|
Post by Hunny on Dec 4, 2012 11:35:09 GMT
This is why republicans are despicable. This is what they do:
"Don't make us pay any taxes, take it from the sick and the poor instead!" Republicans make fiscal cliff counter-offer
US Republicans have countered White House plans to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff", with a $2.2tn (£1.4tn) proposal including changes to benefits. The plan would cut $600bn from federal health programmes and decrease cost of living adjustments to Social Security. President Barack Obama offered a $1.6tn deal last week that involved tax rises and spending cuts. The White House quickly rejected the Republican offer, saying it did not meet "the test of balance". READ MORE...
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 27, 2012 16:31:10 GMT
UPDATE: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20853624The Republicans have refused to cooperate and then irresponsibly left, magically saying it's the Democrats fault. I'm sick of the Republicans. I think we should do something about them!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 27, 2012 22:29:07 GMT
The Republicans are the good guys. The Democrats are the bad guys.
Obama is trying to get the country on the road to ruin. The House Republicans are trying to save America.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 28, 2012 0:18:50 GMT
They're trying to evade paying taxes, and their irresponsible actions are about to push us off the fiscal cliff is what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 18:38:30 GMT
The Republicans are the good guys. The Democrats are the bad guys. Obama is trying to get the country on the road to ruin. The House Republicans are trying to save America. No, Bush Admirer, the Democrats are the good guys. The Republicans are the bad guys. Obama is trying to rescue the country from the mess the Republicans got it into. The House Republicans are trying to ruin America.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 29, 2012 1:54:53 GMT
We disagree. I have 100% confidence in the Republicans. 0% confidence in the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 29, 2012 12:04:32 GMT
I propose that it's this way: You don't REALLY believe the Republican party is in any way okay based on how it always behaves (ie, impoverishing Americans then kicking them after their down, ie wrecking our economic base and pillaging us into financial ruin, ie, lying that someone else did it, ie, peddling propaganda that helping people is 'evil' because they dont care who suffers or dies so long as they have all the money, ie, letting us go over the cliff rather than simply paying their fair share of taxes, ie killing over a million people in another country just to steal their oil and for no other reason, etc etc etc...)
No one could actually approve of that. Nope. What it is is you just like being rich and in charge of the army, bossing the world around.
Now if none of what I've said sounds familiar, then here's my other suggestion: you've entirely - hook, line and sinker - been taken in by their propaganda, which is after all continuously there for people to get fooled by and start parroting.
I don't mean to insult. In fact if you're either my a or b suggestion, then you in some way at least come by your beliefs honestly. But beliefs is all they are, they're not reality.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 29, 2012 18:35:45 GMT
I have a good friend in Boston who happens to be Jewish. He sent this to me and it is the best look at our politics that I've seen anywhere.
Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by Rabbi Pruzansky from Teaneck , N.J. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck , New Jersey .
The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama’s future at America ’s expense and at Israel ’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2012 18:57:40 GMT
That's a very interesting article, Bush Admirer, and like so many political diatribes it's got a lot of good things in it.
The question is I suppose what sort of society you want.
Do you want a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or not?
Do you want a world where being poor is more or less assumed to mean the same as being a criminal?
Do you want a world where one of the richest nations on earth has homeless people and beggars?
Or do you want a world where people are looked after if they get ill regardless of their income, allowed to live with dignity and to make their way without being constantly terrified they won;t be able to find the money to eat?
Do you want a world where people are rewarded for hard work rather than npenalised for it (because low paid workers always worke HARDER than the Fortune 1000 CEOs and could probably do THEIR job just as well as the privileged elite who have NOT worked hard for their money and have NOT earned it but have got it basically through being crooks, through inheritance or through govenment handouts in the form of contaracts and subsidies and tax breaks and so on?
Capitalism is the religion of the Mafia and the Republicans are nothing more than the political arm of a criminal conspiaray against the United States/
Freedom? Republicans don't believe in freedom.
They're every bit as much the enemies of liberty as fascists and communists.
All they want to do is to keep their stolen money and make the poor suffer so they can carry on living like the gangsters they are.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 30, 2012 1:42:05 GMT
Donna - We don't agree. It is not the government's job to feed, house, clothe, and medicate the people. America is the land of opportunity, not the land of a free ride.
Let's leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 30, 2012 10:41:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Feb 28, 2013 12:47:13 GMT
where we are now: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21610897Here's the stupidity: The greedy rich people , who bought and are the the republicans - shifted the tax burden exclusively onto the working class, but then sold all their jobs, resulting in not enough revenue being collected and so debt and despair as we have now - and when asked to simply pay a small percentage more (than the half to no taxes at all businesses pay) they balk that they cant be expected to pay any taxes because lie lie BS lie and of course they'd be eating spam if they had to pay a hundred grand out of the 2 billion they get yearly - so just tax the working class some more - you know the one we sold all their jobs and depressed the minimum wage so far down that we have literally MILLIONS of homeless in America (760,000 who live outside plus 5.9 million who cant leave mom and dad's house normally click (And yes, that does count as homeless... I recall Bush Sr. loved the idea of L'aisse Affaire Capitalism (ie, "whatever happens happens"). He thought - as did his father's handlers (the Reagan people) - that if you dont have total mayhem no rules economy, then you're communist *lemon face at the idiocy*. So this is what their "deregulating" was about (to legalize corporate crime and remove all regulations designed to protect us from their averice). And so this is where we are now. A nation with no money and no jobs. Because it's all in untouchable bank accounts in the Cayman Islands; after all, it isnt as if the rich - or anyone- could ever spend the trillions they took. It's just too much money; there arent enough needs, or things to buy - so they box the money and tell us they need more! (or they transfer it into ownership, and hey, who doesnt want to be owned? That's 'freedom' and "the American dream" right? - to be owned? - to be wage slaves? I remember learning that the first civilization in Mesopotamia ended when - after a few took all the money and power away from the people - the people fought back. They killed the ******s and took back their money! I was also taught that all civilizations rise and wane and then get replaced; that they all follow a similar 'life cycle', pattern. So what point are we at in that cycle? or more to what I'm wondering: WHEN the hell are the passive gutless boobs who are the Americans going to fight back? When? Don't they think this is intolerable? Obscene? Unthinkable to allow? mm...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 18:06:42 GMT
Donna - We don't agree. It is not the government's job to feed, house, clothe, and medicate the people. America is the land of opportunity, not the land of a free ride. Let's leave it at that. Well, if I got what you're saying right then, the way you see it is like this. The Democrats broadly want to help poor people and to pay for that by increasing taxes on the rich. The Republicans broadly want to help rich people and to pay for tax cuts for them by cutting funding to the poor. So basically then the Democrats want to take from the rich and give to the poor while the Republicans want to take from the poor and give to the rich? Is that what you're basically saying?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 1, 2013 1:21:35 GMT
No Donna. The Republicans don't want to take from the poor. They just don't want to have their own funds confiscated by the Democrats and then used to buy votes from the poor.
Can't you see that the Democrats have only one objective? It is staying in power.
Pretty outrageous for them to confiscate funds from their political opponents to use against them.
Obama is riding around in Airforce One, taking six or eight vacations a year, living it up in the White House, enjoying gourmet meals prepared by his private chef, and being chauffeured every where he goes. Helping the poor is the furthest thing from his mind. Enabling Michelle and her friends to party in Spain at a luxury resort at government expense is higher on his priority list. Those people who voted for Obama can best be described as dupes because they've been duped.
|
|