Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think this election is about Obama and Congress and how far the pendulum has swung to the left then believe me Obama is bound to be a one termer who will suffer the same fate as Jimmy Carter. In just 2 years after your first majority in over a decade you've been bounced. I see another 20 in the wilderness. But go ahead and be the smug liberal that is out of touch with most of America.

You are projecting your belief system onto the current political climate. The polls say you are wrong. Here is an excerpt from yesterday's CNN poll:

Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today?
The Economy: 52%
The federal budget deficit: 8%
Education: 8%
Health Care: 8%
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: 8%
Illegal Immigration: 8%
Terrorism: 4%
Energy and Environmental Policies: 4%
Other: 1%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/31/5a.poll.release.pdf


It's still the economy, stupid. If you misread the lesson of the midterm elections, your boys are going to blow it all over again.

Right, the bottom line is, the US is not, and never has been a particularly "conservative" nation. It's all wishful thinking by folks like PP. All you need to do is look at social trends over the last century. A person who thinks that we're more right-leaning now than we were in the '20s, or the 40s, or the 50s, or 60s, 70s or 80s is a person who knows absolutely nothing.

Hell, inter-racial marriage is completely non-controversial today. Something like 70% of Americans support the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Same sex marriage is now a majority opinion. And when the (predominately elderly) Teabaggers die off in a decade or so, those numbers will move even further leftward.

I will admit that, on the short-term, day-to-day issues, Americans are *extremely* uninformed about economic issues, and will pretty much believe whatever snake-oil some demagoguing con-man tries to sell them. I suppose if that's a hallmark of right-wing thought, we could say they're right-wing in that sense...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

What precisely are the liberal opinions that you benieve have been represented as facts? The definition of socialism? Poltical theory in general? Do you really believe that the US is a pure free-market, capitalist economy? When you come out with these non-specific, foaming at the mouth rants about socialism, taxes, liberals are bad people, and poor people are lazy, you just make yourself look silly.

The definitions of words and various concepts in general have a well-known liberal bias. Plus education and thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Republicans think that the less money you make, the less productive you are? Are nurses that work 12 hour shifts less productive than lawyers, doctors and CEOs? Policemen? Teachers? Journalists? They are all less productive than you?

Right, Republicans are totally down on cops. That right there suggests that you are not thinking clearly about this issue.

Republicans just *love* to have their picture taken with cops. And also demagogue on law-and-order issues. Just not so big on making sure the cops get the equipment and support they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see TRICARE involves govt doctors caring for our soldiers at govt expense. MEDICARE involves private doctors caring for our seniors at govt expense. AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES involves urban folks subsidizing rural folks. USPS involves urban rolks subsidizing rural folks on postage. Our TELECOMM policies involve urban folks subsidizing rural folks through federal taxes that fund rural telephone service. I wonder how many Republicans would stand up and VOTE AGAINST ALL OF THE FOREGOING. None. What hypocrites!! OBAMACARE involves private doctors caring for our children and uninsured at private expense with some public subsidies. Now, Republicans are against that on principle, of course.

I do not see too many Republicans agreeing to eliminate TRICARE, MEDICARE, FARM SUBSIDIES, etc. All talk!! No substance!!

TRICARE = military (lean Republican)

MEDICARE = senior citizens (majority lean Republican)

FARM SUBSIDIES = conservative farmers (Republican)

Conservatives already get their handouts and want to maintain the status quo.

You've hit the nail on the head. The national Republican party doesn't give a shit about deficits, budgets, or anything else. What they care about is a) lowering marginal tax for high-income earners; and b) protecting welfare payments to non-minorities in the forms listed above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is this -- how much redistribution of wealth do we want as a society? Everyone agrees that there should be some -- the Democrats want a lot more than Republicans.

This is hilarious. Seriously, again, you're quarrel is with your fellow Republican here. The *topic* of this thread is "Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism." Take it up with them.

Republican voters are a coalition of a) folks who believe it's their religious duty to vote for the candidate who postures in the most Christian way; b) folks who harbor petty social resentments against grasping non-caucasians and "the smug elites"; and c) rich people who resent paying their fair share towards the upkeep of our nation.

That's a lot of Americans...unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been on welfare for 3 months when I was laid off. I have a degree, work 6 days a week, make $60K/year, pay my own health insurance and my taxes.

I guess Republicans would rather us starve to death because my job doesn't make as much as theirs?

When you wrote this, did you really mean it? That's seriously how you view Republicans? If so, you should at least try a little to understand where they are coming from, especially since today is going to demonstrate that a lot of people are willing to vote for them.

Republicans vote to preserve (their) privilege. Simple as that.

I'm glad that so many privileged people will be going to the polls today, then. Nothing I can say will persuade you to change this view, but perhaps checking the scoreboard tomorrow morning will prompt some more serious reflection.

I can admit that many of the Democrats mean well -- I just disagree with their views as to what good policy is. If you can't recognize the good in your political opponents, that says a lot more about you than it does about them, and it is also horribly ineffective as a matter of politics. As we are about to learn today.

If you were writing this 30 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But this isn't Rockefeller's Republican party you are talking about. Not even George H. W. Bush's. Today's Republican is a different thing altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is this -- how much redistribution of wealth do we want as a society? Everyone agrees that there should be some -- the Democrats want a lot more than Republicans.

This is hilarious. Seriously, again, you're quarrel is with your fellow Republican here. The *topic* of this thread is "Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism." Take it up with them.

Republican voters are a coalition of a) folks who believe it's their religious duty to vote for the candidate who postures in the most Christian way; b) folks who harbor petty social resentments against grasping non-caucasians and "the smug elites"; and c) rich people who resent paying their fair share towards the upkeep of our nation.

That's a lot of Americans...unfortunately.

THat is bullshit. It is (and I'm in that category) people who have worked hard to create either a business, or move up the corporate ladder etc who don't want to see their hard work taken away by a government that will blow away the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is this -- how much redistribution of wealth do we want as a society? Everyone agrees that there should be some -- the Democrats want a lot more than Republicans.

This is hilarious. Seriously, again, you're quarrel is with your fellow Republican here. The *topic* of this thread is "Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism." Take it up with them.

Republican voters are a coalition of a) folks who believe it's their religious duty to vote for the candidate who postures in the most Christian way; b) folks who harbor petty social resentments against grasping non-caucasians and "the smug elites"; and c) rich people who resent paying their fair share towards the upkeep of our nation.

That's a lot of Americans...unfortunately.

Let's approach the question this way -- would you agree that a sufficiently aggressive program of wealth redistribution could fairly be described as socialism or not? If so, we're just haggling about where to draw the line. If not, we're probably just talking past each other and should use another term.

Your contempt for your fellow Americans (as shown in your description of Republican voters) suggests that it is you, not them, who flounder in the grip of "petty social resentments."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

What precisely are the liberal opinions that you benieve have been represented as facts? The definition of socialism? Poltical theory in general? Do you really believe that the US is a pure free-market, capitalist economy? When you come out with these non-specific, foaming at the mouth rants about socialism, taxes, liberals are bad people, and poor people are lazy, you just make yourself look silly.

The definitions of words and various concepts in general have a well-known liberal bias. Plus education and thinking.

What now? The definition of words has a liberal bias? Some concepts have a liberal bias? Thinking has a liberal bias? (Well, OK, I agree that those who think are generally more liberal, and if you don't think you are more likely to be conservative, but that's just my opinion.)

Seriously, you should just stop. The more rational conservatives who are posting are begging you to - you're just making them look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

What precisely are the liberal opinions that you benieve have been represented as facts? The definition of socialism? Poltical theory in general? Do you really believe that the US is a pure free-market, capitalist economy? When you come out with these non-specific, foaming at the mouth rants about socialism, taxes, liberals are bad people, and poor people are lazy, you just make yourself look silly.

The definitions of words and various concepts in general have a well-known liberal bias. Plus education and thinking.

What now? The definition of words has a liberal bias? Some concepts have a liberal bias? Thinking has a liberal bias? (Well, OK, I agree that those who think are generally more liberal, and if you don't think you are more likely to be conservative, but that's just my opinion.)

Seriously, you should just stop. The more rational conservatives who are posting are begging you to - you're just making them look bad.

LOL, I read the "well-known liberal bias" post and assumed it was a liberal trying to be clever. Apparently neither side wants that poster. ;-p

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many of these self-described conservatives would want their parents' Social Security benefits cut.

[Anonymous]

OP, get the Republicans to MAKE ME A REPUBLICAN. Believe me, sometimes the greedy girl in me would like to reduce my taxes on my six figure salary......

Get out of marital and reproductive law. That would be a good first step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of these self-described conservatives would want their parents' Social Security benefits cut.

It depends on what they make. I would support a means test for Social Security benefits that reduce payouts for people who are particularly well off in retirement. There is no reason to tax young workers to pay for benefits going to those who don't really need them. I do not oppose Social Security in principle, however, as I think we need some backstop anti-poverty program to protect the elderly who can no longer work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is this -- how much redistribution of wealth do we want as a society? Everyone agrees that there should be some -- the Democrats want a lot more than Republicans.

This is hilarious. Seriously, again, you're quarrel is with your fellow Republican here. The *topic* of this thread is "Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism." Take it up with them.

Republican voters are a coalition of a) folks who believe it's their religious duty to vote for the candidate who postures in the most Christian way; b) folks who harbor petty social resentments against grasping non-caucasians and "the smug elites"; and c) rich people who resent paying their fair share towards the upkeep of our nation.

That's a lot of Americans...unfortunately.

THat is bullshit. It is (and I'm in that category) people who have worked hard to create either a business, or move up the corporate ladder etc who don't want to see their hard work taken away by a government that will blow away the money.

That's great that you worked hard and everything--of course, if we didn't have the existing political/legal/physical infrastructure to support that, you'd be the hardest-working scavenger on the garbage heap. *Everything* you have was made possible by the existing system of government. If you don't want to, as I said earlier, "pay your fair share" you're more than welcome to check your wealth at the door, and head out to some libertarian paradise like Sudan and put your nose to the grindstone over there.

Best of luck, Horatio Alger!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is this -- how much redistribution of wealth do we want as a society? Everyone agrees that there should be some -- the Democrats want a lot more than Republicans.

This is hilarious. Seriously, again, you're quarrel is with your fellow Republican here. The *topic* of this thread is "Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism." Take it up with them.

Republican voters are a coalition of a) folks who believe it's their religious duty to vote for the candidate who postures in the most Christian way; b) folks who harbor petty social resentments against grasping non-caucasians and "the smug elites"; and c) rich people who resent paying their fair share towards the upkeep of our nation.

That's a lot of Americans...unfortunately.

THat is bullshit. It is (and I'm in that category) people who have worked hard to create either a business, or move up the corporate ladder etc who don't want to see their hard work taken away by a government that will blow away the money.

That's great that you worked hard and everything--of course, if we didn't have the existing political/legal/physical infrastructure to support that, you'd be the hardest-working scavenger on the garbage heap. *Everything* you have was made possible by the existing system of government. If you don't want to, as I said earlier, "pay your fair share" you're more than welcome to check your wealth at the door, and head out to some libertarian paradise like Sudan and put your nose to the grindstone over there.

Best of luck, Horatio Alger!

First, you exaggerate, because it is surely not the case that the existing system of government was responsible for "*everything*" a person has. While some functioning government may be *necessary* for that, it is surely not sufficient, and there are many other things that are necessary too, such as hard work, which not every person is willing to put forth. It is also just as true to say that without the work of people like OR, the government would not exist either, because there would be no one to pay for it; *everything* government does is made possible by those who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. After all, there is no free lunch; to the extent government does something good, someone on net is paying for it to happen. This chicken-and-egg problem really doesn't advance the ball much for either side.

You're also willfully missing the point -- just because it is ok for the government to tax people to pay for necessary "political/legal/physical infrastructure," as you put it, it does not follow that it is also ok for the goverment to tax people to pay for unnecessary/wasteful spending or to dole out goodies to favored constituencies or in an effort to buy votes. The fight is, I thought, about which is which, and what level is fair, and that's a point upon which reasonable people can disagree.

Or do you think that there should be no limitation on the power of 50%+1 of the people to vote themselves money from the other 49%? I think there should be, and I also think there is as a matter of economic reality.