indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Apr 30, 2014 11:11:40 GMT -5
When did making a ton a money become a bad thing or a greed thing ?! Example: If your a medical doctor or lawyer your spending at least 300k to 500k for an education ! And they have very right to making whatever money they can in the private sector ! Would u say no?! Not to mention most successful private sector doctors, lawyers or business executives are taxed at least 45%! And FYI: Bernie Madoff’s was a democrat- he donated $238,200 to democrats. Including Sens. Frank Lautenberg , Hillary Clinton & , and Ron Wyden ! I don’t think anybody is saying making lots of money is inherently a bad thing. I certainly didn't. Are you denying that greed exists and can be used by people in power (ie. with a lot of money) can use it to their advantage over people who are less well off, whether intentionally or not? And why bring up what party Madoff belonged to? If there’s some other meaning you want to say, then say it directly. Are you implying Republicans are immune to cheating people? And, if not, what's the threshold of cheating that they would not cross to go into Madoff territory? |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Apr 30, 2014 11:25:46 GMT -5
Both parties have issues with greed and self indulgence! However, the Republican party has always been classed at the party of greed and uncaring! And always pinned with the likes of Bernie Madoff! Which is total B.S.!
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Apr 30, 2014 12:17:21 GMT -5
Both parties have issues with greed and self indulgence! However, the Republican party has always been classed at the party of greed and uncaring! And always pinned with the likes of Bernie Madoff! Which is total B.S.! So we're in agreement: 1. Making Money is not inherently bad. 2. Greed does exist and wealthy people of both parties have been known to use it to the detriment of people w/ less money, intentionally or not. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Apr 30, 2014 12:37:22 GMT -5
Both parties have issues with greed and self indulgence! However, the Republican party has always been classed at the party of greed and uncaring! And always pinned with the likes of Bernie Madoff! Which is total B.S.! So we're in agreement: 1. Making Money is not inherently bad. 2. Greed does exist and wealthy people of both parties have been known to use it to the detriment of people w/ less money, intentionally or not. The free market with free people is the best system on earth, nothing comes close. Unfortunately, this system has been watered down in the name of redistributing wealth. The only result of that is that government gets bigger and bigger and requires more and more to keep running. The great society and the welfare state philosophy have been a disaster, in fact, "poverty" remains stagnant and maybe even worse. Keep punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior and all you will have is a lot of poor people. Obama economics pure and simple. It doesn't work. It's that simple. |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Apr 30, 2014 12:51:51 GMT -5
Somebody mentioned compromise. I don't think it's possible. Think about it - we aren't talking about splitting the difference between left and left+2 or right and right+2. How do you compromise on more government vs less government? How about socialized vs free market medicine? Where's the compromise to be made? Compromise can be made on the degree to which we do something but not when the core principals are in exact opposition as they are in many cases today.
I don't think this can be fixed. Both sides are concerned only with personal power, not what's right for the nation. The media isn't doing us any favors by picking sides. They're supposed to objectively challenge both sides. They don't.
My prediction - Rs win both House and Senate in '14 but lose the presidency in '16. Why? Well, for '14 there's enough O'Care opposition that it will carry the day for Rs. For '16 - look at 2012. Romney was right about Russia. He was right (Yes, Candy he was) about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%. All that was irrelevant. It will be in 2016 too. Obama was weak going into the 2012 election and still one. I'll note too that Bush was the same going into the 2nd term so it may have just been an incumbent advantage. Either way I don't see the R's winning a presidential again. I'm sort of glad Romney didn't win...can you imagine the blame he'd get for messing up O'Care. At least now the blame is clear.
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Apr 30, 2014 13:31:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry Glen ..I think the Republicans have a real shot in 2016. Especially if Hilary is running! Why? Benghazi ! All the relatives of those hero's are just waiting to go after her! And can you imagine the political ads!
Example of one:
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Apr 30, 2014 16:33:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry Glen ..I think the Republicans have a real shot in 2016. Especially if Hilary is running! Why? Benghazi ! All the relatives of those hero's are just waiting to go after her! And can you imagine the political ads! I hope you're right but they're gonna need more than a couple cute ads. Somebody said something about Ocare - I said it before but the longer that lasts, the initial stink of the website is gone and more people are covered in some way, the Dems will be touting that as a major feather in their cap. Candidates who backed away from it 6 months ago are now embracing it. I asked before but who do you think can unite the right and gather enough of the center to beat Hilary? With Bill on the trail with her that will be a hard combo to beat. The left is a given (that's probably 47%+ right there, <just a little exaggeration>) and many women shooting for another 'first' in the WH. I asked before but who do you think can communicate their ideas properly to unite the right and gather enough of the center to beat Hilary and Bill? That's a formidable tandem. I don't see a leader or good organization (Priebus & Boehner??) capable of it now. Hope somebody can turn it around. Personally I liked the ideas of Gary Johnson & Jon Hunstman back in '12, but they are probably not insider enough. |
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Apr 30, 2014 16:45:35 GMT -5
Somebody mentioned compromise. I don't think it's possible. Think about it - we aren't talking about splitting the difference between left and left+2 or right and right+2. How do you compromise on more government vs less government? How about socialized vs free market medicine? Where's the compromise to be made? Compromise can be made on the degree to which we do something but not when the core principals are in exact opposition as they are in many cases today. I don't think this can be fixed. Both sides are concerned only with personal power, not what's right for the nation. The media isn't doing us any favors by picking sides. They're supposed to objectively challenge both sides. They don't. My prediction - Rs win both House and Senate in '14 but lose the presidency in '16. Why? Well, for '14 there's enough O'Care opposition that it will carry the day for Rs. For '16 - look at 2012. Romney was right about Russia. He was right (Yes, Candy he was) about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%. All that was irrelevant. It will be in 2016 too. Obama was weak going into the 2012 election and still one. I'll note too that Bush was the same going into the 2nd term so it may have just been an incumbent advantage. Either way I don't see the R's winning a presidential again. I'm sort of glad Romney didn't win...can you imagine the blame he'd get for messing up O'Care. At least now the blame is clear. I know it sounds difficult, but I still say it's possible and, in fact, necessary. If what you say was true we would either be pure free market, with little to no regulations (which we're not) or pure socialism (I certainly do not anticipate that, but we're trending that way). There's always a way to give back something you can live with for something you think is necessary. We've had free market medicine w/ some socialized medicine (Medicare & Medicaid)( for a long time. There can be a mix (and needs to take care of a portion of the population) - it's that portion we have to find a middle ground on. Not easy, but it can be done with the right leaders. I haven't given up yet. |
|
|
|
Post by MTS on Apr 30, 2014 17:48:13 GMT -5
Somebody mentioned compromise. I don't think it's possible. Think about it - we aren't talking about splitting the difference between left and left+2 or right and right+2. How do you compromise on more government vs less government? How about socialized vs free market medicine? Where's the compromise to be made? Compromise can be made on the degree to which we do something but not when the core principals are in exact opposition as they are in many cases today. I don't think this can be fixed. Both sides are concerned only with personal power, not what's right for the nation. The media isn't doing us any favors by picking sides. They're supposed to objectively challenge both sides. They don't. My prediction - Rs win both House and Senate in '14 but lose the presidency in '16. Why? Well, for '14 there's enough O'Care opposition that it will carry the day for Rs. For '16 - look at 2012. Romney was right about Russia. He was right (Yes, Candy he was) about Benghazi. He was right about the 47%. All that was irrelevant. It will be in 2016 too. Obama was weak going into the 2012 election and still one. I'll note too that Bush was the same going into the 2nd term so it may have just been an incumbent advantage. Either way I don't see the R's winning a presidential again. I'm sort of glad Romney didn't win...can you imagine the blame he'd get for messing up O'Care. At least now the blame is clear. History says it's very tough for one party to win the white house for more than two terms. Since 1952 it's only happened once from 1981-1993 (Reagan 8 years, Bush Sr. 4 years). If the economy continues to be bad and the GOP puts up a strong candidate I think they've have a good chance to win in 2016. Of course with the demographics changing the GOP needs to make some adjustments if they are going to win. |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on May 1, 2014 7:15:13 GMT -5
I82 - we're heading toward pure socialism. It takes time but the right is losing the battle. Why? Look around...if you have conservative views you can be fired as the CEO of a major dot-com. That tends to silence opposition. I live in NYS - I'm very careful who I voice my opinions to. Why - because the left is militant. For all their "tolerance" BS they are the most intolerant. I can say this - I have an ultra lib friend who works for FOX. He has no concerns at work. Conversely, I work for an ultra-left eco company. I dare not say anything. That could just be my warped view but I doubt it.
MTS - We're also in an era where the press has long since given up the appearance of balance. They'll make things up if it helps "their guy/gal". Look at the NYT article on McCain's "infidelity". They spent months researching that and ran it with nothing backing it yet they couldn't find the time to do any checking on O. Really?!?! "Fake but Accurate" is the mantra of the day with these people (I'm talking to you Dan Rather). Do you think Candy Crowley would've pulled her moderator stunt back in the Reagan era? No way. Journalists had integrity back then..or at least the good sense to look impartial. Look at the newsrooms now...CNN, MSDNC, NBC - is their any sense of impartiality? Oh right, FOX. Independent studies have shown FOX is way better than the others on the impartiality score but even if you disagree, that's still 1 outlet vs 3 major networks and and host of cables.
The point is that we're in a different era now. More people (WAY MORE) are on the dole and need/want the handout. Cutting back will be hard. Additionally, I'm not sure the Repubs actually want to cut anything. I think you're going to see more 3rd party candidates which in most cases will be TEA types that will take R votes. Heck, the D's know this and fund the TEA candidates in some circumstances. Unless the R's get serious they're done.
|
|
|
|
Post by nysaintfan on May 2, 2014 19:35:00 GMT -5
So we're in agreement: 1. Making Money is not inherently bad. 2. Greed does exist and wealthy people of both parties have been known to use it to the detriment of people w/ less money, intentionally or not. The free market with free people is the best system on earth, nothing comes close. Unfortunately, this system has been watered down in the name of redistributing wealth. The only result of that is that government gets bigger and bigger and requires more and more to keep running. The great society and the welfare state philosophy have been a disaster, in fact, "poverty" remains stagnant and maybe even worse. Keep punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior and all you will have is a lot of poor people. Obama economics pure and simple. It doesn't work. It's that simple. Just to clarify, historically the US economy has been stronger, deficits have been smaller, and poverty has been less pervasive when tax rates have been higher. For example, during the boom of the 90's, tax rates were higher than they are today. And during the 50's, when the middle class was probably it's strongest and broadest (fewer poor), tax rates were much higher. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on May 2, 2014 20:05:48 GMT -5
The free market with free people is the best system on earth, nothing comes close. Unfortunately, this system has been watered down in the name of redistributing wealth. The only result of that is that government gets bigger and bigger and requires more and more to keep running. The great society and the welfare state philosophy have been a disaster, in fact, "poverty" remains stagnant and maybe even worse. Keep punishing good behavior and rewarding bad behavior and all you will have is a lot of poor people. Obama economics pure and simple. It doesn't work. It's that simple. Just to clarify, historically the US economy has been stronger, deficits have been smaller, and poverty has been less pervasive when tax rates have been higher. For example, during the boom of the 90's, tax rates were higher than they are today. And during the 50's, when the middle class was probably it's strongest and broadest (fewer poor), tax rates were much higher. Hilarious, so raise taxes even more? The 90s had the internet boom. The economy grew despite the increase in taxes by Clinton, which I believe he later regretted. Taxes and social programs have increased dramitically under Obama and the economy remains anemic. Raising taxes doesnt increase productivity and it doesn't decrease poverty. Just to be clear. |
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on May 5, 2014 5:51:37 GMT -5
Just to clarify, historically the US economy has been stronger, deficits have been smaller, and poverty has been less pervasive when tax rates have been higher. For example, during the boom of the 90's, tax rates were higher than they are today. And during the 50's, when the middle class was probably it's strongest and broadest (fewer poor), tax rates were much higher. Hilarious, so raise taxes even more? The 90s had the internet boom. The economy grew despite the increase in taxes by Clinton, which I believe he later regretted. Taxes and social programs have increased dramitically under Obama and the economy remains anemic. Raising taxes doesnt increase productivity and it doesn't decrease poverty. Just to be clear. A correction. Taxes for business have continued to decline over the past 30 to 40 years further placing the burden on individuals. The economy is at its best when both business and individuals pay their share. Corporate taxes accounted for as much as 45% of government revenue but have since figured out how to evade/avoid so much so that they now account for about 11%. THIS is the only reason government at all levels is strapped and why the middle class is being obliterated. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on May 5, 2014 6:49:15 GMT -5
Hilarious, so raise taxes even more? The 90s had the internet boom. The economy grew despite the increase in taxes by Clinton, which I believe he later regretted. Taxes and social programs have increased dramitically under Obama and the economy remains anemic. Raising taxes doesnt increase productivity and it doesn't decrease poverty. Just to be clear. A correction. Taxes for business have continued to decline over the past 30 to 40 years further placing the burden on individuals. The economy is at its best when both business and individuals pay their share. Corporate taxes accounted for as much as 45% of government revenue but have since figured out how to evade/avoid so much so that they now account for about 11%. THIS is the only reason government at all levels is strapped and why the middle class is being obliterated. And Obama raised taxes on individuals and especially on small businesses, so who are you blaming. That's what happens when you elect a socialist, you get an anemic economy similar to much of Europe. Go to a flat tax, which again is being recommended and promoted by the republicans, conservatives, and tea party folks. More rhetoric by SF regarding taxation. Fair share, and all the other words don't mean anything. Everyone has to have skin in the game and the only way to do that is to have equal taxation. Otherwise you get some voting to increase taxes on others- a system which is not only unfair but not sustainable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 7:24:17 GMT -5
A correction. Taxes for business have continued to decline over the past 30 to 40 years further placing the burden on individuals. The economy is at its best when both business and individuals pay their share. Corporate taxes accounted for as much as 45% of government revenue but have since figured out how to evade/avoid so much so that they now account for about 11%. THIS is the only reason government at all levels is strapped and why the middle class is being obliterated. And Obama raised taxes on individuals and especially on small businesses, so who are you blaming. That's what happens when you elect a socialist, you get an anemic economy similar to much of Europe. Go to a flat tax, which again is being recommended and promoted by the republicans, conservatives, and tea party folks. More rhetoric by SF regarding taxation. Fair share, and all the other words don't mean anything. Everyone has to have skin in the game and the only way to do that is to have equal taxation. Otherwise you get some voting to increase taxes on others- a system which is not only unfair but not sustainable. Would you please identify the taxes that our President increased on individuals? Thank you in advance for a factual and not a rhetorical reply.  |
|
