Poll: Which are you?

[Geaux4it]

I swat flies and more or less, kind of hang out on the edges.

Rights before party

-Geaux

 

[RandomVariable]

Unfortunately, "the people" of the USA don't have a clue that they are actually in charge. They're so afraid of the Federal government that they generally won't make a peep.

This is why government is in charge. The rich are trying to hold on to what they have. It is the same every time. The rich have a big piece of a very small pie. They can have a relatively smaller piece of a much bigger pie and in absolute terms they have much more. America is sitting on the launch pad anytime we get around to lighting the fuse.

I don't people are afraid as much as it is difficult to get ones mind around the whole thing. We have the power to make everything happen at once. That is a lot to take in. It is a fundamental change in one's belief system. This is the 21st century and it is more than anyone could have possibly imagined it would be. We are indeed on the edge.

I fully agree that we're on the edge. I wonder if it's actually too late to really change the inevitable. The people are divided and the government is run by powerful and corrupt individuals. China is on the verge of become the world's number one economy and India has already taken 2nd place from Japan. America is in major debt to China and the world bank. Our only way out is industry and the free market but business is so overly regulated that it's either paralyzed or is leaving the nation lock, stock, and barrel.

It's the American middle class. All else is secondary. Look at what the tech boom did. I was there. That is absolutely nothing as to what is next, what could be next. It was the lack of regulation which crashed the tech industry. The tech industry is also right there, ready to continue where it left off, as soon as we clean up the financial industry in this country.

 

[Duped]

Conservative, patriot, freedom lover, and defender - I align myself with libertarians except for foreign policy. I think we should stand with our time honored friends to the last man.

 

[RandomVariable]

I swat flies and more or less, kind of hang out on the edges.

Rights before party

-Geaux

Your 'rights' are an illusion.

 

[kaz]

Competition's ultimate goal is to eliminate the competition.

That's okay. Iron sharpens iron. The other guy will simply have to step up to the plate and fight back. But I could live with government intervention if and only if a monopoly exists. Other than that ... hands off.

As soon one pushes the other off the top of the hill he will use every dirty trick in the book, and make up a few, to keep the other from getting back up. You say monopoly. When is it a monopoly and when is it not? What about unfair business practices? Flat tax code for businesses? etc, etc, etc. To say we are going to be "hands off" just means one has found a way to gouge the other under the table. What about worker/employee relations? Anything goes? We need to just admit it and work with it government and business are intertwined inexorably and to make the best of it is best for everyone. The more everyone's hands are on the table the better.

And you trust politicians and bureaucrats to use force to impose their way and not companies who have to serve their customers or they fail. LOL, yeah, that's a better system...

 

[kaz]

Registered independent. Moderate liberal - pro-science, pro-equal marriage. I'm strongly against teaching creationism (in any form) in schools. Anti-Voter ID laws, pro-cutting tax breaks for corporations and loopholes for the wealthy but against extending UE benefits. Strongly for raising the minimum wage.

So you're a "moderate liberal" who agrees with the hard left on everything except "extending UE benefits?" Doesn't take much for a liberal to be a "moderate" does it?

Only liberals are pro-science? Only liberals oppose creationism being taught in science classes?

Saying you agree with the hard left on something doesn't logically imply that no one else thinks that, what you did is a non-sequitur. I don't see the "pro-science" as particularly a strong indication of any ideology in itself. Hard left may believe in evolution, but they also believe that global warming exists and is man made and that is established scientific fact when it isn't. They would call that "pro-science" as well, when it's not. You'd have to clarify what you mean more for me to declare that a second area you separate from them on. But that they are not the only ones who believe in evolution doesn't make it an area you disagree with them on either.

 

[kaz]

Put your swimmies back on and move to the shallow end of the pool.

Sure, you have liberal lawyers telling you one thing, and I have the field of economics telling me another. Obviously I'm just naive...

LOL, you're a hoot.

I have heard you make claim to your vast knowledge of economics before but, yes, you are extremely naive. Your concepts are half baked and your references are to stuff I have seen on random YouTube videos. You seem to have no more understanding of the concepts than that.

If you're going to be an ass then I'm going to pass on responding to you. However, I am an MBA in finance and I spent most of my career in financial services, including quite a few working on Wall Street. Finance is a branch of economics if you're not aware of that. So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. You are listening to lawyers who have none of that experience, and you don't notice either that what they are telling you is completely self serving to them. Yet, you still trust them. Then call me "naive." LOL.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So you're a "moderate liberal" who agrees with the hard left on everything except "extending UE benefits?" Doesn't take much for a liberal to be a "moderate" does it?

Only liberals are pro-science? Only liberals oppose creationism being taught in science classes?

"Science" literally means "knowledge." If you aren't willing to hear every possible explanation concerning the origin of the universe and living organisms then you aren't truly interested in science/knowledge. Your mind is already closed.

Actually it means knowledge through systematic study.

 

[kaz]

Are we always going to wait until the bailout?

(No to be rude. I am sure it is just a typo and I am sure one to speak. 'to' is a proposition and who is the object of the preposition that would make it 'whom'.)

Yes, Slick Willy started the policy of government forcing banks to make sub prime loans, and then government bailed out the banks when they failed in a collapse that started when sub-prime borrowers couldn't pay back their loans, that was government protecting capitalism. LOL. Sure it is.

You are full of shit. The Glass-Steagal rollback was a GOP driven bill. Clinton made the stupid mistake of using that to bargain for some policies he wanted. And 2008 was the result. Just FYI;

Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit - The Boston Globe

President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline.

If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house.

You are full of shit. First of all, what I said had nothing to do with Glass-Staegal other than they both related to banks. The Clinton Administration had the policy that more people should have access to the American dream, then through Congress they threatened banks if they didn't lower their lending requirements they would hall their asses into one congressional hearing after another. Then the Fed funded it all with virtually no interest loans. Glass-Staegel removed government limits on what sorts of banking operations could combine, it was an entirely different thing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm a freedomist.

Freedom, warts and all.

 

[RandomVariable]

Sure, you have liberal lawyers telling you one thing, and I have the field of economics telling me another. Obviously I'm just naive...

LOL, you're a hoot.

I have heard you make claim to your vast knowledge of economics before but, yes, you are extremely naive. Your concepts are half baked and your references are to stuff I have seen on random YouTube videos. You seem to have no more understanding of the concepts than that.

If you're going to be an ass then I'm going to pass on responding to you. However, I am an MBA in finance and I spent most of my career in financial services, including quite a few working on Wall Street. Finance is a branch of economics if you're not aware of that. So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. You are listening to lawyers who have none of that experience, and you don't notice either that what they are telling you is completely self serving to them. Yet, you still trust them. Then call me "naive." LOL.

Yes, I do call you naive. You earlier reply to me demonstrates that quite clearly. You have no clue what you are talking about, even if you won the Noble prize. Maybe there are a thousand people who think like you do, I am sure there are, does not mean you are any the wiser for it.

 

[Moonglow]

Imma liberal conservative...democratic-republican

 

[eflatminor]

Classical Liberal / libertarian / Constitutional conservative.

In other words, I advocate free markets and free minds and I despise collectivism in all its forms.

I seek to avoid central planning whenever and wherever possible because I believe free people making voluntary choices will produce superior results for all.

In other words, I do not believe anyone knows what's best for everyone else, no matter how benevolent their intentions. Therefore, individuals should be free to conduct their affairs as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

“Our faith in freedom does not rest on the foreseeable results in particular circumstances but on the belief that it will, on balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad.” – F.A. Hayek

 

[DriftingSand]

Imma liberal conservative...democratic-republican

Me too. I eat liberally but save cash conservatively.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your 'rights' are an illusion.

Da Comrade - there are only privilege granted by GLORIOUS peoples commissars.

 

[RandomVariable]

Your 'rights' are an illusion.

Da Comrade - there are only privilege granted by GLORIOUS peoples commissars.

In a political context 'rights' is a euphemism for something else.

 

[ron4342]

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know the general demographics of this board. Are you Socialist/Democrat, Middle-of-the-road/Republican, or Constitutional/Conservative, a combination of two of the above (or something else)?

I'm not trying to anger my Republican friends that are right leaning. When I say "Republican" I'm talking about the RINOs currently running the show. The compromisers and the spend-happy sorts. I was Republican for decades. I broke away (hopefully for a short term depending on the direction they go in the future) recently and am leaning more towards a Tea Party/Conservative Party/Libertarian Party mix. However, I'll likely vote Republican if he or she adheres to a mostly conservative stance.

You tell me what I am.
I believe Lincoln was right when he said he believed in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I believe the government has a duty to do the things that ordinary citizens cannot do.
I believe the government should not give preferential treatment to the wealthy by taking from the poor.
I believe the government should help people down on their luck.
I believe that no American should go to bed hungry.
I believe the government should help create jobs for those who need them.
I believe in a government that fights for the rights of ALL of its citizens be they women, blacks, hispanics, etc.
I believe the members of government should work together and not play politics with its citizens lives.
I believe that ALL Americans should have the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance and that people should not have to worry about losing everything they have worked for when they or a family member get sick.
I believe, like a man, a woman should have a right to control their own body.
So, what does all of the above make me?

 

[kaz]

I have heard you make claim to your vast knowledge of economics before but, yes, you are extremely naive. Your concepts are half baked and your references are to stuff I have seen on random YouTube videos. You seem to have no more understanding of the concepts than that.

If you're going to be an ass then I'm going to pass on responding to you. However, I am an MBA in finance and I spent most of my career in financial services, including quite a few working on Wall Street. Finance is a branch of economics if you're not aware of that. So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. You are listening to lawyers who have none of that experience, and you don't notice either that what they are telling you is completely self serving to them. Yet, you still trust them. Then call me "naive." LOL.

Yes, I do call you naive. You earlier reply to me demonstrates that quite clearly. You have no clue what you are talking about, even if you won the Noble prize. Maybe there are a thousand people who think like you do, I am sure there are, does not mean you are any the wiser for it.

I'm not just telling you that you're wrong because I said so, I am telling you that the Lawyers who are telling you to vote for them because they know more about economics than the field of economics does are lying to you. That you believe them even though what they are telling you contradicts the field of economics and is entirely self serving to themselves in their quest for power demonstrates where the naivete in this conversation lies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In a political context 'rights' is a euphemism for something else.

This nation is involved in a "soft" civil war. Those of us on one side hold to the Republican ideals of Locke, Washington, Jeffereson, Paine, et al. We hold that the RIGHT to life, liberty, and property are not granted by rulers or lords, but are the inherent state of reality. Absent rulers, these rights exist.

You of the radicalized democrats hold that we should be ruled by those who are better equipped to run our lives and affairs. That rulers in Washington DC should decide the division of labor and allocation of wealth.

I call you Communists, but realize that while you seek the governmental model of Stalin's USSR, you don't hold the economic ideals of Karl Marx. The highly corrupt Fascist economic model promoted by Barack Obama serves the aims of an authoritarian society better than do the fully collectivist ideals of Marx. Control of the means of production is in the hands of rulers, but profiteering by well connected looters is encouraged.

If all rightly belongs to our rulers, as you democrats demand, then how can their be any rights? We are all property of the state and must obey without question the state and the party rulers of the state.

This nation is splitting, and the divide between Communist and Patriot is becoming clear.

 

[Shaitra]

I'm an independent conservative.