cleaned the place up. Remember the "squeege men" and high crime rate? Rudy fixed all of that by using the "broken window theory" of city management. He went after petty crime instead of ignoring it. NYC became a place to live again under him.
You can be sure that at the least the schools became safer as the rest of the city saw crime fall so much that it lowerd the national crime stats, making Clinton look good for it.
Quote: WongBoCongress passed and Reagan signed into law tax increases of some nature in every year from 1981 to 1987
So, 28% in 1988 is higher than 70% in 1980? Maybe you need to take some remedial math?
i am talking about tax increases in one form or another.
why dont you read about it some time.
Tax Increases
Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
+57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982
+4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983
+24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983
+1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
+25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
+2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
+2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
+0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987
+2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
+8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988
+2.0
Total cumulative tax increases
+132.7
Source: Office of Management and Budget,
Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 1990
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 4-4.
I'll go with F for Failure which is what Ronald Reagan was by any measure.Quote: buzzpaffA. Iran-Contra Affair
B. Increasing the deficit by 186.1%
C. Voodoo Economics (As said by H.W. Bush before his joining the team)
D. His inexperience in the political world
E. His "Second Coming of Christ" excuse in response to slack environmental efforts
F. All of the Above
Quote: buzzpaffOr the destruction of the modern labor movement including the cowardly firing of the Air Traffic Controllers?
He didn't "fire" the Air Traffic Controllers--they quit their jobs by not showing up. They were warned. They were staging an illegal strike. Fail to show up at your job for three days, see what happens.
I won't even waste the time and bandwith on the rest of your rant.
I can understand your inability to defend him. Perfectly understandable. Never let facts sway your opinions.
Quote: s2dbakerI'll go with F for Failure which is what Ronald Reagan was by any measure.
1. Cutting inflation from near 20% to low single digits
2. Cutting unemployment from over 10% to 5.5^
3. Made possible the fall of the Berlin wall and of communism itself, saving millions from suffering under it
4. Opening of oil exploration and deregulation, dropping price from $39bbl in 1980 to as low as $10 in 1986
5. His stance on drugs making being a cokehead unacceptable in society.
I'll give him an "A" which he was by any measure.
BTW: You claim he was "inexperienced in the political world." So, being a govenor of the largest state by population makes him inexperienced; while an unacomplished 7 year state senator who had a history of voting "present" and two years in the US Senate largely gone campaigning is better how?
we are talking about reagan
Quote: buzzpaff" I won't even waste the time and bandwith on the rest of your rant. "
I can understand your inability to defend him. Perfectly understandable. Never let facts sway your opinions.
When you post a fact, please let me know. History is his defense. The 1980s were a time of rebirth under great leadership. You don't win 49 states for nothing.
Quote: WongBowe are not talking about obama
we are talking about reagan
You are right, an empty suit like Obama does not deserve to even be compared to a fantastic leader like Reagan!
But the Reagan attackers here are the strongest defenders of Obama. Just asking them to be consistant with their criticisms. If 5% unemployment was so bad, then why do they like >8%?
Quote: AZDuffmanNot what I saw when I was in college. Some drank their way out. Some asked, "what am I doing here?" and left. Some failed out. Some found it more lucrative to take a job than hang around. Some knocked someone up or got knocked up. All Santorum stated was that for most the cost/benefit was not there and we should stop making college be "13th grade." Once again, the American public can't handle the truth.
NYC has not had a GOP Mayor since Rudy left in 2002. Bloomberg was a RINO and became an indie years ago. But since you brought it up, I would suggest you take a look at what NYC was before and after Rudy. The guy cleaned the place up. Remember the "squeege men" and high crime rate? Rudy fixed all of that by using the "broken window theory" of city management. He went after petty crime instead of ignoring it. NYC became a place to live again under him.
You can be sure that at the least the schools became safer as the rest of the city saw crime fall so much that it lowerd the national crime stats, making Clinton look good for it.
Well I was giving you the reason the report santourm was quoting numbers from gave as the cause for the low graduate rate. As I said he used the stat but neglected to say the cost of school was the main reason for dropouts.
But on NYC. Regardless of if you consider Bloomberg a Republican the GOP likes to tote him out and I have yet to see any big Republican denounce
him.
But if you look at the time of Rudys mayorship it was a time when the entire country was soaring economically. Rudy and Clinton were in office more or less the same time. Now the right can't in one breath say the economic goodtimes during Clinton was due to the tech bubble and not recognize that NYC as the stock and banking capital of the USA would have had a major resurgence regardless of who was mayor at the time.
Frankly to give Rudy credit for turning NYC around you would have togive Clinton more for turning the country around.
Quote: AZDuffman1. Cutting inflation from near 20% to low single digits
2. Cutting unemployment from over 10% to 5.5^
3. Made possible the fall of the Berlin wall and of communism itself, saving millions from suffering under it
4. Opening of oil exploration and deregulation, dropping price from $39bbl in 1980 to as low as $10 in 1986
5. His stance on drugs making being a cokehead unacceptable in society.
I'll give him an "A" which he was by any measure.
BTW: You claim he was "inexperienced in the political world." So, being a govenor of the largest state by population makes him inexperienced; while an unacomplished 7 year state senator who had a history of voting "present" and two years in the US Senate largely gone campaigning is better how?
3. You do know that as early as Kennedys admin the CIA was saying the Soviet Union was on the brink of starvation and collapse. I have a few friends who grew up in the Ukraine and they claim MTV and Finnish TV was the main catalyst. They all tried to make clothes like Duran Duran and Madonna. To attribute the fall of the Berlin wall to one man is a bit... idealist to say the least.
5. Well on one hand Nancy spoke out against drugs but on the other hand during Iran Contra a lot of coke was brought into the country in a operation Reagan said in hindsight he knew about after originally denying knowledge.
Quote: WongBoi guess we can blame ronald "deficits don't matter" reagan for starting us down that slippery slope of socialism.
didnt the federal government ballon under his administration? added a cabinet position and more bureaucracy.
same with bush2.
i guess its not all bazza's fault
I guess you could start with George Washington if you want.
In 2008 Americans dumped Capitalism for Socialism - we made the decision. A socialist president, Senate, and House. All wide-eyed Socialists hell bent on punishing the rich and rewarding the poor. Let's see how that works out in the next 20 years or so.
Will 2012 have them coming back to their senses? Probably not - 50% of all households now get a monthly check from the government for various payments; we are hooked on government money. We have turned our backs on Capitalism and the Chinese have picked up our discarded torch. Who knows what they will do with it, but America is racing full speed down the same road that Europe is exiting very slowly; it's a tar pit.
Sadly all this will come back to haunt the next couple of American generations - all so we could give Socialism a fling..........
Quote: s2dbakerReagan was incompetent. He was in way over his head. History is revealing just how terrible a president he was.
Maybe you should get your history from somewhere besides the DNC and MSNBC. I lived thru the 1980s and the man was just the definition of a solid leader.
Or is your idea of a good POTUS high inflation; high unemployment; and a USSR on the march in Asia? Seriously!
It is midnight here in the east now, I'm off to bed so you have until tomorrow to come up with something besides, "Reagan hated gays! Reagan hated the poor!"
Then again, Reagan did hate the poor---there were so many fewer of them when he left office than when he came in he must have gotten rid of them somehow!
Quote: MauiSunsetI guess you could start with George Washington if you want.
In 2008 Americans dumped Capitalism for Socialism - we made the decision. A socialist president, Senate, and House. All wide-eyed Socialists hell bent on punishing the rich and rewarding the poor. Let's see how that works out in the next 20 years or so.
Will 2012 have them coming back to their senses? Probably not - 50% of all households now get a monthly check from the government for various payments; we are hooked on government money. We have turned our backs on Capitalism and the Chinese have picked up our discarded torch. Who knows what they will do with it, but America is racing full speed down the same road that Europe is exiting very slowly; it's a tar pit.
Sadly all this will come back to haunt the next couple of American generations - all so we could give Socialism a fling..........
Which programs have been put in place since 2009 that were not in effect before that have made this country "socialists"?
The largest "social" program was the stimulus that Bush put through.
Quote: Wavy703. You do know that as early as Kennedys admin the CIA was saying the Soviet Union was on the brink of starvation and collapse. I have a few friends who grew up in the Ukraine and they claim MTV and Finnish TV was the main catalyst. They all tried to make clothes like Duran Duran and Madonna. To attribute the fall of the Berlin wall to one man is a bit... idealist to say the least.
The USSR was "on the brink of starvation and collapse" since the 1920s. Reagan was the first one not afraid to run them into the gorund instead of "keep the devil we know." Countries can be on the brink of starvation and collapse for decades and longer. (see: N Korea.)
Quote:5. Well on one hand Nancy spoke out against drugs but on the other hand during Iran Contra a lot of coke was brought into the country in a operation Reagan said in hindsight he knew about after originally denying knowledge.
*sigh* Yeah, and it was sold, "in the dark neighborhoods since they are animals anyways, let them lose their souls." Right? The CIA has had hundreds of front operations over the years. Intel is a dirty business. How much do you suppose they cleared in the 2008-9 collapse of the banks and GM/Chrysler?
Quote: buzzpaffReagan is one of the more impactful US presidents in recent history.
By that, can I assume you are talking about being the most corrupt ?
Not at all. But like Thatcher in the UK, we are still talking about his policies and actions 30 years on. I don't hear as much talk about the 70's president (or prime ministers in the UK). There was a wave of change in the 80's. Canada had Trudeau. All three are polarizing in their own countries. I add no value judgement to whether they are good changes or bad with that statement.
BUT, Thatcher (and from what I know Reagan) said one thing, but did another fiscally.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe USSR was "on the brink of starvation and collapse" since the 1920s. Reagan was the first one not afraid to run them into the gorund instead of "keep the devil we know." Countries can be on the brink of starvation and collapse for decades and longer. (see: N Korea.)
*sigh* Yeah, and it was sold, "in the dark neighborhoods since they are animals anyways, let them lose their souls." Right? The CIA has had hundreds of front operations over the years. Intel is a dirty business. How much do you suppose they cleared in the 2008-9 collapse of the banks and GM/Chrysler?
As I said very few historians give RR nearly as much credit as you do for the demise of the USSR.
EDIT. N Korea only keeps control due to cult mentality. A thing the Russians did not have. That and N Korea has no outside influences where the USSR was fairly open.
AZ I'm just going on your post. Yes you can change the topic but you said RR made it shameful to be a cokehead. I pointed out that under his watch the CIA was helping coke smugglers bring drugs in and he was aware of it. You counter with Intel is dirty business. So to say he was antidrug is not really true if he allowed it to fund his covert actions.
Quote: MauiSunsetI guess you could start with George Washington if you want.
In 2008 Americans dumped Capitalism for Socialism - we made the decision. A socialist president, Senate, and House. All wide-eyed Socialists hell bent on punishing the rich and rewarding the poor. Let's see how that works out in the next 20 years or so.
Will 2012 have them coming back to their senses? Probably not - 50% of all households now get a monthly check from the government for various payments; we are hooked on government money. We have turned our backs on Capitalism and the Chinese have picked up our discarded torch. Who knows what they will do with it, but America is racing full speed down the same road that Europe is exiting very slowly; it's a tar pit.
Sadly all this will come back to haunt the next couple of American generations - all so we could give Socialism a fling..........
You do know China is still a very much Socialist, state-driven, centrally planned country? I really don't think you have a clue what Socialism IS. Obama and the 2008 Democrats were centrists. This is probably actually the big problem for the US. It's not a state-run socialist state. The US does not have centralized government, and centralized education and health (it's state run). Economic planning is left across a wide variety of areas.
This, for one, leads healthcare reforms like Obama's to be worse than the status quo. It's NOT socialized medicine (which I think works just fine). It's not a privatized system with free markets. It's some fish/fowl mess that solves nothing, through a series of compromises.
The problem you identify with the number of people paying net 0 (or less) is a key problem in the US, and I don't think it's Obama Democractic Socialism (ha ha) thing, but a creeping centrist issue. Everyone wants the majority to vote for them. People vote for tax cuts and hand backs. This happens regardless of the party in charge. It'd be interesting to compare and contrast the numbers of households in the US that are net 0 in taxes with the numbers in other Western Democracies (or in fact, world wide). I have no idea where to find that data. I do know, and I've said before, that the absolute, real tax rate for the middle earners in the US is a lot smaller than similar earners in the UK and Canada. That's a issue right there. Problem is, to solve it, you'd start increasing the taxation of the middle class, working families... and that's about as popular as a bucket of sick.
Quote: thecesspitYou do know China is still a very much Socialist, state-driven, centrally planned country? I really don't think you have a clue what Socialism IS. Obama and the 2008 Democrats were centrists. This is probably actually the big problem for the US. It's not a state-run socialist state. The US does not have centralized government, and centralized education and health (it's state run). Economic planning is left across a wide variety of areas.
This, for one, leads healthcare reforms like Obama's to be worse than the status quo. It's NOT socialized medicine (which I think works just fine). It's not a privatized system with free markets. It's some fish/fowl mess that solves nothing, through a series of compromises.
The problem you identify with the number of people paying net 0 (or less) is a key problem in the US, and I don't think it's Obama Democractic Socialism (ha ha) thing, but a creeping centrist issue. Everyone wants the majority to vote for them. People vote for tax cuts and hand backs. This happens regardless of the party in charge. It'd be interesting to compare and contrast the numbers of households in the US that are net 0 in taxes with the numbers in other Western Democracies (or in fact, world wide). I have no idea where to find that data. I do know, and I've said before, that the absolute, real tax rate for the middle earners in the US is a lot smaller than similar earners in the UK and Canada. That's a issue right there. Problem is, to solve it, you'd start increasing the taxation of the middle class, working families... and that's about as popular as a bucket of sick.
This number of people who pay no taxes does not mention the majority of that number is either under 18 or elderly and on small pensions or SS.
American has a simple decision to make - vote Democrat and become more Socialistic or vote Republican and become less Socialistic.
Like it or not Socialism is where we are headed in the future - there are too many Americans who want the good life and will vote in politicians to take money from "the rich" than folks who want to work hard and make the money themselves.
As a Capitalist I try to study these trends and profit from them. I don't invest in America anymore and haven't for a long time. I invest in other countries, some I despise, but that's where the money is to be made. I'm one of those guys who got tired of working hard and have having fellow Americans tell me I don't need the money I made and take it from me by force.
America is way too hostile to business anymore; as soon as it figures that out the money and jobs will flow back in. Don't hold your breath.......
Quote: thecesspitYou do know China is still a very much Socialist, state-driven, centrally planned country? I really don't think you have a clue what Socialism IS. Obama and the 2008 Democrats were centrists. This is probably actually the big problem for the US. It's not a state-run socialist state. The US does not have centralized government, and centralized education and health (it's state run). Economic planning is left across a wide variety of areas.
This, for one, leads healthcare reforms like Obama's to be worse than the status quo. It's NOT socialized medicine (which I think works just fine). It's not a privatized system with free markets. It's some fish/fowl mess that solves nothing, through a series of compromises.
The problem you identify with the number of people paying net 0 (or less) is a key problem in the US, and I don't think it's Obama Democractic Socialism (ha ha) thing, but a creeping centrist issue. Everyone wants the majority to vote for them. People vote for tax cuts and hand backs. This happens regardless of the party in charge. It'd be interesting to compare and contrast the numbers of households in the US that are net 0 in taxes with the numbers in other Western Democracies (or in fact, world wide). I have no idea where to find that data. I do know, and I've said before, that the absolute, real tax rate for the middle earners in the US is a lot smaller than similar earners in the UK and Canada. That's a issue right there. Problem is, to solve it, you'd start increasing the taxation of the middle class, working families... and that's about as popular as a bucket of sick.
Socialism is very simple to define and understand:
Socialists take money from those that have it and buy the votes of those that don't.
There are a lot more poor folks than rich folks in any population and the reason Socialism is so popular - spread the wealth really morphs into spread the misery.
Socialism "works" because each person has one vote - I wish it were based on the taxes we pay; pay a lot of taxes and get more votes....
Quote: Wavy70This number of people who pay no taxes does not mention the majority of that number is either under 18 or elderly and on small pensions or SS.
Wrong.
I can give you the links to read but I'm sure I'm wasting my time.
Numbers from our Federal Government show that 48% of all folks who get a paycheck where Federal Income Taxes should be taken out pay $0.00 in Federal Income Taxes.
To make it even worse the Earned Income Tax Credit has about half those folks getting a negative Federal Income Tax - they get a kickback for making so little money.
You can't have a thriving society when 50% of the folks who should contribute just vote in politicians who say they don't have to pay and force the others to pay their tab.
Hence the $16 Trillion deficit that will have to be paid back in the future but more than likely America will just default on our debts - so much for the "Full faith and credit of the USA". This was done to the GM bond holders and no one seemed to care...
Quote: MauiSunsetSocialism is very simple to define and understand:
Socialists take money from those that have it and buy the votes of those that don't.
There are a lot more poor folks than rich folks in any population and the reason Socialism is so popular - spread the wealth really morphs into spread the misery.
Socialism "works" because each person has one vote - I wish it were based on the taxes we pay; pay a lot of taxes and get more votes....
No, socialism is "social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy "
It's very specific about ownership, not about taxation systems. Wealth redistribution is a factor in most economies, and not in and off itself socialist.
If the US is passing laws to make public private enterprises, then you have socialism. Increasing the welfare state maybe a left-leaning policy. I'd say it's a big factor in a most centrist governments. Democratic parties (social Democrats, liberal Democrats, progressive, Labour parties) always tend to favour a larger state welfare system. By all means, say that's a bad thing. But it's not in and off itself socialism. A government could run a very free-market system, with little state run facilities (no centralized health care, education, transport, etc) and still have a large welfare state (and thus a progressive wealth redistribution), run via taxation. This would not be socialist. In fact, isn't this much like the US today?
(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. syn- socialism.
Quote: MauiSunsetWrong.
I can give you the links to read but I'm sure I'm wasting my time....
Much as anyone who attempts to have an intelligent conversation with you. I see you can not back up your arguments so you make your cute little snide comments. Did I talk down to you? No. So not sure if you are trying to be obnoxious or if it comes naturally.
Enjoy you closed minded, looking for commies under every bed world.
Sad you were unable to keep a debate without becoming childish.
Quote: KeyserObama is part of the Ineptocracy.
(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. syn- socialism.
Unless we can get Obama out of the White House, this country is headed for ineptocracy.
The economic crisis in Greece is a classic example of the dangers of ineptocracy.
So you are saying he is the second President in a row who was part of the Ineptocracy? Well in that case Mitt is gonna fit in just right.
Quote: thecesspit.
If the US is passing laws to make public private enterprises, then you have socialism.
Which private enterprises are being forced to be public? What is it called when you take traditionally government entities such as prisons and sell them to private industry.
Quote: Wavy70Much as anyone who attempts to have an intelligent conversation with you. I see you can not back up your arguments so you make your cute little snide comments. Did I talk down to you? No. So not sure if you are trying to be obnoxious or if it comes naturally.
Enjoy you closed minded, looking for commies under every bed world.
Sad you were unable to keep a debate without becoming childish.
I'm a Conservative - I don't give things away.
If you want to spend the time to find the truth it is all over the internet.
Don't think for a second that anything on TV hasn't been spun and slanted towards the Left.
If you can't find the reference to the 48% tax payers who don't pay Federal Income Taxes in 5 hours of looking, then let me know and I'll take 10 seconds to find it....
Which person do you feel would be the most qualified to run a fortune 500 company?
What if the company was in serious financial trouble?
Would you choose a successful businessman with years of experience, or would you choose a community organizer?
Would you choose Obama?
or
Would you choose Romney?
