Conservative Response to Liberal Gunman

by **agonist** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:15 pm

You missed the point. Things like lynchings and civil rights violations get limited. Those protections are the reason for the existance of government. The point of referendum votes on spending is that the instances that any items for spending even comes up would be would be greatly limited. It wouldn't be possibile to vote on the amount of items we currently see to only those items that even deserve condideration would be brought up. This government HEMORAGES money. Why would we expect citizens to demonstrate resposibility when our government doesn't.

Obviously, these policies couldn't be instituted immmediately. That would cause disaster. That's why Ron Paul couldn't garner any serious consideration. He came across as a radical constitutionalists (sad that one could be considered a radical for beleiving in the Constitution) because he failed to outline or perhaps failed to conceive a viable rollback.

by **agonist** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:40 pm

I posted before seeing your newest post. The taxpayers aren't cheated out of a few hundred bucks, its more like a few billion. Further more, government jobs, like Obama would create, sap the government of money. Only a small percentage of those salaries come back as revenue. A private sector job yields the same percentage of the income as revenue but was never a draw on the government coffers.

As far as tax breaks, you're right. There should be no such thing as tax breaks. These are the breeding grounds of corruption. A flat tax on income and sales /usage taxes are the only fair taxes.

by **Tralik33** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:43 am

There are a few points here I'd like to address. Lib, on a few occasions now, you have referred to an uneven distribution of wealth in this country and have addressed this as a major problem, perhaps even "the problem". As a general rule of thumb, do you believe that there should be no uneven distribution of wealth in this country? Should everyone make the same amount of money regardless of effort, circumstance or just plain luck? You have not fully articulated your position, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is not what you really think, at least I hope that's not what you really think as this is a full-on representation of socialism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

We hear the term "equality" thrown around a lot in these types of discussions. We also hear the term "fair" used quite often as well. Equality is something that is in theory great, but in practice is all but unachievable. Why? Because not all men are created "equal" with the same abilities, gifts, intelligence, wisdom and no 2 men are born into the same circumstance. All a government can do is to work to foster conditions where the avenues for success are available. The best way for a government to do that is to quite simply get out of people's way, to quit putting up obstacles to success like oppressive taxes, state dependancy programs, and creating environments that make it difficult for employers to be successful and grow their business thereby creating more opportunity for employment.

I think it should also be pointed out that hard work alone is not, and should not be a guarantee for success and wealth. It takes more than hard work and dedication. It takes intelligence, wisdom, and above all, flexibility and a willingness to do work that you may not enjoy or even like at all. We use "hard working" as our measuring stick a lot in these arguments postulating that if someone works hard, they should be rewarded with success and that if they are not successful, something is broken with the system. By that logic, I could start at McDonalds today. I could be the hardest working fry operator in the world. Should I become wealthy because of this? If I open a company that makes screen doors for submarines or lead balloons and work really really hard at it, should I be successful? No. Hard work is not a guarantee for success. You have to be smart. You have to be flexible.

by **LiberalGunman** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:59 pm

1. I think the distribution of wealth should vary naturally and not be due to unfair advantages for some and disadvantages for others. When this is the case, the gap will not be nearly as extreme as it is currently.

2. Equal opportunities, not equal abilities. You can't seriously argue that George W. Bush and a kid born in the 5th Ward in Houston across town have the same opportunities since birth. Not even in the same stratosphere. Even though I doubt talent and IQ are any different.

3. If that same kid from poverty in Houston is a hard worker and has a some solid enterprising business ideas, I believe a person of George Bush's socioeconomic status would get twice the amount of opportunities opening a lead balloon business.

*I use GW as an example of someone born into privilege, not to comment on his political ideals or his presidency.*

by **Tralik33** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:58 pm

On point 2, how do you do this? How would the Government do this? Does not, by it's very nature, being born in to money open doors that might not otherwise be open, simply through social contacts? You know what they say... it's not what you know, it's who you know. So how can the government artificially emulate this or for that matter prevent its continuance in wealthy and influencial circles? What you are talking about is human nature. It is social circles. It is not impossible to move from one social circle to another, but it is inarguably easier to move within a circle you were born into than it is to move into another. What we are talking about is legislating psychology. That is all but an impossible thing to do.

What people don't stop to take into consideration is that in 10000 years of human existance/civilization, there has never been a human utopia. There has never been an "equal" society where all people are free to excel and everyone has the exact same opportunities and the wealth of the nation is spread evenly across the population. The reality is that there will always be haves and have-nots because there will always be differeing levels of intelligence, motivation, skill, determination, and just plain luck. We'll all make different friends, find ourselves in different situations, have different happinesses and tragedies. With the millions upon millions of variables that constitute human life, how can one reasonably expect something like equal opportunity to really occur? Will not the fat girl always fail to get the job over the skinny girl when they apply at Victoria's secret? Won't the clean-shaven, sharp dressed man get the executive job over a guy with a tatoo around his eye and half a dozen piercings in his face? Let's be honest here... what we are talking about is the government stepping in to try to legislate morality. Yes, you should almost always hire the most qualified person, but who is going to enforce that and how are you going to prove that someone is definitively more qualified than someone else? Does a business owner have the right to turn down a more qualified person simply because he may like the personality of a lesser qualified candidate more? Should an employer be force to hire a minority over an equally qualified white man or woman? And, most importantly, who get's to decide what is right and what is wrong? Aren;t all these things purely subjective decisions?

by **tigwelder56** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:12 pm

I don't understand the need for the distribution of wealth to vary naturally. What the heck is naturally? Shouldn't the distribution of wealth be based on personal education, motivation and drive to succeed? If an individual happens to be born into money, doesn't make his pocket legal to pick for those that weren't! The only reason the chasm exists is due to simple differences in lifestyle, education, motivation and societal expectations. Some are driven to succeed and some don't want to pursue it. They're satisfied with the low paying job with no or little chance of advancement, while others aren't satisfied until they can climb the ladder of promotion to its end. What makes the motivation of the driven individual something to criticize and the lack of motivation from the individual that has no true desire to improve regretful? The government shouldn't be in a position to take away the wealth or motivation of someone willing to work as hard as necessary to excel, and distribute his/her wealth to someone who really doesn't give a damn.

I've also found myself in a tight spot regarding the current mortgage situation. I'm walking a tightwire now, barely able to meet my monthly obligations. Yet, even with the new bail out programs and imagined help for home owners risking foreclosure, I'm finding myself out in the cold. It seems that I'm not poor enough to qualify and not rich enough to consider myself safe from financial ruin. It seems obvious that these bailout programs are targeted at the working or non working poor. The middleclass in America is being ignored and wiped out one program at a time. I don't want my neighbor to pay my mortgage! I have politely asked for a loan restructuring so I can afford my mortgage each month. I don't care if I have to sign a 40 year fixed note. I'm willing to pay what I agreed to pay, but I'm not being allowed that much. My choice is to either eat macaroni and cheese and hot dogs while waiting for the roof to cave in or walk away from it and add to the problem. Why won't the annoited one tell the bean counters to consider simple approaches like that? Another thing I've thought would work is something as easy as suspending mortgage payments for six months? Let people catch up and then start again. If they have so many other irons in the fire, why not consider something that might actually help us recover. That would be a true stimulis, instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

by **LiberalGunman** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:40 pm

I don't have an easy answer to your first question Tralik. I don't know how the government fixes this or even if they can. However, it would be a nice start if everyone acknowleges the fact that the haves do not HAVE more simply because they ARE more. And its not just a matter of social circles that give someone like GW the edge. He never had to face the discrimination that a person of color does, or a person of muslim faith, or a "butch" woman, etc. Its not that he got special treatment, its just that he got fair treatment where others do not. Predjudice is no longer advertised by cross-burning and other outlandish acts. Its more subtle and involves politely showing someone the door when applying for a job, or being followed around a department store, or being passed over for a promotion, or a lesson plan being geared to a euro-centric cultural upbringing.

These are all things that contribute to the disparity of wealth and power. Can the government fix this? Probably not. But I certainly don't get as upset at their misguided attempts to do so as someone who obliviously thinks that "minorities" have it easier than white males because of the government handouts they receive. That's ludicrous.

*note its taken me over an hour to get this to post. Forgive me if I can't keep up on my replies as this is getting ridiculous.

by **LiberalGunman** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:50 pm

Tig-

I completely disagree with your implication that poor people are poor by in large simple because they are satisfied with their current situation.

However, I am in total agreement with the middle class being railroaded and a 6 month grace period on mortgages being a good idea.

Again, I think middle class america should be more resentful toward those in power (not just Obama but the corporations) than those in poverty collecting welfare checks.

Just my point of view...

by **LiberalGunman** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:02 pm

And now that I think about it, HOW THE HELL SHOULD A DISABLED VETERAN EVER BE IN A SITUATION WHERE HE CAN'T AFFORD HIS MORTGAGE?! If it were only you Tig, I'd say you just made some bad decisions. However, I work with hundreds of disabled people, many of them vets, that are in the same boat. I think we have problems in our country that require the government to fix. I know that makes me the bad guy on this forum, but the government is the one that put them in the position to be disabled in the first damn place! Then they refuse to pay them social security to add insult to injury!

What does it say about our country when we send our citizens to be permanently disabled in some BS war (my opinion) and then allow them to die living on the streets when they return?

Its not about giving handouts, its about making things right...

by **tigwelder56** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:45 am

What the hell do you mean? A Veteran, diabled or not is still an individual in this country and like the rest of the haves or have nots is deserving of every equal consideration given to the rest of the masses! What does my disability have to do with the price of tea in China? Yes, I made some bad decisions as it turned out. But let me tell you, my decisions were based on investment strategy, according to Wall Street and government expectations of the future! Had the government not insisted that Wall Street extend all these unprotected loans, most of this nonsense wouldn't have happened in the mortgage markets. Yes, I purchased a home on a low rate variable interest loan, hoping to make my equity on property value increases. I did that on the recommendation of three different government approved mortgage brokers. It was a tried and true practice for years and years. People got rich on these types of investments. Just because I made the decision to take a licensed broker's advice doesn't make my initial decision bad. It turned out that the insistence and lack of foresight we experienced from our lending institutions backfired on all of us. I got caught up in the crash. Had I done this years earlier, I would be the wise investor. Besides all of this rant and raving, I would never blame my inability to break even each month on my disability. As a matter of record, I'd like you to know that I'm still ahead of the eight ball and haven't needed the bailout yet. I don't want your help. However, I think I'm just as qualified to get it as all of the working poor you're so anxious to defend. You won't see me standing in line with my hand out either. I simply don't want to lose the roof over my head and have to live in my car with my wife and daughter. I hope that isn't a wish you would deny me, regardless of your position. There's enough blame to go around and I'll accept my own. If I can't recover the same way every other honest, legal citizen in this country does, then I'll fold with the rest of them. I refuse to whine and cry with all of your have nots that haven't worked for the priviledge of taxpayer rescue. It's hard to believe that we're even having to consider a taxpayer recovery of the nation as a whole! What is completely unacceptable is the consideration of our taxpayer dollars going to illegal citizens and unnecessary pork projects. There are too many true Americans that are suffering today and I don't want one cent of my tax money going to anyone that hasn't earned the right to get it. If you want to be eligible for American taxpayer generosity, you should become one.

I'm simply tired of the waste and the smoke being blown up everyone's asses. This ridiculous stimulis package will provide nothing but grief to all of us, especially our children and grandchildren. The sheer amount of interest on this initial loan from China will ruin the financial markets. Hell, we can't even afford to pay the payment right now, let alone the millions of dollars in interest each month. Simple mathematics should show even the common man/woman that it'll never work! I don't want the government to fix everything. It's the government that made this mess happen in the first place. I'm tired of hearing about Repubs and Dems being blamed too, but the fact is, it's government in general that has made a mess of everything. Socialism will not return us to Democracy, period.

I'd also like to thank you for your lack of support for our forces in battle. I don't care what your reason is, it will never be "OKAY" in my mind to condemn their action in defense of this great country. Now we've got the annointed one announcing our withdrawal in 2010!! What a stupid, stupid thing to say. All that has done is provide the enemy a timeline for ramping up their own agendas. The troops we leave in country will be overrun and we'll be right back in the thick of things. Too much blind ignorance is happening here... I remember Viet Nam, do you? Does the term "In Vain" mean anything to you?