Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why do 88% of african American Voters, vote Democrat?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I don't think you understand the whole concept of "mine". What's mine is not yours and you keep your freakin' hands off of it. You are not more qualified to decide what is better for my money and labor. I am. I don't need you coming in and telling me how to manage my finances and where my charity should go. I don't agree with you on what is right or wrong so get over it and do what you think is right with your own cash and labor. I've committed to leaving you with your choices, so quit being such a bigot.
I will take care of my family, friends, and community how I see fit. Keep your grubby hands out of my pocket book!
===============================
Some more misconceptions.
Republicans are more inline with decentralization of government. Libertarians are closer to republicans then democrats BY FAR.
Democrat programs will cost a lot more then a few nickels in taxes. Every government that has the programs that Democrats want to instil have a bottom tax rate of 35%+. Places like France, England, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, etc. They take anywhere from 35% of your pay to 60% of your pay check. (Iceland's combined federal and local taxes came to about 58% of a person's paycheck).
It is not a matter of being greedy. IT is a matter of wanting efficient means of helping people. The federal government is a horrible instrument of helping the correct people. It would be much better accomplished by local communities, local government, and private charities. Americans are not greedy, they are actually the highest giving people in the world. We give more money to charity then any other country in the world.
We want our money to be used properly and the Federal government is incapable of doing so. We also want to have some measure of control over how our money is being used. For instance if you don't want to provide money that gives illegal immigrants healthcare then you just don't donate to a charity that does that. But if the Federal government is taking the money and providing these things then you have no choice.
Libertarians and classical republicans (not these neocon republicans, that aren't even real republicans) believe in limiting the government's role in our everday lives. Democrats like Hillary Clinton want to control people's lives from the moment they are born to the moment they die.
I honestly can't believe that people by into the crap that the Democratic party puts out.
(and for the record I do put my money where my mouth is. I did not vote for Bush in either election. Just like I wouldn't of voted for Clinton in either election either. I voted for Nader actually and would of voted for Perot if I was old enough at the time. In the current primary I will vote for Paul. Not sure who I will vote for in the actual election since I know Paul isn't going to get the nomination).
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Do i not have a right to my property? Money is property, its my reward for hardwork. Why should i have to give up my property to someone else just becuase another person decided it was ok to steal from m?. My money is stolen every time its taken from my paycheck and given to someone else. If anyone but the government did this they would be in jail. But yet the government gets away with stuff like this all the time. So for everyone who supports welfare. Do i not have a right to my property?
CLICKY FOR FULL READ
"In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.
When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric."
" Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending."
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
Note that the comming recession would increase the 2008 debt even without the unfinanced tax cuts being proposed.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
Its a long article, but it shows that just throwing money at education doesnt work. Or you can watch the 40 min video below. Part about the Kansas City schools starts around 8:10
While this video is a little biast, alot of it is true. Money is needed in education, but with how it is setup right now throwing money at it DOESNT WORK! Any one able to tell how old the video is?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
Need to do alot of research on Healthcare, but Government Health Care isnt a sollution. Medicare allready costs over $9 trillion a year.
Democrats are Liberals. While liberals may want to spread the government out, they are for big government. I'm for small government. Doesnt matter if its sprad out. Big government makes more problems then they solve.
You have completly changed your argument in the space of one page.
You started off with "They are stealing my property"
Now your argument is that its alright that they steal your property, they just arnt spending it correctly.
So which is it? your argument is very vague.
Dont think you understand the point im trying to make. Its about welfare and that my money shoulnt go into another person pocket just becuase the government says they need help. Education and Welfare are two diffrent issues. Education is what defines someone, doesnt matter who their parents are. With education they can suceed, it is the gate way to liberation. Knowlege gives rise to a belief in tolerance. The Federal Government shoul not be involved in Welfare or Education. Would like to see government out of welfare all together. The point is, people will always be taxes. Their is some level of taxation that is needed and some stuff that needs to be run. But to tax someone just to give the money to someone else isnt needed nore does it work.
The points im making in this debate may seem vague to you because you may be looking at it from a more closed minded view. Rather then trying to get all the facts. This is a debate sir, im puting out my views on it and so far i havent gotten any one to actually debate them with me. Debate me on the issues and why they do/dont work and should/shouln't continue to do them.
CLICKY FOR FULL READ
"In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.
When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric."
" Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending."
The graph is a perfect example of how Democrats are good at reducing the deficate. But i'd like to see more graphs and statics. It doesnt show that Republicans spend more, it just shows nationl debt increases. Would be great if anyone can find a graph of spending, eceonomic grow and taxes. But yes, republicans do increase the nation debt, becuase they cut taxes. But the problem Republicans have is they dont cut spending. So even if you cut taxes without cuting spending, nothing will get better. Bush has to barrow $2 Billion a day, thats unaccecptable for anyones standards. Not like either party is doing anything to pay off the debt, Democrats reduce the amount it goes up. And Republicnas make it sky rocket. Need to get a president who is deterimined to cut the spending, reduce taxes, and statrt paying off the Debt. My generation is the one who has been left with the bills from the other generations.
I dont know why any American, African or otherwise would support either party. The US seems very proud of its freedom, the soldiers die for it yet the voters vote it away at the polls. As long as we vote for the lessor of evils we will always get evil. I dont think African Americans are any more fond of their earnings being spent on things that they dont believe in than European, Hispanic or Asian Americans. We kinda went downhill when we decided that it was ok to take the earnings of one person and give it to someone else without the givers consent.
I've worked for the government. I've also worked for corporations. I can say without a doubt that corporations are about as wasteful, if not moreso, than the government.
The difference between the two is that corporations run things like a party for all of the people who are there, while the Federal government is at least somewhat (perhaps not perfectly) accountable to the elected officials and administrative law.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
good graph. But no president has ever started to pay off the Nationl Debt, every president has raised it. National debt started to rise sharply with Regan and Bush1, Clinton started to get nationl debt under control at the end of his 2 term, but still dint work to pay any off. Bush puts every one else to shame. National debt was at about 6 Trillion when he took office and it is estimated at the current rate that it will olmst be at 10 trillion by the time he is out of office. Thing is no president works to pay it off, they just creat more, some very little and others have screwed use all for years to come.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png (beter to look at it this way)
thank you sir, i dont support either party. I show up more as a Libertine (Hate their view on immigration and free market). Both parties have failed use, and electing the same people expecting a different result is stupid.
You said it not me. Im for lower taxes, and less money spent on social programs. Their should be an effort to slowley fase out some programs. SS, Welfare, Medicare, stuff like that. You cant just end programs right away, people have become deponded on the government to live. So instead of just leaving all the people deponded fase it out and reduce taxes. Get people to stop relying of the government and take personal responsibilities for their own lifes. Again, care to debate with me or have any more questions?
One last thing. When some of you say "I don't want poor peoples' grubby hands on my nickels cuz they're mine", I don't think you know the real meaning of being an American. I also thing you are materialistic and uncaring in general. America wouldn't exist if we were founded on this apathy for anyone other than ourself.
Oh yeah, say we pick Obama if he's the deomocratic frontrunner in the election (I prefer him over Hillary), he has much more positive reasons to vote for him than John McCain. Remember that. If you disagree than I suggest we start a new thread called Obama vs. McCain - which I'm hoping will be the leaders of both parties come the presidential election.
also, most important economists in USA are liberal, are they not?
and I don't believe that the Republican party is more liberal than the Democratic party.
one last thing (again), big government really scares the shat out of some of you doesn't it?
We need to come together as a people. Most people are already disillusioned as it is. If you want to be a patriot we have to bring the people back together. I'm tired of all this hatred on lines of race, income, and even religion.
"Big government" might be the first step towards decentralization which should be the ultimate goal -not "small government".
I never said we should use the type of system Mexico uses. You just assumed that what i was saying. And that isnt what im saying at all, im not talking about the diffrent types of economy, how did you even get to that point?
Your right the graph does not show inflation. But the problem with a graph that shows inflation is the method of caculating it has changed since 20 years ago. So unless their using the old system, or recaculating the inflation from older years then it will give you an incorect answer on inflation.
Sir, dont make up youre own quotes. I never said that. What does it really mean to be American then sir? The founding fathers were influenced alot by the philosopy of John Locke. One of his big views was that government has 3 purposes and only thoes 3. They are that the governmens sole responsibility if the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property, nothing else. He also said that "You have a right to youre property and the right to do with it what you choice." How am i uncaring? You dont even know me, yet you judge me. On what princibles do you judge me on sir? How would America not exist if we dint have SS, Welfare, or medicare? America did great before these programs came about.
How do you define a patriot sir?
If youre tired of hatred then look at people for individuals and judge them on their character. Not on their race, religion, gender, or class but for their character.
The big government gets the more problems we have. Simply put, government makes more problems then they fix.
Dont think you understand the point im trying to make. Its about welfare and that my money shoulnt go into another person pocket just becuase the government says they need help. Education and Welfare are two diffrent issues. Education is what defines someone, doesnt matter who their parents are. With education they can suceed, it is the gate way to liberation. Knowlege gives rise to a belief in tolerance. The Federal Government shoul not be involved in Welfare or Education. Would like to see government out of welfare all together. The point is, people will always be taxes. Their is some level of taxation that is needed and some stuff that needs to be run. But to tax someone just to give the money to someone else isnt needed nore does it work.
The points im making in this debate may seem vague to you because you may be looking at it from a more closed minded view. Rather then trying to get all the facts. This is a debate sir, im puting out my views on it and so far i havent gotten any one to actually debate them with me. Debate me on the issues and why they do/dont work and should/shouln't continue to do them.
Red - So that little spot on your taxes that say Social Security (yes I know the system is messed up, but we are talking principles here), you do not believe any of your money that you know you would not offer them otherwise should go towards helping the elderly get something towards their bills? That should stay your money right, why help those greed money grubbing grandparents. They are taking advantage of the system right, you know they could still be working a regular job at 73 years old.
Yellow - If you truely believe that and yet you are spouting of your intollerance's to those people who need welfare among others (basically whomever is taking your money)...what does that make you? You have not come off looking very tollerant anywhere in this thread, so I can only directly conclude that you are not as knowledgable as you need to be.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
See? I can do it too
Wait.....I want to play too!And a human being voting for a conservative is like a sky diver voting for no parachutes instead relying on god to land them safely.
Wow, you are right, that is fun....
P.S. SioBabble WTF really....how uneducated is that remark
I should have attributed the quote.
J.C. "Buddy" Watts, Sr. The father of onetime GOP congressman J.C. Watts Jr.
BTW, Draenor, quality parachutes (that is, ones that WORK) will probably be a bit more expensive than the Wal-Mart variety that is made by slave labor in China.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
I find it odd that people think the folks who are against taxation of income are greedy or selfish. Perhaps they want to keep their own earnings so that they can help friends and family. I have a sister living on the system and breeding kids she cant feed. So the tax payer foots the bill, including medical which I can barely afford and I work a minimum of 40 hours a week. Wouldnt it be better if my tax dollars were going to her instead of you supporting her poor choices? Wouldnt it be better if she had to face her lender/giver? At any rate why shouldnt the earner be the one who says where the money goes? I have always wondered why people who are on government assistance are allowed to vote, it seems like a paid vote to me.
I never said we should use the type of system Mexico uses. You just assumed that what i was saying. And that isnt what im saying at all, im not talking about the diffrent types of economy, how did you even get to that point?