PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives should be thanking liberals...



nAz
10-04-2004, 08:33 AM
I was just thinking that when a Conservative wakes up in the morning and breathes in that morning fresh air and drinks that clean glass of water shouldn't he/she thanks god that a bunch of liberals pushed for legislation (EPA) that protects our water supply and help cut pollution from autos and coal burning plants.
and when the Conservative has to go to the doctor should they not thank liberal (unions) for pushing to get health care from their employers to pay for that expensive medical bill. im sure there are a lot of other thing Cons can thank Libs for just like there a few thingslibs can thank cons for. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
anyway it was just a thought i thank god there are liberals out there looking out for all of mankind.

hondo
10-04-2004, 10:21 AM
[Good post. Makes me proud to be a liberal. Haven't
read rest of posts yet. I'm sure you'll get hammered.



quote=nAz] I was just thinking that when a Conservative wakes up in the morning and breathes in that morning fresh air and drinks that clean glass of water shouldn't he/she thanks god that a bunch of liberals pushed for legislation (EPA) that protects our water supply and help cut pollution from autos and coal burning plants.
and when the Conservative has to go to the doctor should they not thank liberal (unions) for pushing to get health care from their employers to pay for that expensive medical bill. im sure there are a lot of other thing Cons can thank Libs for just like there a few thingslibs can thank cons for. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
anyway it was just a thought i thank god there are liberals out there looking out for all of mankind. <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
10-04-2004, 11:49 AM
when my employer goes bankrupt because the unions drove them to it, I will thank the liberals for my unemployment check.
And when I can't find a doctor because liberal lawyers like John Edwards made medical insurance unaffordable, I will give them a salute as well.

nAz
10-04-2004, 12:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I will thank the liberals for my unemployment check.
And when I can't find a doctor because liberal lawyers like John Edwards made medical insurance unaffordable, I will give them a salute as well. <hr /></blockquote>

yes you should thank them for your Unemployment check many people have survived on that to feed themselves and their families while another job came around, i wouldn't blame unions for every reason why a Company may go bankrupt. some of it has to do with poor management and failure of gov to protect them from cheap over sea labor. BTW remember how workers Suffered under brutal working conditions before unions came alone. Hey thats another thing we can thank them for they stopped Companies from hiring underage kids. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

about Lawyers your right a lot of them got greedy and may have hurt a lot of good Doctors and hopefully thing will change in that department

Fair_Play
10-04-2004, 12:22 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Conservatives are not interested in destroying the environment and ignoring the issue. They have an interest in their communities and in getting re-elected. The real issue is that the <font color="blue">environemental groups have succeded in portraying conservatives as in the pocket of big business and anti-environment </font color> . Anyone who tries to reform the regulatory system gets branded as anti-environment <font color="blue"> even if the end result would be better than the current situation </font color> . The media has bought the line and reproduces it on demand.

Conservative = One thing: <font color="red"> Evil
</font color>
Liberal = Two things: <font color="blue">Limousine, or Free Loader
</font color>

Ah, the mystery of it all!

Fair Play

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2004, 12:26 PM
nAz,

When I sit down at the end of the year and see how many thousands of dollars I paid I always thank the liberals.

Wally &lt;~~ collected unemployment one week in 31 years

Ross
10-04-2004, 01:01 PM
Steve, your employer has a union?

pooltchr
10-04-2004, 01:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Steve, your employer has a union? <hr /></blockquote>

Not this one! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I was thinking specifically about US Airways when I wrote that one.

nAz
10-04-2004, 01:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> nAz,

When I sit down at the end of the year and see how many thousands of dollars I paid I always thank the liberals.

Wally &lt;~~ collected unemployment one week in 31 years <font color="red"> Wow that is awesome my man what line of work were or are you in?</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

sort of gives you a warn fuzzy feeling deep inside huh wally knowing that your taxes are being spent to help poor people? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Fair_Play
10-04-2004, 03:33 PM
The more poor people we can produce, the greater need for Democrat politicians to 'help' them..

The Works Progress Administration must have had it all wrong, that is why the Liberal lawyers now say it is 'Unconstitutional' to require welfare recipients to learn a trade by working.

Boy, those idiot WWII politicians, wonder how the heck they could ever have won a war back then, when it cost <font color="blue"> <font color="red"> </font color> in two weeks </font color> <font color="blue"> more than the total price of fighting in Iraq to date? </font color>but, heck, then we were only fighting for our survival.

"Step right up, get your ham hocks over here" (and while you are at it, fill out this voter registration card, sonny).

Whatever happened to 'Intestinal Fortitude' and self reliance??

Do NOT teach a man to fish, convince him that he belongs
in the soup line!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fair Play

Ross
10-04-2004, 05:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> The more poor people we can produce, the greater need for Democrat politicians to 'help' them..

<font color="blue">Fair_Play, it is true liberal Democrats overshot the mark when they allowed welfare to get out of hand. Good intentions (get kids out of poverty), unintended consequences (fostered dependency for many). And the conservatives were right to question that -gotta give credit when it is due. But I think it is a red herring to portray Dems as wanting to return to welfare dependence days. In fact, a a major legislative cornerstone of the most recent Dem President was welfare reform. Because of this act, welfare rolls have been reduced significantly and are continuing to drop. </font color>

The Works Progress Administration must have had it all wrong, that is why the Liberal lawyers now say it is 'Unconstitutional' to require welfare recipients to learn a trade by working.
<font color="blue">Source? </font color>

Boy, those idiot WWII politicians, wonder how the heck they could ever have won a war back then, when it cost in two weeks more than the total price of fighting in Iraq to date? but, heck, then we were only fighting for our survival.

"Step right up, get your ham hocks over here" (and while you are at it, fill out this voter registration card, sonny).

Whatever happened to 'Intestinal Fortitude' and self reliance??

Do NOT teach a man to fish, convince him that he belongs
in the soup line!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fair Play <hr /></blockquote>

Most conservatives seem to really want to whip this image of "support-the-lazy", "tax-them-to-hell" liberal to death. Makes an easy target. But it wasn't Bush Sr. who effectively led the fight to reduce welfare rolls, it was the Dem Clinton.

And the tax differences over time are greatly exaggerated in most people's minds. In fact, the effective tax rates (total income/actual tax paid) during Clinton's 8 years were within 1 to 2 percentage points of those under Bush (at least through 2001).

In addition taxes are easy to reduce for a few years if you don't care about deficits (see Reagan and GW Bush, both of whom greatly increased US debt.)

Here is a table that shows the real tax burdens of the US citizens (on average):

Effective Overall Federal Tax Rates By Income Quintile (and Overall)

Year, Lowest, Second, Middle, Fourth, Highest, Overall

1979 8.0 14.3 18.6 21.2 27.5 22.2
1980 7.7 14.1 18.7 21.5 27.3 22.2
1981 8.3 14.7 19.2 22.1 26.9 22.4
1982 8.2 13.8 17.9 20.6 24.4 20.7
1983 9.1 13.7 17.5 20.1 23.9 20.4
198410.2 14.6 18.0 20.4 24.3 21.0
1985 9.8 14.8 18.1 20.4 24.0 20.9
1986 9.6 14.8 18.0 20.5 23.8 20.9
1987 8.7 14.0 17.6 20.2 25.8 21.6
1988 8.5 14.3 17.9 20.6 25.6 21.8
1989 7.9 13.9 17.9 20.5 25.2 21.5
1990 8.9 14.6 17.9 20.6 25.1 21.5
1991 8.4 14.2 17.6 20.5 25.3 21.5
1992 8.2 13.7 17.4 20.2 25.6 21.5
1993 8.0 13.5 17.3 20.2 26.8 22.0
1994 6.6 13.1 17.3 20.4 27.4 22.3
1995 6.3 13.4 17.3 20.5 27.8 22.6
1996 5.6 13.2 17.3 20.3 28.0 22.7
1997 5.8 13.6 17.4 20.5 28.0 22.9
1998 5.8 13.0 16.8 20.4 27.6 22.6
1999 6.1 13.3 16.9 20.5 28.0 22.9
2000 6.4 13.0 16.7 20.5 28.0 23.1
2001 5.4 11.6 15.2 19.3 26.8 21.5

Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Effective tax rates are calculated by dividing taxes by comprehensive household income. A household consists of the people who share a housing unit, regardless of their relationships.
The income measure is comprehensive household income, which comprises pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes; the employer&amp;#146;s share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes); and employees&amp;#146; contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in totals.
Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household size--that is, divided by the square root of the household&amp;#146;s size. Quintiles, or fifths, contain equal numbers of people.
Individual income taxes are distributed directly to households paying those taxes. Social insurance, or payroll, taxes are distributed to households paying those taxes directly or paying them indirectly through their employers. Corporate income taxes are distributed to households according to their share of capital income. Federal excise taxes are distributed to them according to their consumption of the taxed good or service.

Fair_Play
10-04-2004, 05:57 PM
Hello Ross,

You make some very good points, to which I cannot disagree, which does make me a bit uncomfortable.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> source?</font color><hr /></blockquote>from an Urban Conservative Legend.. from the state of California.. where welfare recipients cannot be required to work in exchange for their dole. Personally, I do not see that being required to work for needed aid is at all a bad thing. After the great depression our country's infrastructure was built (and re-built) through public works, using those who would otherwise have been unemployed.

To me, it would be incredibly nice should both parties come to some common ground where practical solutions to age old problems could be solved - problems that have been solved many times by many societies in the past.

My unit, the 1-185th Armor (a guard unit out of San Bernardino, CA) is currently deployed to Iraq. To say that we (unit members) are not supportive of the efforts to 'win' in Iraq would not be correct. So, to further say that we look primarily to the current Commander in Chief favorably would not be incorrect. The overwhelming majority (4-5 to one) see Senator Kerry as a threat, to us, and to the nation. Thus, perhaps, a major part of my bias might be "in context" with my working environment and the social (conservative) structure there.

Personally, I am not very educated as regards politics, and it that may very well be quite obvious, especially from the quasi-conservitive postings that I have made so far her on this forum.

At the same time, there does seem to me to be a need for some sort of change, change that would bring people closer together rather than dividing them with polemic rhetoric such as <font color="blue"> I </font color> use on a continual basis.

You have given me food for thought for the first time on this forum, Ross, and I appreciate that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best Regards,

Fair Play

Ross
10-04-2004, 10:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> Hello Ross,

You make some very good points, to which I cannot disagree, which does make me a bit uncomfortable.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<font color="blue"> source?</font color><hr /></blockquote>from an Urban Conservative Legend.. from the state of California.. where welfare recipients cannot be required to work in exchange for their dole. Personally, I do not see that being required to work for needed aid is at all a bad thing. After the great depression our country's infrastructure was built (and re-built) through public works, using those who would otherwise have been unemployed.
<font color="blue">I agree completely. If a person can work, they should be required to work to get paid. And if California truly says that able welfare recipients cannot be required to work then they went wrong there, IMO. </font color>

To me, it would be incredibly nice should both parties come to some common ground where practical solutions to age old problems could be solved - problems that have been solved many times by many societies in the past.

<font color="blue">Ahhh... if it could only be so. If far left liberals could admit some people aren't victims, they just want handouts. And if conservatives could admit that some people actually do get screwed through no fault of their own and need a "hand up" for awhile. And if liberals could admit that war is sometimes, unfortunately, still necessary in this imperfect world of ours. And if conservatives could admit that might alone will not make the US safe. And if liberals could admit that economic impact has to be considered when making environmental regulations. And if conservatives could admit that many corporations don't think beyond the bottom line when making decisions, even if those decisions make the world a worse place to live. And so on....

But in the absence of common sense, at least we have the two party system. Liberals fight for doing things in a better way (women voting, desegregation, keeping our elderly out of poverty, insuring equal rights for the handicapped and those with skin color, etc.). Conservatives call them to task when they go too far (creating a dependent welfare class, hiring quotas getting out of hand, extreme PC police, etc.). It is a very inefficient system and leads to a lot of yelling and name calling, but it sort of works. I don't know of any system that works better.


</font color>

My unit, the 1-185th Armor (a guard unit out of San Bernardino, CA) is currently deployed to Iraq. To say that we (unit members) are not supportive of the efforts to 'win' in Iraq would not be correct. So, to further say that we look primarily to the current Commander in Chief favorably would not be incorrect. The overwhelming majority (4-5 to one) see Senator Kerry as a threat, to us, and to the nation. Thus, perhaps, a major part of my bias might be "in context" with my working environment and the social (conservative) structure there.
<font color="blue">I think conservatives are way too hard on Kerry. I understand that people may disagree with him. But his anti-war stance in the early '70's is one that many, many conscientious Americans shared. He would not gut the military as his critics charge. And he would fight for the good of the US both at home and abroad to the last fibre of his being. He would favor consensus building over confrontation - but the arguments for those two approaches do not fall clearly on one side no matter what either party tells you. </font color>

Personally, I am not very educated as regards politics, and it that may very well be quite obvious, especially from the quasi-conservitive postings that I have made so far her on this forum.

<font color="blue">I give you credit for speaking up. And you sound at least as informed as most of us posting here. And unlike most political posters, you are open-minded enough to admit that you may sometimes be right and sometimes wrong. So keep posting. </font color>
At the same time, there does seem to me to be a need for some sort of change, change that would bring people closer together rather than dividing them with polemic rhetoric such as <font color="blue"> I </font color> use on a continual basis.

<font color="blue">I also regret the extreme polemics. I, maybe wrongly, think this has been made a lot worse by the emergence of 24/7 right wing radio and TV personalities who owe their living to riling up their listeners. </font color>

You have given me food for thought for the first time on this forum, Ross, and I appreciate that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<font color="blue">Wow, thanks for the very big compliment! </font color>

Best Regards,

Fair Play

<font color="blue"> You too. Please keep participating in the debate! </font color>






<hr /></blockquote>

Rich R.
10-05-2004, 03:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> nAz,

When I sit down at the end of the year and see how many thousands of dollars I paid I always thank the liberals.

Wally &lt;~~ collected unemployment one week in 31 years <hr /></blockquote>
Wally, unemployment is "insurance".
Just like your life insurance, it is there if you need it, but you don't really want to use it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Fair_Play
10-05-2004, 08:05 AM
Hello again, Ross

My head hurts simply because I am trying for the first time to see both sides.

You are a better man than I, simply because you seem to have the ability to look at both sides, fairly!

As regards Kerry and the VN thing - in the military circles that I travel in, there is not an agenda against anti-war protesters. In fact, even conscientious objectors are admired for having the courage of their convictions.
However, most (military) people view Kerry as being despicable for using his 'talents' and his eloquence to stab the military in the back for his own gain - "that was then, this is now - darn, it is a matter of what we view as honor, loyalty, integrity and truthfulness - I have no idea what I will do should he be elected, maybe I will move to Canada...

When people say 'that was then, this is now..' it is as if time corrects the most basic of character flaws, in and of itself. It is inconceivable that a man could testify before the senate, make false and unfounded accusations again the people whith whom he served, for what seems simply and only to be his persoanl gain. Loyalty? Honor? Truthfulness? Perhaps the good senator lost those somewhere in Cambodia when his brain was fried (seared). If a pane of glass were to be shattered, would time fix it? Basic flaw, basic venal character flaw, his words egregious and designed for personal gainl The Swift Vets? No wonder they are outraged. Interesting to look at the percentage of VN era swifties who support Kerry, vs. those who do not. It runs ten to one against, for reasons the general public may have no interest in whatsoever, (it was so long ago).

There are far more good people in this world than bad ones. People everywhere are a lot more alike than different.

Value Judgement; Leadership is everything. With good leaders, honest, loyal and concerned for the welfare of all, one has a good chance of succeeding.

As a leader, I would not follow John Kerry to the latrine if I had diahrea.

As to Edwards - a brilliant, educated guy, from a disadvantaged family, who succeeded A strong parallel to Kerry, who <font color="blue"> felt </font color>disadvantaged.. So as brilliant as Edwards is, how could he not know that his $60 million lawsuit victories were won through skillfully convincing juries that junk science was truth? Simple, those juries, like me, don't know all that much, and believe they were doing the right thing, compassionately. And WE all pay the price.

Too much of all this in the political arena is not about right or wrong, it seems to be more of the attorney's stance in court - the truth does not matter, only the verdict. Mark Garagos and Johnny Cochran, now THERE is a ticket!

It just seems to me that both Kerry and Edwards have lived lives in the pursuit of gaining everything - nothing wrong with that - but in my opinion, they both come across as wanting far more than there is, at the expense of others.

All the best to you,

Fair Play

Wally_in_Cincy
10-05-2004, 10:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>

...it wasn't Bush Sr. who effectively led the fight to reduce welfare rolls, it was the Dem Clinton....

<hr /></blockquote>

It was the Republican Congress that first passed welfare reform. Clinton refused to support it the first 2 times.

The 3rd time, with the 1996 election looming, he signed it on the advice of Dick Morris.

but you knew that.....

hondo
10-05-2004, 10:56 AM
Great post, FP.

Ross
10-05-2004, 12:08 PM
No Wally, I didn't know that. IMO your statement is partly true (early vetos by Clinton) but it is an oversimplification that doesn't do justice to the facts. In almost all of my posts I have given conservatives credit for being the earliest impetus behind welfare reform. But you sell Clinton short on his desire and push for the same thing.

One of Clinton's main platform planks in his first election in '92 was to "end welfare as we know it." For a Dem candidate to endorse this was an important step in preparing the way for later cooperation on this issue. When first in office he tried to get tackle the problem of lack of health care first, which many saw as the first step to help the working poor (still is an unsolved problem). He tried to do too much with that and it proved a PR and legislative nightmare. During this time he wasn't doing much toward welfare reform. And you are right the Repubs did introduce welfare reform legislation in '93 that was rejected by the Dems. But, in part for political reasons and in part because of philisophical differences, the Dems and Clinton introduced their own version -- the Work and Responsibility Act in the summer of '94. Conservatives had complaints about this version and helped to shoot it down. So you are right there was bickering between the Repubs and the Dems over the type of welfare reform and Clinton had rejected some previous Republican versions, but it is untrue that Clinton did nothing to forward this legislation and then just signed some bill in '96. His administration had been fighting for their version of welfare reform for over two years by that time.

For one history of the welfare reform efforts (through '96) from someone who was there see it in person:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V7/26/ellwood-d.html

Fair_Play
10-05-2004, 01:36 PM
Thank you very much, Hondo /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

All the best to you and to yours,

Fair Play

highsea
10-05-2004, 01:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>Wally, unemployment is "insurance".
Just like your life insurance, it is there if you need it, but you don't really want to use it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif <hr /></blockquote>No, it's a payroll tax. Money that you earn that is confiscated by the State. If it was insurance, I would be able to choose if I wanted to buy it or not. Like Wally and most others, I have been paying it in for over 30 years, and will never see that money again. How long until this "policy" is paid off?