2
   

There's no radical left in America.

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 05:39 pm
au1929 wrote:
okie
If you consider Medicare, Medicaid, Social security and food stamps socialistic than I am all for socialism. Legislation to cut spending to make up the revenue short fall was just passed by your compassionate conservatives in congress. A deficit which is primarily the result of the tax cuts and the billions being wasted to fighting "Bush's" war. Did they rescind or at cut back on the tax cuts which went to the rich and powerful? Hell no they attacked the poorest,weakest among us by cutting Medicaid,Food stamps and student loans. I guess only the wealthy are deserving of sustenance,adequate medical care and education. .

That is the republican way.


I'll go along with some limited social programs, but I am against your full socialism. Why are you so mad at rich people? What is it about the jealosy anyway? I'm certainly not rich, but I'm glad theres a few around. Without them, who would have a job? Also, tax cuts go to people that pay taxes. Poor people pay little or no income tax anyway, and in fact if you work and are poor, you will receive alot more money back than you pay into the IRS through tax credits, so away with your idiotic "tax breaks for the rich" mantra. I don't know of anybody that is going without medical care, education, or food, do you?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 05:49 pm
I'm a "leftist", but not of the "radical left," since that would make me a communist, which I'm not. On the other hand, someone on the "radical right" would be a fascist. We've got plenty of them.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 05:51 pm
JLNobody wrote:
I'm a "leftist", but not of the "radical left," since that would make me a communist, which I'm not. On the other hand, someone on the "radical right" would be a fascist. We've got plenty of them.


Really? Shocked Like who?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 05:57 pm
The list is too long. I hope you are not on it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 06:05 pm
quote="okie"]
au1929 wrote:
okie
If you consider Medicare, Medicaid, Social security and food stamps socialistic than I am all for socialism. Legislation to cut spending to make up the revenue short fall was just passed by your compassionate conservatives in congress. A deficit which is primarily the result of the tax cuts and the billions being wasted to fighting "Bush's" war. Did they rescind or at cut back on the tax cuts which went to the rich and powerful? Hell no they attacked the poorest, weakest among us by cutting Medicaid, Food stamps and student loans. I guess only the wealthy are deserving of sustenance, adequate medical care and education.

That is the republican way.


I'll go along with some limited social programs, but I am against your full socialism. Why are you so mad at rich people? What is it about the jealosy anyway? I'm certainly not rich, but I'm glad theres a few around. Without them, who would have a job? Also, tax cuts go to people that pay taxes. Poor people pay little or no income tax anyway, and in fact if you work and are poor, you will receive alot more money back than you pay into the IRS through tax credits, so away with your idiotic "tax breaks for the rich" mantra. I don't know of anybody that is going without medical care, education, or food, do you?[/quote]

Would you please enlighten me as to the "limited " social programs you in your compassion for the poor and unfortunate you would allow. In addition which of the social programs now in effect would you abandon. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or food stamps?

Regarding tax cuts for the wealthy. It is beyond reason to enact tax cuts during a time of war when the US is expending hundreds of billions of dollars which by the way the do not have and than cut social services to pay for them. That is Robin Hood in reverse. Take from the needy and give to the wealthy.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 06:10 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
You guys are splitting hairs. That's like saying everyone has access to the bank.

Try seeing how well you do with no health insurance when you have a chronic health problem.


Exactly. I have the access to health care you guys are talking about, but I am in chronic pain due to a health problem that would require surgery to fix. There is no way I can afford surgery, despite this access to health care I am so blessed to have.

So those of you who claim we all have access to adequate health care, what is your response to people who live with chronic health problems and have no insurance? I see McGentrix's response to D'art's proposal, which I quoted above, was "Why would I want to do that?" Do you have a serious response, McG? I'd be interested to hear it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 06:22 pm
Who, me? Radical? All I want is a square deal for everyone, even the neocons. If Bush got a square deal he would have to be hanged by his balls to make up the difference.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 08:03 pm
au1929 wrote:
Regarding tax cuts for the wealthy. It is beyond reason to enact tax cuts during a time of war when the US is expending hundreds of billions of dollars which by the way the do not have and than cut social services to pay for them. That is Robin Hood in reverse. Take from the needy and give to the wealthy.


The most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes, including income, payroll and excise taxes. Those in the middle 20 percent pay 10.5 percent, a much smaller share. So, strictly speaking, the highest -income taxpayers still pay by far the larger share of taxes than the other 80 percent.

High tax rates don't necessarily translate to high tax revenues. If you disagree, just look at Germany, whose high-tax economy will fall way short of revenue targets through 2008. Perfect example of a failed socialist economic policy, with 12% unemployment and steadily losing their competitive edge in Europe and the world.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 09:17 pm
Meanwhile 85% of the wealth in the US is controlled by 20% of US households. (Up from 81% a few years ago.)
The top 20% of income tax payers make 50% of the income in the country.
The wage for the bottom 4/5ths has not kept up with inflation but has fallen for the last 4 years.

I don't think that top 20% is hurting too much in the tax area since their wealth has continued to grow as % of the total wealth in the US since 1962.

Trickle down doesn't work based on the present facts.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 10:49 pm
au1929 wrote:

Would you please enlighten me as to the "limited " social programs you in your compassion for the poor and unfortunate you would allow. In addition which of the social programs now in effect would you abandon. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or food stamps?

Regarding tax cuts for the wealthy. It is beyond reason to enact tax cuts during a time of war when the US is expending hundreds of billions of dollars which by the way the do not have and than cut social services to pay for them. That is Robin Hood in reverse. Take from the needy and give to the wealthy.


Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are too entrenched now to quit cold turkey. I think we would have been better off with different type programs than these, but now that we have them, we should not break the promises included in these programs over the last 50 years or more. Some reform of these programs would be helpful to try to keep them from breaking the bank, which they will if allowed to grow unhindered. I would have to look at the Food Stamp program to see if some reform is in order, such as would it make sense to go back to the old system whereby basic food items like sugar, flour, etc. be provided instead of a blank check to buy potato chips, pop, whatever. I would need to look at this program in detail to really come up with something more definite. I would rescind Bush's prescription drug program. I don't think that was a huge problem the way it was. I haven't talked to anybody that likes the new program or understands it. If left unhindered, it will grow exponentially with a huge component of abuse.

Concerning cuts in the tax rates, you need to consider the fact that tax rates are not a "zero sum game." To explain, 0% tax rate collects no taxes, but a 100% tax rate would also collect little tax because nobody would work any more than absolutely necessary to get their rations from the government, and the economy would tank like it eventually does in every communist system. Somewhere in the middle is the most efficient tax rate, and I think we may be higher than that optimum rate, so that lowering the rate does more to increase revenue than increasing the rate would. Reagan proved that exactly. I believe Bush is proving this again. Tax revenues currently are not suffering from the tax rate cut. Another simple illustration, how did Walmart make more money than all other retailers? The answer is obviously they lowered their prices. Lowering taxes spurs the economy. That is a proven fact. And the tax cuts not only benefited the wealthy, they greatly benefited the poor. Some of those poor are in my own family so I know how much money they got, and it was significant. Much more than they even paid into the system. And they spent it on real significant needs for their families.

And as far as Robin Hood in reverse, I do not think any social program is being cut in any significant manner because of the poor. Document it if you have an example.

I would submit the idea here that our biggest economic problem for society is irresponsibility. How do you fix that?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 07:23 am
cyphercat wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
You guys are splitting hairs. That's like saying everyone has access to the bank.

Try seeing how well you do with no health insurance when you have a chronic health problem.


Exactly. I have the access to health care you guys are talking about, but I am in chronic pain due to a health problem that would require surgery to fix. There is no way I can afford surgery, despite this access to health care I am so blessed to have.

So those of you who claim we all have access to adequate health care, what is your response to people who live with chronic health problems and have no insurance? I see McGentrix's response to D'art's proposal, which I quoted above, was "Why would I want to do that?" Do you have a serious response, McG? I'd be interested to hear it.


I do not know your circumstances so I can't say. How old are you? What physical condition are you in? Why don't you have insurance?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 08:27 am
Quote:
okie wrote:
au1929 wrote:

Would you please enlighten me as to the "limited " social programs you in your compassion for the poor and unfortunate you would allow. In addition which of the social programs now in effect would you abandon. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or food stamps?

Regarding tax cuts for the wealthy. It is beyond reason to enact tax cuts during a time of war when the US is expending hundreds of billions of dollars which by the way the do not have and than cut social services to pay for them. That is Robin Hood in reverse. Take from the needy and give to the wealthy.


Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are too entrenched now to quit cold turkey. I think we would have been better off with different type programs than these, but now that we have them, we should not break the promises included in these programs over the last 50 years or more. Some reform of these programs would be helpful to try to keep them from breaking the bank, which they will if allowed to grow unhindered. I would have to look at the Food Stamp program to see if some reform is in order, such as would it make sense to go back to the old system whereby basic food items like sugar, flour, etc. be provided instead of a blank check to buy potato chips, pop, whatever. I would need to look at this program in detail to really come up with something more definite. I would rescind Bush's prescription drug program. I don't think that was a huge problem the way it was. I haven't talked to anybody that likes the new program or understands it. If left unhindered, it will grow exponentially with a huge component of abuse.


I see, it's not social programs you are unhappy about. It is how they are structured that bothers you. I guess by your standards you are a socialist. In addition I would add that all is to be seen in your response is negativity. " I don't like this" "I don't like that." It is easy to criticize. Anyone who remembers the plight of the old prior to SS and Medicare and the poor prior to Medicaid understands and has seen the value of those programs.

Regarding the prescription drug plan. It is a farce and should be rescinded or at least be reworked. As it stands now the greatest beneficiaries of the plan are the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries not the people who it is supposedly supposed to help. But than that is the republicans constituency and who can afford to buy congress.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:18 am
au1929 wrote:

I see, it's not social programs you are unhappy about. It is how they are structured that bothers you. I guess by your standards you are a socialist. In addition I would add that all is to be seen in your response is negativity. " I don't like this" "I don't like that." It is easy to criticize. Anyone who remembers the plight of the old prior to SS and Medicare and the poor prior to Medicaid understands and has seen the value of those programs.

Regarding the prescription drug plan. It is a farce and should be rescinded or at least be reworked. As it stands now the greatest beneficiaries of the plan are the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries not the people who it is supposedly supposed to help. But than that is the republicans constituency and who can afford to buy congress.


To summarize, I believe in the principles of freedom, private property rights, free enterprise, and everything this country was founded on. It wasn't founded on social programs. People can and should be compassionate to help each other, but it is important to understand if we subsidize irresponsibility and laziness, we will get more of it. We would all like to sit back and count the days till we get our monthly check. All the wonderful things we enjoy in this country were not attained by doing that. I understand there are people that simply can't do very well due to physical or mental conditions, and where necessary to provide the assistance, I am in favor of those programs.

Yes, its easy to criticize. I just happen to criticize socialism, whereas you like to criticize rich people and blame all of our ills on the people that have more than you do, and on Republicans. I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Theres lots of things I like. I love this country, I love people that work hard and if they are rich, so much the better. Look at all the jobs Bill Gates has provided for people. I like George Bush. I love my wife. I love my family and friends. I love my job. I even like a forum or two. Hey, we even agree that the prescription drug program is bad.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:33 am
McGentrix wrote:
cyphercat wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
You guys are splitting hairs. That's like saying everyone has access to the bank.

Try seeing how well you do with no health insurance when you have a chronic health problem.


Exactly. I have the access to health care you guys are talking about, but I am in chronic pain due to a health problem that would require surgery to fix. There is no way I can afford surgery, despite this access to health care I am so blessed to have.

So those of you who claim we all have access to adequate health care, what is your response to people who live with chronic health problems and have no insurance? I see McGentrix's response to D'art's proposal, which I quoted above, was "Why would I want to do that?" Do you have a serious response, McG? I'd be interested to hear it.


I do not know your circumstances so I can't say. How old are you? What physical condition are you in? Why don't you have insurance?


You don't belive cyphercat, McG? You want personal info and a diagnosis before you can accept such an unbelievable story? Your response here is typical: You agree to someone else's absurd claim that EVERYONE has access to health care, then when evidence is presented contradicting that, you ask for more proof.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:47 am
okie wrote
Quote:
Yes, its easy to criticize. I just happen to criticize socialism, whereas you like to criticize rich people and blame all of our ills on the people that have more than you do, and on Republicans. I'm sorry, but I don't agree.


My friend you fighting shadows. No where did I criticize the rich or claim the rich are the responsible for anything. I should add happily my finances are in very good shape.
What I am bitterly opposed to is the insensitivity of the compassionate conservatives actions regarding the needy of this nation.
Since you mentioned Bill Gates. He for one said that the tax cuts given the wealthy were uncalled for. In addition based on his philanthropy it is apparent he is in favor of social problems and has instituted some with his own funds.

As to the rest of your response I would ask if you are also in favor of "Motherhood and apple pie."

I would add that I am old enough to remember the depression and have seen what it is like to be without the social programs you are opposed to. Hopefully that time is passed and buried.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:48 am
I ask because there are federal programs designed to help those unfortunate enough to not have insurance...you know, so they can have access to medical care. If cyphercat is just too lazy to work and has been eating mcdonalds for the past 10 years and now has health problems, well, little sympathy to be had from me. That's why I asked. Because I don't know.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:52 am
McGentrix
Shame on you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 10:57 am
Shame on me? For what? For wanting to know about a person's claim that they don't have access to medical care?

Pft! Please. Take you scolding and shove it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 11:00 am
McG
Bend over and I will gladly "Shove it" where it belongs.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 11:03 am
Bill Gates is an economist?

The Nobel prize winner in Economics last year said the only problem with Bush's tax cuts is that they weren't deeper.

Again...high taxes do not translate to high revenues.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 12:31:03