Republicans: Party of the uber-class by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Republicans: Party of the uber-class

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, December 17, 2010 19:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3772
PAGE 3 of 3

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The GOP simply wants to keep things as they are, and aren't falling for the class warfare b.s. that the Left is playing.

Oh, the right is playing class games, too. they're just sticking up for the "haves", you know... their base.

All the left wants to do is bring the tax rate on them closer (not even all the way, just closer) to what they were under that conservative Idol - Reagan. I guess you think his policies were terrible then...

It also doesn't matter to you that the economy is stronger under such levels, making the country stronger as well.

But hey, you gotta stick up for the rich man, right?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:14 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Gates, Buffett, Soros... .and this talk of the GOP being for the 'uber-class' ?

Those folks you mention may be in the "uber class", but they're not fighting for it the way the GOP is.

At least TRY and be intellectually honest, rather than just tossing names and invectives about.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

As someone who believes that government is necessary, I agree that legislation can help protect the people. However, to my mind it is important to remember that feeding government is like feeding a flame. It will burn you if you let it.

I guess I'd say keep an eye on it, rather than not feed it. Make sure that it remains as transparent as possible and as accountable as possible.

Yay for wikileaks :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:33 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Gates, Buffett, Soros... .and this talk of the GOP being for the 'uber-class' ?

Those folks you mention may be in the "uber class", but they're not fighting for it the way the GOP is.

At least TRY and be intellectually honest, rather than just tossing names and invectives about.

My sense of the American right is that generally it has the following philosophy at its heart

if you are rich, you have worked hard for your wealth and no one should be able to touch that which hard work has earned

if you are poor, you are lazy and don't work hard, therefore you do not deserve any assistance which you may receive which will only enable you to continue to be lazy and to breed lazy children

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:42 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The GOP simply wants to keep things as they are, and aren't falling for the class warfare b.s. that the Left is playing.

Oh, the right is playing class games, too. they're just sticking up for the "haves", you know... their base.

Statistically the 'base' you speak of doesn't amount to very many votes. And it IS votes which determines who stays in office, not dollars. So, if the GOP wanted to pander to the most number of votes, the lowest common denominator, they'd do what the Dems are doing, and play up the class warfare game. But they're not. The GOP is doing what's practical and sensible, with a mind on responsible government. Unlike the Dems.

Quote:

All the left wants to do is bring the tax rate on them closer (not even all the way, just closer) to what they were under that conservative Idol - Reagan. I guess you think his policies were terrible then...

Incorrect.

Bush's tax cuts brought the top marginal rates down from a high of 39.60% - in Clinton's 2 terms - to the current rate of 35%. Where they'll remain, if Congress and Obama pass the extension, or make them permanent.

Reagan brought the top marginal tax rate down from Carter's 70% , to 28 %.

( And yes, I know few, if anyone , actually PAID the 70% tax rate. But those who were in that range had to pay more for preparers to find loopholes and such, which still was less expensive than paying the gov't, but still ended up costing tax payers out of pocket expense. Reagan's tax cuts close many of those loop holes )

Quote:

It also doesn't matter to you that the economy is stronger under such levels, making the country stronger as well.

No, because it's a false conclusion to think that high taxes = a strong economy. Other factors were at play.

Quote:

But hey, you gotta stick up for the rich man, right?

Yes. Because poverty sucks.

And I have a better chance at becoming rich under Republican leadership than Democratic.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:44 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Gates, Buffett, Soros... .and this talk of the GOP being for the 'uber-class' ?

Those folks you mention may be in the "uber class", but they're not fighting for it the way the GOP is.

At least TRY and be intellectually honest, rather than just tossing names and invectives about.

My sense of the American right is that generally it has the following philosophy at its heart

if you are rich, you have worked hard for your wealth and no one should be able to touch that which hard work has earned

if you are poor, you are lazy and don't work hard, therefore you do not deserve any assistance which you may receive which will only enable you to continue to be lazy and to breed lazy children

Sounds about right.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:45 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
But hey, you gotta stick up for the rich man, right?

Yes.

And there ya have it folks - compassionate conservatism at it's finest!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Nice edit job, Story. Bravo.

I probably give a lot more to charity than I ought to, but that's just how I roll.

You think that charity should come from the government. I think otherwise. I think the private sector can far exceed what the gov't is capable of doing.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:01 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

prove it.

show me a country without government provision of any services where the majority of people do okay

you've already expressed your opinions on the poor, that they shouldn't be given anything, only encourages the weak to breed...so why would you give charity to people whom you hold in contempt

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Might I point out that most if not all of those labor laws did not come initially from legislation, but rather from the unionists, anarchists, communists and socialists demanding them in the face of a very pro-fascist government supporting the robber barons wholeheartedly, and as noted, using the american military as their reinforcements when the company goons were overwhelmed.

Every one of those things, eight hour work day, forty hour week, so forth and so on, was paid for in spilled blood, by the bucket - and I don't think you should ever forget it, because to do otherwise is to deny the ugly reality that there were not gifts handed down from on high, they were brutally torn from the teeth of the ravenous government-corporate maw, with force and violence.

Comes to it, you only truly have a right, if you are willing to ENFORCE that right.

And when I see, today, american corporations dodging that eight hour day, that forty hour week, by using "salaried" positions which pay for forty - while an employer DEMANDS 60-80...
I just wanna puke.

But ponder this - what if the army had NOT come to the rescue of the corporate dominions, every single time.... ?

For a fact, the IWW eventually realized that while they COULD fight a corp and it's goons, they couldn't fight the corp, the goons, and the combined might of the US Military - and if they COULD, well, then why not just take over ?

Oh, and those corp goons, the pinkertons ?
That is the rock the USDOJ was founded on, to the point of necessitating a law to forbid it, which might I remind you, Dyncorp, Group4/Wackenhut, Triple Canopy and Blackwater/Xe are all still in complete violation of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency#Gover
nment_work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act
So the apple never really does fall far from the tree - in case you ever wondered why the USDOJ seems so reluctant to address corporate abuses.

While it would probably not work in practice, consider that if we were to withdraw that coverage from corporations, and have the government forces stay out of it when a corp and it's employees decided to rumble - that the field would be a lot less slanted than it is now, yes ?

But we took an alternate path, upon the bones of Spanish and Catalonian Anarchism, and instead chose to compete - via companies like Mondragon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Both that and the up and coming Sudbury/Freeschools are based on a model best explained here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontalidad
And I really do think it's a very applicable one, especially in this day and age, with our communications and networking technologies - I hope to see the day we can apply it to Government.

Rather than cast them down in fire and thunder, we've simply chosen to make them obsolete.
Step up, or fall behind.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY

Quote:
Hello, Let me fix some of your notions. I'm not the 'no government' guy. I'm the 'smaller government' guy.

And yet, when it is POSSIBLE for the government to do something (like redistribute wealth) you're the first one to wring your hand about "fairness".

Quote:
First, let me say that your tone is condescending and rude. 'Read some history, son?' Honestly? Do I speak to you this way?

You strike me as being somewhat naive, and young, and way too concerned with fairness. I believe our choices are few: We either bend the government to our will (like Europe), or we engage in open warfare with the corporations, or we bend under the lash. We could also form alternate economies, like Mondragon. But in order for that, you need to form an alternate bank... even an alternate currency.

Of those, I believe the first is the most likely to succeed. We have examples of whole countries showing us that it can be done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:23 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

The problems in government would not be so pronounced if more people in power did some 'hand-wringing' about fairness.

If we ever DO change government for the better, if we overthrow bad systems and replace them, if we make any kind of fundamental change...

I hope the people we place in charge of things will have the courtesy to trouble themselves over quaint, childish notions like 'fairness.'

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
prove it.

no

Quote:

show me a country without government provision of any services where the majority of people do okay

Huh?

Quote:
you've already expressed your opinions on the poor, that they shouldn't be given anything, only encourages the weak to breed...so why would you give charity to people whom you hold in contempt

The poor, nor anyone, are entitled to a portion of my,or anyone else's life. It's wrong for the gov't to forcefully take from one to give to another, at the point of a gun.

If, however, that assistance is freely given, by all means, I'm for it.

That you can't / won't distinguish between the two, I find sad.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 8:30 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Hi Anthony,

my only problem with your adherence to fairness, is your inclination to defend the status quo, when it was arrived at decidedly unfairly. While you have said in the past how you wouldn't want to be the arbiter of what is earned and what is not, you have infact thrown in your chips by pointing out the fact that the people with money have benefitted from a corrupt system, ala strike breaking.

If the government has unfairly used its guiding hand to award people, then why are you so adamently opposed to using its other hand to gently correct the wrongs of its right?

For the record, I really don't see fighting the rich on what they have taken(yes, yes, a good percentage of that I would consider earned) as the same as fighting against any other minority...it is not kicking somebody when he is down, it is not persecuting some poor helpless soul. it is simply bringing enough players to the other side of the game, no more and no less
. You know for a fact that one side has every intention of scoring on your end-zone...you don't want to at least hold them at the middle?

and yes, there are sides, simply by the fact that when the rich act in their self interest, when that self interest is money, it is the rest of us who often get abused for it. That doesn't mean I want to burn rich people at the stake...they aren't evil. I just want to put up some numbers occasionally...maybe yell "in your face" good naturedly.

edit....I'd also like to get my mixed metaphors in upwards of ten or more in a single paragraph one day, I think I have the talent

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 8:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hello Signy,

The problems in government would not be so pronounced if more people in power did some 'hand-wringing' about fairness.

If we ever DO change government for the better, if we overthrow bad systems and replace them, if we make any kind of fundamental change...

I hope the people we place in charge of things will have the courtesy to trouble themselves over quaint, childish notions like 'fairness.'

Oh, I believe in fair. But it's not the same kind of fair you believe in. One thing I DON'T believe in is rooting for a system that rewards greed and cruelty. THAT is not fair, in my mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 8:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The poor, nor anyone, are entitled to a portion of my,or anyone else's life. It's wrong for the gov't to forcefully take from one to give to another, at the point of a gun.

As it is wrong for the rich to take MY money at the point of a gun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The poor, nor anyone, are entitled to a portion of my,or anyone else's life. It's wrong for the gov't to forcefully take from one to give to another, at the point of a gun.
As it is wrong for the rich to take MY money at the point of a gun.

You're right. That would be wrong. If it ever happened. But no one in the private sector has the right to take your money, at the point of a gun.

The Gov't is the only entity which can use the LEGAL right of force to take your money.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all, I wasn't talking about the "legal right" to do anything. Corporations have taken away money at the point of a gun. "Negotiated" contracts the same way, too.

But in point of fact, insofar as any law is... ultimately... enforced at the point of a gun... all laws which cede money to corporations give corps the "legal right" to take money away. So the fact that tax and other laws are biased in favor of corporations DOES take my money away "at the point of a gun".

We are simply discussing what those laws should look like...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:25 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Sig

That's a stretch, even for your irrational , petty mind.

It's nothing but excuse making on your part. Everyone is to blame but the folks who can't seem to get ahead, right ?

please.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 17, 2010 6:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, you finally got it.

Let's see... what does your precious system of greed do?

It doesn't reward "hard work"... usually, the people who work the hardest are the poorest.

It doesn't discourage frivolous living. After all, look at Paris Hilton!

It doesn't promote localism/ regionalism. The richest corporations are international!

It doesn't raise the standard of living.

It doesn't even promote production. Because if you can make money on money, why go through the bother of actually "making" something?

PPFFFFT! What a stupid system!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 17, 2010 7:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hello Signy,

The problems in government would not be so pronounced if more people in power did some 'hand-wringing' about fairness. If we ever DO change government for the better, if we overthrow bad systems and replace them, if we make any kind of fundamental change... I hope the people we place in charge of things will have the courtesy to trouble themselves over quaint, childish notions like 'fairness.'

Tony, I really think we need to get past the notion of "fair" as treating everyone the same, whether they are rich or poor, powerful or powerless, and towards the idea of what we would like to foster and what we would like to inhibit.

Do we want to reward work? Then make work pay. Do we want to inhibit production-less speculation? The DON'T make it pay.

Just deciding to "treat everyone the same" without examining the rules and laws that we judge entities by in the first place is kind of rigid thinking. And quite honestly, your sense of "fairness" seems to be somewhat one-sided.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE