Comments on: Is Socialism a part of the “common good”? http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/ Don't dis or dismiss this miss! Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:37:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Drewsmom http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-547050 Drewsmom Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:21:18 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-547050 The dems keep up the lying mantra that bubba made Welfare Reform happen in this country .... no he didn't, he fought it tooth and cigar, the conservatives forced him to sign it and that BIG LIE ain't flying no more.:d The dems keep up the lying mantra that bubba made Welfare Reform happen in this country …. no he didn’t, he fought it tooth and cigar, the conservatives forced him to sign it and that BIG LIE ain’t flying no more.:d

]]> By: Marshall Art http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546695 Marshall Art Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:36:45 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546695 Taxation is only one area where the Dem concept of "common good" will prove uncommonly bad. I can easily envision more: Expansion of welfare for the common good, higher minimum wage for the common good, stifling religious speech for the common good, completely unrestricted abortion for the common good. Anyone who leans toward the despotic could rationalize anything for the common good. All in all, "for the common good" is just the latest touch-feely emotion driven drivel the Dems use to present themselves as a change. They change the bumper stickers, but never the goals. Taxation is only one area where the Dem concept of “common good” will prove uncommonly bad. I can easily envision more: Expansion of welfare for the common good, higher minimum wage for the common good, stifling religious speech for the common good, completely unrestricted abortion for the common good. Anyone who leans toward the despotic could rationalize anything for the common good. All in all, “for the common good” is just the latest touch-feely emotion driven drivel the Dems use to present themselves as a change. They change the bumper stickers, but never the goals.

]]> By: forest hunter http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546418 forest hunter Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:54:29 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546418 Common good - eminent domain.......... Common good – eminent domain……….

]]> By: Big Bang Hunter http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546317 Big Bang Hunter Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:29:49 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546317 - Hmmmmm ..."Common"....Rhymes with "Communism".... More tea Komrads? - Bang **== - Hmmmmm …”Common”….Rhymes with “Communism”…. More tea Komrads?

- Bang **==

]]> By: spree http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546316 spree Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:29:41 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546316 At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good." Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to "punish" people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her.... the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech. With Democrats like this running, we do not NEED terrorist to terrorize us, we have Democrats!!! At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the “common good.”

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign.

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to “punish” people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her…. the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.

With Democrats like this running, we do not NEED terrorist to terrorize us, we have Democrats!!!

]]> By: Wake up America http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546267 Wake up America Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:49:44 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546267 <strong>Agenda for the Common Good: Be Damned</strong> The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to "punish" people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtu... Agenda for the Common Good: Be Damned

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to “punish” people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtu…

]]> By: Baklava http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546251 Baklava Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:26:12 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546251 Of course the other end of the spectrum (anarchy) isn't good either. Somewhere in the middle is good. However, this country's government has grown every year for over 6 decades. It could use some staying the same size or shrinking. And you aren't getting that with liberals. Of course the other end of the spectrum (anarchy) isn’t good either.

Somewhere in the middle is good. However, this country’s government has grown every year for over 6 decades. It could use some staying the same size or shrinking. And you aren’t getting that with liberals.

]]> By: Baklava http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546250 Baklava Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:24:55 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546250 Benning, That is the extreme end. FOr those doubters Read the Road to Serfdom to understand how it happens.... Benning, That is the extreme end. FOr those doubters Read the Road to Serfdom to understand how it happens….

]]> By: benning http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546244 benning Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:19:48 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546244 One end result of Socialism is North Korea. That should say all we need to say on the subject. One end result of Socialism is North Korea. That should say all we need to say on the subject.

]]> By: Baklava http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546238 Baklava Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:56:10 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546238 Bottom line... It ISN'T for the common good to raise tax rates gnerally. It hurts more people and at the bottom end of the economic ladder. So the leftist leadership is peddling a message that should not appeal to anyone at the bottom. When I learned and converted from liberalism to conservativism in 1991 (the year I went to the library 3 times a week for a year) I made $10,000 per year. I wasn't rich. It is not hard to adopt a belief system based on facts and common sense (as I saw it). Bottom line… It ISN’T for the common good to raise tax rates gnerally. It hurts more people and at the bottom end of the economic ladder. So the leftist leadership is peddling a message that should not appeal to anyone at the bottom.

When I learned and converted from liberalism to conservativism in 1991 (the year I went to the library 3 times a week for a year) I made $10,000 per year. I wasn’t rich. It is not hard to adopt a belief system based on facts and common sense (as I saw it).

]]> By: Baklava http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/comment-page-1/#comment-546216 Baklava Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:32:48 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/10/19/is-socialism-a-part-of-the-common-good/#comment-546216 I believe it is ESSENTIAL for people to learn economics. The result of the government taking more from the people (even the rich) is that the people have less to spend for goods and services. When they have less to spend for goods and services they purchase less. When they purchase less, companies produce less goods and services. When companies prouduce less they usually cut costs in the labor area also. WHO suffers? The end result is that the bottom 1/5th of the country suffers. The rich just spend less and don't really suffer. THe results (for those of you in Rio Linda) is less employment. More unemployment. The result is a lessening of economic growth or actual decrease in economic growth depending on how much the government took from people. The result is that the government ends up having to SPEND more to HELP those dependant on the government people that the government JUST CREATED!!! This is why it is viewed as a disengenuous power play by power hungy leftist leaders by conservatives. Most liberals are "well intentioned" and really want to give fish and conservatives should say that more often as a way of an offering of considerate words. But liberals should also realize that conservatives care also but are more inclined to "love" by teaching a man to fish. Sure the safety net should be STRONG but it is diluted by able-bodied people becoming dependant on the government with give aways. It was hard for Democrats but Bill Clinton signed the Welfare bill given by Republicans in Congress after the 3rd time. THe RELEASE of all the dependant people into the workforce over the following years <strong>was </strong>a factor that contributed to more employment in the late 90's and more revenue into the government. It surprised Bill (see there will be defecits as far as the eye can see) Clinton. Of course , the amount of money every corporation had to spend on due diligence for the Y2K problem was also a contributing factor in the economy overheating and bringing in revenues to the government. April - October 2000 was a lot of evidence of things turning around in the economy due to a needed correction but the agenda driven drive by legacy media failed to report the facts. The fact are on paper though. Anyways, I went long on my lesson for those who wanted to understand economics before the election. I believe it is ESSENTIAL for people to learn economics. The result of the government taking more from the people (even the rich) is that the people have less to spend for goods and services. When they have less to spend for goods and services they purchase less. When they purchase less, companies produce less goods and services. When companies prouduce less they usually cut costs in the labor area also. WHO suffers? The end result is that the bottom 1/5th of the country suffers. The rich just spend less and don’t really suffer.

THe results (for those of you in Rio Linda) is less employment. More unemployment. The result is a lessening of economic growth or actual decrease in economic growth depending on how much the government took from people. The result is that the government ends up having to SPEND more to HELP those dependant on the government people that the government JUST CREATED!!!

This is why it is viewed as a disengenuous power play by power hungy leftist leaders by conservatives. Most liberals are “well intentioned” and really want to give fish and conservatives should say that more often as a way of an offering of considerate words. But liberals should also realize that conservatives care also but are more inclined to “love” by teaching a man to fish. Sure the safety net should be STRONG but it is diluted by able-bodied people becoming dependant on the government with give aways.

It was hard for Democrats but Bill Clinton signed the Welfare bill given by Republicans in Congress after the 3rd time. THe RELEASE of all the dependant people into the workforce over the following years was a factor that contributed to more employment in the late 90’s and more revenue into the government. It surprised Bill (see there will be defecits as far as the eye can see) Clinton. Of course , the amount of money every corporation had to spend on due diligence for the Y2K problem was also a contributing factor in the economy overheating and bringing in revenues to the government. April – October 2000 was a lot of evidence of things turning around in the economy due to a needed correction but the agenda driven drive by legacy media failed to report the facts. The fact are on paper though.

Anyways, I went long on my lesson for those who wanted to understand economics before the election.

]]>