Posted on 11/08/2002 3:22:38 PM PST by xm177e2
LOL! I may or may not be naive, but I'm not an idiot. Like I said, I expected incrementalism from Clinton, and that's exactly what we got. The "little guy" saw their lives get a little better, but that's not to say the corporations' lives got a lot worse. A small increase on taxes of the upper brackets. A small decrease on taxes for the lower brackets (mostly through expansion of the earned income tax credit). A little more breathing room for lower-echelon workers when they have a baby or have to care for a sick parent. Stuff like that. But I knew it would be incremental all along. You only had to look at his record in Arkansas to understand that. He worked with both big money and liberal groups to make small changes that weren't TOO offensive to business or big money, but helped make the lives of people in lower-economic strata a bit easier.
But the concentration of wealth at the top only slowed under Clinton - it didn't stop. The profits of companies increased, they didn't decrease. The middle class was a little wealthier, not because their wages went up appreciably, but because the stock market in which many of them were invested did well. No, Clinton was in NO way anti-business. He was just pro-worker TOO.
As for DU, I would go over and visit sometime but I have already been kicked off. I was not rude, but I do not hide my views and they booted me off.
I used to post a lot at Freedem. They actually liked me there but they never agreed with anything I said.
Now, onto the American peope chosing the Left over the right. It is suicide, no doubt about it. I will explain why...
I make a middle class salary and do quite a bit aof good for my community. I had one of my liberal employees come up to me and tell me that the state should have 3/4 of my income. Let me tell you something, I part with almost 50% of my income now. I can not afford a house.
In Massachusetts, many Democrats are moving to GOP states because the cost of living is less. Of course, most of them see no correlation. It is getting to the point where you have to be really rich or really poor to live in MAssachusetts. Guess what happens when you eat the middle class? MAss might have felt that they NEEDED the money(Thats another debate.), yet now they get NOTHING from the people they have driven away. So, since they could not stop taking, now they have ZERO.
I have my own business, Truck Drivers get more pay then me. Most union laborers here get more pay then me. I CANT LIVE here and have to move. Yet, you want MORE. If you all left me alone, I WOULD produce more and even though at a lower tax rate, you would get less of a percentage, you would get MORE revenue. You see, I am talking about economic reality, while you are talking about ideaology. Oh, I might add all of the taxes that Mass collects from my workers would ALSO be gone.
Anyway, my point is that your average person wants to have a life and when things go to far to the left, that life is taken away. As a matter of fact, my Leftist worker said I need to have MORE then 50% taken out of my pay today. I can homestly tell you that that would leave me homeless.
I just figured I would get the ball rolling and say greetings. :D Remember, there are over 60000 people here so dont take it personally if someone insults you, ok?
Perhaps you will learn something of Conservative thought. I am pretty well versed in left-wing thought but I am willing to listen. I dont want to to bore you to tears so pleased to meet you.
And what about this:
Electoral tactics are only a means for DSA; the building of a powerful anti-corporate and ultimately socialist movement is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates represent significant social movements DSA locals have and will continue to build such organizations and support such candidates.
This would seem to argue that they're NOT "running" the show for the Progressive Caucus, it's just the biggest "horse" they can find to hitch their wagon to right now. Again, I'm not arguing that some of the members of the Progressive Caucus might not be socialists - Bernie Sanders even says he is. I'm just saying this doesn't prove the point that Pelosi is a socialist because she's a member of the Progressive Caucus. The Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Socialists are NOT the same entity. They ARE working together on many issues. That argues for sympathy, as you said before, but not membership.
As for DU, I would go over and visit sometime but I have already been kicked off. I was not rude, but I do not hide my views and they booted me off.
Well, maybe it's different here. I know that DU was specifically set up to be a place where those on the left could discuss issues amongst themselves, not to defend the validity of the left/progressive point of view on issues. I have my own business, Truck Drivers get more pay then me. Most union laborers here get more pay then me. I CANT LIVE here and have to move. Yet, you want MORE.
Hey, I don't want any more. I think you probably pay enough - and maybe too much - in taxes as it is. My view is geared more toward priorities for using the taxes we already pay, and I think some adjustment upward of the burden of taxes on the very wealthy and on corporations. I think less tax money could go to corporations in the form of subsidies and "corporate welfare" and more toward services that benefit a greater number of less-well off people - and I'm specifically talking about the "working poor" - people who don't have health insurance or can't afford to pay for private schools for their kids, and often are working two jobs just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Welfare is another issue, and I won't address it right now.
An example (although I promised I wouldn't argue my positions here, and, well, here I go... but you MADE me do it! ;-) But I'll make it fast.) Right now, $X of our GDP goes to pay for health care. But a portion of that goes to pay for emergency services for the uninsured - expensive treatment that could have been avoided with preventative health care that would cost 10% of what the emergency treatment costs. What if, instead of making hospitals and other providers add the costs of that unpaid treatment to the price of the treatment that IS paid for (by patients WITH insurance), we took some of the money from say, corporate subsidies, and paid for preventative health care for the uninsured? Those are the kinds of things I mean when I talk about "progressive policies" NOT taxing the rich out of existence.
As a matter of fact, my Leftist worker said I need to have MORE then 50% taken out of my pay today.
I can't say strongly enough how much I disagree with your leftist worker! But, next time, ask him/her this: IF 50% of YOUR pay was taken by the government, what would you expect for that money? Free health care? Free education? No property taxes? What exactly would make it worth losing 50% of your pay?
In fact, you might want to answer that question yourself, as well, regarding your current level of taxation. What services FROM the government would make the taxes you pay seem like a good deal over all?
I just figured I would get the ball rolling and say greetings. :D Remember, there are over 60000 people here so dont take it personally if someone insults you, ok?
Howdy back atcha. (If someone insults me, it'll probably make me cry and stomp off in a fit of pique. Not. But chances are, I'm not radical enough to bother insulting.)
Freerepublic is privately owned and it also is set up as a Conservative forum. DU posters have been banned in the past but most of the Liberals can stay.
On to health care. The preventitive idea is a good one in theory. I could work with it. Yet, socialized medicine has never worked. For some Conservatives, who are reality based and study Economics, it is an unworkable concept. EVERY free health care system in the world is bad. Not just some, but ALL of them.
Look at some of the European systems. They are wretched. We had a near perfect system here in the seventies which changed when Ted Kennedy introduced the current model of the Health Care system. It was not really his fault. Some Doctors got very greedy and were ripping off the insurance companies. If I had the power at the time, I would have increased oversight on the doctors to prevent them from defrauding the insurance industry, as opposed to putting the Insurance industry in charge.
In other words, I would have let the medical people stay in charge but made sure that they stayed honest. After all, there really was no reason to cheat, they were very wealthy anyway.
On to Corporate subsidies. You might be surprised but most true conservatives disagree with the concept strongly. A group of Republicans that is referred to here as the "Rockefeller Republicans" do not. Also, quite a few Dems indulge in this practice, here in Mass, they do it so business will stay. Like I said if they leave, that leaves the state in a worse situation.
I do not consider less taxation as Corporate Welfare. It IS thier money after all. They are not getting it fro the public coffers. Subsidies DO come out of the public coffers though and that is what WE call Corporate Welfare. If a business cant make it on its own, it should fold.
Now, imagine this scenario, using Mass as the state. Here, we have several large Corporations that receive subsidies and tax breaks to stay in the state to provide jobs. Because of favortism to about fifteen corporations, they can operate here while staying profitable.
Imagine if Mass lifted all subsideis and reduced the Corporate tax. Instead of fifteen Corporations, we would have hundreds. So, while they would pay a lower percentage, we would have FAR more revenue. A lot more jobs as well. Conservatives are not opposed to taxation per se... well, you can see my point above. You may not agree, but it is worth a thought.
In another example, Russia recently instituted a 13% flat tax. Tax revenues have increased 40% since it has been initiated. The reason is people no longer operate in the black market. They also are getting very rich, so even though the rate is lower, the revenue is higher. This is in fact happening in the Russian Economy. This principle was also quoted in a speech by JFK.
I was just listening to Robert Reich on NPR last night and his prescription for Mass was lower taxes and more federal money for social programs because Mass cant run a deficit(It is against the Constitution of MAss, which I do not agree with. Not running a deficit that is.), this is an example of Keynesian economics. It advocates government money to stimulate local economies. It does work, but only temporarily. It was the foundation for the MArshall plan after WW2. I wont go into it here.
One thing you have to realize, and is also a reason many Conservatives are angry is that we honestly believe that our policies will help society as a whole. Thats why we get mad when we are called Mean, uncaring, fascist or a host of other things. To be objective, perhaps we are wrong, but while we question liberals grasp of the issues, they question our basic humanity. I am sure you can see where that would lead to some ruffled feathers.
Believe it or not, the GOP has moved towards the center. Conservatives, and this website as a whole have not. Of course, we are right-wing. :D Amazing as it may seem to you, a lot of folks here are furious at quite a lot of Republicans.
Personally, I realize that most of the country is in the center. Compromise can be good. I tried to tell that worker that the Dems should not elect Pelosi to the Minority Leader position because veering left will destroy them. She got mad. Oh well, from a selfish viewpoint, I am glad the Dems are propping her up.
Compromise... I was talking to some Liberal Dems about medicine for the elderly and although I can never agree with socialized medicine, I capitulated and said I will agree to give free meds to seniors who are poor.
Two months later, this bill passed in the house but was fillibustered by my own Senator, Mr. Kennedy. His rationale was that it did not give EVERYONE free medicine. I watched this one myself and was quite angry, since I had talked to Libs before about the same thing and they agreed. I hate to gloat, but this bill will make it this time, and I know it will pass because any dem that opposes free meds for poor elderly will be doomed.
On a final note, you seem to strike me more as a moderate Democrat then a Left Wing type of person. I have lurked on DU lately and have even seen them accuse NPR and the New York Times of a right-wing bias. That is insane. Brit Hume of Fox News had Dick Gephardt on and actually congratulated him on a victory. Do I think Fox News is Left-Wing? Of course not.
In the DNC's official website, I was actually liked, even though my views were barely tolerated. The reason I left was this question...
"WHy did the Democrats vote against rasing the limits for the IRA's? No super rich people use IRA's so why did you all vote against it?"
I cant remember the exact bill as this was four years ago, but I never got ONE straight answer. All I got was "Rich people are working off the poor", etc. In other words, slogans. I am not some automaton. I wanted an ANSWER. I never got one in six months, although I would ask the question again and again.
Well, at least you can see where I am coming from. Feel free to ping me on any list that your on. The reason I frequent the DNC sites is to keep my mind fresh. When one listens to nothing but things that reinforce thier viewpoints, it is called something... brainwashing. :D
That applies to all sides, my friend. Including my own.
One last thing, about alocation of resources to help the unfortunate. There are 6000 homeless people in Boston. We have a 22 billion dollar budget. The Republicans here are just as guilty as the Dems. I could easily fix the problem. I donate frequently to such programs but I find it humorous that my state can not solve this problem with a few billion dollars. I could solve it with less. :D
I implied a completely different thing. IMHO, Pelosi will drive RATs to the left making RAT success in presidential elections highly unlikely.
DITTO $$$$$$$$
Nancy and Hillary will ensure Bush opts out of taking government money. He'll be turning money away with these two leading the fund raising for the republicans.
tom Daschle is a soft and well spoken man with an approval rating right up there next to root canal. Nancy Pelosi is an even easier target.
He is an articulate young man. A bit of a sophist but hey they're all politicians. Nancy Pelosi is Dick Gephart in a skirt. White bread and American cheese.
You think NAFTA was pro-worker?
By the way, I wouldn't say Clinton was either pro- or anti-business. He was anti-small business and pro-big business. Complicated tax, environmental, and other regulations disadvantage small business, and thereby give big business a competitive advantage. Why do you think so many billionaires are DemocRATs?
I happen to be a tax lawyer. I've seen firsthand the distortions of law these people create.
All true but irrelevant. He would become the darling of the press. His warts would be airbrushed and his dimples would be amplified.
I know he's not as smart as he thinks he is but I've seen worse in the brains department. Mark my words, he'll be front and center in the coming years. He's got friends in high places.
http://www.ctj.org/itep/corp00pr.htm
Note, these numbers are from 1998. They're also from Citizens for Tax Justice, which is a left-progressive advocacy group, but the numbers themselves come from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
One thing you have to realize, and is also a reason many Conservatives are angry is that we honestly believe that our policies will help society as a whole. Thats why we get mad when we are called Mean, uncaring, fascist or a host of other things.
Well, since my own father is a conservative with whom I've had many an enjoyable debate, I'm not one for calling them "mean" or questioning their humanity. At least not those I call real conservatives. But there IS a "wing" or "group" --whatever-- among the Republican party that strikes me as mean-spirited, judgmental, ruthless, and excessively greedy. And there is also (again, IMHO) a cadre of people in the Republican party that are fascist-leaning, chief among them Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney. Maybe Wolfowitz and Perle too. I can't believe those in your party who believe in "less government" can agree with what they're doing, at least in terms of secrecy and citizen surveillance. (Note, I do believe that these are extremist elements, not the mainstream Republicans. And I've always believed that ALL extremists are fascists at heart. Every one of them, left or right, would like nothing better than to force *everyone* to do things "their way.")
I tried to tell that worker that the Dems should not elect Pelosi to the Minority Leader position because veering left will destroy them.
Veering too far left probably would. How many self-identified socialists (or Greens, for that matter) do you see in Congress? But I think you're probably underestimating Pelosi. She's personally liberal, but when she has her "Minority Leader" hat on, she has to build concensus in the *whole* party, and she knows that. And, too, there are more moderates in the congressional delegation than there are progressives. What I like about Pelosi being Minority Leader is that she will let the left wing have a "seat at the table" when the consensus is being built, and Gephart never did. Partly because he's from a fairly conservative state, but mostly (IMHO) to serve his own ambitions, not to serve the party. He has a personal stake in presenting himself as a moderate, and not doing anything (HA! Ain't that the truth!) that would endanger his hoped for run at the Presidency. The party - in terms of the Congressional Delegation - is NOT going to take a huge lurch to the left with Pelosi at the helm of the House Democrats. But the left WILL have more of an opportunity to influence policy positions than they did under Gephart. And the left's positions will be more clearly articulated - or maybe I should say, just articulated, period.
On a final note, you seem to strike me more as a moderate Democrat then a Left Wing type of person.
I actually think of myself as a political orphan. I have some progressive beliefs, some libertarian beliefs, and some moderate beliefs. I used to call myself "liberally moderate" or sometimes "moderately liberal." (Sometimes, I just called myself "confused"!) Probably my one constant is a desire for balance. Balance of power, balance of sacrifice, balance of rewards. I think Government has a role in maintaining that balance, and indeed, in the case of power, it's the only thing that *can* provide balance between the rights of the strong and the rights of the weak. Otherwise, all you have is a "might makes right" society, and that is both unbalanced and inhumane. In my opinion, of course.
Sadly, no. But it COULD have been. This was one area where I really felt Clinton let us down. I expected him to hold out for more benefits for displaced workers, especially retraining funds. And I hoped for some environmental protections too. (I should say, I favor free trade in principle, but I think it should be FAIR trade as well.) But the thing that really made NAFTA a bad bill was Chapter 11. Even with all the displaced worker and environmental provisions I could have hoped for, that alone would have made it the worst legislation to have come out of his Presidency. And now Bush wants to add it to the FTAA. (AARGGHH!)
Complicated tax, environmental, and other regulations disadvantage small business, and thereby give big business a competitive advantage.
I agree with this, but I thought small businesses were exempted from most of the regulations passed in Clinton's term. I do know they were exempted from the Family and Medical Leave Act, don't know much about other regulations that were passed. You would know more about it than I do, as a tax attorney, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the issue. But, I'd like a few examples where small businesses weren't exempted, if you can think of any off the top of your head.
Why do you think so many billionaires are DemocRATs?
Oh, yeah!?!? Well lots more of them are RePUGnants! So there. :-P~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.