Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that GWB presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in history doesn't prove he was a liberal. It just proves that conservatives are hypocrites.
When conservatives are in power, they have no problem with expanding government and running huge deficits and using the federal government to overrule state courts and don't mind using govt to overrule personal choice (e.g. abortion.) Republican Saint Reagan proved conservatives are hypocrites with his massive deficits. Nobody can seriously argue that Reagan was a liberal.
It also requires the ability to twist logic into a pretzel to conclude Bush was a liberal. This was a guy that wanted to privatize Social Security; defund Medicare and Medicaid; cut programs for the poor, etc.
Bush was/is no liberal -- but perhaps you are so many light years to the right of Bush that you can't tell a conservative from a liberal?
LOL. So taken in by the false left-right argument, you can't see obvious truth. There has been no traditional conservative politics in this country for decades .... it's been the same old story no matter who is "in charge". Most of the time, we have one party controlling congress, while the other party has the White House ... once in a while, for a short time, one party might control both. Yet, nothing really ever changes, and there is a very simple reason why that is the case. It's ALWAYS the other guys who are messing things up .... and it's always the new guys who inherit the old guys problems.
The "President" ... whoever that happens to be at any given time is just a "front man" .... and it's all too obvious to anyone who can formulate a rational thought on their own. They are all "actors" ... Reagan just happened to be a professional Hollywood actor before he became a political one. LOL
The Dems and Repubs carve up the electorate with their "different" social agendas and political rhetoric .... but guess what? Contrary to the inane beliefs on the left .... the Rich have gotten just as Richer when the so-called left is in charge ... but more importantly, the poor have gotten even poorer in spite of all of the left wing pandering as the champions of the poor and adversary of the Rich.
As sad as the truth is ... the poor actually have done better during those times of economic booms which are facilitated by cutting taxes (so hated by the left because of their inane lack of understanding tried and proven economic principles). The gains were certainly disproportionately enjoyed by the more wealthy .... but when the economy is booming EVERYONE does better, and that is a fact.
Higher taxes always being the chant from the left depresses economic activity, and such recessions or economic downturns ALWAYS hurt the lower income people the most. Recessions don't hurt rich people ... they have plenty to carry them over those bumps.
These "socialist" programs promised to lift up the poor have actually created massive increases in the numbers making up the poor underclass .... throwing them bones, keeping them dependent, while the rest dine in style.
Oh yeah baby .... the left don't want to eliminate poverty ... this is their most powerful and reliable political block ... no wonder their "programs" to help the poor never actually seem to do anything other than creating more poor. Imagine that!
It (unemployment) was not, it peaked around the same levels as the current recession.
Well, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, UE during the GD was close to 40%: Of course, the H.F. is wrong, the second part of the New Deal began in 1938, not 1937.
Could you provide an example of Republicans promoting "class privilege"?
The capital gains tax, which is overwhelmingly used by wealthy people, is 15% while the tax on wages is far higher, resulting in servants of wealthy people paying a higher rate of their bosses.
How about preferential treatment of inheritance, which means that entire estates of many, many millions of dollars is transferred tax-free to the next generation.
The capital gains tax, which is overwhelmingly used by wealthy people, is 15% while the tax on wages is far higher, resulting in servants of wealthy people paying a higher rate of their bosses.
How about preferential treatment of inheritance, which means that entire estates of many, many millions of dollars is transferred tax-free to the next generation.
Many of us "servants' have 401Ks. Most estates have already been taxed when the income produced to build up the estate was made. Estate taxes are simply taxes on savings.
Most of us do not favor confiscatory taxes on the rich because we hope to be rich someday...it is because we are honest and do not want anything we can't get on our own. I realize that is an antiquated concept to the left.
Many of us "servants' have 401Ks. Most estates have already been taxed when the income produced to build up the estate was made. Estate taxes are simply taxes on savings.
Most of us do not favor confiscatory taxes on the rich because we hope to be rich someday...it is because we are honest and do not want anything we can't get on our own. I realize that is an antiquated concept to the left.
First, 401Ks are taxed as orinary income, not capital gains. That furthers the argument that the rich have privileges.
Second, most capital gains value is unrealized gains -- like when one bought an asset 30 years ago at a fraction of today's price. The gain was NEVER taxed.
The reality is that most people are dreaming that fantasizing that they will be rich. They mostly won't. Besides, what's so bad about being rich and paying taxes.
Taxes are a necessary means to run a government. They aren't confiscation.
The people you hire and have working on your houses, in your companies and corporations are sending all the money they can as fast as they can to the top elite people like the Walton family. Another part of where that money s going is into the pockets of Asian workers.
The smart business man would say, "well crap, why am I still living in the U.S. when the demand, the manufacturing, the energy, the population boom and most of the world's population is on another continent?"
What is America good for anyways?
But of course, you're not even willing to compete.
The predator and prey scenario stays the same. What is changing is who is the predator and who is the prey.
Does America back off its predatory stances and allow the vacuum to be filled by people who'd much rather not even have to deal with America anymore, except to take its wealth?
Does it even have a choice?
Last edited by BigJon3475; 09-02-2011 at 06:15 PM..
Reason: Condensation
I did not see a viseo to click on, but i did see this quote from FDR:
"We believe in Social Security, we believe in work for the unemployed, we believe in saving homes, cross our hearts and hope to die. We believe in all these things but we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us, we will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better and most important of all, the doing of them will not cause any body anything."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, the H.F. is wrong, the second part of the New Deal began in 1938, not 1937.
