What Is Wrong With America ?

[dblack]

I hadn't hear of "corporatist" before. I don't have much to do with corporations. Never cared for them, actually. HA HA. I'm sometimes hard to figure out for younger conservatives (under 40), who really are Reaganists, not conservatives, but they don't know it.
For people who harken back to the Eisenhower days, we know what REAL conservatism is about, and sadly, it barely exists anymore today, having been ruined and replaced by Reaganism (small, weak govt, low taxes, low spending, minimal national security)

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting definition. My first thought was it was to mean favoring corporate America (which I don't). Seeing this definition (interest groups), I'd have to say no, the only interest group I support is that of the American people, and I see it as my job to PROTECT them - often from interest groups who have only THEIR narrow interest in mind, which often are opposite to the interests of the American people (ex. BOTH the Republican AND Democratic parties, CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and all the other Muslim Brotherhood groups, La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, and all the other anti-American often racist Hispanic groups, US Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, etc.

The key feature of corporatism is its preference for collective rights as opposed to individual rights. That's what I find 'corporatist' about your views. I also find them to be quite authoritarian, despite your denials in that regard. You seem to want a government that 'runs' society, pushing us toward a specific vision of the "good life", rather than one that acts as a referee, protecting our freedom to pursue our own interests and goals. You're definitely not a libertarian.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"Sorry" to spoil your fun, but I'm not a liberal. In fact, I've been called a super conservative.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

I thought you were conservative. But now I'm not so sure. You're sounding a lot like a liberal on this issue.

That's because you (and most people nowadays) are totally confused on these definitions. REAL Conservatives don't allow our nation to be overrun by millions of Mexican parasites, just so some businesses can boost their profits with cheap labor. RCs don't allow Muslim lunatics to endanger our people because they want taxes held down, which could have caught those creeps and arrested them. RCs don't bash people who wish to raise taxes on the rich enough to maintain a strong military, etc, etc.

It is necessary for people who wish to be a conservative (CONSERVING America's heritage, culture, language, and values) to know that it takes MONEY to do this. There are many well-organized and well-financed groups who, for their own specific ends, will drag this country through the dirt to get what they want. And by denying the US govt the funds it needs, you are helping them to do just that.

Examples abound. With too small budgets available to do proper vetting, the FBI's Arabic translation unit, instead of being a national security protection group, has been a right arm for the terrorists, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other enemies (read Infiltration by Paul Sperry). With too few ICE agents, CBP officers, and no double fence on the border, Mexican invaders routinely (and criminally) cross the Mexican border, steal American jobs, and ruin our economy, by way of remittances$$$ and welfare (using the anchor baby racket). With too few $$ to build the prisons we need, dangerous criminals are released from prisons too early, and then go out and commit crimes all over again. With too few $$$ available (due to low taxes), dangerous infrastructure problems (ex. 1. Wolf Creek Dam 2. California Delta levees) continue to allow citizens to be in harm's way. I could go on and on with examples of how the proper PROTECTION that should be accorded the American people, is not being done.

And why not ? So some multimillionaire greed freak, who doesn't want to pay more than the 28% tax Reagan prescribed, can have 25 vacation homes in Europe and the Caribbean ? So some billionaire, with more money than he knows what to do with, can have solid gold bathroom fixtures, and art and jewlery collections that could buy Arizona ? Is that what you call "Conservative" ?

Sadly, that is what conservative has come to mean for millions of badly deluded people, and by denying the tax $$$ govt needs to defend the American people with, these modern pseudo-conservatives (Reaganists), are actaully serving the liberal cause more than the liberals themselves do. It is because of the lack of ICE agents, border patrollers, Mexican border fence, immigration courts & jails, and everything else needed to stop illegal immigration, that these things are not being provided (same old reason > budget cuts; lack of funds; Republicans calling for spending cuts). And the result ? Mexicans et al foreigners come flocking into the country, providing VOTES for Democrats, who then support more immigration, to support more Democrats, etc etc
The Muslim loons, who hide behind the Constitution, do the same. They support Democrats and liberals, who support them, and the Reaganists are facilitating all this with every dollar that they keep out of the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the NSA, ICE, CBP, local and state police forces, the prison system, etc.

So, all you Reaganists (who very mistakenly think you are conservatives), the Muslim Brotherhood thanks you, the NAACP (and all their affirmative action lawyers) thank you, La Raza, LULAC, & MALDEF thank you, the ACLU thanks you, the SPLC thanks you, and last but not least, the Democratic Party thanks you.

The most REALLY Conservative president we've had in the last 60 years (Eisenhower), had a 91-92% tax on the rich, the whole 8 years he was in office. Think about it.

Oh, and who cut their budget??


Hmmm.... let me think.

Yepp: Republicans.

Thanks for undergirding my argument.

 

[dblack]

At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.

Of geese and golden eggs.......

the american wealthy should pay a higher tax and be happy they dont live in France.

I do assume tho that the wealth tax would end when they're not wealthy anymore.

I've read that prior to the great depression the French had accumulated so much gold that they blunted the economys of the rest of the western nations...led to great depression.

I might be an anomaly as a libertarian, but I'm actually in favor of raising taxes. We should be paying for ALL the government we're getting and not pushing debt (and interest payments to banks) off on future generations. But simply raising tax rates is pointless until we clean up the tax code so that it actually generates revenue. Right now, it's primarily used as a tool to manipulate society.

 

[Statistikhengst]

At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.

Of geese and golden eggs.......

the american wealthy should pay a higher tax and be happy they dont live in France.

I do assume tho that the wealth tax would end when they're not wealthy anymore.

I've read that prior to the great depression the French had accumulated so much gold that they blunted the economys of the rest of the western nations...led to great depression.

I might be an anomaly as a libertarian, but I'm actually in favor of raising taxes. We should be paying for ALL the government we're getting and not pushing debt (and interest payments to banks) off on future generations. But simply raising tax rates is pointless until we clean up the tax code so that it actually generates revenue. Right now, it's primarily used as a tool to manipulate society.

I find some validity to your argument.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"Sorry" to spoil your fun, but I'm not a liberal. In fact, I've been called a super conservative.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

I thought you were conservative. But now I'm not so sure. You're sounding a lot like a liberal on this issue.

That's because you (and most people nowadays) are totally confused on these definitions. REAL Conservatives don't allow our nation to be overrun by millions of Mexican parasites, just so some businesses can boost their profits with cheap labor. RCs don't allow Muslim lunatics to endanger our people because they want taxes held down, which could have caught those creeps and arrested them. RCs don't bash people who wish to raise taxes on the rich enough to maintain a strong military, etc, etc.

It is necessary for people who wish to be a conservative (CONSERVING America's heritage, culture, language, and values) to know that it takes MONEY to do this. There are many well-organized and well-financed groups who, for their own specific ends, will drag this country through the dirt to get what they want. And by denying the US govt the funds it needs, you are helping them to do just that.

Examples abound. With too small budgets available to do proper vetting, the FBI's Arabic translation unit, instead of being a national security protection group, has been a right arm for the terrorists, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other enemies (read Infiltration by Paul Sperry). With too few ICE agents, CBP officers, and no double fence on the border, Mexican invaders routinely (and criminally) cross the Mexican border, steal American jobs, and ruin our economy, by way of remittances$$$ and welfare (using the anchor baby racket). With too few $$ to build the prisons we need, dangerous criminals are released from prisons too early, and then go out and commit crimes all over again. With too few $$$ available (due to low taxes), dangerous infrastructure problems (ex. 1. Wolf Creek Dam 2. California Delta levees) continue to allow citizens to be in harm's way. I could go on and on with examples of how the proper PROTECTION that should be accorded the American people, is not being done.

And why not ? So some multimillionaire greed freak, who doesn't want to pay more than the 28% tax Reagan prescribed, can have 25 vacation homes in Europe and the Caribbean ? So some billionaire, with more money than he knows what to do with, can have solid gold bathroom fixtures, and art and jewlery collections that could buy Arizona ? Is that what you call "Conservative" ?

Sadly, that is what conservative has come to mean for millions of badly deluded people, and by denying the tax $$$ govt needs to defend the American people with, these modern pseudo-conservatives (Reaganists), are actaully serving the liberal cause more than the liberals themselves do. It is because of the lack of ICE agents, border patrollers, Mexican border fence, immigration courts & jails, and everything else needed to stop illegal immigration, that these things are not being provided (same old reason > budget cuts; lack of funds; Republicans calling for spending cuts). And the result ? Mexicans et al foreigners come flocking into the country, providing VOTES for Democrats, who then support more immigration, to support more Democrats, etc etc
The Muslim loons, who hide behind the Constitution, do the same. They support Democrats and liberals, who support them, and the Reaganists are facilitating all this with every dollar that they keep out of the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the NSA, ICE, CBP, local and state police forces, the prison system, etc.

So, all you Reaganists (who very mistakenly think you are conservatives), the Muslim Brotherhood thanks you, the NAACP (and all their affirmative action lawyers) thank you, La Raza, LULAC, & MALDEF thank you, the ACLU thanks you, the SPLC thanks you, and last but not least, the Democratic Party thanks you.

The most REALLY Conservative president we've had in the last 60 years (Eisenhower), had a 91-92% tax on the rich, the whole 8 years he was in office. Think about it.

I got through the first part of your rant and it had nothing to do with the topic I commented on which is taxes.

Eisenhower's 92% tax bracket applied to income over $400,000 in 1953, equivalent to an income of $3,439,611 today. Since this tax bracket applied to very very few, the economic destruction was small. It was still a large disincentive for those subject to these rates, but the total effect on the economy was small.

In 1953 total federal tax receipts were just 18.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (17.6% On-Budget and 1.1% Off-Budget) while federal outlays were 20.4% of GDP. We were running a deficit equal to 1.7% of GDP. And the Gross Federal Debt was 71.4% of our GDP.

The top federal tax rate was reduced from 92% to 70% by Johnson in 1964 and the Gross Federal Debt was reduced from 71.4% of GDP down to 35.6% over the next two decades.

Currently the 2013 official White House numbers estimate tax receipts of 17.8% of GDP and Outlays of 23.3% of GDP for a deficit equal to 5.5% of GDP. And the Gross Federal Debt is estimated at 107.4% of GDP.

Forbes

 

[dcraelin]

the american wealthy should pay a higher tax and be happy they dont live in France.
I do assume tho that the wealth tax would end when they're not wealthy anymore.
I've read that prior to the great depression the French had accumulated so much gold that they blunted the economys of the rest of the western nations...led to great depression.

I might be an anomaly as a libertarian, but I'm actually in favor of raising taxes. We should be paying for ALL the government we're getting and not pushing debt (and interest payments to banks) off on future generations. But simply raising tax rates is pointless until we clean up the tax code so that it actually generates revenue. Right now, it's primarily used as a tool to manipulate society.

I find some validity to your argument.

The tax code does generate some revenue,.... tho I think too that it needs to be cleaned up.

One provision, the tax-exemption of municipal bonds, should be done away with. I think people from across political spectrum can agree on that. They fund hugely wasteful projects and I think economists would say they distort the market.

 

[hazlnut]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

 

[hazlnut]

Americans don't know their own history:

 

[hazlnut]

This one is a bit old, but it illustrates a point about how we choose lesser "celebrities" in America. We worship and put up on a pedestal people we should look down upon.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk[/ame]


I still like John McCain despite his unleashing Palin upon us.

 

[dblack]

Americans don't know their own history:

Separating religious power and state power was perhaps America's single biggest contribution to the development of enlightened government. The next step is to set up a similar 'wall of separation' between the state and economic power. Something like a first amendment for economic freedom.

 

[Bombur]

Americans don't know their own history:

Separating religious power and state power was perhaps America's single biggest contribution to the development of enlightened government. The next step is to set up a similar 'wall of separation' between the state and economic power. Something like a first amendment for economic freedom.

 

[Friends]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

I regret the power of rich people in this country, but there is nothing new about it. Until the presidency of Andrew Jackson there were private property qualifications for voting. For a long time afterwards there were no restrictions on political contributions. A politician could spend them on personal consumption if he wanted to.

 

[Friends]

This one is a bit old, but it illustrates a point about how we choose lesser "celebrities" in America. We worship and put up on a pedestal people we should look down upon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

I am glad that Sarah Palin became a national laughing stock. Nevertheless, anyone can go to a political rally, interview a bunch of people, and select the interviews of people who are poorly informed and inarticulate.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

I regret the power of rich people in this country, but there is nothing new about it. Until the presidency of Andrew Jackson there were private property qualifications for voting. For a long time afterwards there were no restrictions on political contributions. A politician could spend them on personal consumption if he wanted to.

Ya, it would be way better if the US was run by poor people.

 

[Avatar4321]

Liberals always claim their way is the only "fair" way. Doesn't make it so, but that is what they claim.

Didn't your parents tell you that life is not fair?

If life were fair, I would be as rich as Bill Gates. It ain't and neither am I.

Immie

Would you really? Im serious. Bill Gates has done quite a bit to get computers into every home and every walk of life making us more productive, more knowledgible, providing us with more leisure activities and comfort. He his products have served hundreds of millions of people, maybe even billions worldwide.

I know you are a great guy. But have you created a product or service that has helped hundreds of millions of people? I haven't.

Which is precisely why I don't have the money Bill Gates does. And I think it's fair that I don't.

 

[Avatar4321]

Equal rights are important in some things, but there's a time and place for everything. We don't give equal rights to men and women when it comes to moving furniture. Men do the heavy lifting. Women get the lighter pieces. That's life.

I think this is a perfect example of what's wrong with this nation. You think moving furniture has something to do with rights.

 

[dblack]

Americans don't know their own history:

Separating religious power and state power was perhaps America's single biggest contribution to the development of enlightened government. The next step is to set up a similar 'wall of separation' between the state and economic power. Something like a first amendment for economic freedom.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you ...

 

[Friends]

Separating religious power and state power was perhaps America's single biggest contribution to the development of enlightened government. The next step is to set up a similar 'wall of separation' between the state and economic power. Something like a first amendment for economic freedom.

"Economic freedom" has various definitions. One can easily define it in ways that would increase the wealth and power of the rich.

What I think we need is government financing of political campaigns. That exists in other democracies, and it works.

Unfortunately, when most Americans become disgusted with the government they support nihilistic policies that make the government even less effective, like term limits.

What I want is a large, powerful, effective government over which the rich have no power but one vote each.

 

[dblack]

Equal rights are important in some things, but there's a time and place for everything. We don't give equal rights to men and women when it comes to moving furniture. Men do the heavy lifting. Women get the lighter pieces. That's life.

I think this is a perfect example of what's wrong with this nation. You think moving furniture has something to do with rights.

Yeah... where do we even start when they're so little clarity on such fundamental concepts?

 

[Avatar4321]

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting definition. My first thought was it was to mean favoring corporate America (which I don't). Seeing this definition (interest groups), I'd have to say no, the only interest group I support is that of the American people, and I see it as my job to PROTECT them - often from interest groups who have only THEIR narrow interest in mind, which often are opposite to the interests of the American people (ex. BOTH the Republican AND Democratic parties, CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and all the other Muslim Brotherhood groups, La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, and all the other anti-American often racist Hispanic groups, US Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, etc.

The key feature of corporatism is its preference for collective rights as opposed to individual rights. That's what I find 'corporatist' about your views. I also find them to be quite authoritarian, despite your denials in that regard. You seem to want a government that 'runs' society, pushing us toward a specific vision of the "good life", rather than one that acts as a referee, protecting our freedom to pursue our own interests and goals. You're definitely not a libertarian.

You find them to be quite authoritarian because they are authoritarian