I thought that'd get your attention. For the record, I voted for Bush (held my nose and voted for Bush, I should say), and my only regret in doing so is a regret that there weren't any better choices. I also think the PATRIOT act (all caps, because it's an abbreviation) is an abhorrant violation of basic civil rights in this country.
But the question I want to ask is, are there any naive types here who actually think that if a Democratic administration were to be elected tomorrow, with a Democratic controlled Congress there to rubber stamp everything the administration wanted, that the violations of rights and freedoms we're currently suffering from would end?
I don't.
The Democrats have done their part in undermining the basic concept of individual rights in this country. The Republicans owe them big time.
The only division among politicians in this country is really that some of the power grubbers really believe they're doing it for the good of others, and want to do it for the good of others, and some of the power grubbers are consciously in it for the power.
A pox on both their houses.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
That's more like it. Trash both sides equally!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Yeah for the Independents.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hear hear!
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hmm, I would prefer even a talking dog to having another Republican in office. And I am not against voting for a third party, its just that not many try hard enough to win your vote.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
[Self editing comments about talking dog running on Democrat ticket]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Hmm, I would prefer even a talking dog to having another Republican in office. And I am not against voting for a third party, its just that not many try hard enough to win your vote.
?!?!
They try as hard as they can to win your vote - most of them don't have the money it takes to develop the overwhelming national presence it would take to compete with the dems and repubs. They try pretty bloody hard, though - mostly in areas where they feel they're going to make any sort of difference at all.
When you have no members and no money, you have to pick your battles a bit more carefully.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Not in my state. But then again I do live in New Mexico....
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
smitty:
No Hillary jokes in here.
-Bok
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I don't believe I mentioned Hillary. Strange that her name came up.....
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
StarLisa,
Examples, please, of how Democrats have done their part in "undermining the basic concept of individual rights in this country"??
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:But then again I do live in New Mexico....
And your state went REPUBLICAN.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
*shudders* God, don't remind me. My best friend still voted for Bush. I make him regret it every day. Then again he regrets it to.
I voted Democrat myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My best friend still voted for Bush. I make him regret it every day.
I bet you're so much fun to be around at parties.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
No, its just my friend made a very big mistake and he realized it when Bush started going after laws that my friend was pushing for. I just like to rub salt in that wound every once in a great while, I was only joking about doing it to him every day.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I just like to rub salt in that wound every once in a great while
I bet you're so much fun to be around at parties.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I prefer Tabasco sauce over salt. It gives everything more of a kick.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Haha, good one Steve.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Haha, good one Steve.
No. It wasn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the question I want to ask is, are there any naive types here who actually think that if a Democratic administration were to be elected tomorrow, with a Democratic controlled Congress there to rubber stamp everything the administration wanted, that the violations of rights and freedoms we're currently suffering from would end?
I believe DIFFERENT rights and freedoms would suffer.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But the question I want to ask is, are there any naive types here who actually think that if a Democratic administration were to be elected tomorrow, with a Democratic controlled Congress there to rubber stamp everything the administration wanted, that the violations of rights and freedoms we're currently suffering from would end?
I believe DIFFERENT rights and freedoms would suffer.
I agree here.
Edit: But I don't intend to explain why.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Hmm...so far, I count:
NONE.
So, I don't get it. No one can name any individual rights they think would suffer under the Dems.
"Different" is interesting. What do you mean?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Hmm...so far, I count:
NONE.
So, I don't get it. No one can name any individual rights they think would suffer under the Dems.
"Different" is interesting. What do you mean?
The differing parties have separate views on most political issues, don't they? What do you think THAT means?
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Feminists take away our right to express things of a sexual nature in the workplace.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
OK, then!
1) People can't say "She's such a Bull Dyke" in the office.
I'm moving to Canada!
Anything else?
Actually, my wife is currently Stage Manager for a local production of Eve Ensler's "Vagina Monologues." So I've been able to say "Vagina" any time I want in my office, all thanks to Liberal Democratic Feminists.
In particular, just what things of a sexual nature have you been prevented from saying? Prevented by Feminists, or fear of Feminist assault, not just because those things would have been generally in bad taste....?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"Different" is interesting. What do you mean?
I mean that the Democrats have a slightly different take on what I'm entitled to do with my money, my mouth, and my genitals than the Republicans do. Neither party believes that I can be trusted to use all three as I see fit.
On the foreign policy front, it all boils down to which countries I think we should be using for our third-party torturing and child labor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Considering that starLisa hasn't been back since you asked for examples, you're jumping the gun with your proclamation there, Boothby.
Let's start with the right to life for very young human beings and go on from there.
Then we get to the right of professional conscience.
The right to control ones own property.
The right to own the means of personal self defense.
We've also got a couple of the same liberties that are likely to reduced by Democrats. The Clinton administration actively defended the right of the executive to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance of calls between a point in the U.S. and an international location outside the procedures of FISA.
Based on the number of Democrats who supported the Hamdi decision, they also support the indefinite detention of American citizens captured on U.S. soil without filing criminal charges against them.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
You mean, like the Democrats before the recent Bush administration actually left you more money (unless you're earning over $250K/year) to do with what you wished? OK. I can see that problem.
And at least the Democrats pretend that it's wrong to torture, or to farm out our torturing. The Republicans still seem intent on trying to convince us that it's really OK.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You mean, like the Democrats before the recent Bush administration actually left you more money (unless you're earning over $250K/year) to do with what you wished? OK. I can see that problem.
I can personally attest that my taxes went down with Bush's tax cuts, and I don't make anywhere close to $250,000 per year.
[ February 26, 2006, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote: I mean that the Democrats have a slightly different take on what I'm entitled to do with my money, my mouth, and my genitals than the Republicans do.
Or, basically, what I said a couple of posts before.
Edit:
I've come to an important decision. Instead of suffering through all these right and wrong, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal debates, I'm just going to become part of the Communist party.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've come to an important decision. Instead of suffering through all these right and wrong, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal debates, I'm just going to join the Dark Side.
<force grips everyone's esophogas, laughs maniacally>
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm a Communist. You can't kill me like that. You have to convince me I'm wrong and then shoot me with a golden bullet.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Feminists Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Bullets, my only weakness! How did you know?!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
SteveR,
You said the different parties have separate views on most political decisions.
Yeah, I figured that, too.
But I'm asking for specifics, man, specifics.
I did get some from Dag (thank you Dag).
Oh, and TomD (had been SteveR, my earlier mistake), I think that the Democrats let you put your genitials into a bunch more places (political interns not included) than the Republicans do (young altar boys not included).
Dag, let's not forget to include the right to life for very accused, poor, poorly represented, typically black and minority human beings.
And my overall costs went up, because my state and county are now forced to pay for the things that my slightly reduced Federal taxes no longer cover. Plus the unfunded Federal mandates, plus the roughly quarter-of-a-trillion dollars currently spent on the Iraq war:
Are you going to start name-calling so early in the game? I understand how we might all wind up a little confrontational here, but please let's try and keep it civil! Here, I'll go hug a tree, and pretend it's you...
[edited to protect SteveR's genitals]
[ February 26, 2006, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Boothby171 ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Here, I'll go hug a tree, and pretend it's you...
The democrats win the thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I've come to an important decision. Instead of suffering through all these right and wrong, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal debates, I'm just going to join the Dark Side.
Unless you're trying to kill them through starvation, you're going to want to force grip their tracheas.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
No, the hippies win. They aren't necessarily the same thing. Hippies win! Yes! *victory dance*
And whoever you is, yeah Booth, I think you're being kind of inappropriate. Why don't you sit that some place else?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Thank you, erosomniac! Accepted.
I'm going to bed, now. Good-night.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you going to start name-calling so early in the game? I understand how we might all wind up a little confrontational here, but please let's try and keep it civil! Here, I'll go hug a tree, and pretend it's you...
Ah, I edited it out before you posted. But your assertion is still flat out wrong, at least as a universal proposition.
Oh, and you've been civil? I must have missed it amidst the sneering condesencsion.
quote:Dag, let's not forget to include the right to life for very accused, poor, poorly represented, typically black and minority human beings.
Last I heard, most Democrats support the death penalty. They removed the plank actually supporting the death penalty from the 2004 platform, but they didn't say they opposed it.
I'm also a little confused here. Tom said they were different. You asked for differences. Now your going to (inaccurately, I might add) try to compare them one for one with each other?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, SteveR, that wasn't you (my bad).
Those were TomDavidson's genitals I was referring to, not yours. Please accept my heartfelt apology if I offended you.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Why don't you, um, you know, just um, edit your post? You know, its really quite simple.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
Re. the death penalty: Not most of the Democrats that I know.
Re. Hamdi: I think you'll find a preponderance of liberal/democratic agencies (perhaps more "independent" than DC based, but still) fighting against such stuff.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Unless you're trying to kill them through starvation, you're going to want to force grip their tracheas. [/QB]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head :
What, exactly, were you laughing at here?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
SteveR,
Yeah, but then people wouldn't know how stupid I was, and they'd wonder what you were complaining about, and then you'd have to edit your post, and I'd have to edit subsequent posts, and so on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
See my new post.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
mph- Ah, you deleted the other one.
Booth- I think it might be worth the time.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
There! It's done. Your genitals are hidden and safe, once again.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Man, I hate partisanship.
Lisa, I sympathize with the description your voting experience.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Booth- I appreciate that very much.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head :
What, exactly, were you laughing at here?
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Having been a pretty loyal Republican, I now feel like I've taken a few steps towards the exit of Plato's cave. Everything seems so clear now. I'm amazed that I used to delight so much when someone on "their" side screwed up or was caught red-handed, and yet I'd consistently ignore it when people on "our" side did the same.
Politicians on both side of the aisle are primarily about one thing: numero uno. The world of lobbyists, favors, intrigue, parties, etc seems to attract power-hungry people.
Both sides now share a paternalistic view of government. "Don't you worry your little head about:
airplane terrorists - just stand in line all morning so the people you made fun of in junior high can go through your luggage and touch your body.
retirement - just give us a little somethin' every paycheck over 40 years, and we'll pay you back when you're old (since you don't understand Future Value of money or interest and can't manage your own finances (since you went through Big Brother's dumbed-down school system)).
ports - Did we say 6 ports? We actually were gonna tell you that it's 22. And just look at the great job UAE does with their own ports! (Besides, it was only a little bit of nuclear material that that Pakistani scientist sent through UAE to North Korea. And Iran. And, oh yeah, Libya.)
arms - just let us and the criminals have all the guns. We'll take care of you (except, of course, that the police are in no way legally obligated to protect an individual citizen, and sometimes simply don't)."
I don't like it. Here's for independents, constitutionalists, libertarians, and (why not?) greens!
PS I'm too tired to find good links. If you want 'em Google 'em or call me on something.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: StarLisa,
Examples, please, of how Democrats have done their part in "undermining the basic concept of individual rights in this country"??
More than anything, by pushing the government into our lives. The horrid New Deal. The horridder Economic Bill of Rights [sic]. The creation of social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools.
The "safety net" created primarily by Democrats has robbed the American citizenry of any sense of personal responsibility. Idiotic warning labels have replaced simple common sense. When people don't control what they eat and get fat, it becomes an "obesity epidemic", rather than one more facet of the irresponsibility epidemic created by a monster government, and litigation is seen as a legitimate method of dealing with it.
Shall I continue?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Considering that starLisa hasn't been back since you asked for examples, you're jumping the gun with your proclamation there, Boothby.
Let's start with the right to life for very young human beings and go on from there.
For the record, that's Dag, and not me. I don't consider the unborn to be human beings. Not that I'm in favor of abortion except in rare and extreme cases.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then we get to the right of professional conscience.
The right to control ones own property.
The right to own the means of personal self defense.
All excellent examples.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: [Self editing comments about talking dog running on Democrat ticket]
Some wear the sign of the elephant, And some wear the sign of the mule; But we'll hold the sign of the Beagle high And love will shine right through.
/sorry
--j_k
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.
And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think she was directly blaming Democrats for people getting fat, she's saying it's their fault that people have a mentality of "it's someone else's fault" when something bad happens to them. People get fat, blame the fast food industry. It's the elimination of personal responsibility for problems that should be solved by yourself and not by the government that she blames Democrats.
And I've never thought about it like that, and I'm not sure one way or the other who is to blame, but she raises a very good point.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I can personally attest that my taxes went down with Bush's tax cuts, and I don't make anywhere close to $250,000 per year.
I agree, and I have not seen any corresponding increase in state or local taxes that offset it. I do have more money available because of those tax cuts and my family has used it primarily to eliminate our debt. It's definitely been a good thing for us.
And no, we don't make anything near $250,000 or even $100,000 for that matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My family got something like $500 from the tax cuts. Huzzah. That doesn't really make much of a dent in anything. It's nothing to shake a stick at, but nowhere near enough to seriously affect my family's finances.
And it's certainly nowhere near the thousands and thousands garnered by the super rich from the tax cuts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But were those thousands and thousands enough to seriously affect the finances of the super rich?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends on what you mean. Being tossed enough extra chump change to buy a Lexus might not be enough to seriously affect their finances, but then, they weren't really suffering to begin with were they? When you're that rich, can ANYTHING seriously affect your finances for the better, short of becoming Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I'm largely liberal, but the Dems are much more likely to work against school choice vouchers, to push for mandatory vaccination,and to place restrictions on home schooling and home birth.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And are you considering, Lyrhawn, the continued nature of the tax cuts? You may have received $500 from that check that was sent out, but some of the cuts affect your taxes going forward so you should continue seeing a benefit from them.
I am not super-rich but my husband works for them. By super-rich I mean people who think nothing of sitting down and writing $50,000 checks from their personal accounts to pay for a new bathroom. Yes, we have had clients who spent that much on one room of their house.
It would take a monumental tax cut for them to seriously change their finances or lives.
I know everyone hates it when a conservative brings up how much the rich do pay in taxes, but there is some validity to that. When we were figuring our finances to see if it was worth it for me to stay home, that was one thing we had to take into account. There was a point, if my husband's business had a good year, where my salary would have pushed us into the next tax bracket. It was such a huge jump that it actually worked out better for us financially not to have my salary at all - the tax savings plus the savings on childcare were put us in a better place than if I continued working. And I was a professional, not a minimum wage worker. The tax implications were the turning point in our decision.
I know on the surface it sounds crazy - that it's better financially for us to bring in less money, but believe me it was true. If you've ever gotten a raise that resulted in you bringing home less money because the raise pushed you into the next bracket then you've experienced the same thing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're saying that people never blamed their problems on anything other than themselves ever in history until the New Deal? Seriously?
I'd blame that atmosphere more on lawyers looking to drum up some tasty fees. Let's see, are more lawyers Democrats or Republicans?
What Dems do, though, is to protect the rights of people to make such silly claims by fighting tort reforms so that corrupt corporations can't insulate themselves from lawsuits. In theory, anyway.
And starLisa, while The New Deal certainly has plenty of problems and ramifications, it's hard to fault the intentions of a program that put food in people's mouths when they desperately needed it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The creation of social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools.
From the Massachusetts constitution:
quote: Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I wonder if our foreign trade relations, especially in the wake of the WTO and NAFTA, would be different if the Dems continued to rule the White House. I'm not sure if it would (I wish it would) as we're dealing with politics being trumped by economics末and money always seems the be the primary factor in how the world turns.
As for losing/gaining rights, if you think about it, our system of laws or policies really depends on A) how much they cost the government and B) how much they make for the government. IMHO, this is why abortions are legal but pregnant women can be punished for drinking alcohol末children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome cost the taxpayers a good deal more $$.
We might say differently, but money talks in the end.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Do we have any solutions for the whole lawyers thing? I mean, the so-called torte reform measures that are getting put forward basically say that if I'm using your product in exactly the way I'm supposed to and it turns around and maims me, the company responsible may get a penalty so light it won't even have to consider halting production of the product, let alone a recall. We're getting lobbyists putting a cost (a lower cost) on the lives of children and the elderly for terms of class action settlements. Personal responsibility doesn't mean the rich and powerful get to do whatever they want and the little guys can go hang.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let's see, are more lawyers Democrats or Republicans?
How sure are you of whatever answer you have to that question, Chris? Because you stated it as if the answer should be obvious, and it's not, at least to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm not, although on second read I can see it looks like I thought I did. I was trying to make the point that such lawyers aren't acting as Reps or Dems, they're acting as lawyers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, got you.
Thanks for the clarification. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to figure out party affiliation for lawyers and haven't been able to do it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: And are you considering, Lyrhawn, the continued nature of the tax cuts? You may have received $500 from that check that was sent out, but some of the cuts affect your taxes going forward so you should continue seeing a benefit from them.
Considering a law was just passed recently that in some cases almost doubled a large amount of our credit card bills, we're still in the hole. A yearly 500 dollars doesn't cover the doubling of a monthly credit card bill. So I really don't see how we're supposed to see any savings from that big fancy tax cut. Besides, you're assuming that tax cut will survive past its expiration date and long enough to realize any lifelong savings.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Lyrhawn: I know we've been butting heads elsewhere, but I'm curious末isn't this credit card issue like unto starLisa's earlier contention on obesity?
Republicians might have sponsored this law for a rise in the minimum payment, but it's American consumers who chose to get a card, spend the money, and now cannot afford to pay back what they owe. Especially since we're talking "minimum payment." We put ourselves in debt then blame the government for making us pay it back?
We do agree on one thing末that those tax cut were very silly. Bush makes it seem like I'm now financially viable thanks to him. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd love to hear about the credit card law that just thrust double your credit card debt onto your bill without you having spent that money...
Furthermore, I'm wondering in what world $500.00 is 'chump change'. If spent wisely, that's a nice hunk of change indeed. None of this is to say I agree with the tax cuts-I think they were very unwise and still are-but I don't think it's reasonable to assume they're not really helping anyone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Lyrhawn: I know we've been butting heads elsewhere, but I'm curious末isn't this credit card issue like unto starLisa's earlier contention on obesity?
Republicians might have sponsored this law for a rise in the minimum payment, but it's American consumers who chose to get a card, spend the money, and now cannot afford to pay back what they owe. Especially since we're talking "minimum payment." We put ourselves in debt then blame the government for making us pay it back?
We do agree on one thing末that those tax cut were very silly. Bush makes it seem like I'm now financially viable thanks to him.
You're right and wrong. Yes, it is the fault of the consumer for spending so much and incurring such a high debt. But, in the case of my family, we didn't spend more than we had, we only spent to what we could afford. We were getting by before, but with many in the lower end of the middle class, or upper end of the lower class, debt and "just getting by" is an extremely careful balance. Having every credit card payment unceremoniously doubled upsets that balance rather violently. It's one thing to say "you have to pay back your debts" it's entirely another to say "Oh hey, we're going to double all your payments, have at it!"
This isn't just about the government making people pay back the debts they've incurred it's about forcing them to upset a balance in their finances and giving them little to no time to fix that balance for themselves. And yes, such a blatent lack of regard for that balance is the government's fault.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'd love to hear about the credit card law that just thrust double your credit card debt onto your bill without you having spent that money...
Furthermore, I'm wondering in what world $500.00 is 'chump change'. If spent wisely, that's a nice hunk of change indeed. None of this is to say I agree with the tax cuts-I think they were very unwise and still are-but I don't think it's reasonable to assume they're not really helping anyone.
You misunderstood/I didn't type it right. They didn't double the total debt, they doubled the amount you have to pay on the principle part of your debt over what you pay on interest.
And you dont think someone who makes a million dollars a year would think of 500 dollars as chump change? Because that's what I was referring to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you've ever gotten a raise that resulted in you bringing home less money because the raise pushed you into the next bracket then you've experienced the same thing.
Wait a sec. That's not how taxes work. If you EVER find yourself bringing home less money after being bumped into another bracket -- as opposed to simply becoming ineligible for a tax credit -- then you're doing your taxes incorrectly.
Tax brackets don't apply retroactively to all income. They apply only to the amount of income earned within that bracket. That's why it's called a bracket, in fact. It's a tiered system.
If you earn, for example, just $300 over the cutoff for the 15% tax bracket, the REST of your income is taxed at the lower 10% bracket; only the $300 over that level is taxed at the higher 15% rate.
There is, as I understand it, no actual way for you to bring home less money by bumping up a tax bracket. It IS possible for you to suddenly cease to qualify for various tax credits, but these credits aren't generally available to anyone but the poorest of the poor, anyway.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Gah. I was typing what Tom said. So yeah.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They didn't double the total debt, they doubled the amount you have to pay on the principle part of your debt over what you pay on interest.
This was done over the protests of the banks and is considered a consumer protection measure.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I understand the INTENT of the legislation.
But quite frankly I don't think legislators in Washington really gave a lot of thought to the negative aspects. And given their financial status, I'm really not surprised.
Such a measure should have been instituted in stages to give people a chance to adjust their finances to the new reality, rather than a sudden and massive increase in the payment amounts.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I agree with the gradual increase, speaking as a consumer, but I don't think Republicans should be blamed for making us pay less interest in the long run and encouraging us to actually pay down the debt we incurred ourselves.
(It stilll stinks, I agree. But we get as fat with debt as we do with cheeseburgers, if you undertand my meaning.)
That being said, I DO think there should be laws on the miss-one-payment-and-interest-rate-jumps-to-thirty-percent policy. I think this bait-and-switch behavior of luring people with low interest rates then killing them with outrageous rates when they're late is crossing a line.
Why do services declare their work is "AS IS" (so my internet provider, for example, can be out for three days yet I get charged the same price) yet customers are shafted the minute they don't deliver as promised? The government acts much the same way.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.
And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!
Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with the intent of the legislation, I personally have very little in the way of credit card debt, and I'm glad that future credit card users will start off using cards this way, and be used to the higher principle payment so they don't have to pay the higher interest. But the Republicans did oversee the vote, and while many Democrats supported them, there should have been something in place to help people who weren't ready for the increase.
And I do agree with you on the "bait and switch" tactics that many credit card companies use. Raising interest rates and using hidden fees to charge people is killing unsuspecting lower income families who don't understand these things. At least they can't send credit cards "cold calling" so to speak to young people with no credit. But there should be some sort of protection against consumer abuse.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: You're saying that people never blamed their problems on anything other than themselves ever in history until the New Deal? Seriously?
Oh, no. Not at all. In fact, Tyrant Abe might have been worse on this count by a lot than FDR, and he was a Republican (of sorts).
But that's not how the US started off. We were so fiercely independent that it scared the heck out of the Europeans. I am not blaming the Democrats only for any of the stuff I mentioned. Boothby very childishly insisted that I needed give examples of Democratic incursions into freedom, otherwise no such examples existed. So I gave examples. But just as the Republicans aren't alone in the nasty stuff they've done, neither are the Democrats alone in their badness.
I consider these two parties to be wings of a single, monolithic, political party. Coercive Statists. Some want to steal from us to give goodies to the poor and to the arts that they like. Others want to steal from us to give goodies to their cronies. I prefer that they stop stealing from me to give anything to anyone. That's not their job.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'd blame that atmosphere more on lawyers looking to drum up some tasty fees. Let's see, are more lawyers Democrats or Republicans?
Good question, there, Chris. I wonder if the answer is as obvious as you seem to think it is.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What Dems do, though, is to protect the rights of people to make such silly claims by fighting tort reforms so that corrupt corporations can't insulate themselves from lawsuits. In theory, anyway.
Heh. In theory.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: And starLisa, while The New Deal certainly has plenty of problems and ramifications, it's hard to fault the intentions of a program that put food in people's mouths when they desperately needed it.
Actually, the New Deal extended the Great Depression by years. And that's completely aside from the fact that the Depression was caused by the games played by the Federal Reserve, itself an unjustified infringement on the rights of American citizens.
One of the biggest games played by the Coercive Statists is to meddle in our lives in a way that's guaranteed to be inefficient and cause problems. That way, they can introduce more meddling in our lives in order to "fix" the results of the previous meddling. It's the closest thing in existence to perpetual motion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.
And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!
Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
I think lately the Republicans are worse at the moment, but probably just because they are the party in power.
Bush, as a leader of the Republican party, and the Republicans in Congress are no better. Bush is helping to oversee the education of the masses so they will believe that the government has an unending supply of cash to solve all their problems, and that they will never have to personally sacrifice for the good of themselves or their nation.
edited because I posted this before I saw Lisa's last post.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:The creation of social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools.
From the Massachusetts constitution:
quote: Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
Cool. So FDR said that recreation is a right, and the Peoples Republic of Massachussetts says much the same about "good humor". Presumably not the ice cream.
The rest of it sounds like Steve Martin's "Grandmother's Song".
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Do we have any solutions for the whole lawyers thing?
King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.
And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!
Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
Pretending Democrats are the only ones doing this doesn't help solve the problems.
True. And if you can point me to where I said anything about it "only" being the Democrats, I'll retract it with full apologies. But you can't.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
(Slow strumming of banjo.)
Be courteous, kind and forgiving... Be gentle and peaceful each day... Be warm and human and grateful... And have a good thing to say.
Be thoughtful and trustful and childlike... Be willing and happy and wise... Be honest and love all your neighbors... Be obsequious, purple and clairvoyant.
Be pompous, obese and eat cacti... Be dull and boring and omnipresent... Criticize things you don't know about... Be oblong and have your knees removed.
***
I know there's more about live chickens in your underwear, sucking eggs, and getting excited to go to a yawning festival, but that was from memory.
What doesn't Steve Martin know?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.
And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!
Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
Pretending Democrats are the only ones doing this doesn't help solve the problems.
True. And if you can point me to where I said anything about it "only" being the Democrats, I'll retract it with full apologies. But you can't.
I edited my post to remove that part before you made your post, because I was typing my post while you posted the one before it and missed what you said. You must have still been in the thread and hadn't refreshed the page before you saw it and jumped on it.
Regardless, it's retracted.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:So FDR said that recreation is a right, and the Peoples Republic of Massachussetts says much the same about "good humor."
Do you think that John Adams was being facetious?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: (Slow strumming of banjo.)
Be courteous, kind and forgiving... Be gentle and peaceful each day... Be warm and human and grateful... And have a good thing to say.
Be thoughtful and trustful and childlike... Be willing and happy and wise...
Really? I always thought it was "witty".
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Be honest and love all your neighbors... Be obsequious, purple and clairvoyant.
Be pompous, obese and eat cacti... Be dull and boring and omnipresent... Criticize things you don't know about... Be oblong and have your knees removed.
***
I know there's more about live chickens in your underwear, sucking eggs, and getting excited to go to a yawning festival, but that was from memory.
Be tasteless, rude, and offensive, Live in a swamp and be three dimentional, Put a live chicken in your underwear, Go into a closet and suck eggs.
And then he gets the audience to do it line by line, and for the last line, he changes it to:
Get all excited and go to a yawning festival.
I think.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: What doesn't Steve Martin know?
The wisdom of the ages. Fur sinks and gasoline powered sweaters. The impossibility of putting a Cadillac in your nose. Richard Nixon playing banjo. "Oh death, and grief, and sorrow, and murder."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Pretending Democrats are the only ones doing this doesn't help solve the problems.
True. And if you can point me to where I said anything about it "only" being the Democrats, I'll retract it with full apologies. But you can't.
I edited my post to remove that part before you made your post, because I was typing my post while you posted the one before it and missed what you said. You must have still been in the thread and hadn't refreshed the page before you saw it and jumped on it.
Regardless, it's retracted.
Thanks.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm confused. Why would "facetious" come up? I don't think either of those things is an example of facetiousness. Just lunacy.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Lisa, you nailed it:
quote:I consider these two parties to be wings of a single, monolithic, political party. Coercive Statists. Some want to steal from us to give goodies to the poor and to the arts that they like. Others want to steal from us to give goodies to their cronies. I prefer that they stop stealing from me to give anything to anyone. That's not their job.
It seems like the 2 parties play differences of opinion on (predominantly) social issues into this polarization game (red vs. blue) to keep the masses from realizing that in some important ways, the parties are identical. See my previous post.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
quote:she's saying it's their fault that people have a mentality of "it's someone else's fault"
Lyrhawn,
Do you find that as funny as I do?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think either of those things is an example of facetiousness. Just lunacy.
I guess I'm a lunatic, then, because I agree with a large swath of that section of the constitution.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171:
quote:she's saying it's their fault that people have a mentality of "it's someone else's fault"
Lyrhawn,
Do you find that as funny as I do?
Hey I never said whether or not I agreed with it, and I'm still not saying one way or the other.
Lisa can correct me if I was wrong, I was just trying to help clarify. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I don't think either of those things is an example of facetiousness. Just lunacy.
I guess I'm a lunatic, then, because I agree with a large swath of that section of the constitution.
What section of the Constitution would that be? We weren't talking about the US Constitution.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, but the reference was to the Massachusetts State Constitution.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's Commonwealth, not People's Republic, of Massachusetts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but I should point out in response to the fp it was clear the Republicans were going to have strong showings in Congressional elections, so a vote for a Democrat for President was a vote for a divided government, not a homogenous one.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That's more like it. Trash both sides equally!
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I don't believe I mentioned Hillary. Strange that her name came up.....
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)