Do democrats want a poor America?

#1
NEO

NEO

Eat at Joe's
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
18,886
Likes
14,184
#1
Honest question...

If the country is wealthy and working and productive it appears they have no angle to go after.

So are they *****ing up the country on purpose so everyone will need a social program just to make it?
 
#2
#2
I don't know if they want a poor America, but they do seem intent on increasing everyone's dependence on govt.
 
#3
#3
Kind of a telling thread of the two Americas, IMO.

Saying Democrats all want everybody on welfare and nationally owned industries for everything isn't any different than libtards going off on how Republicans all want constant warfare, or for women or minorities to effectively be second class citizens, or whatever.

I would risk a guess to say that most people in this country want things like widespread productivity, general health and so on. There are nearly as many ideas about how to accomplish that as people who have them, but there seems to have been a pervasive cluster effect where people tend to live in places, read papers and visit sites that support their worldview. The effect seems to be decreased understanding of one another and increased bomb tossing.

NEOCON, you gotta go watch that Bill Moyers interview I posted a while back.
 
#4
#4
I think people want to be leaded, and be told what to do. So yes, America will choose to be a poor country.
 
#5
#5
milohimself said:
Kind of a telling thread of the two Americas, IMO.

Saying Democrats all want everybody on welfare and nationally owned industries for everything isn't any different than libtards going off on how Republicans all want constant warfare, or for women or minorities to effectively be second class citizens, or whatever.
Click to expand...

And lost in the middle of it all is the people that aren't that interested in confict with other countries, getting a govt check, keeping women barefoot and pregnant, or keeping tabs on how much money someone else makes.
 
#8
#8
milohimself said:
Get over it. It's basically the other guy talking for half an hour.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself... Moyer is a joke to many, and you know it.

I made the same comment/joke about Moyer as you did about Rush. If you want to get upset, I don't really care.
 
#9
#9
volsforever27 said:
Get over yourself... Moyer is a joke to many, and you know it.

I made the same comment/joke about Moyer as you did about Rush. If you want to get upset, I don't really care.
Click to expand...
Dude, no need to get mad about me calling your boy Rush a bad name in another thread. He called somebody a slut on the air without knowing the first thing about her, and I said something about him anonymously on the internet.

I couldn't care less what you have to say about Moyers. He gets hardly a dozen sentences in over the course of 30+ minutes, and the people who watched it said it was down the middle. Watch it and you just might learn something, but if not, that's fine as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
milohimself said:
Dude, no need to get mad about me calling your boy Rush a bad name in another thread. He called somebody a slut on the air without knowing the first thing about her, and I said something about him anonymously on the internet.

I couldn't care less what you have to say about Moyers. He gets hardly a dozen sentences in over the course of 30+ minutes, and the people who watched it said it was down the middle. Watch it and you just might learn something, but if not, that's fine as well.
Click to expand...

It takes me than this to get me mad, sir. Rush isn't my "boy", I agree with a lot of things he says, some I don't agree with. I don't care what you say about Rush, my point was don't get angry when someone says something about Moyers. If you can't understand that, I'm good with it.

This whole thing about the "slut" comment is ridiculous... you and the others who don't like Rush are trying to use this to prove your opinion. He's not going anywhere, and his point (Georgetown not paying for birth control) is valid. I'm ok with that as well.

As far as Moyers, stating that he doesn't speak much in his interviews does not make up for what a douche bag this guy is. Take a look at what this guy has said over the years... if you'd like me to post a thousand links, I will, but it's pointless anyway.

Bottom line: you got pissed over me using the same language that you used for Rush. To say otherwise is a little dishonest, don't you think?

Oh, and what would I learn from watching anything with Moyer? How to be "down the middle"? Seems like you got it covered.

Hope you're not "mad". It's just a forum, after all.
 
#11
#11
You're operating on the premise that I'm irked about what you said about Moyers... I'm not. I don't care. It's the internet.

Again, if you don't want to watch a video that makes a good number of solid points that directly deal with the topic at hand because there's a guy you don't like in it, even though he doesn't interject his own opinion at any point, your loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
milohimself said:
You're operating on the premise that I'm irked about what you said about Moyers... I'm not. I don't care. It's the internet.

Again, if you don't want to watch a video that makes a good number of solid points that directly deal with the topic at hand because there's a guy you don't like in it, even though he doesn't interject his own opinion at any point, your loss.
Click to expand...

And if you don't want to actually read or listen to what Rush was pointing out, that's your loss as well.

As far as me thinking you were irked, I was responding to you telling me to get over it. I pointed out my dislike of Moyers just like you pointed out yours of Rush. Why am I in the wrong? I just think he's a leftist hack.

You're still my boy, Milo.
 
#13
#13
I still think Rush is a waste of flesh, but I did hear what he said, in its entirety, and I agreed with him insofar as I believe that healthcare should be an individual consumer market, which would resolve these problems to begin with.

This all ties in with the OP. People consume all info in soundbites nowadays. Most people will only get info from places that agree with them, for reinforcement. Liberals stick to HuffPo and DailyKOS, conservatives tend only go to places like RedState and Drudge. People tune in overwhelmingly to Fox News and MSNBC, which take up two thirds of cable news market share combined and broadcast deliberately biased programming almost exclusively. When a liberal sees something from Bill O'Reilly, it's in soundbite form, allowing them to pass quick judgment on it, when in reality they typically have little context and frequently no understanding of his viewpoint, so they discredit him. The same obviously goes for you with Moyers; he's got a laundry list of opinions that you disagree with which is fine, but the result is frequently, as in your situation, writing him off as a hack even on the rare occasion that he may conduct an interview that you may find enlightening.

I may feel the same way about Rush that you do about Moyers, but when presented with a point of discussion, I try to do my best to hear out a point, from whoever might have it, actually think about it and respond to it.
 
#14
#14
milohimself said:
I still think Rush is a waste of flesh, but I did hear what he said, in its entirety, and I agreed with him insofar as I believe that healthcare should be an individual consumer market, which would resolve these problems to begin with.

This all ties in with the OP. People consume all info in soundbites nowadays. Most people will only get info from places that agree with them, for reinforcement. Liberals stick to HuffPo and DailyKOS, conservatives tend only go to places like RedState and Drudge. People tune in overwhelmingly to Fox News and MSNBC, which take up two thirds of cable news market share combined and broadcast deliberately biased programming almost exclusively. When a liberal sees something from Bill O'Reilly, it's in soundbite form, allowing them to pass quick judgment on it, when in reality they typically have little context and frequently no understanding of his viewpoint, so they discredit him. The same obviously goes for you with Moyers; he's got a laundry list of opinions that you disagree with which is fine, but the result is frequently, as in your situation, writing him off as a hack even on the rare occasion that he may conduct an interview that you may find enlightening.

I may feel the same way about Rush that you do about Moyers, but when presented with a point of discussion, I try to do my best to hear out a point, from whoever might have it, actually think about it and respond to it.
Click to expand...

OK I tried to lighten the mood, but obviously you're smarter and more open-minded than I am.

Believe it or not, I don't just post the RNC talking points on here. I have my own opinion on things. The interview may be terrific; I simply made a statement about Moyers. You took it from there.

So again, I'm not discrediting the interview, I'm giving my opinion on the man. Hopefully you'll understand that a little more. For example, I think Jon Stewart is to the left of Lenin, but when he says something funny (or something I agree with), I give him credit.

So believe it or not, conservatives can be open-minded as well. Thanks for trying to enlighten me, though. You did your good deed for the week. :hi:
 
#15
#15
WRT to the OP - I'm in the same boat as Milo. Most (vast majority) want same basic situation but disagree on:

1) best ways to get there
2) relative importance of various goals

That said, it's undeniable that we've seen a steady growth in the role of the federal government into the daily lives of citizens. Both parties are responsible and our system encourages it.

With more dependence comes more control.
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
WRT to the OP - I'm in the same boat as Milo. Most (vast majority) want same basic situation but disagree on:

1) best ways to get there
2) relative importance of various goals

That said, it's undeniable that we've seen a steady growth in the role of the federal government into the daily lives of citizens. Both parties are responsible and our system encourages it.

With more dependence comes more control.
Click to expand...

This

policy of good intentions is a nightmare
 
#17
#17
NEOCON said:
Honest question...

If the country is wealthy and working and productive it appears they have no angle to go after.

So are they *****ing up the country on purpose so everyone will need a social program just to make it?
Click to expand...

Big government agendas require a public that perceives things as "bad". They don't necessarily need people to be poor, they just need them to feel like they are poor (globally-speaking, our poor are very wealthy).
 
#18
#18
almost all politicians want a country dependent on the govt. While they may concentrate on different places they are still after the same thing- power and money. Smaller govt means these lifelong politicians have to get a real job (like the ones that started this country intended)
 
#19
#19
A bit off-topic but related to the dependency concept. Consider government agencies. What is the incentive for non-revenue producing agencies to scale back their activities or even maintain the status quo? There is none. The agency must justify it's existence (along with the existence of it's employees) and budget. There is a growth imperative and that imperative naturally leads to more reach and change for the sake of "improvement" or budgets/staff will be cut.

It's a crazy system and we've consistently added agencies and duties which accelerates the effect.
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
A bit off-topic but related to the dependency concept. Consider government agencies. What is the incentive for non-revenue producing agencies to scale back their activities or even maintain the status quo? There is none. The agency must justify it's existence (along with the existence of it's employees) and budget. There is a growth imperative and that imperative naturally leads to more reach and change for the sake of "improvement" or budgets/staff will be cut.

It's a crazy system and we've consistently added agencies and duties which accelerates the effect.
Click to expand...

I learned this lesson when I was on a church staff. I had about $3000 left in my budget. Naively, I thought that would be a pretty decent thing for the church...until the senior pastor told me that I should find ways to spend it. He didn't want them to cut my budget for the next year.

It is ridiculous how that works.
 
#21
#21
Lexvol said:
I learned this lesson when I was on a church staff. I had about $3000 left in my budget. Naively, I thought that would be a pretty decent thing for the church...until the senior pastor told me that I should find ways to spend it. He didn't want them to cut my budget for the next year.

It is ridiculous how that works.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the end of budget period spending spree - I've seen it a million times.
 
#22
#22
Hurting the Rich Important to Obama | Sallie James | Cato Institute: Commentary

from april 2008
The debate between the Democratic candidates last week proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that voters face a choice between two starkly different visions. Barack Obama made one particularly startling statement that puts him well to the left of the already leftist Hillary Clinton.

In a discussion over whether and how far to increase the capital-gains tax, ABC anchor Charles Gibson pointed out to Sen. Obama that a 1980s hike in the tax actually saw revenue fall, presumably a worry for a candidate who wants to increase government spending on social programs and "infrastructure" projects. Astonishingly, Obama replied: "I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness."

In other words, to Barack Obama, soaking the rich and discouraging investment is worth it for its own sake, even if it can't raise more money. The objective isn't to raise revenue, it's to inflict pain on those perceived as relatively well-off.
Click to expand...

To answer the OP. I think the goal is to make things more 'fair' even if that means hurting everyone. I don't the goal is to make people poorer, they just don't care if that is a consequence.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top