Originally Posted By planodisney RoadTrip, your post 15 is exactly accurate. We dont base our votes on what government will hand out to us, but on principal. Right or wrong, that is how most conservatives base our votes. We do make a distinction between the government helping those who dont want to help themselves and those who cant, which seems to anger liberals. I believe anyone who doesnt believe in a safety net for those who have hit hard times and need temporary help while trying to improve their situation or for individuals who for one reason or another cant help themselves, doesnt understand the role of government and the responsibility of our collective society. I realy do believe that deep dpwn most liberals unerstand where we are coming from, but I think it is just easier and more politically advantageous to pretend we love the rich and hate the poor. Realy is frustrating, but we have become used to it.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 So one told me a long time ago that Repub's were more like the Dem's were at one time and that the Dem's were now more like the socilist were at one time. can't get spell check to work ,hope you are able to understand mis-spelled words.Sorry,brain doesn't work as well as it once did.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>We do make a distinction between the government helping those who dont want to help themselves and those who cant, which seems to anger liberals.<< While YOU may make that distinction (and rightly so), most of the people who you are voting for **clearly** don't. That's what angers and frustrates the average IE non-extremist) liberal. I don't doubt that you feel this way, but you seem to be blind to the actual effects of electing "conservative" politicians to office. Those who can't help themselves are taking a shellacking right now in the House, as programs that are supposed to help them are being eliminated. Not restructured, not reorganized, but completely shut down. Baby plus bathwater, out the window. Meanwhile banks, oil companies, agribusiness conglomerates, etc. are "helping themselves" to outrageous salaries and bonuses even as the government (including the Dems in many cases) continues to subsidize their balance sheets with tax breaks and direct bailouts. One example I spotted this morning: >>An amendment to end a tax loophole for major oil companies, introduced by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), failed in a 251-174 vote on Friday. Democrats aimed to end subsidies to Big Oil as a revenue-booster to protect social programs, but found little support from Republicans. "Republicans once again sided with BP, Exxon and the oil companies, not with the American taxpayer and the poorest Americans most in need of help," Markey said in a statement. "This legislation focuses on just the kind of special interest loophole that should be closed before we open attacks on programs for the poorest Americans."<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/19/house-budget-cuts_n_825405.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...405.html</a> Yes, I'm VERY angry and frustrated about that. And I don't understand why rank-and-file conservatives aren't. Without referring to your Fox News/Rush Limbaugh textbook, PLEASE explain in your own words how this kind of thing in any way helps further the "conservative principles" of fairness, liberty, and smaller more efficient government. Or creates jobs. Or cuts the deficit. Or does pretty much anything other than financing this guy's 6 million dollar paycheck, including the million dollar raise in his bonus just for this year: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/30/exxon-tillerson-idUSN3029124320101130" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...20101130</a> Think how many homeless could be sheltered and fed with the tax money the oil companies aren't paying. Or more efficient managers hired to run problematic government agencies. Or bridges repaired. Or deficits reduced. Then there's this from the same link: >>Some amendments were approved with bipartisan support, such as an effort to kill funding to a Pentagon program to build duplicate fighter jet engines. That amendment, which was supported by the Pentagon, passed on Wednesday in a 233-198 vote. << Not mentioned in this article was that the "bipartisan support" consisted of the Dems plus the Tea Party crowd, to whom I have to give snaps for walking the talk on this one. It's a hopeful sign amidst the clanging chimes of doom, as it were. I hear where you're coming from, PD, and agree with your sentiments as expressed. It's your execution that sucks. Love and hate of rich and poor are not the point ... it's the actions of your guys in Congress. Which can only be ignored if you deliberately seek out news sources that consciously ignore them. ;-)
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Kudos, mawnck, for post #42. Totally nails the problem. Every time I hear the phrase "personal responsibility" from a conservative's lips, I want to pwuke! I am SO SICK of this catch phrase! It's totally meaningless now! Conservatives like PD are living in the past. Sorry, but it's true. You think the fundamentals of our economy remain the same, that this recession will eventually end, our economy will turn around, and business will go back to "normal." No way. It's over. The global economy has completely and irreversibly changed the way we do business and interact with the world. The only way it's going to change is to take corporations out of our political process, and the conservative political sock puppets which answer to them. Jobs started moving overseas two decades ago. Prior to the shift, the post-war baby boom middle class was the economic engine that lifted our country up to the greatest living standard in the world. Jobs were plentiful, and it was easy for most adults to have "personal responsibility" because getting and keeping a decent job wasn't difficult. But now... jobs simply don't get created fast enough to keep up with growing population. And jobs continue to be moved offshore by corporations making record profits. Seriously... the Fortune 500 are sitting on over a TRILLION dollars in CASH. They're just sitting on it, refusing to invest it in new factories or jobs that would help jumpstart the economy again. If/when they do invest it, it's always overseas, with a tax break to boot. Long-time unemployed workers, especially those over 50, will never work again. Fact. There aren't enough jobs available for them to apply for, plus employers are refusing to hire workers who've been unemployed for longer than a few weeks. Even if the economy were to completely turnaround today, with 5 million new jobs springing forth instantaneously, there would still be millions of workers unable to get one. And most likely, it would be those over-50 workers who lost their jobs a year or two ago, through no fault of their own. What are we supposed to do for them? Tell them to go dumpster diving to make ends meet? These people WANT to work. But the jobs aren't there, because the businesses in this country have been given huge incentives to NOT invest their capital. Thanks to the sock puppet politicians bought by campaign contributions, these companies don't pay taxes. If we could penalize them WITH taxes for not investing in our country and helping to create jobs here at home, we'd start to see the economy mend. But by allowing these corporations with RECORD PROFITS to just sit on their cash while they continue to reap tax breaks by investing overseas, we doom our society to third world status. And with the dismantling of social programs for the citizens who cannot make ends meet through no fault of their own, that's precisely where we're heading. Conservatives cannot have it both ways, PD. Either you support the corporations and their bottomless greed while also supporting those once-working Americans who can no longer find work... or you force those corporations to invest in our nation so those once-working Americans can get their livelihoods back. But allowing the corporations to do everything they want to in order to jack up profits even higher at the expense of the citizenry and environment, while also telling those who are barely surviving that they're out of luck and should get used to the idea of lifelong poverty, is WRONG. It's wrong morally, ethically, and spiritually. It's the most anti-Christian thing a supposedly Christian nation can do. And by continuing to vote for these conservative Republicans and tea party candidates, you're helping to destroy the very democracy you claim to support. You simply cannot have it both ways.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Couldn't have said it better, mawnck. I know lots of conservatives, and with rare exceptions they're fine people, even charitable on a personal level. But there's a major disconnect with what the people they elect are doing, and the consequences of them.
Originally Posted By disneysharks2 Mr. X said: "***what are your solutions? can you lay them out right here and right now?" Solutions to what? You need to be a bit more specific,then I would be happy to give the answers to you?
Originally Posted By disneysharks2 >>Every time I hear the phrase "personal responsibility" from a conservative's lips, I want to pwuke!<< A liberal not liking the phrase "personal responsibility" What a shock!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<A liberal not liking the phrase "personal responsibility">> Typical conservative response by taking a statement out of its original context. I only hate the phrase being used by conservatives. When a conservative utters "personal responsibility," it has no meaning. It's just another derogatory insult towards non-conservatives, typically progressives: "Those stinking liberals who are whining about being unemployed are lazy shithead elitist freeloaders who could find a job today if they got off the couch and bothered to go apply for a job. There are literally hundreds of jobs for each and every one of these bums! The jobs do exist! All these liberal pantywaists need to stop their belly-aching and start looking. They need to grow up and get some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in their lives. What a bunch of losers." That's why I hate conservatives using that phrase. This is precisely how they use it, in their weak efforts to distance themselves from the economic mess they allowed to happen under Bush. But you already knew that, didn't you Beau?
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >That's why I hate conservatives using that phrase. This is precisely how they use it, in their weak efforts to distance themselves from the economic mess they allowed to happen under Bush.< Most conservatives will also use the Lao Tzu quote "Give a Man a Fish, Feed Him For a Day. Teach a Man to Fish, Feed Him For a Lifetime" (which I find funny considering most would hate Taoism) And then proceed to explain how liberals don't want anyone to work and will just keep giving fish to people, while conservatives allow people the opportunity to learn. When in reality they should be saying... "Give a man a fish, and then make it illegal to teach fishing because that would cut into my profits."
Originally Posted By hopemax That's my favorite quote for this stuff. Exactly how do you teach a man to fish without making sure he has a pole, bait, proper instruction? And are these "teachers" really going to be satisfied with having someone else have THEIR skills which they use to take care of their family. If you are a fisherman, suddenly having 10 fisherman means YOU are selling less fish.
Originally Posted By mawnck And the beat goes on .... >>The House of Representatives has been cutting like crazy! Down with Planned Parenthood and PBS! We can’t afford to worry about mercury contamination! Safety nets are too expensive! But keep your hands off the Defense Department’s budget to sponsor Nascar racers.<< >>Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, who sponsored an amendment eliminating the military’s Nascar connection, said it could save taxpayers “tens of millions of dollars.” She got a flood of angry letters and one death threat. Also, her amendment was rejected, 148 to 281. The opponents didn’t bother with much debate. “This amendment is about politics in certain districts for certain groups of people,” said Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a tad obliquely.<< >>“Everything is on the table. We’re broke,” said Boehner. But the table is mainly crowded with stuff the Republicans didn’t like to begin with. Family-planning money and environmental protection, but not oil tax breaks or Nascar sponsorships. “Sesame Street” is fair game, but the Daytona 500 is untouchable.<< <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opinion/19collins.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...ins.html</a>
