Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[CathCentrist]

IMO, the radical right extremist thought has invaded catholicism on these boards…ie, Dems =Godless and other such inane nonsense. IMO, both are godly AND godless, and I am leary of any group who claims theirs is the one closer to God’s heart. Reminds me of the temple priests in the bible and where Jesus says the ones who say Lord, lord the loudest, are the ones he has no use for.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

IMO, the radical right extremist thought has invaded catholicism on these boards…ie, Dems =Godless and other such inane nonsense. IMO, both are godly AND godless, and I am leary of any group who claims theirs is the one closer to God’s heart. Reminds me of the temple priests in the bible and where Jesus says the ones who say Lord, lord the loudest, are the ones he has no use for.

 

[SoCalRC]

The point is the policy of the left and how they use taxes. They spend our money in the name of humanity/charity. It is not a charitable act for them to steal your money through taxes and fund abortion “charities.”

I’m not sure I see the distinction. Discretionary spending has exploded in the last seven years. Does morality really hinge on ‘taxes’ alone? I would think that fiscal responsibility would be of importance. Lowering taxes in a time of war has doubled our national debt to about 9 trillion dollars in just seven years. This is, quite literally, stealing from children not yet born.

Both seem to be vile attacks on the unborn to me.

I’ve not heard this on talk radio but from interveiws in Airforce and Army publications with officers in Iraq and other declasified reports that are in public circulation. Still 14 of 15 resolutions failed not to mentions thousands of Iraqi people dead under Saddams. So would it have been better to turn a blind eye? What about the churches and missionaries moving in to sperad the news?

I’d be interested in some citations. Since doing two combat tours in Vietnam I’ve remained very active in a number of vet groups. I’ve also followed the results of each of the US’s post invasion investigations.

Saddam’s violence against Iraqi citizens is a seperate subject. And not one in which the US looks particular good (at least to me). For example, we should not have been surprised that he gassed the Kurds, since we sold him the materials and the technology. But that is a chronic problem we have, we make ‘friends of convenience’ with little thought about the long term consequences - much like our pecular relationship today. The 9/11 hijackers, along with money and assistance, are largely of Saud origin and islamic terrorists rely on the haven of Pakinstan - but, again, for convenience (and self interest) both are currently ‘allies’ in our so-called “war on terror”.

 

[cynic]

It is not freedom, cynic, when** the government is forcibly garnishing our wages in order to give others access to the same services free of charge.** It certainly is not freedom when we have to shell out a large chunk of our income for public schools to teach other children, and then shell out another large chunk for the private ones we select. And what about the poor? They don’t get to choose private school at all; it’s only for those who can afford to pay for both public and private who get to send their kids to private. Where’s the freedom in that?

The governments most certainly DO control access to these things. Point in case: If our taxes were not so high, my husband and I could afford the therapy for our brain-injured daughter that she so desperately needs. **But all that money is going into social programs for the government to distribute to other families as they see fit. **Also, if our taxes were not so high (or if we even had school vouchers), we could afford to send my son to Catholic school, rather than the sewer that the public school has become.

Government’s job was never to educate us or provide healthcare. Government’s job is to protect FREEDOM. It is not Government’s business where I choose to send my children for school, or where we get our medical care. PERIOD.

I’m not going to bother arguing against this. It seems as if the ‘right’ on these forums refers to a combination of economic libertarianism (which I dislike) and moral authoritarianism ( good unless taken to extremes)

But if you want to use personal anecdotes, then if it weren’t for state funded healthcare in my country my mother would have died of cancer, which she happened when I was still at school.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know if there are too many “right-wingers” though, to hearken back to the original question. There seems to be plenty on both sides.

Even one “centrist.” It’s like the old Johnny Cash song about the one on the right is on the left.

 

[Filius99993]

I don’t know if there are too many “right-wingers” though, to hearken back to the original question. There seems to be plenty on both sides.

Even one “centrist.” It’s like the old Johnny Cash song about the one on the right is on the left.

Although I’m not really on the right spectrum, I think it’s better to have too many than too few. It’s good to get to look at things from all angles.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Lowering taxes in a time of war has doubled our national debt to about 9 trillion dollars in just seven years. This is, quite literally, stealing from children not yet born.

Both seem to be vile attacks on the unborn to me.

Hmmm, I wonder if someone in the white house has come up with a brilliant Machiavellian strategy of giving the Democrats a way to finally embrace Pro-Life? To make up that 9 trillion dollar deficit we only a few choices:

1. Increase taxes and cut entitlements
2. Devalue to the dollar and reduce the value of debt
3. Increase the number of taxpayers
4. Inflate ourselves out of debt (variation on 2)
5. Sell more debt then at the first sign of foreign trade shenanigans declare all debt cancelled
6. Won’t get anyone elected
7. This has been happening but it can’t go much lower than it is
8. This has been happening to some degree but it panics the markets
9. They are on to us and stopped buying debt and are dumping dollars as fast as they can

This leaves 3) - Increase taxpayers. That means they have to legalize illegals, convert them to voting Democrats and then when they see that social services costs quadruple and they have no alternative but to start overthrowing Roe Vs. Wade and promote making more constituents, er, babies to increase the voter and tax pool.

So - its door #3! The Right to Life movement is destined to be high-jacked and made into the Every Life Deserves to Be Taxed movement.

James

 

[cynic]

\

The governments most certainly DO control access to these things. Point in case: If our taxes were not so high, my husband and I could afford the therapy for our brain-injured daughter that she so desperately needs. **But all that money is going into social programs for the government to distribute to other families as they see fit. **Also, if our taxes were not so high (or if we even had school vouchers), we could afford to send my son to Catholic school, rather than the sewer that the public school has become.

but aren’t vouchers are another form of public funding from taxes? There are plenty of people working for low wages who could never afford private education for one child no matter how big a tax break they get.

 

[Al_Masetti]

“Debt” and “deficit” are two totally different things.

If you borrow money, that’s debt. It falls in the “asset & liability” classification. It shows up in what is called the “balance sheet”.

If you spend more than you take in, that’s deficit. It falls in to the operating revenues category. It falls in what is called the “income statement”. If you spend less than you take in, then you generate a surplus … also known as a profit. [Non-profit organizations DO generate profits … but they call it a surplus.] A deficit is also called “loss”.

AND, there are two more ways to get rid of the debt and / or deficit. One is to grow the economy … [get rid of the “zero sum game” idea].

The other is to reduce tax RATES which stimulates economic growth and which results in greater total amounts of tax revenue collections.

Another is to sell assets to generate cash which can be used to retire debt from the balance sheet or to offset deficits / losses in the income statement.

Another is to reduce the size and economic burden of government. Lots and lots of ways of doing that, ranging from eliminating Medicaid fraud, which is a huge number … to streamlining military procurement, which adds to the cost of the stuff the military buys and greatly increases pipeline time. Or selling off assets … stockpiles of stuff left over from WW1 or old military bases that were originally established during the 1800’s but which are now prime real estate with no military value. Or quit filling the strategic petroleum reserve at super peak prices.

Government bureaucracy has no incentive to perform efficiently. If a corporation screws up, they go bankrupt and out of business, so they have an incentive to perform well. Competition, and all that. Which is why Boeing and Airbus keep building better and better airplanes and why Intel and AMD fight so hard to build better computer chips.

But, if a government bureaucracy overspends or fails … then they just get more money and more people.

You and I and most companies buy stuff from catalogs and price lists. We may even buy stuff second-hand… But the government writes new and original specifications for most of the things they buy. Writing specs takes months or years. And half the time, the procurement people don’t understand their own specs and don’t enforce them.

OR, they have a perfectly good asset, such as the C-5 cargo plane, which needs modern fuel-efficient engines [and because you can’t get parts for the old engines anymore unless they are custom made], but they gold plate the upgrade so that in addition to new engines they get all new electronics, all new electric motors, all new everydarnedthing, until the price for the upgrade is more than the cost of a new plane.

[don’tgetmestarted]

Hmmm, I wonder if someone in the white house has come up with a brilliant Machiavellian strategy of giving the Democrats a way to finally embrace Pro-Life? To make up that 9 trillion dollar deficit we only a few choices:

1. Increase taxes and cut entitlements
2. Devalue to the dollar and reduce the value of debt
3. Increase the number of taxpayers
4. Inflate ourselves out of debt (variation on 2)
5. Sell more debt then at the first sign of foreign trade shenanigans declare all debt cancelled
6. Won’t get anyone elected
7. This has been happening but it can’t go much lower than it is
8. This has been happening to some degree but it panics the markets
9. They are on to us and stopped buying debt and are dumping dollars as fast as they can

This leaves 3) - Increase taxpayers. That means they have to legalize illegals, convert them to voting Democrats and then when they see that social services costs quadruple and they have no alternative but to start overthrowing Roe Vs. Wade and promote making more constituents, er, babies to increase the voter and tax pool.

So - its door #3! The Right to Life movement is destined to be high-jacked and made into the Every Life Deserves to Be Taxed movement.

James

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t know if there are too many “right-wingers” though, to hearken back to the original question. There seems to be plenty on both sides.

Even one “centrist.” It’s like the old Johnny Cash song about the one on the right is on the left.

I agree. There are plenty of voices from both sides…and those who think they are “centrists.” I’ve seen charges in both directions questioning the others’ catholicism.

Perhaps the reason those on the Left think there are too many “right-wingers” is because their arguments are so easily dismissed by those on the Right?

 

[SoCalRC]

"
The other is to reduce tax RATES which stimulates economic growth and which results in greater total amounts of tax revenue collections.

Didn’t we just play that game? Now we have massive debt, massive deficits, inherently tight cash, significant inflation, and a looming recession.

I hear a lot of invocation of Ronald Reagan’s name in this years political season. This makes sense, since one party really does not want to run as the incumbant party at this time. But has it escaped everyone’s attention that Reagan had the good sense to raise taxes when faced with obvious economic reality?

This is a problem that I have when politics and faith/idology start to mix. We get confused between measurable fact and mantra. I don’t care what party they claim to belong to, right now, ‘neoconservatives’ and ‘supply siders’ need to face the fact that their belief systems have gone from theory to apparent failed policies. Telling me that we can export democracy at the point of a gun or that things will be rosy if we hit the national credit card even harder is like telling me we’ll all fly if we just “clap louder”.

Wishful thinking is understandable. Anyone who has an older sibling probably can think of a case where they were convinced that an obvious outcome would not occur (‘it really won’t hurt?’). But having done the stupid deed and paid the price, still sticking tenaciously to the original flawed reasoning seems to go beyond gullible and into a whole different realm.

 

[ribozyme]

Hmmm, I wonder if someone in the white house has come up with a brilliant Machiavellian strategy of giving the Democrats a way to finally embrace Pro-Life? To make up that 9 trillion dollar deficit we only a few choices:

1. Increase taxes and cut entitlements
2. Devalue to the dollar and reduce the value of debt
3. Increase the number of taxpayers
4. Inflate ourselves out of debt (variation on 2)
5. Sell more debt then at the first sign of foreign trade shenanigans declare all debt cancelled

James

No one never mentions putting a time table to pull out of Iraq. That eats a lot of money too…

Guess that is just an anathema to neoconservatives.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No one never mentions putting a time table to pull out of Iraq. That eats a lot of money too…

Guess that is just an anathema to neoconservatives.

Hmm, I don’t think too many nation’s citizens would think to go into wars with the notion of playing it like a football game with 4 quarters, a half-time show, a game-clock and pre/post & in-game commentary from the audience.

If George Washington had set a deadline for withdrawing from the revolutionary war with the British we’d all still be subjects of the crown and sending tax to England.

James

 

[ribozyme]

Hmm, I don’t think too many nation’s citizens would think to go into wars with the notion of playing it like a football game with 4 quarters, a half-time show, a game-clock and pre/post & in-game commentary from the audience.

If George Washington had set a deadline for withdrawing from the revolutionary war with the British we’d all still be subjects of the crown and sending tax to England.

James

But I am pointing out that conservatives always blame entitlements before military.

But the Revolutionary War was expensive too. Remember Shay’s Rebellion?

 

[ribozyme]

Hmm, I don’t think too many nation’s citizens would think to go into wars with the notion of playing it like a football game with 4 quarters, a half-time show, a game-clock and pre/post & in-game commentary from the audience.

If George Washington had set a deadline for withdrawing from the revolutionary war with the British we’d all still be subjects of the crown and sending tax to England.

James

But I am pointing out that conservatives always blame entitlements before military. But now the Iraq War is you break it you buy it.

But the Revolutionary War was expensive too. Remember Shay’s Rebellion?

 

[CentralFLJames]

But I am pointing out that conservatives always blame entitlements before military. But now the Iraq War is you break it you buy it.

But the Revolutionary War was expensive too. Remember Shay’s Rebellion?

There is plenty of “blame” to go around. Intimately linked to the military are entitlements. Military entitlements are huge - retirement benefits, lifelong medical - and not to mention VA services caring for the wounded for the rest of their lives. When I advocate cutting entitlements I am looking at the whole ball of wax. I want MUCH smaller government - not government and government spending as a default employer for many (30% of GDP). Military spending right now is “fair” at only 15% of budget.
But look at what we spend on “entitlements”: Social Security 22%, Medicare 11%, Medicaid 6%, Other Mandatory entitlement 6%! That is 45% of the national budget up in smoke every year! That’s 400% more than what a few of us give as charity to our churches each year (10%). Add in Interest of 11% of budget to pay the debt at “break even” and you and I are working over 6 months of a year as slaves to someone else or participating in a ponzi scheme that will never outlive us long enough to pay us what we paid in. We are going broke so fast its pathetic.

As for the revolutionary war being expensive note too that the outcome of that was the world freedom we have today and the largest economy the world has ever seen. The problem now is conditions are so irresponsible that if we took the original founding fathers arguments for revolting (tyranny, irresponsible treatment of citizens, abuses etc.) we are getting to the same conditions in this country. But the modern way of revolting is not to go to war - the modern way of warfare is economic. We stop working and shut down government so they can’t spend then reorganize.

James

 

[Al_Masetti]

For the record, military “entitlements” … retirement, lifelong medical … etc. You only get those if you retire. And the vast majority of members of the military do not serve long enough to retire.

The word “entitlements” is also a misnomer.

An entitlement is something that is given to someone who may or may not have earned it by virtue of service.

If someone spends their career at a private company (or a government agency), their retirement pension and (if they get it) lifelong medical are parts of their “contract”. It’s part of the employment or service compensation package. Not an entitlement.

As for Veterans benefits … well, if you get injured on the job, you get disability and medical benefits. And if the job involves getting blown up or shot or stabbed or mangled in a plane crash, well, the members of the military deserve no less than what police and firefighters get if they are hurt on the job.

Military spending is about 3% of GDP. Edging toward 4% … [possibly the LOWEST percentage of GDP in American history] … NOT 30% of GDP.

All government spending is up around / close to 40% of GDP. The military portion is tiny. And the military function is one of the primary purposes of the government … at least as one of the enumerated responsibilities listed and described in the Constitution.

It’s fun to let ourselves get all worked up, but please, lets be a little precise.

Re-read the Constitution. It’s an amazingly brief document. An easy read. And ask your public librarian to get Levin’s book, “Men in Black” and Schlafly’s book, “The Supremacists” for some further places to look on what’s been going on with the Constitution. And why the government has become so large and so intrusive.

Others have been actively protesting … Neal Boortz, for one. www.boortz.com He’s got some interesting books out. [Check www.booktv.org ]

And Glenn Beck … he’s got a new book. “An Inconvenient Book”… and he has both radio and television shows.

And here’s another “protest site”:

chooseflattax.com/

There is plenty of “blame” to go around. Intimately linked to the military are entitlements. Military entitlements are huge - retirement benefits, lifelong medical - and not to mention VA services caring for the wounded for the rest of their lives. When I advocate cutting entitlements I am looking at the whole ball of wax. I want MUCH smaller government - not government and government spending as a default employer for many (30% of GDP). Military spending right now is “fair” at only 15% of budget.
But look at what we spend on “entitlements”: Social Security 22%, Medicare 11%, Medicaid 6%, Other Mandatory entitlement 6%! That is 45% of the national budget up in smoke every year! That’s 400% more than what a few of us give as charity to our churches each year (10%). Add in Interest of 11% of budget to pay the debt at “break even” and you and I are working over 6 months of a year as slaves to someone else or participating in a ponzi scheme that will never outlive us long enough to pay us what we paid in. We are going broke so fast its pathetic.

As for the revolutionary war being expensive note too that the outcome of that was the world freedom we have today and the largest economy the world has ever seen. The problem now is conditions are so irresponsible that if we took the original founding fathers arguments for revolting (tyranny, irresponsible treatment of citizens, abuses etc.) we are getting to the same conditions in this country. But the modern way of revolting is not to go to war - the modern way of warfare is economic. We stop working and shut down government so they can’t spend then reorganize.

James

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Oh, let’s not leave out the other major Leftist issues!

How about socialized medicine? Should the government be in charge of health care, or should that be left to the free market? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

So they are completely unmotivated by the sizeable political contributions made by pharmaceutical companies? What a relief!

How about the right to bear arms? Should all guns be outlawed (except, of course, those that criminals buy underground and use on their victims), or should private citizens have the right to defend themselves and their families in their own homes? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

Again, I’m relieved to know that the dumptrucks full of money that the gun manufacturers and lobbyists park on their lawns is totally unrelated to their support of the “right to bear arms”.

What about affirmative action? Should the goverment require companies to hire individuals solely based on the color of their skin, or should companies be allowed the freedom to choose the applicants who are best equipped to do the job? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom here, too.

OK – I’m with you on that one.

What about welfare? Should the goverment be allowed to pick the pockets of private citizens and redistribute the money (mismanaging the larger portion of it) as they see fit, or should the people of God have the freedom to give as they choose to the needy, and the freedom to withhold their money from those who would exploit the system by refusing to work? Again, right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

A just society helps those who need help. True assistance involves helping people get off of welfare, but there is legitimate need out there. Any society that turns its back on its citizens in need is doing itself a disservice.

What about public education? Should the goverment be in charge of educating our children, teaching them not only reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also social doctrine and life values, or should parents have the freedom to choose to which school their money will go? Right-wingers come down on the side of freedom.

So the contributions of evangelical fundamentalists who want creationism taught in public schools is totally unrelated to the rightist support of school vouchers?

I could go on and on…

The truth is, aside from all the moral issues (and they are many, and of highest importance), most Conservatives seem to recognize that God gave us freedom, and the place of Goverment is to protect that freedom, not to dictate how we ought to live our lives!

Liberalism, in practice, is not about being liberated: it is about forming a big government and restricting freedom. It is about elitists deciding what’s good for us, and what’s not good. It’s a parental, domineering philosophy that presumes to know better than the common man.

I’m not by any means a leftist (or a rightist, for that matter), and your rhetoric still manages to offend me.

It is precisely this kind of disingenuous misrepresentation of one side by the other that fosters so much ill will in our political process and keeps so many voters in the dark – not to mention those who are completely alienated.

Who are you to categorize all liberals as seeking to restrict freedom? That is not what liberalism is “about”; these are generally honest, well-meaning people who want what they think is best for America, as are most conservatives.

Whether they are right is a completely different issue – you have no right to characterize them as moustache-twisting, cartoonish supervillains who are out to destroy democracy.

Peace,
Dante

 

[CentralFLJames]

For the record, military “entitlements” … retirement, lifelong medical … etc. You only get those if you retire. And the vast majority of members of the military do not serve long enough to retire.

The word “entitlements” is also a misnomer.

You have set me on the wrong side of this argument - a side I am not comfortable being on. I am a supporter of the military in general. But apart from military spending which is 15% of the national budget which is “reasonable” (but its based on income not GDP - huge difference in base) we spend over 45% of the budget on pure entitlements. Look at the numbers above - social security, medicare, medicaid etc. These have nothing to do with “earning” them - they are pure overhead. If you or I had invested what we pay here at an early age into our own retirement programs we would easily be millionaires at age 65 from compounding interest. The system is set up as a deficit benefit (after inflation, and actuary tables) to give you much less than you ever paid in. Government is banking on you dieing before you get paid out. Given the blatant theft and systemic immorality and the leakage caused by mismanagement, corruption, indirect “taking” by illegal immigrants, bureaucratic overhead etc. it becomes a self-eating watermelon that needs to be shut down and pushed back to where it belongs - self responsibility and family caring for each other.

If you have ever worked in the “real world” and had to pay your own insurance you would see these entitlements not as things you earned but as expenses necessary to mitigate the risk to income generation. They are things necessary to improve one’s ability to survive. A responsible person saves in surplus years for his own future. Essentially these expenses are an investment in “self” in the event one “breaks down” and can’t earn income. Such a private sector person who is responsible for self ironically pay taxes to support those who “take” or benefit from our own labor and our own responsibility to insure our own production.

Ever have someone force you to receive services you did not want or ask for? It happens a lot in some cities where “car window washers” show up at stop lights and clean your windshield then demand payment. The same thing is happening in government. We are forced to pay for services many of us never will use and don’t want. We need user taxes rather than just whole-scale forced services for things most of us don’t need or want. Other things can be better run by commercial. Post office could all be subcontracted out to commercial for example.

Essentially a “self-entitled” person working outside of the government is underwriting himself by buying his own insurance and entitlements to the benefit of those “taking” from government (and us private citizens). Rarely do entitled people produce anything of value to the nation other than make a dependency to be “serviced”. Creating a co-dependency between haves and have-nots is a terribly unfair and exploitative economic system that motivates a perpetual parasitic dependency that is a form of economic slavery. Democrats want more of this.

Look around and smell the coffee. There are very very few companies who offer pensions or life long benefits anymore. Everything is shifting to a 401K or IRA sort of benefit system. There is plenty of labor to be had for cheap in the global community that does not demand benefits so domestic companies are outsourcing more and more. The domestic hiring is using ever more temporary domestic labor who are pure hourly rates with NO benefits at all. The bold new economy is founded on a self-serve system of individuals with have-degree-will-travel laborers who are netting less real income and benefits (after inflation and taxes) than at anytime before in history. To finance this model they are using their equity gaps arising in their debt backed assets (eg. homes) as an ATM machine to fund the personal deficits and encouraging a higher debt load to get a larger gap. That represents financial risk that is ripe for system instability in the aggregate. As we speak it’s all now falling apart all around us as everyone is drowning in debt and the assets have become illiquid and debts can’t be serviced. Taxing municipalities can not raise taxes to pay for decaying infrastructure. The house of cards is tumbling all around us. The traditional way the US has got out of this was to use its last remaining asset - its military. Systemically it is inevitable.

It is just time now to pay the piper and deal with the transient migration of wealth, the inevitable social impacts that this country and the rest of the interlinked global economic system will soon face. We are in the first phase of a massive natural wealth redistribution that will sweep the planet. Those holding debt are going to be wiped out. Those smart enough to help others solve debt problems (debt mitigation) are going to become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams as they extract their vig to move the equity gap in houses to something else that gives the illusion of another free lunch. We never learn.

James

 

[steveandersen]

Hmm, I don’t think too many nation’s citizens would think to go into wars with the notion of playing it like a football game with 4 quarters, a half-time show, a game-clock and pre/post & in-game commentary from the audience.

If George Washington had set a deadline for withdrawing from the revolutionary war with the British we’d all still be subjects of the crown and sending tax to England.

James

Interesting, the invocation of Washington.

Since he was resisting an occupying power, time was on his side.
He just had to keep an Army-in-being until the enemy had spent enough time, treasure, blood, and political will so that continuing on was no longer a viable option.

Given our origins I’m not sure why the US keeps forgetting that valuable lesson.