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.
exactly my point... redistribution of wealth happens all the time.. it happens in a free market, in a socialist society.. even in a communist country..
redistribution of wealth is just money going from one person to another...
Currently we see exec's walking away with 25 million dollars for a job poorly done..so.. he's rich.. is he deserving of it???? NO!..Is his secretary who makes 10 dollars per hour hoping and praying for a raise who is never late and always striving to do her best and gathering as much education for herself etc deserving of that 10 dollars per hour??? is she deserving of more?? those are the questions people need to think about when analyzing the current situation.. who's making these calls? why is it that poor performance is rewarded and EARNED and deserving.. when hers is not?? and it has become the norm.. so the distribution of wealth has gone from everyone else in the company to fund his large salary and bonus...
nobody likes that.. so now we think that ceo salaries should have limits.. and if its regulated by the government or the shareholders... that in itself is redistribution of wealth.. because its changing the NORM of how wealth is distributed... So to sit and paint with a broad brush about obama's "redistribution of wealth" scare tactic.. it is very ignorant and completely apparent someone is either ignorant of the issue... or drinking the koolaid...
If you want an example that might ring true for you... consider this economic collapse... you're sitting in your job that you've worked hard at for years or whatever may be the case.. you've hoped for advancement and raises...have you not been promoted or gotten a raise because you don't deserve it? and are the people at the top calling those shots in those positions because they deserve it and are more hard working than you? Or is it just a matter of them "putting in their time?" whatever the reason.. is it just? is it really truely a reflection of a free market? or is it cronyism? I rub your back.. you rub mine.. play the game and get ahead???
Nobody is saying that it is right to go down to ma and pa store on main street and take their hard earned money and give it to the homeless lazy drug addict...
Its about the fundamentals of the system.. its corrupt.. its NOT free.. its NOT consistant.... and that has formed a wealthy aristocracy in this country.. where there's people who have wealth and opportunity.. and people who do not.... fortunately enough for many.. they haven't been put in a situation where they've had reality slap them in the face and make them actually think about it all... But you can guarantee if an economic collapse happens... You're going to be out on your butt no matter how hard you've worked to get into that position.. and I would venture to say the ma and pa store that has always done well for themselves is going to face the same struggles.. I don't however think certain people at the top of this greedy corporate world which is always deemed as "capitalistic and fair and free market at its finest" are going to be hurting all that much..
I find it laughable that you think the Dems and Obama are trying to address this issue when in fact many of these execs of these companies are Dems themselves.
I think we can agree that none of the bailout dollars should go towards paying the executives salaries. However, the scenario you spelled out is something that happens every day regardless of who is in charge. While I think there is a large level of unfairness, it's just the way it is and blaming the Republicans is ludicrous.
I find it laughable that you think the Dems and Obama are trying to address this issue when in fact many of these execs of these companies are Dems themselves.
I think we can agree that none of the bailout dollars should go towards paying the executives salaries. However, the scenario you spelled out is something that happens every day regardless of who is in charge. While I think there is a large level of unfairness, it's just the way it is and blaming the Republicans is ludicrous.
I find it laughable that you asume every high paid exec is a democrat... and that you automatically assume I place all blame on republicans.. I didn't ONCE say that.. I'm merely giving some insight into obama's plan... in light of the typical scare tactics used in calling him a socialist...
Collecting taxes to pay for roads, libraries, schools.. is socialist...
we have socialistic aspects to everything we do in this country whether you want to admit it or not...
If you're REALLY about the free market.. and no government invovlement.. then fine... let a company come build schools and roads.. and charge all of us to use them...
I just don't think you can have your cake and eat it too...
"Conservative, traditional thinking people" exist everywhere. But nowhere except in deeply rural and isolated places do they form majorities. Why? Because when you don't have access to or are not subjected to the opinions of a diverse group of people, you maintain only basic beliefs about the world however erroneous and inappropriate they may be. While it's nice to idealize such simpler times and simpler thinking, it is still an obstacle to overcome in order to grow.
Nonsense!! Studies have shown that greater diversity breeds distrust and withdrawl, an isolation from the greater community.
The facts are that individuals who have lived in very diverse settings, or who have seen the changes within their communities, are overwhelmingly the individuals who do not buy into the egalitarian nonsense.
By the way, there are lots of suburban areas around the U.S. where conservative thinking people make up the majority.
I decided to look at the tax schedules for both Colorado and California to see which was higher. Both my mom and I guessed that Colorado would be more expensive. The results were interesting.
Last night I was pondering a few big questions about the future of my business (as a computer consultant). I was first wondering if I should convert from a Sole Proprietorship to either an LLC or S-Corp, and second I didn't know which state I should claim residency under. You see, I own places in Colorado and California, and I hope to be able to split my time between them. Therefore, the question of which state owns my business's (and my personal) flag should depend on which make better financial sense.
Let me just mention right now how happy I am to no longer live in New York City for that (financial) reason. In NYC you get hit with federal, state AND CITY income tax, and their rates were rather high. From what I can tell, the City of Los Angeles has no such income tax.
I decided to look at the tax schedules for both Colorado and California to see which was higher. Both my mom and I guessed that Colorado would be more expensive. The results were interesting.
If you make only $20,000 in a year (which will be my situation this year) then in Colorado you would pay about TWICE AS MUCH state tax than in California. On the other hand, if you make $50,000 in a year, it swings the other way, where you'll pay a bit more tax in California than Colorado. I looked closer, and the intersection point was at exactly $40,000 that you would pay the same in both places.
In conclusion: California (a liberal and Democratic state) has much lower taxes for the poorer people, and Colorado (a conservative Republican state) has much lower taxes for the richer people. I didn't actually expect the result to be so obviously cut-and-dried! It just seems to support the notion that Republicans are all about tax cuts for the rich.
Cyruspk, there are a lot more forms of taxation than state income tax, and you cannot isolate one form of tax to evaluate a state's revenue bite. For example, there is no state income tax at all in Texas, Florida, Washington, and others. There is no sales tax at all in Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana and Oregon. Those states simply derive their revenue from other forms of taxation.
Thats real cute. First mhouse2001 degrades conservative thinking, then promotes his own agenda. This jerk is just another socialist that is an enemy of the U.S.A. I suppose if I was interested in a civil conversation I would continue on this topic. I, as a Marine only want to meet my enemy on the battle field. mhouse I believe is a coward, and would probably never think to do something for his country.
Conservative thinking exists because it doesn't know how to adapt to change. I'm not saying that a conservative has to embrace a liberal idea, but, hey if one wants to ignore the one true absolute in the universe--change--then their belief system will be viewed as increasingly foolish. It is a growth issue for a person to adapt to change. Often, conservatives fail to even acknowledge the change or, more frequently, see it as the enemy. That's a fight they will definitely lose. Their resistance to adapt their ideals to a changing world displays immaturity and self-righteousness, especially when the accompanying religion doesn't adapt either. In my opinion, Christianity has yet to enter the 19th century!
I think a major part of our disagreement is our different perceptions of these stupid liberal/conservative labels. Hard to pin down since everyone sees them in unique ways. Unlike you, I don't for one minute think of immigrants as liberals. As newcomers to our culture, they will take anything they can get. Liberalism gives them more than conservatism does. That doesn't mean they are decidedly one way or the other. Opportunistic, yes, but definitively liberal, no. While I despise immigration (both legal and illegal), I won't blame it for the change in the conservative/liberal population ratio.
mhouse, first of all, "conservatives" do exist everywhere,yes. Thus,putting a serious kink in your credibility as to wether you have a deep understanding of what it is you have been commenting about here. I suppose in all your intellectualy superior thought processes, you have dismissed as a posibility that conservatives fully understand what kind of changes your type represents and have rejected it out of hand as a matter of choice. See,free people operate on the principle of free will and do not stand around waiting for marching orders on what to wear, how to think or have someone else direct how they are going to live. You are the one who is compliant for compliancies sake. You are the one whi is afriad to be different from the majority. You are the one who seeks to mold your life around what others think to be proper for the time. Change for the sake of change is not always good. You could fall ill tommorrow and that would be a change,but would it be good? I suppose the answer is subjective,just as it is if the type of changes you elude to are to take place. I say elude because you have so far failed to actually list any specific changes that you support but yet you say you despise all immigration. Why are you afriad of the changes immigration brings,so long as it is legal immigration? Isn't that sort of closed minded for people as diverse as you? Just sayin'.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
"Conservative, traditional thinking people" exist everywhere. But nowhere except in deeply rural and isolated places do they form majorities. Why? Because when you don't have access to or are not subjected to the opinions of a diverse group of people, you maintain only basic beliefs about the world however erroneous and inappropriate they may be. While it's nice to idealize such simpler times and simpler thinking, it is still an obstacle to overcome in order to grow.
If this ideology only exists in what could be called social vacuums, why is it even relevant anymore? It clearly has no real value in a larger context because it would quickly be eroded by diversity of opinion and life experiences. It can't exist outside its vacuum without morphing into something else. Why do people insist on holding on to something that must change in order to grow? Why is change so frightening?
We conservatives had years to observe the negative effects of "changes" to traditional family values and progress is not one term I'd use to describe it.
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.
Degrade.
mhouse, first of all, "conservatives" do exist everywhere,yes. Thus,putting a serious kink in your credibility as to wether you have a deep understanding of what it is you have been commenting about here. I suppose in all your intellectualy superior thought processes, you have dismissed as a posibility that conservatives fully understand what kind of changes your type represents and have rejected it out of hand as a matter of choice. See,free people operate on the principle of free will and do not stand around waiting for marching orders on what to wear, how to think or have someone else direct how they are going to live. You are the one who is compliant for compliancies sake. You are the one whi is afriad to be different from the majority. You are the one who seeks to mold your life around what others think to be proper for the time. Change for the sake of change is not always good. You could fall ill tommorrow and that would be a change,but would it be good? I suppose the answer is subjective,just as it is if the type of changes you elude to are to take place. I say elude because you have so far failed to actually list any specific changes that you support but yet you say you despise all immigration. Why are you afriad of the changes immigration brings,so long as it is legal immigration? Isn't that sort of closed minded for people as diverse as you? Just sayin'.
