New book sounds political alarm

KidYendor (anonymous) says...

It is easier to just pick up everything and move to a less obtrusive country than deal with the USA's liberal/socialist/communistic agenda. Trying to fight for freedom with an American government trillions in debt, with so many politically correct wackos and sickos running it has been going on for decades. The wackos, sickos, lobbyists, and television media have won the battle against freedom. The public rants and raves but incumbent politicians are rarely removed. There really is no turning back unless a revolution results. We are the falling Rome of the 21st century.

June 29, 2009 at 1:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stanish (anonymous) says...

I'm hoping we'll be able to eliminate our PAIN by voting you OUT the senate next year and electing a senator who will REPRESENT the vast majority of South Carolinians. Your first term(thank goodness which is coming to and end)has been a DISASTROUS one. You honestly represents the extreme far right, the Un-Christian Coalition, the Immoral Majority, and the "SO" called religious right. You did NOT and still don't represent the majority of fair minded, hard working, decent, and able bodied voters in S.C.!

June 29, 2009 at 1:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

realamerican (anonymous) says...

Posted by KidYendor on June 29, 2009 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is easier to just pick up everything and move to a less obtrusive country than deal with the USA's liberal/socialist/communistic agenda.
---------------------------------------------------

KidYendor, Please do leave! Our country would be better without you whining losers. I never heard you complaining about Bush or his spending, starting unnecessary wars, torturing prisoners and violating American citizens constitutional rights by illegally monitoring their communications. Admit it KID, the real reason you are against this president is the color of his skin. Plain and simple you are a racist who would rather see your country fail rather than have to have a black president as your leader.

I for one am sick of your traitorous comments against this country. If you feel so strongly why don't you do something about it? Please LEAVE.

June 29, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

spengler (anonymous) says...

DeMint is the real thing. We need to stop America from turning into Oboy's Twilight Zone version of Zimbabwe. I bet he would have a more respendent, tacky uniform than most Dictators, however. Idi Amin Dada comes to mind. Oboy could add big aviator shades and smoke a blunt for effect. Priceless. Remember, you can take the despot out of Africa, but you can't take Africa out of the despot.

June 29, 2009 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Demint's right, once they take over healthcare, i'm afraid there is almost no turning back from there. If they control your personal health, what do you really have control of. They are limiting incentive and innovation one industry at a time. Who is gonna go out and earn responsibility. What if we all stopped working and depended on the government to take care of us. Who's money would they spend then?

June 29, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mb300sl (anonymous) says...

Unfortunately Sen. DeMint is correct...the entitlement mentality has this country sprinting down the road to socialism. The governMENT cannot be the do all and savior for everyone...All praise the Obamessiah!

June 29, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Where did I say anything about that Loki. Oh I guess you grouped me in with the "republicans". Sorry, I'm an independent thinker, not a partisan slave (hence the name).

June 29, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

theronce (anonymous) says...

The half truths, lies, and assaults by the left are shameless and relentless. Of course, the right has that also, but it has no voice and is shunned even within the right. Not so with the left. There are no limits on the left, but they are quick to limit the right. It amazes me how gullible the populace is most of the time. Politicians in American have no fear of their bosses, the public. The public is confused into thinking that the public has any power. To have it but not use it is to lose it.

June 29, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

It looks like DeMint is just jumping on the bandwagon to get some publicity and earn a quick buck off of the recent and very much misplaced anti-Socialist fearmongering trend.

June 29, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

What does Demint being pro-life, have to do with his stance on free healthcare. Just because you like/dislike someone's idea doesn't mean you have to agree/disagree with them on everything. That is realamerican's idea. If you disagree with Obama on something, you are a racist. If the democrats said "everybody gets everything free", he would be behind it wholeheartedly just because the democrats said it.

I'm speaking more so from the medical standpoint. Where is the incentive to invent or discover something in the medical field, if the government is going to limit your profit, or force you to hand over the rights to it. Where is the incentive to go into the medical field if the government is going to tell you how you will run your business. That goes with any field.

My biggest standpoint on it is still that no one can explain to me why I should be forced to go to work to provide for people that choose not to provide for themselves. That is a form of financial slavery. I earn my money, then they take it, divy it up how they please, and then give me back what they think I deserve. It's pathetic.

June 29, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jk_newhard (anonymous) says...

DeMint is the real thing. We need to stop America from turning into Oboy's Twilight Zone version of Zimbabwe. I bet he would have a more respendent, tacky uniform than most Dictators, however. Idi Amin Dada comes to mind. Oboy could add big aviator shades and smoke a blunt for effect. Priceless. Remember, you can take the despot out of Africa, but you can't take Africa out of the despot.
..........................................

Why is your post merely a VICIOUS, VACUOUS, RACIST rant????

No FACTS, no SOLUTIONS, no REASON FOR DISAGREEMENT!!!

Comparing him to a brutal, MURDEROUS dictator is RIDICULOUS. I couldn't stand some of Bush's policies but would NEVER compare him to Amin (or Hitler or Stalin or any one of the historical murdering thugs)!

Post something of SUBSTANCE or get the *$#&$* off the board!

June 29, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KidYendor (anonymous) says...

Posted by realamerican on June 29, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Admit it KID, the real reason you are against this president is the color of his skin. Plain and simple you are a racist who would rather see your country fail rather than have to have a black president as your leader.

Hello realamerican,
I don't care what the color of any president's skin is. When he is a liberal, socialist, communist, fascist in every thought he and his cabinet think up to promote a gigantic government agenda and private sector takeover then that gives me just reason to not like him. I didn't like Bush either after his running as a republican conservative. He changed into a big spender after the election and the 9/11 attack and did not focus on closing the borders and ending the welfare state. I will proudly take a black or mixed race libertarian over a white republican any day and you can take that to the bailed out banks! Thank you real for reading my posts.
KidYendor

June 29, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jk_newhard (anonymous) says...

KidYendor & nopartisan_noproblem, although I may disagree with you I have to thank you for basing your opinions on actions of the Obama administration and steering clear of insane rants. I can actually listen to what you are saying.

June 29, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

KidYendor, a person can't be Socialist and Fascist, they're on opposite extremes of the political spectrum. While the Socialist claims aren't really realistic, they're understandable as a hyperbolic insult and a dismissive cheap shot; calling the current administration Communist is completely inaccurate, as Communism requires very fast, very violent overthrow of the political, economic and intellectual elite by the working classes, which clearly isn't the goal of elected officials.

June 29, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bigwhip (anonymous) says...

Stanish, where do your numbers come from? DeMint is on spot. Get off the kool-aid.

June 29, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BlackReign (anonymous) says...

Read up;

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Hardcover)

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism...

Speaking of Obama's continued path towards socialism, his Sec of State is siding with some real nice guys in S. America;

Honduras Defends Its Democracy Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12462...

What would happen if the 40-44% of voters that DO NOT pay taxes were not able to vote? (not saying take their votes away) I bet the leftists in DC would be voted all out within 6 years by tax payers being burden with the massive nanny state. The nanny state that supports the same 40-44% that dont have a vested interest in anything more than additional government handouts.

Maybe pure income redistribution would stop.

June 29, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

Reviews of the oxymoronic book BlackReign has repeatedly tried to peddle:

"Intellectual dishonesty"

" Supposed Historical Literature May More Suitably Be Called Historical Fiction"

"A Book of Filth and Lies"

" The Right Tries to Rewrite the Dictionary"

"Anti-Intellectualism at its worst"

"Pointless Sophistry"

Putting aside the reviews which highlight the all-too-obvious intellectual bankruptcy of the book, examining the title itself reveals its complete lack of logic and academic honesty. The current connotation of Liberal referring to a far-left position, and Fascism by definition being a far-right position, the very term "Liberal Fascism" is a self-defeating label clearly used only to vilify and demean political opponents while precluding critical analysis.

Essentially you're concluding that people who pay taxes rather wouldn't. That's a fairly obvious conclusion, BR. Given the choice, I would assume that most people would also like to breathe, as opposed to not breathing.

And I'd like to see some reputable sources to back your "40-44% of voters that DO NOT pay taxes" claim, BR. I know you don't like to, but try to find one that doesn't just come from a conservative propaganda/public relations think tank firm. Failing that, at the very least provide additional, non-biased sources.

June 29, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Black reign, I agree with many of your points just made, especially the last one. The only things I would change is a taxpayer and their spouse could vote. Also it would eliminate not only many leftists but also many on the right side of the aisle. Both republicans and democrats are both fiscally irresponsible and waste so much money that doesn't belong to them. We need to shutdown the nanny state and our diplomatic agression towards others countries.

June 29, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

Don't forget, Nopartisan, that people on the ideological extremes always seem to want to shift most of the tax burden onto the other ideological extreme - or at the very least, away from their own. The recent trend has been for Republicans to favor big business and the extremely wealthy with tax breaks, while Democrats favor the impoverished and lower-income workers. And of course, each side's propaganda machines then spin the other side's economic ideas into something resembling insidious plans made by shadow conspiracies and the like. It's actually pretty tiring keeping up with all the fiction that both parties throw around to make each other look bad and avoid taking an honest, outright stance on an issue.

Not being a fan of any extreme, I'm more supportive of the idea of everyone paying their fair share of taxes - keeping in mind that a flat, across-the-board percentage is anything but fair - and not giving out tax breaks for every little thing would probably come out to be more effective and efficient for budgeting purposes than any circuitous schemes.

I don't think we have quite the "nanny state" that some people make it out to be, but I do certainly applaud this administration's international approach of (for the most part) getting out of everybody's business. Frankly, we really do have more important things to deal with here for once, and considering all the whining, especially over the past eight years, I think the world's a bit overexposed to the US. Let them get accustomed to us not jumping in and trying to fix everything for a while, then see how international opinion changes.

June 29, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

Great post ITgrunt!

June 29, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Why do you think an ancross the board tax-percentage would be unfair. The more you make the more they equally take. I feel like raising the tax burden on them is more like a punishment for being successful. A lot of people say "well they've got millions of dollars, what's it gonna hurt them." It may not "hurt" them, but why should they be obligated to pay heavier taxes and not just their "fair share"? This is possibly just another roadblock in the incentive to being successful and self-sufficient. I feel like different tax percentages is anything but fair.

June 29, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

At the higher end, a flat rate seems fair, sure, but on lower-income earners, the same percentage being taken amounts to a greater impact on their ability to exercise purchasing power.

Losing 15% of a minimum wage paycheck is a lot more limiting than losing 15% of a six-figure salary. The person on minimum wage is left making decisions about which necessities are more necessary, while the six-figure earner simply chooses between luxuries.

Everybody needs to pay a fair *proportion* in taxes so that the government can take in enough to operate and enough to do things which private companies and individual citizens shouldn't or cannot be expected to. That being said, the fair proportion won't automatically line up to be the same as a single percentage applied to every taxpayer.

June 29, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

The person at the lower end has placed themselves in that position. They can choose to do more to alleviate the strain of balancing necessities. Let's say the person on the higher end worked three jobs for over 10 years and finally broke through with an invention or entrepreneurship (i know thats spelled wrong). Should they be punished with a heavier tax burden, because they did what they had to do to find a content situation for themselves?

June 29, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

You're right Loki it does mean no, good job. I doubt you even comprehend my name.

I think that if someone is poor and chooses to do nothing to better their situation then they are content with being discontent. You can't help that. You should not treat someone differently, because they are successful. That could be considered discrimination.

The government has created the ability to do the bare minimum and receive equivalent results. There is no justification in that. It's a frivolous idea.

You could equate this to a business. No matter what pay rate or position you expect hard work out of everybody. You don't say "well he makes $15/hr so he better bust his ass, but that guy only makes $8/hr, so give him a break."
It kills the morale of everybody and loses the drive for maximum production as a whole.

June 29, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

"The person at the lower end has placed themselves in that position."

Not every person living at or below the poverty line chooses to be there. I would go so far as to say that most don't. No one wants to be living paycheck to paycheck, and most would elevate themselves if they could, but it just isn't possible. It takes money to be an entrepreneur, to go to college, to invest in some sort of profit-making venture; when all of your money is basically gone before it hits the bank, that closes a lot of doors.

Meanwhile, not every person earning six figures has put that much effort into it; some have gotten those positions simply by virtue of being born into the right family and having the right connections in certain schools, businesses and other circles.

Not every member of the working poor are in that socioeconomic standing by choice, and not everyone making six figures and higher is really earning it. Blanket statements about the rich earning and deserving more than the poor are weak and oversimplified.

Successful people don't deserve to be punished, but by the same token, neither do people who have been denied opportunity or ability to achieve success.

As I said before, a fair proportion doesn't directly equate to a flat, across the board percentage when it comes to taxation. The less people make, the less they can afford to lose while maintaining an adequate standard of living.

Realistically, if taxes were applied at a flat, across the board level of, say, 10% for everyone, two things would be happening: 1.) the poorest workers would be unfairly burdened by losing a greater proportion of their ability to purchase necessities, and 2.) the rich would still be burdened by paying the most in taxes and supporting everyone.

If no matter what, the rich will always be saddled with paying the most taxes and thereby providing most of the government's budget simply by virtue of earning more money, then the exact measure of the taxation on the poor becomes less and less relevant.

But think of a concrete example, taking someone who makes $8/hr against someone who makes $288/hr. The person making $8/hr, assuming they are able to work a 40 hour week, grosses $320, while the $288/hr person in the same amount of time grosses $11520. Taking 10% out of each, we're left with $288 and $10368 respectively. Which person do you think is able to pay all of their bills and acquire all of their necessities each week, every week? It seems pretty clear that the $8/hr worker is punished more than the $288/hr worker, even though the percentage is the same, right? Proportionally, that 10% has a greater impact the lower a person's income level.

June 29, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

There is no such thing as depending on the government. You are depending on your neighbors and other taxpayers Loki. I am considered a cold hard person, because I believe in self-reliability and self-reward. I don't follow. I'm guessing my posts are coming a little close to home on your part that is why the non-thought provoking reaction from you is so empty.

If I do have to fall back on taxpayer assistance I would only expect to get what I put in. Nothing more nothing less. If you are okay with your hard earned dollars being taken to take care of people who dont take care of themselves I propose something to you. What do you think of this idea.

Every tax payer receives a tax option. Pro-welfare vs. anti-welfare. If you believe in the welfare system (food stamps, unemployment, low income housing, utility money, medicaid, etc.) you and others who checked pro-welfare will be responsible for carrying the entire tax burden supporting that system. You will also get to use those programs. If you vote anti-welfare, you will be alleviated of all taxes supporting the welfare system but you will not have an option of receiving those benefits if deemed necessary. Please reply with an intelligent and non-insulting answer and give me a valid opinion to understand your viewpoint.

And before you call me a republican, the same goes for the private sector bailouts, and the Iraqi/Afghani occupation.

Thoughts anyone.

June 29, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

Human greed being what it is, Nopartisan, most people would likely opt out of paying those taxes but still demand the benefits whenever they needed or felt a perceived need of them.

It's like insurance; no one wants to pay for it, but everyone who doesn't have it wishes they did once they need it.

June 29, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Itgrunt, that's almost like saying the necessities should cost more for higher wage earnes vs. lower wage earners.
Should the tax on a gallon of milk be 15% more for someone making $500k?

Regardless if either person's situation was intentional or not. One man's burden should not be placed on anothers solely because they are wealthy. It is not that "rich" persons fault that the "poor" person was not given the same oppurtunities. Why should one person be forced to pay for anothers disadvantages.

If everyone is paying the same percentage, no one is being burdened. Your putting in equal amounts. The rich are paying in dollar wise more, but no different shares % wise.

"Blanket statements about the rich earning and deserving more than the poor are weak and oversimplified."
You're right. Everyone only deserves what they earn personally. They deserve nothing from anyone else. No one should be entitled to anything.

June 29, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

If they didn't pay into it, then they get denied access to it. I personally believe in the Fair Tax, so that could simplify a lot of things also.

June 29, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...

He's written an entire book. Due to my political involvement, I'll have to read it now. The press releases and you tube videos were bad enough.

But before we get all worked up, does DeMint have a girl or boyfriend?

June 29, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

Paying the same percentage impacts the poor more than the rich, though. Taking the same percentage from everyone ceases being fair when it prevents the lowest earning workers from being able to purchase necessities. Adjusting tax rates to not abjectly punish the poor simply for being poor isn't de facto punishing the rich.

"If everyone is paying the same percentage, no one is being burdened. Your putting in equal amounts. The rich are paying in dollar wise more, but no different shares % wise."

If everyone is paying the same percentage, the poor are being burdened proportionally more than the rich. Let's apply your gallon of milk to my $8/hr [now called Joe for simplicity] vs. $288/hr [Susan] example. Having paid his rent, utilities, insurance and various other bills, Joe is left with less than enough money to buy a gallon of milk, while Susan could likely buy a cow if the mood struck her. I'm not saying that Susan needs to buy Joe some milk by way of paying more taxes, I'm just saying that maybe instead of a 10% tax rate, Joe should only pay a 9% tax rate, leaving him with $291 at the end of a week instead of $288, and giving him just that little bit more to afford a necessity. Susan's not out anything, but Joe is better able to afford things, and possible to save money, and in doing so to apply his savings to bettering himself.

"Everyone only deserves what they earn personally. They deserve nothing from anyone else. No one should be entitled to anything."

Part of the problem being that some of the rich haven't earned what they're being given and feel entitled to thanks to their upbringing, while many of the poor aren't being paid according to what they should be earning. Saying that "everyone deserves what they earn" is fine, but it's straying off into Utopian fantasy about a world that doesn't really exist. In the real world, some people need help because they've been screwed over through no fault of their own, while other people have lots of money and look for any way they can get to shirk their responsibility to pay their fair share.

June 29, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

"In the real world, some people need help because they've been screwed over through no fault of their own, while other people have lots of money and look for any way they can get to shirk their responsibility to pay their fair share."

That is a blanket statement incinuating that all low-wage earners deserve that help and have been screwed over, and all high-wage earners should pay more because they got it and they are looking to avoid paying their fair share. This is by far a false statement.

By growing up in a very poor community, I know first hand that it is mostly due to lack of education, motivation, dedication, and pride. Many feel as though "why should I go out and earn it, when it's already being given to me." I personally was without the money to attain higher education. Now I work as much as I can to pay for my own education and maintain my necessities. I would feel ashamed to ask others that don't even know me to carry a heavier burden in means of contributing financially to our society.

Our ideas of fair share are obviously different. I support 100% self-sufficiency. I feel that people should only be helped by people that choose to help them. If I choose to be "greedy" and keep all of the fruits of my labor to myself, I should be able to. I earned it.

I admire your want to help others that are less fortunate, but that is your choice, I should not be forced to.

Why is the idea that everyone takes care of themselves and only receive help when offered considered Utopian. That undermines the whole idea of a self-sufficient nation. That is implying that our country is set-up to have some work harder to take care of the ones that don't. That is a backwards process that only reduces incentive to do better for yourself. That only reduces responsibility and crucial character traits that will be passed on to the next generation.

June 29, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BlackReign (anonymous) says...

Dont the evil big business and the extremely wealthy create jobs while making their evil profits? Lets see, NYC, raises property taxes, the 'wealthy' move out, and revenue goes down...hmmm

Same with almost every major city in this country, oppressive & confiscatory taxes, force those that can afford to move to move while those that cant afford to move are stuck in low-income housing and run down inner cities.

But,with obama and his ilk, it is all about their idea of 'fair' - take from the producers and earners and redistribute it amongst the down trodden.

But in reality, all the left is doing is creating a government dependent serfdom, that has to keep re-electing the same leftists to power to get their nanny-state fix. And the left do not care about the devestation they have caused and are causing to millions of families living a miserable life with their hands out waiting for their next ration of bread form uncle sugar.

Great speech by Ron Paul;

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2003

Oppose the Federal Welfare State

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policies of high taxes and inflationary Federal Reserve money imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that "I give at the (tax) office."

Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is "Not Yours to Give.''

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/con...

June 29, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BlackReign (anonymous) says...

nopartisan_noproblem, agreed, there are those that need help and state and local governments with the community should help. The federal welfare state is all about creating a dependent class.

June 29, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Ron Paul, great man. Wish he would have beat McCain, then we would have had a real race.

June 29, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Black Reign, I don't blame it all on the left. The republican party has held executive and legislative majority and never reduce the taxpayer handouts.

They never reduced EBT to a Wic-style program. They never placed time limits on taxpayer assistance. They never forced those not working and receiving benefits to contribute anything back( backpayments, volunteering). They don't check on the lifestyles of those receiving benefits(new cars while being assisted, drug problems, babdaddy's living with them in government housing, people claiming other peoples children for EIC's). Both sides of the aisle are at fault. The left is open with it. The right is scared to confront it. Why, I don't know.

There has been a bi-partisan failure at restoring independent responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and social responsibility in this country.

June 29, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

You seem to have overlooked the points where I said "some" and "other," neither of which indicate blanket statements about all people in any group.

I support self-sufficiency as well, but I also support not taking so much from the poor that they are unable to be self-sufficient. As I said, I don't believe in universally taking from the rich to support the poor, and it isn't accurate to characterize what I've said as wanting to help others who are less fortunate.

I grew up poor too, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that many of the working poor are motivated, dedicated and proud of the work that they do, and that their having been denied an education is not so frequently their own doing. I've paid for my own education as well, and I've been able to eke my way up, but I don't have any illusions about the poor having complete upward mobility, especially not through hard work alone. I'm proud of what I've been able to accomplish, but I realize that it took as much luck as it did skill and determination to get the opportunities that allowed me to get this far.

June 29, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

The reason I put it like that is because by using the "some" and "other" argument, you're allowing the entire "poor" community to receive those benefits of a lower tax rate regardless of whatever got them in that situation. That goes for all benefits.

No man has been denied an education. Every person has the oppurtunity to obtain knowledge and skills outside of private and public education systems. People have been trained to think otherwise though. How many kids do you see hopping on the bus and taking it to the library. They have full oppurtunity, but they don't take advantage of it. Any person that can't afford college can read the same books and teachings that they will in college. Not to the fullest extent, but enough to further themselves.

You refer to luck. Luck could fall on anyone and with your skills and determination you got where you are. What did you possess externally that someone in your similar position didn't which prevented them from excelling to your current point?

June 29, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Awesome debate IT, but sadly I must close. Look forward to posting with ya in the future. Have a good afternoon. I might get back on later.

June 29, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...

Demint is braindead and has done nothing to benefit this state. All he ever votes is "no". That doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence.

June 29, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ltgrunt (anonymous) says...

"No man has been denied an education. Every person has the oppurtunity to obtain knowledge and skills outside of private and public education systems."

To claim that no man has been denied an education shows a serious and consuming disconnect from the reality of our public, private and higher education systems. Further, suggesting that a self-guided perusing of library shelves could reproduce the transfer and verification of knowledge present in a real college or university setting is completely unrealistic. There's a reason that many professions and career paths require the certification of competency and understanding that a degree imparts.

Don't get me wrong, I love libraries - I get an acute sense of enjoyment and satisfaction from reading books, and I have what I like to think of as an impressive collection. I just don't believe that unfocused, unguided study can impart as much knowledge and experience as a structured learning environment.

June 29, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

vmirat90 (anonymous) says...

The half truths, lies, and assaults by the left are shameless and relentless

**insert RIGHT for left...works for the last 8 years for sure.

It goes both ways....

June 29, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BlackReign (anonymous) says...

Posted by nopartisan_noproblem on June 29, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Black Reign, I don't blame it all on the left. The republican party has held executive and legislative majority and never reduce the taxpayer handouts."

Well I dont blame all of the welfare system on the left. But dont forget Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill with the nudging of a republican house and senate. This was a start.

BUT - Obama's stimulus bill reverses Clinton's welfare reform. Not one republicn congressmen voted for this pork-us-all bill.

All in all, welfare and the nanny state belong to the left/democrats, they use it to buy votes and keep their dependent class.

Great Society - Lyndon B. Johnson - "The war on poverty" what a joke.
New Deal - FDR
SSI & medicare is going broke, if it isnt already.

Of Course you had GW Bush sign the The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, yet even more nanny state 'entitlments.

The US is going to go the way of California - count on it.

Deficit forces California to issue IOUs
By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles

Published: June 29 2009 19:26 | Last updated: June 29 2009 19:26

California is preparing to issue IOUs to its creditors this week as it grapples with an unprecedented cash crunch and prepares to begin its new fiscal year deep in the red.

Once the US's richest state, California now has the dubious distinction of having the worst credit rating in the country.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1940d18e-64...

June 30, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jk_newhard (anonymous) says...

BlackReign,

Obama's stimulus package only reversed some of the welfare reform provisions and these revisions expire (I believe at the end of 2010).

CA's problems are more complex than evil leftists. A good analysis can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...

June 30, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )