Gore: Bush is 'renegade rightwing extremist'

The same could be said for the many members on A2K that confess they aren't "liberals".

0 Replies

I suppose that would be true if any of us ran for office as Democrats and accepted money from left wing groups and consulted left wing groups for all major decisions and employed professionals from left wing think tanks as major policy makers. Then yeah, sure.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

What's "right wing" about Bush?

Apparently, Bush isn't very right wing at all to many conservatives in this country today. But he's quite the neoconservative rightwinger to enough of us on the left who've had enough, and his massive spending and incompetence seems to ring true to a large cross-section of the American community.

Looks like we all have something in common afterall... :wink:

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
What's "right wing" about Bush?

Apparently, Bush isn't very right wing at all to many conservatives in this country today. But he's quite the neoconservative rightwinger to enough of us on the left who've had enough, and his massive spending and incompetence seems to ring true to a large cross-section of the American community.

Looks like we all have something in common afterall... :wink:

To start with, massive spending is not a conservative principle. It is a liberal idea.

0 Replies

Agreed. Bush is actually the worst of both worlds. He believes in massive spending AND cuts in social programs. He believes in using our military might for nation building AND cutting taxes so there's no way to pay for it. He believes we should not only loosen regulations on corporations, but we should actually subsidize them with tax payer money. He believes in big expanded government power BUT not inorder to provide health care to our citizens.

0 Replies

Just one comment, FreeDuck, "cutting taxes" is not accurate. It should read "cutting tax rates." One could argue whether the tax rates we have now optimize tax revenues or not, but at least some believe his cutting of tax rates have enhanced revenues over what they would have been without cutting the rates. This is the one area that I consistently disagree with the liberal viewpoint on all the time. And the phrase, "tax breaks for the rich" really stirs me up. I listened to "progressive radio" for a while yesterday, and the conversation consisted mostly of euphemisms laced with demagoguery, of which tax breaks for the rich and Bush's oil buddies were a big part of it. It is intellectually vacuous, and I could easily see why the people conducting the show are not regarded as very smart.

Another comment you have about business. We are not subsidizing them with tax payer money. We are only allowing them to keep some of their own profits so that we can stimulate business activity to spur employment and other positive effects, things which help us in the long run. We use the tax system all the time to customize what we want to see happen economically. One man's tax break is another man's incentive.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
What's "right wing" about Bush?

Apparently, Bush isn't very right wing at all to many conservatives in this country today. But he's quite the neoconservative rightwinger to enough of us on the left who've had enough, and his massive spending and incompetence seems to ring true to a large cross-section of the American community.

Looks like we all have something in common afterall... :wink:

To start with, massive spending is not a conservative principle. It is a liberal idea.

And yet Bush and the GOP led Congress are spending America into the ground. China currently holds much of our debt, and the threat of the Euro is clearly on the horizon. Most liberals are just as concerned as those traditional Republicans regarding this. Amazing, isn't it? Bush's expansion of government programs and agencies goes completely against conservative Republicans principles, and the war has sucked billions upon billions of dollars out of taxpayer's wallets.

He spends like a fish, and puts those liberal principles to shame regarding fiscal prudence.

Lest we forget, it was during Bill Clinton's tenure that we actually had a surplus. And Americans as a whole benefitted.

Rising gas prices, rising cost of healthcare, billions wasted on Mediscare, billions missing and unaccounted for regarding the war, etc., etc. etc.

Oy! Drunk

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Just one comment, FreeDuck, "cutting taxes" is not accurate. It should read "cutting tax rates."

A distinction I'm sure you will mention when campaign season starts up again.

Quote:

I listened to "progressive radio" for a while yesterday, and the conversation consisted mostly of euphemisms laced with demagoguery, of which tax breaks for the rich and Bush's oil buddies were a big part of it. It is intellectually vacuous, and I could easily see why the people conducting the show are not regarded as very smart.

That's true for both sides of political talk radio, although there are more right wing commenters than there are on the left in general. If you want to listen to people rant and stir other people up, you should not expect those people to be especially careful or well reasoned in their arguments. The point of these kinds of shows is to stir people up, not to use reason to get to the bottom an issue, or to provoke independent thought.

Quote:

Another comment you have about business. We are not subsidizing them with tax payer money. We are only allowing them to keep some of their own profits so that we can stimulate business activity to spur employment and other positive effects, things which help us in the long run. We use the tax system all the time to customize what we want to see happen economically. One man's tax break is another man's incentive.

Using the tax system to foster growth and technological advancements which benefit society and our people as a whole is not something I have a problem with. R&D grants, bankruptcy bailouts, and other such favors that use taxpayer dollars but don't necessarily promise an improvement in the lives of americans are what I consider subsidies. You can throw farm subsidies, which overwhelmingly go to big corporate farms and leave small, independent farmers in the lurch and indirectly lead to Americans consuming vast quantities of high fructose corn syrup, in there too. But that's the topic of a whole other thread.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That's true for both sides of political talk radio, although there are more right wing commenters than there are on the left in general. If you want to listen to people rant and stir other people up, you should not expect those people to be especially careful or well reasoned in their arguments. The point of these kinds of shows is to stir people up, not to use reason to get to the bottom an issue, or to provoke independent thought.

I know people that are very conservative but do not enjoy talk radio because it does stir them up. Talk radio does tend to bring things to our attention and so we can become worried and stirred up over it. Too much of it is bad I think I agree, but perhaps we need to pay attention to some issues more than we do. I believe we do. So I listen, and I get stirred up. I take out my frustration on this debate forum. But I also draw the line in how involved I become, and go home to do other things and enjoy other things with friends and family.

I think I am an independent thinker. I have never been susceptible to sales pitches and I never buy anything impulsively. Same with talk radio. I've tried progressive radio and have found it totally vacuous. Conservative radio I see as emotional, yes it is, but still based on fairly intelligent discussion of facts surrounding the issues. I make my own judgements concerning issues, and often a conservative host agrees with me, sometimes they do not. They usually make much more sense than much I hear on the so-called news.

As far as business and taxing, I will agree some tax incentives I do not agree with. We would have to look at each one and discuss their merits to see if we agree or disagree. The myriad of income tax laws brings me to want to look at a national sales tax more seriously.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I think I am an independent thinker. I have never been susceptible to sales pitches and I never buy anything impulsively. Same with talk radio. I've tried progressive radio and have found it totally vacuous. Conservative radio I see as emotional, yes it is, but still based on fairly intelligent discussion of facts surrounding the issues. I make my own judgements concerning issues, and often a conservative host agrees with me, sometimes they do not. They usually make much more sense than much I hear on the so-called news.

A good sales pitch appeals to a person's known social and cultural biases. That's really all I have to say about talk radio. As far as making your own judgments, you have access to one of the greatest research tools on the planet -- the internet. Isn't it great how easy it is to find out for yourself these days?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Where did you get the slashing of Social Security money coming in by one third? That is a joke, right?

Alas, this is no joke. Each person gets about 6% of their money deducted from their check for social Security. Bush's plan would allow young people to take 1/3 of that and use it for their own private investments account. So that one third does NOT flow into the fund to pay the Social Securtiy for people who are presently retired or will retire for the next few decades.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
Where did you get the slashing of Social Security money coming in by one third? That is a joke, right?

Alas, this is no joke. Each person gets about 6% of their money deducted from their check for social Security. Bush's plan would allow young people to take 1/3 of that and use it for their own private investments account. So that one third does NOT flow into the fund to pay the Social Securtiy for people who are presently retired or will retire for the next few decades.

You can double the 6.2% deducted from peoples paychecks, because the employer matches it. Self employed pay 12.4% plus the medicare of another almost 3%. If employers did not match, they could pay the employee another 6.2%, so it is costing every employee, whether self employed or not, about 15% for both Social Security and Medicare.

You've forgotten that the money received by current retirees was supposedly paid into a fund, whereby they should be getting paid from. Unfortunately, politicians have robbed that fund blind so that current workers must pay for current retirees. Such schemes if operated by a private company would be deemed embezzlement and fraud and the people would be sitting in prison. Check out the definition of Ponzi scheme.

The 1/3 that you refer to is their money and if invested in their own fund, would probably perform better than the measly interest earned by the funds as they do now. Also, since the money flowing into the SS fund is currently greater than now being extracted for current retirees, the extra money is being borrowed by the government for other frivolous general fund spending.

0 Replies

There is a fund, and it won't get exhausted until well past 2040-that is without any adjustments. So we have plenty of time, and adjustments need not be drastic.

There was no fund in existence when Social Security first came into being, so the present working generation has always paid for the current generation of retirees. It has always been that way.

Even counting the employer's contribution, that comes to over 16% being diverted from current and upcoming retirees, who after all paid for the Social Security of the retired people when they were working.

The shortfalls that will result due to the money being diverted into individual accounts will wreck a system which had been working well since the New Deal-which for sure was Bush's intent. This is nothing less than a radical elimination of one of America's most successful social policies.

The idea of calling Gore radical when Bush was going to try THIS is ludicrous.

0 Replies

The "fund" that you say won't be exhausted until 2040 is basically a pile of IOUs, so the money isn't there. Its already been spent. It won't be exhausted if the government pays it back from current and future tax revenues, which have no current tangible value. At least thats the way I see it. If I'm wrong, please correct the record here. If you or I did that, it would be fraud and we would be sitting in jail. Now thats what seems radical or extreme to me.

0 Replies

Gore: Bush is 'renegade rightwing extremist'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know