-
Comment -
You for real too? Amazing! The social conservatives have been wrong for decades. Some examples
Progressives fought for the vote for African Americans, conservatives fought against. WRONG
Progressives fought to end segregation, conservatives fought to keep it. WRONG
Progressives fought for Social Security, conservatives fought against it WRONG
Progressives fought for Medicare, conservatives fought against it. WRONG
Progressives fought for child labor laws, conservatives fought against them WRONG
T Roosevelt a progressive fought for many progressive ideas, all opposed by conservatives WRONG
Progressives passed the Civil Rights Act, conservatives fought against it. WRONG
Progressives fought for the clean water act, conservatives against WRONG
Progressives even had to fight in some states to allow blacks to marry whites, guess what the conservatives did. Wrong again.
This list is almost never ending, the social conservatives have been on the wrong side of history since the middle of the 19th century including the Civil War. Why are they right all of a sudden? They aren't.Comment -
Progressives opposed Viet Nam and Iraq, no need to tell you what the conservatives did.Comment -
I was actually referring to John Stossel being proven wrong...Comment -
Well of course you were, my point if you have been reading the entire thread was that conservatives always have great arguments about why a progressive idea is wrong. Problem is history almost always proves that the conservatives are wrong not the progressives.
We live in the greatest country in the world and many of us forget that much of that is due to the progressives fighting for laws that protect our citizens. Many of these laws and agencies like the FDA were formed during the progressive era and guess what the conservatives of the day had many good reason why these laws should not be passed. History finds conservatives wrong almost always.Comment -
Actually most of the time arguments on why freedom shouldn't be expanded are bad, just as arguments on why wealth should be redistributed are bad. One of the biggest reasons we have a disparity of wealth like we do is because of Medicare and Social Security, according to a CBO report.Comment -
We have a disparity of wealth, is because your boy Reagan thought that by giving
the rich tax cuts, they would create an explosion of new business' and jobs.
The Repub's still think that's a good idea. Keep at it boys, someday it might work.
Since the rich are still sitting on their money, maybe the govt should take more
from them to spark an economic boom. Wadda ya think?
Give a rich man more money and he's going to sit in the corner and giggle like a
school girl, not spend it. Duh.Comment -
Wrong. Back in 1915 when the top tax bracket was 7% and you had to make an inflation adjusted $11,000,000+ a year to pay that, the rich got a smaller chunk of the income then they do now. And the JFL/LBJ tax cuts did little to change the wealth disparity. What caused it was easy lending practices from the Federal Reserve.We have a disparity of wealth, is because your boy Reagan thought that by giving
the rich tax cuts, they would create an explosion of new business' and jobs.
The Repub's still think that's a good idea. Keep at it boys, someday it might work.
Since the rich are still sitting on their money, maybe the govt should take more
from them to spark an economic boom. Wadda ya think?
Give a rich man more money and he's going to sit in the corner and giggle like a
school girl, not spend it. Duh.Comment -
They give it to corporations who then spend it on expansions and improvements, sparking hiring. If government spending actually created wealth, then any country could have tax rates of 99% and a constantly growing economy. We know thats not true. The wealthy don't sit around and giggle. They didn't get that way by hiding money in a mattress. Why do you think the economy grew so much in the late 80's and the 90's. It wasn't government spending. It was a sensible government who stayed out the way. Keep buying into that occupy bullshit.We have a disparity of wealth, is because your boy Reagan thought that by giving
the rich tax cuts, they would create an explosion of new business' and jobs.
The Repub's still think that's a good idea. Keep at it boys, someday it might work.
Since the rich are still sitting on their money, maybe the govt should take more
from them to spark an economic boom. Wadda ya think?
Give a rich man more money and he's going to sit in the corner and giggle like a
school girl, not spend it. Duh.Comment -
Well boys, Bush lowering and 'bama continuing the tax cuts hasn't started hardly
an inkling of rich people job creation/ corporate expansion. That tells me they are
either dabbling in the markets or sitting in the corner laughing uncontrollably. By
their trillion dollar nest egg, I would guess the latter.
It's not an occupy thing, it's being observant.Comment -
I'm with ya on that pal. Could you imagine the govt today if that was still the case?Comment -
Let's start with an easy one -- Social Security.
So, the government wants to FORCE me to pay into their "retirement plan", right? I'm sure that's what the founders had in mind when they were talking about a free nation. Whatever, let's move on. So I pay into it for life, I turn 65. What happens? Well, assuming the government was responsible and didn't rob the social security trust fund (lol), I can get enough money to live on for retirement. But, it's a ponzi scheme (some like to call it outright theft, and I don't exactly disagree with that), and it's not even controversial to say so.
The money you get back for social security is not enough to live on -- not even close. They don't give you fair interest rates for holding onto your money for 40 years, it doesn't even beat the inflation caused by the inflation of our dollar, they steal from the fund, and they still have absolutely no plan to deal with the baby boomers despite having 50 years to think about it.
To top it all off, when you finally start getting your social security checks, they TAX THOSE TOO! Funny, I don't see any liberals talking about all of this "equality" talking about unfairly taxing the social security checks. They only want to talk about raising taxes on the rich. At least when I'm talking about cutting taxes, I'm talking about cutting taxes for EVERYONE.
If someone wants to set up a retirement fund, let THEM do it. I don't need a law to force me to set it up, thanks. I can make that decision on my own. And if someone makes the wrong decision, and they have to work till they die, so what? It's their own decision, and they can suffer the consequences of it. Retiring is a fairly new idea, anyhow.Comment -
Correlation is not causation. In 1915 women couldn't vote, now they can, I think that clearly the cause of income inequality in this country is women's suffrage. See anyone can make a claim with no warrant, please explain how easy lending practices cause income disparity.Comment -
True, the left does that all the time.
When you make the economy based off credit instead of income, that is what people will focus on more. The wealthy don't pay as much to employees, but the employees have the illusion that they're prospering due to easy lending practices. Allowing the non rich to borrow so much causes investment bubbles, and the wealthy make a large % of their income in capital gains. All they have to do is watch the markets to find the top and figure out a good time to pull their money and wait to find bottom, or even put a portion of money into going short and make even more. The markets hit bottom, and the rich then buy up assets at fire-sale prices, and we repeat the process.Comment
