Are Some Democrats Getting a Spine?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Bob26003, Nov 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Are Some Democrats Getting a Spine?

    By Editors Pick

    November 25, 2009 "Stellaa's Blog" -- So, now that we are not gonna dither and probably send thousands of troops into Afghanistan, lets talk about paying for it.

    Well, it seems some Democrats are proposing, in the same way that we have to find the money for social programs, that if we want to continue and or escalate the war, we should find the money to pay for war.

    Since it seems that the National Press and our Republicans discovered the National Deficit--something that did not seem to bother anyone when we went on our expedition in Iraq. I guess when they were voting for the wars and borrowing for the wars, while voting for tax cuts, deficits did not matter.

    David Brooks laments the Healthcare Bill, he says it would hurt our vitality:
    Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.
    Mr. Brooks, what of our vitality when our resources and energy is spent on war? That never came up in your columns before.

    The Democrats, at least some, are saying, ok, since you are so eager, lets vote for a 1% surtax on anyone with income over $200,000.

    Imagine if the Democrats pushed for that back when the Iraq war was first proposed. Oh, I forgot, the oil revenues were gonna pay for it and we were gonna be out of there in a jiffy, of course after they put up statues to Bush.

    Who are the Democrats displaying vestiges of a spine :

    Carl Levin, Michigan.

    David Obey, Wisconsin.


    "We have been fighting for a year to try to pass health care - it costs about 900 billion dollars - and we are being told that we have to pay for every dime of it," Obey said on "Washington Unplugged." "But if we adopt a plan that General McChrystal is talking about, we are also being told that we have to hunker down and be ready for a decade long or more commitment. If we do that the cost will also be about 900 billion dollars – the difference is that we are not being asked to pay for that. And we think that if we are being asked to pay for health care, we certainly should start paying for the war."

    As long as we do not make the war hawks pay as they go, we will drain all our resources to fight wars that we should not be fighting. The escalation in Afghanistan is the continuation of a wrongheaded campaign. If you raise the issue of war cost, you get we must support our troops.

    If this is what is being suggested, lets pass the tax. Since most of the war pain is on the backs of poor Americans, time for the rich to give a piece of their hide. I want to see some of the rich make the sacrifice that the people forced to enter the military as their only possible means of making a living.


    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24060.htm
     
  2. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    I don't get it... the rich already pay the majority of our taxes... now you want them to pay more, in a recession? For social programs they will not use but will hurt them? And the self entitlement rages on...
     
  3. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/9

    "First, we should agree that there's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer. It would require a selfish, ignorant, and hateful person to want anyone to get poorer. I might not be rich, but I have no vindictive anger that desires that those who've had better fortune do poorly just because I've not done as well myself. That kind of trite material jealousy is best left in grade school."

    If only it was.
     
  4. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    It's not trite material jealously, though many leftists sadly warp it as such. It's really just practical.

    Most of this country's wealth and income is concentrated to a very small percentage of the population. Around 10% of Americans take in 60% to 80% of all national wealth. We're one of the few countries in the rich world to have seen an increase inequality, and we maintain the highest level of wealth disparity in the industrial world (comparable to Turkey or Russia). The progressive tax system is merely reflective of this inequality. the rich hold most of the money, so most of the money comes from them. This holds true in even equitable nations, such as in Scandinavia .

    If we had a much broader middle-class, as in many other rich nations, perhaps we'd be able to trim a more or less an equal amount. But if income and wealth are unequal, so are taxes. How else will public and national programs get funded? As not as if the rich don't also benefit from public roads, socialized police and emergency personnel, and national defense. Yes, their paying a disproportionately higher amount for it, but their also reaping a disproportionate amount too (and no, I don't think wealthy people are all sleazy, oppressive crooks - people do make an honest money or get born into it, which they can hardly be blamed for).

    Perhaps if we formed more sustainable plans, cut out the waste, and root out the corruption, things will help. But even so, as long as most of the taxable income is held by wealthy people there will be nowhere else to draw if from.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2009
  5. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    "First, we should agree that there's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer. It would require a selfish, ignorant, and hateful person to want anyone to get poorer. I might not be rich, but I have no vindictive anger that desires that those who've had better fortune do poorly just because I've not done as well myself. That kind of trite material jealousy is best left in grade school."

    If only it was.

    *************************

    That is utter BS Mike... Consider that the top 5% control more wealth than the bottom 80%

    That is just plain immoral

    our infrastructure is in bad shape, our schools are underfunded, poverty and "food insecurity" is on the rise, real wages are dropping, the american worker is being shafted on every angle

    Meanwhile corporate profits are through the roof and the rich are getting way richer

    just plain immoral

    The middle class is disappearing Mike.............

    America is not America without a strong middle class

    Worker Productivity and hours have been on a stead increase yet real wages have been on a decline or stagnate and corporate profits are through the roof

    period

    also our social services are pathetic compared to every other civilized nation

    ie,,,, sure its OK to bail out wall street and pay more than the rest of the world compined on military, but Ill be damned if I am going to help a single mother feed her child

    That is a screwed up value system Mike

    A single mother whos BF has left, he knows he cannot take care of a family and he knows that she and the child wont get teh meager help they get now if he is around , the best job he can find is at burger king, he had a good job at the garment plant, but that closed ..... its in china now

    meanwhile wall street is raking it in

    the worse they screw the american worker, the more corporate profits go up
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2009
  6. J_Oli3

    J_Oli3 Well-Known Member

    One name; Alan Grayson
     
  7. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Bob why don't these people just go to college and make something of themselves? I am pretty sure having a child when you are not financially ready to is irresponsible. Why should the responsible have to pay for them? Yes it sucks that bad things happen, but we can help people all day long if we want to whether or not it is law. Go volunteer, devote your life to serving others. Everything in life is a choice, unless of course, our government takes that choice away from us.
     
  8. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Mike this is bigger than one person........ Real wages have been stagnate for thirty years.

    Our manufacturing base has been shipped overseas.

    This is radical social engineering. All designed to drive down the standards of what they call "the pampered western worker" Well the workers make up the vast majority of the population!!!!!

    entire towns have shriveled up and died. America is full of ghost towns and empty factories and ghettos.

    Oh and wouldnt ya know it, the prison rate is the highest in the world.

    you cant just bury your head in the sand and wish it away

    look at this

    **************

    Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity

    "As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html

    That sentence says it all Mike

    ****************

    So production is up, hours worked are up, corporate profits way up, and wages and benefits down............................ hmmmmmmmmm


    ************

    And of course your first instinct is to hate the government. Of course, you have been trained that way. Why? Because the Gov. has a fatal flaw that corporations do not. It is potentially Democratic!!!!! and can put in place laws to protect consumers and workers........
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2009
  9. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    """""""Yes it sucks that bad things happen, but we can help people all day long if we want to whether or not it is law.""""""""""

    Also this argument is ridiculous Mike

    take for instance Social Security, which was created to keep older folks from living in poverty, and it has worked tremendously

    same with medicare


    now do you think voluntary charity would or could pick up this slack? yeah right
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.