in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
The ‘Conservative Cult’
There has been a recent wave of posts in the lefty blogosphere denouncing the alleged ‘cultish mentality of the right’ towards the President. Their rhetorical (and mostly yawn-worthy) arguments go a little something like this (paraphrasing):
The theocratic right are cult-like in their devotion to the dictator President. Anyone on the right who criticizes the President is automatically called a liberal. Conservative used to mean a belief in conservative values. Now it means “devoted to George W. Bush no matter what.” Bush conservatives are not really conservatives but Bushies, slavishly defending him on anything and everything, right down to the proposals he has made that would not be considered conservative under the Reagan administration.
These arguments have targeted bloggers like Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, and Hugh Hewitt, among others. But closer examinations of the critical posts making the denounciations of the right find that those posts are – shall we say – a little thin on evidence and – in many ways – hypocritical in nature.
The thing I try to always keep in mind when I blog is to make sure what I blog about is not just a generalized rant against the left. My posts are focused on particular issues like the NSA ‘scandal’, the war on terror, culture clashes, and racial double-standards (just for starters) and frequently my targets in those posts are people who’s positions on those issues don’t make sense (usually, that’s the left). But I don’t write generalized “the left are idiots” posts. I believe, for example, that there are many on the left who are undermining the war on terror – deliberately or not – and I’m not afraid to post that. However, I don’t believe everyone on the left who criticizes the President and/or his policies in the war on terror are trying to undermine it. And when someone on the right criticizes the President I don’t automatically assume that person has turned into a liberal. For me to do that, I’d have to assume that I, on occasion, was a liberal – and we know that’s not the case at all 
The righty blogosphere has answered back with powerful knockout punches: Tom Maguire at Just One Minute has a must-read on the lefty posts in question (with links to them) and includes a thorough dissection of their main ‘points.’ GayPatriotWest also examines the alleged ‘cultish devotion to Dubya’ accusation and cites examples of Michelle Malkin calling President Bush to the carpet on any number of issues and notes that she would never be confused for a liberal – he also points to a post by Bull Moose which mentioned other popular righties who’ve come down against Bush and still not been confused with a liberal nor has/had been accused of being one. James Taranto nailed the hypocrisy of the lefty posts in question with this (scroll down):
For most conservatives, Bush is not perfect but he is far better than the alternatives that were on offer in 2000 and 2004. Those on the left who look at the right and see blind loyalty for the most part are actually viewing a reflection of their own blind hate.
Bingo.
Most of the folks on the left who like to write generalized diatribes against the right like to hear themselves talk (with the ‘talking’ being done on their blog) more than anything else. It’s somewhat amusing to read what they have to say. It’s even better when the powerhouses on the right call their arguments for what they are: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
“The indolence of wealth is never taxed until spent or at death. Income is taxed NOT WEALTH.”
Property taxes tax wealth.
“Andrew, you are making it clear that you don’t understand economics. Investment is the single largest driving force behind economic growth. Anything you do to hamper it hurts every working American’s income.”
“The point I was making is if you had it your way investing would plumment and that is BAD.”
We’ve had higher capital gains taxes than today. And investment hasn’t skyrocketed — it may have during the dot-com boom, but everyone agrees that we overvalued capital then.
“And when did taxes become about rewards and punishment?”
We use to change incentives for activity.
There’s a mix of work and investment. And there’s a mixed strategy of the optimum level of taxation. Specially when not every worker is funded by domestic investment.
Democrats do not understand taxing and economics. They should be be permanently kept away from the power to tax and kept out of economics.
TNG asked, “Did this country rise from the Great Depression through tax cuts that spurred investment or government spending to create jobs?
Neither. The Great Depression started in 1929 and it seemed no matter what Congress and FDR did with all their make work jobs the economy DID NOT pickup until 1941 and it was due to the sheer determination of the American people to overcome. It was War and the determination to defeat the enemy. Remember the depression went on for over 12 years. Unemployment was between 20% and 25% during that entire time.
Andrew laughingly wrote in response to me, “Property taxes tax wealth.
As I SAID, wealth is not taxed unless money is spent or at death. Property taxes are on the purchase of a home and it doesn’t significantly take away someone’s wealth. Someone could be wealthy and choose to buy a modest home in a low property tax state. Key word – BUY.
Andrew lied when he wrote, “We’ve had higher capital gains taxes than today. And investment hasn’t skyrocketed — it may have during the dot-com boom, but everyone agrees that we overvalued capital then.
Capital gains taxes were significantly lowered during the 80′s and yest investment skyrocketed. And it has continued for over 2 decades versus pre 80′s. Not only that but because more capital is moved around MORE REVENUE than before goes into the treasury because taxed events happen more frequently. It is plainly clear and there is so much data out there that lower capital gains rates are VERY good for the economy, investment, jobs, etc.
Baklava,
Hey pal. I have something for you. I’ll let you come to your own conlusions. Perhaps it will help you in you constant pursuit of economic factoids. It’s not MM it’s straight from the source instead.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html
Unlimited wealth accumulation should be prohibited thru taxation. Investment capital comes from savings. The savings rate in the US is close to zero. That is why bush is selling our ports, to raise cash. Peace
Steve,
The ports are not being sold. A British company was handling some of the aformentioned ports and the were purchased by company owned the government of the United Arab Emirates probably in partnership with other partners. My guess is, and it’s a guess, is that the partner behind the deal is probably the Carlyle Group. And this is why Chertoff advocates Arabs running vital entry points in the United States. This is a just a hypothesis. But it makes sense.
But caps on personal capital a bad idea. That’s a very Marxist point of view that will never fly because it abridges one of the greatest fundementals of personal freedom.
Besides isn’t the idea to get the goverment limit its spending to only essential programmes. And to audit and efficiently run those essential programmes. A smaller federal government is the best federal government. If you give them more money they’ll spend more money.
Baklava: “Remember the depression went on for over 12 years. Unemployment was between 20% and 25% during that entire time.”
Actually, it was down to 17.2% by the end of the 1930s. The government had created millions of jobs. Not sure how you can write that off and give good old fashioned determination more credit.
But, in any case my point to blogagog wasn’t to get into the details of the Depression, but rather that his statement:
“Investment is the single largest driving force behind economic growth. Anything you do to hamper it hurts every working American’s income…”
implies that investment must be preserved at all costs, nullifying andrew’s argument. When, in fact, it’s only part of the equation.
Which blogagog acknowledged in subsequent posts.
“Property taxes are on the purchase of a home and it doesn’t significantly take away someone’s wealth.
Around here they’re annual payments based on the assessed value. Even in CA they’re annual payments, but the value only changes at sale (decreasing liquidity in housing, BTW).
“Capital gains taxes were significantly lowered during the 80′s and yest investment skyrocketed.”
What are the numbers?
Baklava,
I see you responded to my later post to blogagog, but I’m still awaiting your response to my 3:51 post to you.
- I have to chuckle at the lefts desperate attempts to deny Bush even the tiniest credit, no matter what happens, unless of course its negative. If the Admin takes steps and the economy goes down, its Bushes fault. If the Admin takes steps and the economy booms, which its doing, then it has to be “other factors”, ANY other factors, just as long as its nothing the Bush people have done right. Good old fashioned partisan BS and BDS lives on in the party of “NO”.
- Its certainly not suprising that they do it. Power depravation can ruin your whole day. Whats surprising is they think anyone over the age of 6 buys this drivel….
- Bang
TNG wrote:
I’ve responded in earlier ways by saying that borrowing against equity is not new and yes trending upwards. That record $415 billion is not all in one year and therefore did NOT “outstrip” the total savings tax cuts gave to the middle class. It simply isn’t true. The $415 billion is an accumulation of debt over time that has been a trend for a couple decades. Additionally as I mentioned earlier… Borrowing against equity in homes is paying finance charges over a 15 to 30 year period for that money and that isn’t as beneficial to the economy as people suggest. For instance, I have a friend (I still consider a friend after this), who did cash out of equity on his home to buy a corvette. Technically that helped the economy in 1999 when he did it. But he’ll be paying not $50,000 for that car but $100,000 over time.
2 points here. 1) That fried did it in 1999. It’s anecdotal evidence to the fact this has been going on for 2 decades. 2) People who chose not to borrow against their house or did so to IMPROVE their home are definately improving their financial outlook but they did so at a specific point in time as home values across the U.S. has risen dramatically since 1997 through 2006. Home values have risen over time and only a percentage of people choose to do cash outs of equity and it is a specific point in time that they do so. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were also at specific points in time and allowed a lot of money to be kept by income earners and spent which boosted the economy.
Again, that last sentence is inarguable. Additionally, conservatives were pushing for large and not phased in tax cuts to help the economy and the meager tax cut that happened is then turned around to be argued as meager benefit to the economy by the left. You guys try to have it both ways. And then you add in something that’s been going on for over a decade as what REALLY caused the economic boom. Geesh. If it caused the economic boom then why the recession that started mid 2000. I thought it was sooo beneficial !
One of the other things I’ve always found unworkable by the economic feather-bedding philosphy of the left is the “glass is both half empty and a complex unending source of magically produced resource”. They have displayed this “negativism” in every Democratic Administration and it always boils down to this:
- The lead horse (economy) needs to be chained and denied free rein (stifled free markets and ever increased taxation to whatever limit you can get the electorate to groan under)
- The lead horse needs to be beaten (severly restricted, with as much taxation on those bastard wealthy rats as possible) and its work load increased at every turn (drain as much as possible from the whole structure in the form of entitlements)
- Why. Because its an “us” against “them” class warfare mentality. The old communist meme, still struggling for a foothold after all these years of proving how worthless Utopian ideals are in the real world.
- When you think about it the moonbats ideas of a healthy economy is Uber-fiscal conservative. Feed off the largesse, but parish the thought of “priming the pump” because of the benefits to the hated “well to do”. Elitist snobbery/bigotry at its finest, and of course a total lack of any understanding of the true dynamic of a breathing, emotional, very human factor driven, economic system.
- PCD is right. We simply can’t afford to ever put our future back in the hands of people with that sort of mindset, world views, and predjudices.
- Bang
No niceguy, you misunderstood my statement. I said “Investment is the single largest driving force behind economic growth. Anything you do to hamper it hurts every working American’s income…”, not the only driving force.
The government can temporarily spend our way into economic growth, but it takes a long time, as we saw in the depression, when investment was also stifled by protectionism as I said. And the result is that it really doesn’t solve anything. During the depression, the government hired 25% of Americans to do jobs just to keep them busy. Guess what? 25% of Americans still work for the government to this day. Maybe more for all I know. Last time I checked the figures was in 1992. And none of them produce anything of value.
Without private investment, the only other option is government investment. Government (non-deficit) spending is draining on the economy, though in times of crisis it is neccesary to keep people from starving. It should be avoided at all costs at any other time.
Deficit spending does grow the economy, but at too great a cost, imo.
Baklava: “The $415 billion is an accumulation of debt over time that has been a trend for a couple decades.”
But home equity debt was at $125 billion in 2000 and moved to $415 billion by 2004. Now, almost two years later, it’s even higher (don’t have figures, but it’s been rising).
So, to pretend like there’s this even distribution of home equity borrowing over decades with some negligible acceleration is just plain wrong. It went up to over three-times what it was in just 4 years.
Baklava: “That record $415 billion is not all in one year and therefore did NOT “outstrip” the total savings tax cuts gave to the middle class”
Bush’s tax cuts were designed to provide $670 billion in relief over 10 years. From just the period between 2000 to 2004, home equity debt rose $290 billion. Again, home equity debt has put more money in pockets than Bush’s tax cut.
Plus, more of that home equity debt is used for consumer purchases than before (like Corvettes, as you mentioned).
Incidentally, I agree that longer term it’s bad, but that short term it provides a boost. That’s actually one of the points I made.
Americans are also racking up debt in general at the fastest pace since 1985 (up to $11.4 trillion).
Again, debt has financed spending more than tax cuts have. From a sheer dollars to pockets perspective that is.
It’s not about “denying Bush credit”. This mantra that tax cuts saved the day doesn’t stand up mathematically, and should not be used to justify more of the same bad policy.
TNG … If it comes down to accepting the stagnant types of economies, generally producing stunted economic growth, and eventual recessions of the Democrats versus the FACT of the growing healthy economy we see around us in the real world under Bush, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make that call. Disecting the economics landscape to make a case against prosperity is pretty feckless and transparent. But have at it. Maybe you can convince enough of the electorate that they should really be miserable so you’ll only loose by 25% the next time out. Good luck.
- Bang
blogagog “No niceguy, you misunderstood my statement.”
I was speaking to your implication. In context, I read it as a heavy leaning toward spurring investment as the means to growth. To my mind, consumer spending is at least as important. But, sorry if I mischaracterized your statement.
“And none of them produce anything of value.”
Well, that’s not true. Government provides the infrastructure for businesses and individuals to thrive. For instance, if there were no government, there’d be no incentive. Ownership would mean nothing without the security and protection from someone just taking your stuff. What government “produces” is at the core of our economy.
But I do agree there’s a such thing as too much.
You have math that shows that tax cuts didn’t save the day? I’m very interested to see it.
Historically, significant tax cuts have turned the economy around, at least when JFK, Reagan and Bush tried it. So the mantra that his tax cuts saved the day certainly stands up historically. The math is too complex for me to work in all the variables (even though I’m an engineer, Doh
, but if you have I would be very interested.
Bang: “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make that call.”
Aren’t you the one who said that your talking to business owners overruled studies regarding government spending and the economy? I think the phrase you used was, “I don’t need no stinkin’ link.”
Perhaps your keen ability to “make the call” could stand the interjection of a little rocket science.
But, on to the facts:
“Disecting the economics landscape to make a case against prosperity is pretty feckless and transparent…”
Prosperity, you say? You mean relatively flat middle class wages over the last 5 years, vs massive income increases for the wealthiest 1-2%? Oh yeah, then throw in a skewed tax “decrease”, an encroaching AMT for the middle class, rising property tax rates due to Bush’s “education policy”, etc.
Whose prosperity are we talking about?
That’s what amazes me about folks like you. You’ll fight tooth and nail to be treated unfairly yourself and donate your cash to the wealthiest in this nation. Then you get pissed at the poor for being poor.
All while claiming to be the party of moral values.
Go figure.
“You’ll fight tooth and nail to be treated unfairly yourself and donate your cash to the wealthiest in this nation.”
Maybe its because I havn’t honed the fine art of “victimization” like the left has, perferring to use my time to more proficious pursuits, such as taking part in the wonderful country we live in, trying to excell at what I do instead of sitting on the pity pot, and just generally rejecting the whole idea of class warfare for the bigotry it really is, and hopefully leaving my little spot in the world better than it was before I arrived.
- You think?
- Bang
blogagog: “You have math that shows that tax cuts didn’t save the day? I’m very interested to see it.”
The math is in my post above. The short is, home equity debt alone put more cash in American’s pockets than did the tax cuts. That and debt in general (due to low interest rates), are widely credited with driving consumer spending.
So, to say the cuts alone saved the day ignores some facts. No need to get into the differential equations.
In fact, it’s arguable as to whether you and I even got the cuts, given that local governments had to increase property tax rates. This is (at least in part) due to unfunded federal programs (ex: No Child Left Behind) that the Feds could’ve funded with part of the Bush tax “cuts”.
On average, property tax rose by 10% n 2003 alone. So, some say we just paid a different kind of tax, and for some, this amounted to a tax increase.
“On average, property tax rose by 10% n 2003 alone. So, some say we just paid a different kind of tax, and for some, this amounted to a tax increase.”
…While property values, after inflation, averaged a 17% increase over the same period. Sounds like a plus to me. whether its “real” is another matter, but in the scheme of things the entire economy is based on the “work effort and real goods output” anyway, so its all based on faith in present/future American productivity. The gold standard went out in the 30′s, or didn’t you get the memo. Which is a way of saying its a faith based system that the left should really accept and get to know before they even try to muck with it.
- Bang
Bang: “Maybe its because I havn’t honed the fine art of “victimization” like the left has, “
Actually, the position of many on the right does victimize the poor, and oddly enough, gives preferential treatment to the rich, exalting them even above themselves.
“live in, trying to excell at what I do instead of sitting on the pity pot and just generally rejecting the whole idea of class warfare for the bigotry it really is,”
Pity pot. Pretty funny. I recently saw a Meet the Press episode from the 60s where MLK Jr. was the guest. The interviewer asked him why “All Negroes couldn’t just pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as it was apparent that some had”.
This was during Jim Crow, when no meaningful Civil Rights legislation had been enacted, Blacks were still overcoming challenges to their right to vote, and separate meant completely unequal. And he still had nerve to ask that question.
And it’s the same denial of reality that the right victimizes the poor with today.
And if you’re saying that I’m on the pity pot, guess again. Let’s just say that I’ve worked hard and I have been blessed. I just happen to have a conscience.
“On average, property tax rose by 10% n 2003 alone. So, some say we just paid a different kind of tax, and for some, this amounted to a tax increase.”
We’ve also, by increasing the debt, increased future taxes. Some people think that the economy factors this in.
“The gold standard went out in the 30′s, or didn’t you get the memo.”
Are you sure it wasn’t the 70′s?
Bang: “While property values, after inflation, averaged a 17% increase over the same period. Sounds like a plus to me”
I was speaking of the property tax rate rising 10% not the net property tax. I’d used the word rate in the previous paragraph, but omitted it here.
So, I’m not sure you’d still say that’s a plus.
Anyway, your little seminar on how the economy works was great, but doesn’t speak to the point.
TNG – Andrew… The whole idea of “redistribution of wealth” is a Communistic creedo that begs so many issues of liberty and fairness its hard to know where to start. Its based in pure jealousy and bigotry. Do I think its right that Gates sits on a fortune in the 100′s of billions while some go homeless. Of course not. But I’ve worked with the homeless, and trying to reduce the unfortunate situation some in our society are caught up in to some sort of partisan condemnation of the vast majority of conparitively comfortable Americans is the typical “sighting the exceptions to prove the rule” nonsense the left uses to try to bloster its bigotry and hate for individuality and hard work and success. Its just that, feckless nonsense. I can always screech about the plight of the few and try to project that as the reality for the many. When you get called on it you bristle and drag out yet more “examples”. You sit in the greatest country in the world that offers more people more opportunity and properity than any nation in history, and cry “the sky is falling”, and then take it into the partisan arena and blame the non-existant falling sky on your hated political opponents. All understandable when you’re out of power, but don’t whine when the moonbat agenda is exposed. Thats not only perfidious but immature. Thats why people just don’t take you seriously anymore. You’ve bought into your own rhetoric to such a fevored pitch, you’ve assumed the mantle of “cult”.
- Bang
Actually, prop taxes went up 6.97%, slightly higher than normal, but 6% is typical. (table 1 has the data, spreadsheet one is easier to read). So the math doesn’t add up to a possible .97% extra rise in property tax income negating Bush’s tax cuts.
In truth, the exact effect of tax cuts/increases is impossible to prove. The GAO proves that every year when they calculate the 10 year government income forecast and have to revise it 3 times before the first year is even over. But historical data shows a strong correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, as well as often showing tax increases creating economic stagnation. As a Republican, I’m more comfortable with economic strategies that are based on factual data.
You can say that tax cuts don’t help spur the economy forward, but you have to explain a lot of data away to make that claim plausible. I prefer to use Occam’s razor.
That reminds me BBH, read this joke to see why you are Republican! (Liberals don’t read it, you won’t think it’s funny)
“You sit in the greatest country in the world that offers more people more opportunity and properity than any nation in history, and cry “the sky is falling”, and then take it into the partisan arena and blame the non-existant falling sky on your hated political opponents.”
Yes. I think the sky is falling on what this country has built. Notably: via debt.
Bang,
When 40% of the world’s richest nation and rising don’t have healthcare, there is a problem.
When, during a period of growth, the poverty rate is well over 12% and rising and the level of poverty among children rises to its highest level in 10 years on your watch, there is a problem.
When veterans’ benefits are cut during a time of war, there is a problem.
Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy feast on tax cuts?
“Plight of the few” indeed. I could go on, but suffice it to say, we’re not just talking rich and poor, we’re talking the uber-rich and everyone else.
But you already made my point. Indeed, we are the richest nation. Which is why it’s all the more worrisome.
Even Bush ran on “compassionate conservatism”, and you really should go back and read his remarks, especially in the 2000 campaign. He actually spoke very strongly against the same unfairness that you rail against the “moonbats” for speaking about today. He talks about a condition of this country that is counter to “American ideals”. Oh, it’s some of the best rhetoric I’ve heard.
Of course, he seems to have forgotten since he’s been in office. Little wonder that you have too.
Bang: “nonsense the left uses to try to bloster its bigotry and hate for individuality and hard work and success”
That’s just plain ridiculous. Yes, I hate individuality, hard work and success.
What a crock. You have to question your position when you begin holding on to asinine statements like that.
I would wager that I’ve worked harder than at least 99% of the population over my career/life. Too much, in fact. And I’ve had success, thank you. I embody the pursuit of the American dream as much as anyone and more than most.
But that doesn’t blind me to injustice or cause me to have disdain for those less fortunate, nor a willingess to sacrifice everyone else for the uber-wealthy.
Talk about feckless nonsense.
blogagog: “Actually, prop taxes went up 6.97%, slightly higher than normal, but 6% is typical.”
I think you’re talking about real revenue, which does increase as property values increase. I was talking about the actual rate increasing by 10% over one year. Many localities have said this increase was necessary to cover “unfunded mandates” from the Feds.
blogagog: “In truth, the exact effect of tax cuts/increases is impossible to prove…”
I don’t know about being impossible to prove, but I will say that if it’s logical to argue that the tax cuts put more money into people’s, pockets, which spurred consumer spending and growth, then something that puts more money into people’s pockets would do so to a greater extent.
“But that doesn’t blind me to injustice or cause me to have disdain for those less fortunate, nor a willingess to sacrifice everyone else for the uber-wealthy.”
- Again you engage in over the top rhetoric, projecting a few pockets of misfortune/lassitude/mental issues/drug use, all the things that are REALLY factors in the small percentage of disadvantaged individuals among the vast majority of the populace, and try to present that as the fault of Bush, or the nature of our economy. Its total misrepresentitive nonsense, yes. I can always tell people that have next to no experience in the world of welfare/homeless conditions by the very idiocy and uneducated nature of their arguments.
- Are there inequalities in America. Of course. Are things perfect. Of course not. Could they be better. Absolutely. But look at the perscentage of immigration to this bastion of unfairness and you get the idea that the rest of the world finds your ideological naivette comical.
- Imrovements will be made through steady progress, not by running around manufacturing “imaginary boogymen” and trying to tear down the system to fit your own personal issues.
- But lets say we entertain your communistic ideas. Where would you draw the line at personal wealth. 1 Million. 10 Million. Are we going to do this on a year by year basis or over a lifetime. If tomorrow you have a windfall of income, because in your self professed success you make some money for a change, are you going to gladly just hand that over?
- Its all childish nattering. As soon as you start down that slippery slope you find out very very fast about the law of unintended consequences and the true nature of critical thinking, looking at the big picture as opposed to knee jerk impulsive actions, parochial and local in nature, that almost always end up causing a bigger mess than they were supposed to fix.
- Again thats why you’re not taken seriously anymore. You’re like the three blind men trying to describe an Elephant by touching a single part of its body. Thats Liberal economics. It can be summed up in:
- “If we can just get those rotten wealthy people everything will be fixed”
- Very intelligent for people who fancy themselves the “elite”. You sound like children.. *snort*
- Bang
Bang,
I think thatniceguy is trying to say that he is not of the opinion that soldiers from predominately poor backgrounds should not be used to fight wars and conflict that due little to bolster national security and only benefit tha balance sheets of the already rich.
Poor Americans are always the most idealistic and the most patriotic and often times in recent history they have been used not so much for real defense but instead for a finacial gain for those with corporate/political gain.
I think he is suggesting that the uber rich find another way to make money that does not involve spilling the blood of young Americans whos only desire to serve and protect our freedom and not our corporate and financial interest.
Some folks believe our corporate and finacial interest are national security issues that are worth sacrificing American lives for. Others do not.
He obviously loves and cares deeply for the safety of the troops and considers there lives to be too precious to trade for profit.
My friend Rocky was a submariner for 20 years and he always says that as a soldier it does not matter who is in the White House. The President is always called the Commander and Chief and his surname is never mentioned on the boat because it does not matter because the President is the President.
- GBA – Don’t get me started on the true reasons for the “minorities plight” at this point in our history, after 40+ years of being spoon fed “welfare thinking” by the very party that professes to wish their personal adnvancements. Don’t even go there. I’m not saying the Reps have done any better job in that regard, but to suggest your partys actions have been anything other than self-serving “keep ‘em down on the ghetto” is just laughable. Actually this doesn’t even really need to be discussed, because as soon as the minorities understand their “victimhood” has been used to keep them in line, and decide they’d like to excell and step into “full citizenship” thats waiting for them if they just reach out and take it, instead of just suckle on the nipple of handouts, all the Jacksons, and Farakhans, and “Revs” that make a living playing the race war card, will be back selling cars. People will gravitate toward “need”. To suggest that some sort of evil neocon plot is causing it, or depending on it ,is just the usual left-wing antiwar screed. You don’t give a damn about the WOT. You see it as a drain on your give-away agenda. Btw. I see that claim made all the time and its a hell of an insult to all the “white guys” that fight for your liberal butt to be free to make such irresponsible comments. Party of tolorence my ass. Its a pretty sure bet that if Condi runs in 2008 we’ll all get to see first hand some of the raw hateful bigotry of the “progressives”, just as we did when Lurch was running.
- Bang
Bang,
Who said anything about minorities?
I never related any idea regarding the ethinic background of poor people. You have arrived at this conclusion independently and in great contrast to my sentiment.
Besides that vast majority of enlistees are not from major metro areas they are from small towns.
Go check the Medal of Honor website you will that historically our bravest and most galant are from small communities.
These are good kids with idealistic minds who only desire to protect their country.
Bang,
What are you talking about?
Your post is absolutely delusional.
“Again you engage in over the top rhetoric…”
Uh, I think you might’ve been reading your own post. “The left hates individuality, hard work, and success”. If you don’t find that over the top, you just might lack the credibility to judge what is.
“…projecting a few pockets of misfortune/lassitude/mental issues/drug use, all the things that are REALLY factors in the small percentage of…”
There you go again, blaming the poor. As if those are the only factors and they operate in a vacuum. Do you actually know any poor people? Many of them work hard to make an honest living for their families. Sorry to shatter your image of deranged drug fiends who are just out to steal from you anyway. I know it helps you to justify your disdain for them.
Read my post. Over 12% poverty that’s been rising since Bush has been in office, even as the wealthiest saw increased income to the tune of 50% on top of their tax cuts.
Sorry, those are FACTS. Call that 12% a few if you will, but I’d say it’s a tad high in the world’s richest nation. And that’s absolute poverty. There are many more people who are poor, but don’t fall below the official poverty line.
But AGAIN, I’m not just talking about the poor, I’m talking about you amigo. I’m talking 40% with no health insurance, flat and falling middle-class wages, and…Ah, whatever, it won’t get through to you anyway.
“I can always tell people that have next to no experience in the world of welfare/homeless conditions by the very idiocy and uneducated…”
You have no idea about my background and if you did, you might feel pretty silly right about now.
“…But lets say we entertain your communistic ideas…”
More asinine rhetoric. Who’s talking about communism? The only way you can debate is by presenting false choices. You’re exposing your own weakness.
I’m talking about fairness. Even Warren Buffett cried foul when Bush’s dividend tax cut came out. He found that it was unfair and that his secretary would pay more than him in income taxes, even as he’d made billions.
And again, Bush himself said that America wasn’t living up to its promise.
But you conveniently ignore facts that contradict your point. Instead, you trot out nonsense that equates a sense of fairness to some liberal vendetta against wealthy people, and build other ridiculous straw men.
Are you really this silly?
Then again, you are the one who said “I don’t need no stinkin’ link”, deferring instead to your own “discussions with business owners” above a posted study.
- If I missunderstood you I apologize, but thats one of the liberal screeds being circulated these days, and I thought you were repeating it.
- Bang
In response to Bang’s veering wildly and accidentally revealing his bigotry, GBA said:
“Who said anything about minorities?”
Who indeed.
I think the answer to that question says more than I or any amount of typing on this blog ever could.
“Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy feast on tax cuts?”
“And it’s the same denial of reality that the right victimizes the poor with today.”
“Actually, the position of many on the right does victimize the poor, and oddly enough, gives preferential treatment to the rich, exalting them even above themselves.”
- Hmmm…. Now why in the world would anyone ever get the idea you have a boogyman complex.
- I know this is beyond your liberal thinking ability, but a great many of those “terrible rich people”, their hard work, businesses that provide jobs, and investments are the very reason we enjoy the best economy in the world.
- Man you just sound silly. You’re like a guy who wants to cut all the leaves and branches off his apple trees because they’re blocking his view of the sunset.
- I’ll leave you to your myopic obssesing, since no amount of common sense ever changes the liberal mind once they think they’ve identified the “demon” reason for all their problems. Or as Brutus said to Mark anthony:
“…. No my friend…The trouble lays not in our stars, but within ourselves…”
- Thats so like a Liberal. Always looking everywhere for the answer to their problems but where it actually resides….
- Bang
thatniceguy,
I been in it with bang many times.
Alot bloggers here swear up and down not to be social,racial or religious bigots.
It’s sort of like convicts asking eachother what their crime was and all of them responding that they were innocent and were framed. They did’nt do it.
They claim tolerance but emit hatred.
And some are super smart and are a pleasure to debate with.
Some bloggers here are pure party supporters. Right or wrong they blindly follow.
“Then again, you are the one who said “I don’t need no stinkin’ link”, deferring instead to your own “discussions with business owners” above a posted study.”
Oh yes TNG. Accepting information blindly from a “study” just has to be much more accurate than talking to the people in the trenches. More Liberal poll worship so they can skew the argument. Makes sense too me. Check
- Hmmm…Calling me a bigot. I guess thats what you have to resort too when you’re being handed your feckless head in a debate. I won’t return the favor though. Your party has done a far better job in showing its bigoted stripes, than anyone else ever could.
- Maybe some of your “tolorant” brothers could get together and write Condi a letter and tell her you really don’t think shes a thick lipped Aunt Jamima who hates her own race…
- You think?
- Bang
Bang,
You have just reduced any credibility you had left to zero, though you apparently don’t know it.
Your arguments were already weak and baseless. But, now your motivations have been revealed.
All your grandstanding and ranting throughout this thread have been rendered null and void with your one little slip.
Nothing else needs to be said. But, since you seem to like quotes, I’ll leave you with one:
“But what is denied actually does exist and eventually comes to the surface, just as any truth will eventually surface despite acts to hide it.” –Joy Harjo
- Such as the rabid hidden bigotry of the left…. Yes I agree…
- Oh and Adhominems don’t work with me TNG. But whatever gets you through the night sport.
- Bang
Bang,
Just for the record.
I spoke about the poor people that I thought Niceguy was talking about. You translated that into an opportunity go on a racially motivated diatribe.
What do you call someone who makes very negative racial comments with great frequency?
And I cannot believe that you just had the gall to use the term “Aunt Jemima” in any context other than syrup.
You just outed yourself pal.
- Hmmm… so having the temerity to even mention the closet bigotry of the lefts cartoons makes me a bigot. I guess its that kind of logic thats gotten you and your party where its at today. I’m going to really enjoy watching all your Liberal heads explode when Condi wins in 2008. Bon appitite’….
- Bang
TNG, you actually you were the first to bring up black minorities as it relates to being poor in this post:
You and GBA ready to apologize to Bang?
Bang,
I read alot Tony Brown and often speaks about the perils of self victimization amongst minorities.
But what you have to say smacks of something entirely different.
- S’ok ST. When they drag out the adhominems you know they’re feeling beat. Attacks are all you have left when you’ve run out of BS.
- Bang
GBA: “Alot bloggers here swear up and down not to be social,racial or religious bigots…They claim tolerance but emit hatred.”
Definitely seen it before. Weird huh? Without you even mentioning race, it just spewed out of Bang. Definite indication that it was simmering just beneath the surface.
And when they are presented with the obviousness of their undeniable bigotry they react pretty dramatically and simply refuse to see it.
The strangest part is they go overboard to make everyone else out to be the bigots. I guess that’s just projection/rationalization.
Boy, the Southern Strategy and ol’ Newt really did a number on some folks. Powerful stuff.
“Boy, the Southern Strategy and ol’ Newt really did a number on some folks. Powerful stuff. ”
TNG, you and GBA both owe Bang an apology. YOU were the first one who mentioned race in this discussion, not him, and it went from there. You both have constructed a nice little false argument here and are backslapping yourselves over it. I suggest you go back and read your own words. “Powerful stuff” indeed.