What Is Wrong With America ?

[The T]

Taliban have the attitude that we don't need to invest and we can live a simple life. Well, America and every great nation in history want against this.

Sad to see that the conservative movement has losed its fucking mind.

Who are Taliban you describe Matt? ELABORATE.

 

[P@triot]

You two are proof that even the military enlists scum from time to time. When I say I support the men in uniform, I exclude you two. While I would normally thank men for their service, I will not thank you for yours. You two demean the memory of Eisenhower. You two are posers. I'll bet you were one of those John Kerry types. It is people like you that are what's wrong with America. But then I guess that's your point and why you are here, to be what's wrong with America.

In all fairness it should be pointed out that Comrade JoeB Stalin was in the SOVIET military, not the US Military.

 

[P@triot]

Municipalities are also at the mercy of their Low-Information ideologues on both sides of the aisle.

Which is why every wins genius. You're having trouble following along, I take it?

 

[protectionist]

I have no side of aisle.

Yeah I noticed that, when you shoveled the bullshit about Clinton reducing the national debt...

Liberals must realize their ideology is a failed ideology, their opinions are uninformed, and their arguments are weak because everyone of them starts off trying to convince the board they are actually "conservative" (I guess they believe that will provide them with credibility they can obtain on their own through own posted thoughts and ideas).

JoeB and protectionist absurdly claim to be "Eisenhower" Republican's (despite Joseph's proud declaration of his love for communism). Rightwinger names himself "Rightwinger" despite being a full-fledged progressive. And "nodoginnafight" thinks the name will convince people he is independent despite being a hard-core socialist liberal.

FALSE! I have never called myself a "Republican" in any sense of the word. I support Eisenhower for his BIG, STRONG GOVT. policies which support a BIG STRONG NATIONAL SECURITY (in contrast to today''s Reaganist Republicans who support a small, weak govt which does exactly the opposite)

What's so absurd ?

1. Eisenhower chased the illegal aliens back to Mexico with a mass deportation program called Operation Wetback in 1954. I propose the same to be done now. (in contrast to Reagan's 1986 amnesty).

2. Eisenhower presided over a BIG, STRONG military paid for with the highest tax on the rich we've ever had (94%). He continued this line all through his presidency with taxes of 91-92%. I agree with that.

3. Eisenhower was a strong supporter of spending on infrastructure and created the interstate highway system and the the St. Lawrence Seaway (in partnership with Canada). I support spending on infrastructure too.

4. Eisenhower balanced the budget 3 times. I support that too.

5. Eisenhower kept the cold war from being a hot one. He kept the Russians at bay and successfully advised Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

6. Eisenhower increased Social Security benefits. I support doing that now.

7. Eisenhower increased the minimum wage. I support doing that now.

8. Eisenhower created Mission 66, a ten-year plan to strengthen the National Parks. I'm for that.

9. Eisenhower was extremely strong on NATIONAL SECURITY (my # 1 issue). He never allowed it to fall below 50 percent of the budget.

10. He ended the Korean War and kept America at peace.

11. He didn't give in to Nasser over the Suez canal.

12. One of Ike's best achievements is one thing he DID NOT DO. That is support anything like affirmative action, despite being prodded to by Democrats. I despise affirmative action.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah I noticed that, when you shoveled the bullshit about Clinton reducing the national debt...

Liberals must realize their ideology is a failed ideology, their opinions are uninformed, and their arguments are weak because everyone of them starts off trying to convince the board they are actually "conservative" (I guess they believe that will provide them with credibility they can obtain on their own through own posted thoughts and ideas).

JoeB and protectionist absurdly claim to be "Eisenhower" Republican's (despite Joseph's proud declaration of his love for communism). Rightwinger names himself "Rightwinger" despite being a full-fledged progressive. And "nodoginnafight" thinks the name will convince people he is independent despite being a hard-core socialist liberal.

What's so absurd ?

1. Eisenhower chased the illegal aliens back to Mexico with a mass deportation program called Operation Wetback in 1954. I propose the same to be done now. (in contrast to Reagan's 1986 amnesty).

2. Eisenhower presided over a BIG, STRONG military paid for with the highest tax on the rich we've ever had (94%). He continued this line all through his presidency with taxes of 91-92%. I agree with that.

3. Eisenhower was a strong supporter of spending on infrastructure and created the interstate highway system and the the St. Lawrence Seaway (in partnership with Canada). I support spending on infrastructure too.

4. Eisenhower balanced the budget 3 times. I support that too.

5. Eisenhower kept the cold war from being a hot one. He kept the Russians at bay and successfully advised Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

6. Eisenhower increased Social Security benefits. I support doing that now.

7. Eisenhower increased the minimum wage. I support doing that now.

8. Eisenhower created Mission 66, a ten-year plan to strengthen the National Parks. I'm for that.

9. Eisenhower was extremely strong on NATIONAL SECURITY (my # 1 issue). He never allowed it to fall below 50 percent of the budget.

10. He ended the Korean War and kept America at peace.

11. He didn't give in to Nasser over the Suez canal.

We need a pro-science Eisenhower

 

[P@triot]

Yeah I noticed that, when you shoveled the bullshit about Clinton reducing the national debt...

Liberals must realize their ideology is a failed ideology, their opinions are uninformed, and their arguments are weak because everyone of them starts off trying to convince the board they are actually "conservative" (I guess they believe that will provide them with credibility they can obtain on their own through own posted thoughts and ideas).

JoeB and protectionist absurdly claim to be "Eisenhower" Republican's (despite Joseph's proud declaration of his love for communism). Rightwinger names himself "Rightwinger" despite being a full-fledged progressive. And "nodoginnafight" thinks the name will convince people he is independent despite being a hard-core socialist liberal.

FALSE! I have never called myself a "Republican" in any sense of the word. I support Eisenhower for his BIG, STRONG GOVT. policies which support a BIG STRONG NATIONAL SECURITY (in contrast to today''s Reaganist Republicans who support a small, weak govt which does exactly the opposite)

What's so absurd ?

1. Eisenhower chased the illegal aliens back to Mexico with a mass deportation program called Operation Wetback in 1954. I propose the same to be done now. (in contrast to Reagan's 1986 amnesty). I support that as well considering they are criminals

2. Eisenhower presided over a BIG, STRONG military paid for with the highest tax on the rich we've ever had (94%). He continued this line all through his presidency with taxes of 91-92%. I agree with that. Ignorant Liberal

3. Eisenhower was a strong supporter of spending on infrastructure and created the interstate highway system and the the St. Lawrence Seaway (in partnership with Canada). I support spending on infrastructure too. Ignorant Liberal

4. Eisenhower balanced the budget 3 times. I support that too. I support that as well

5. Eisenhower kept the cold war from being a hot one. He kept the Russians at bay and successfully advised Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, he pacified them like an ignorant liberal

6. Eisenhower increased Social Security benefits. I support doing that now. Ignorant Liberal

7. Eisenhower increased the minimum wage. I support doing that now. Extremely ignorant liberal

8. Eisenhower created Mission 66, a ten-year plan to strengthen the National Parks. I'm for that. Ignorant liberal (parks are not a constitution responsibility of the federal government)

9. Eisenhower was extremely strong on NATIONAL SECURITY (my # 1 issue). He never allowed it to fall below 50 percent of the budget. You don't necessarily have to spend ungodly sums of money to have a powerful military

10. He ended the Korean War and kept America at peace. So like all ignorant liberals, he cut anchor and retreated with his tail between his legs before the objectives were completed

11. He didn't give in to Nasser over the Suez canal.

12. One of Ike's best achievements is one thing he DID NOT DO. That is support anything like affirmative action, despite being prodded to by Democrats. I despise affirmative action.

And what do you think "increasing minimum wage and SS is - ensuring a small group of people receive an unfair advantage at the detriment of the rest

 

[JoeB131]

[

JoeB and protectionist absurdly claim to be "Eisenhower" Republican's (despite Joseph's proud declaration of his love for communism). Rightwinger names himself "Rightwinger" despite being a full-fledged progressive. And "nodoginnafight" thinks the name will convince people he is independent despite being a hard-core socialist liberal.

Guy, you really, really need to understand what Communism means before you start going around calling people that. Universal health care isn't Communism. It's common fucking sense. So is fair wages for working folks.

The real problem with the GOP is that after Reagan, the crazies took over. The Religious crazies, the Ayn Rand crazies, and so on.

2. Eisenhower presided over a BIG, STRONG military paid for with the highest tax on the rich we've ever had (94%). He continued this line all through his presidency with taxes of 91-92%. I agree with that. Ignorant Liberal

You repeat this a lot, but you don't dispute his fact. Ike kept the high marginal rates that FDR imposed during the war, and as a result, we not only built a strong post-war military, but also strong infrastructure that aided our industrial and economic strength. Not to mention the growth of the middle class that was unprecedented in American history.

But all you see is that the Rich had to pay their fair share, and you're horrified.

Incidently, when JFK reduced the top rate to 70%, REPUBLICANS called it fiscally irresponsible.

9. Eisenhower was extremely strong on NATIONAL SECURITY (my # 1 issue). He never allowed it to fall below 50 percent of the budget. You don't necessarily have to spend ungodly sums of money to have a powerful military

You have a point there. Today we spend Ungodly sums of money to Blackwater and Hallburton to have obscene contracts, and we don't have a powerful military at all. A bunch of guys hiding in caves are fighting us to a standstill.

10. He ended the Korean War and kept America at peace. So like all ignorant liberals, he cut anchor and retreated with his tail between his legs before the objectives were completed

The only objective was to protect South Korea from aggression. That was done. The Chinese had fought us to a standstill and the only way to "acheive" the objective was to either start a nuclear war or escalate the thing to a World War, which everyone agreed was a horrible idea. We'd have probably lost Japan and Europe in the process.

12. One of Ike's best achievements is one thing he DID NOT DO. That is support anything like affirmative action, despite being prodded to by Democrats. I despise affirmative action.

And what do you think "increasing minimum wage and SS is - ensuring a small group of people receive an unfair advantage at the detriment of the rest

I'd call it a fair distribution of the fruits of labor.

This is kind of what you don't get. The 1% doesn't earn the 43% of the wealth it collects.

It just controlls the slicing of the pie, it didn't make the pie.

 

[dcraelin]

Teaser? I said nothing about bigger government
the Broad brush is well deserved, virtually none of these deals make money for the governments that are cajoled into them. It amounts to pork, plain and simple. It is not the governments role to subsidize business regardless if it theoretically would bring them more taxes. "economic development" in this country is a pathetic joke.

Wrong. It's working sucessfully all over the country. Washington had to sweeten the pot to get Boeing to stay or they were leaving. How did that not work out for the local and state economy?

keep seeing people say that but then they don't like European personal tax rates or VAT either so the argument is a bit disingenuous.

Huh?

Huffington just reported the work of Bill Quigley Law Professor, Loyola University New Orleans.

Law professor, not economist. There's a reason a liberal website posted it, that's the point.

No one with half-a-brain thought Boeing would actually leave. Trouble is local governments elect too many people with less than half-a-brain,... so they caved, or were bought off.

The local government had theoretically come to some sort of balance between taxes and services. The blood money they now have to pay to Boeing will be realized though less services or a higher tax rate.

What do you mean "huh?"? Lower corporate tax rates in the rest of the world generally mean they tax individuals higher. Europe generally has higher income tax rates and a VAT on top of that.

Economists are idiots...

 

[dcraelin]

And that is the problem. And no - that was not the "main point of the post". You just tried (irrationally) to use it as justification for your main point - which is that you believe we need to punish the wealthy for their success and increase taxes on them.
What does the Constitution have to do with anything?
It has everything to do with everything. We didn't get $17 trillion in debt because the federal government adhered to the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them in the U.S. Constitution. We have reached $17 trillion in debt because the federal government has unconstitutionally taken control of every facet of American life (education, transportation, masturbation, arts, parks, housing, farming & food, gaming, technology, energy, communications, clothing, fire, holocaust history, science, healthcare, carpet, animals, watches, power tools, firearms, movies, and endless more).

A main point, not the only point.... Its not punishment it is just practicality.... I would argue that some if not all of that is constitutional. (and some just an exaggeration on your part) But even if they arent constitutional, some government at some level, would likely be doing the spending in the feds place if they werent doing it. The states would probably rather have the feds do it in most cases.

But that's just it [MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] - that states and local municipalities have the proper authority over these issues. I'm ok with communism in San Fransisco. Honestly. I support it 100%. If people like protectionist, JoeB, candycorn want to go live their communist utopia either in another nation or in local municipalities, I think that's fantastic. I don't support, however, them unconstitutionally forcing their communist utopia on the American people at the federal level.

Our founders specifically designed a government where the federal government had the least power and least responsibilities because it is furthest away from the people and hardest for them to monitor and influence. In addition, by placing the most power at the local municipalities, people have the most power and influence over their own lives and the government in that area. So liberals can live their communist utopia in San Francisco and conservatives can live the American dream in Anchorage.

So why don't you support that? Why don't you support all Americans living their idea of the American dream? San Francisco can and should control transportation in San Francisco. Anchorage can and should decide that they don't want to tax their citizens to create socialist public transportation. Giving more options to people will allow both sides of the aisle to live in harmony. It's the fact that all sides are unconstitutionally forced against their will to live under the ideology of their opposition which is splitting this nation.

I agree with you on local control to a certain extent, but local polls are often manipulated or bought off as I said in a previous post. Some areas should have dual or split control.

The federal government should leave more transportation projects entirely to local government. No funding for some of these wasteful multi-lane monstrosities, or boondoggles like Bostons big-dig.

 

[bonehead]

ok, I have a plan. it doesn't require congress, the president or the supreme court.
the states may convene an article V convention if desired. the following issues are the major ones which I see as the top of the list.
1) balanced budget amendment. you don't have the money, you don't spend it. no credit card.
2) strict term limits for both elected and appointed positions in the government NO exceptions.

the list only contains two items. a list of 20 would get lost in the shuffle. too many causes too much wasted effort in different directions. these will get the ball rolling.

 

[protectionist]

Liberals must realize their ideology is a failed ideology, their opinions are uninformed, and their arguments are weak because everyone of them starts off trying to convince the board they are actually "conservative" (I guess they believe that will provide them with credibility they can obtain on their own through own posted thoughts and ideas).

JoeB and protectionist absurdly claim to be "Eisenhower" Republican's (despite Joseph's proud declaration of his love for communism). Rightwinger names himself "Rightwinger" despite being a full-fledged progressive. And "nodoginnafight" thinks the name will convince people he is independent despite being a hard-core socialist liberal.

FALSE! I have never called myself a "Republican" in any sense of the word. I support Eisenhower for his BIG, STRONG GOVT. policies which support a BIG STRONG NATIONAL SECURITY (in contrast to today''s Reaganist Republicans who support a small, weak govt which does exactly the opposite)

What's so absurd ?

1. Eisenhower chased the illegal aliens back to Mexico with a mass deportation program called Operation Wetback in 1954. I propose the same to be done now. (in contrast to Reagan's 1986 amnesty). I support that as well considering they are criminals

2. Eisenhower presided over a BIG, STRONG military paid for with the highest tax on the rich we've ever had (94%). He continued this line all through his presidency with taxes of 91-92%. I agree with that. Ignorant Liberal

3. Eisenhower was a strong supporter of spending on infrastructure and created the interstate highway system and the the St. Lawrence Seaway (in partnership with Canada). I support spending on infrastructure too. Ignorant Liberal

4. Eisenhower balanced the budget 3 times. I support that too. I support that as well

5. Eisenhower kept the cold war from being a hot one. He kept the Russians at bay and successfully advised Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis. In other words, he pacified them like an ignorant liberal

6. Eisenhower increased Social Security benefits. I support doing that now. Ignorant Liberal

7. Eisenhower increased the minimum wage. I support doing that now. Extremely ignorant liberal

8. Eisenhower created Mission 66, a ten-year plan to strengthen the National Parks. I'm for that. Ignorant liberal (parks are not a constitution responsibility of the federal government)

9. Eisenhower was extremely strong on NATIONAL SECURITY (my # 1 issue). He never allowed it to fall below 50 percent of the budget. You don't necessarily have to spend ungodly sums of money to have a powerful military

10. He ended the Korean War and kept America at peace. So like all ignorant liberals, he cut anchor and retreated with his tail between his legs before the objectives were completed

11. He didn't give in to Nasser over the Suez canal.

12. One of Ike's best achievements is one thing he DID NOT DO. That is support anything like affirmative action, despite being prodded to by Democrats. I despise affirmative action.

And what do you think "increasing minimum wage and SS is - ensuring a small group of people receive an unfair advantage at the detriment of the rest

NO and NO. Increasing MW affects a large group of people. Almost everyone. In addition to MW workers, higher paid worker wages typically increase as a result of the MW increase. Businesses see sales increases.

As for SS recipients getting increases, businesses see sales jumps from that too. All ALL Americans are SS recipients, not just because younger Americans have their older relatives getting help, but also those younger people will be SS recipients some day.
I'm a SS recipient now, but when I was in my 50s (1996-2006), the increases in Social Security then helped to make for a higher SS payment in 2008, when I first started getting it. Even the increases back in the 70s and 80s helped. The higher it was then, the higher it could be now. The higher it is now, the higher it can be in the future, for today's younger people.

PS - I don't like the way you stuck YOUR words into MY quote, making it look like I said those words. I'm going to take a look at the rules, and if I find that is a violation, as I suspect it could be (and not all rules are written), I'm going to fry your ass with it.

Now for your inserts:

1. 2. 3. No, the high taxes of Eisenhower are not "liberal". The afact that he had those taxes ought to educate your young, Reaganistic mind that what you perceive to be liberal (regarding taxes ) is false. Reagan was an opportunist. He was a movie star. That's an occupation with about the highest employee income in America. So he wanted the individual tax to be low so HE (and his movies buddies) could net more money. That's it! All this economics jibberish ever since Reagan, is poppycock, and you fall for it. NATIONAL SECURITY IS A CONSERVATIVES # 1 PRIORITY. And you don't get that by having a small, weak govt, deprives of the funds it needs to stop immigration, control Muslim lunatics, build prisons, hire cops, etc

5. I wouldn't call chasing the Russian missles out of Cuba, "pacifying them".

6. 7. Answered them already.

8. Not every responsibility is in the Constitution. Govt has responsiblities, whether they're in the Constitution or not.

9. Are you a military expert ? I served in 2 branches of the military for 5 years. How about you ?

10. Old Indian saying. "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in HIS mocassins."

 

[protectionist]

[

JoeB and protectionist absurdly claim to be "Eisenhower" Republican's (despite Joseph's proud declaration of his love for communism). Rightwinger names himself "Rightwinger" despite being a full-fledged progressive. And "nodoginnafight" thinks the name will convince people he is independent despite being a hard-core socialist liberal.

Guy, you really, really need to understand what Communism means before you start going around calling people that. Universal health care isn't Communism. It's common fucking sense. So is fair wages for working folks.

The real problem with the GOP is that after Reagan, the crazies took over. The Religious crazies, the Ayn Rand crazies, and so on.

2. Eisenhower presided over a BIG, STRONG military paid for with the highest tax on the rich we've ever had (94%). He continued this line all through his presidency with taxes of 91-92%. I agree with that. Ignorant Liberal

You repeat this a lot, but you don't dispute his fact. Ike kept the high marginal rates that FDR imposed during the war, and as a result, we not only built a strong post-war military, but also strong infrastructure that aided our industrial and economic strength. Not to mention the growth of the middle class that was unprecedented in American history.

But all you see is that the Rich had to pay their fair share, and you're horrified.

Incidently, when JFK reduced the top rate to 70%, REPUBLICANS called it fiscally irresponsible.

You have a point there. Today we spend Ungodly sums of money to Blackwater and Hallburton to have obscene contracts, and we don't have a powerful military at all. A bunch of guys hiding in caves are fighting us to a standstill.

The only objective was to protect South Korea from aggression. That was done. The Chinese had fought us to a standstill and the only way to "acheive" the objective was to either start a nuclear war or escalate the thing to a World War, which everyone agreed was a horrible idea. We'd have probably lost Japan and Europe in the process.

12. One of Ike's best achievements is one thing he DID NOT DO. That is support anything like affirmative action, despite being prodded to by Democrats. I despise affirmative action.

And what do you think "increasing minimum wage and SS is - ensuring a small group of people receive an unfair advantage at the detriment of the rest

I'd call it a fair distribution of the fruits of labor.

This is kind of what you don't get. The 1% doesn't earn the 43% of the wealth it collects.

It just controlls the slicing of the pie, it didn't make the pie.

I LOVE YA, MAN!!!

 

[Iceweasel]

I LOVE YA, MAN!!!:

Looky there, a nutcase found a bigger nut. I filtered him out since he's too stupid to talk to.

 

[Ame®icano]

8. Not every responsibility is in the Constitution. Govt has responsiblities, whether they're in the Constitution or not.

I'll comment on this only.

Federal government has it's responsibilities. They're listed in article I section 8.

For anything else there is 10th amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

8. Not every responsibility is in the Constitution. Govt has responsiblities, whether they're in the Constitution or not.

I'll comment on this only.

Federal government has it's responsibilities. They're listed in article I section 8.

For anything else there is 10th amendment.

To bad they did not quit with the 10th amendment. Unfortunately there's also the your life and property are owned by the U.S. government amendments that came after that one.

 

[Ame®icano]

8. Not every responsibility is in the Constitution. Govt has responsiblities, whether they're in the Constitution or not.

I'll comment on this only.

Federal government has it's responsibilities. They're listed in article I section 8.

For anything else there is 10th amendment.

To bad they did not quit with the 10th amendment. Unfortunately there's also the your life and property are owned by the U.S. government amendments that came after that one.

You're right. Intentions of the 11th was stop a federal lawsuit against a states, but today it means something completely different.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'll comment on this only.

Federal government has it's responsibilities. They're listed in article I section 8.

For anything else there is 10th amendment.

To bad they did not quit with the 10th amendment. Unfortunately there's also the your life and property are owned by the U.S. government amendments that came after that one.

You're right. Intentions of the 11th was stop a federal lawsuit against a states, but today it means something completely different.

Ayup and the civil war amendments were to free the "slaves" but really ended up enslaving us all.. and income taxes were to pay for wars but really ended up paying for social re-distribution programs and buying votes. And the senate amendment was to give the people control over the senate, but really ended up removing the check on tyranny of the 51% majority.

 

[Ame®icano]

To bad they did not quit with the 10th amendment. Unfortunately there's also the your life and property are owned by the U.S. government amendments that came after that one.

You're right. Intentions of the 11th was stop a federal lawsuit against a states, but today it means something completely different.

Ayup and the civil war amendments were to free the "slaves" but really ended up enslaving us all.. and income taxes were to pay for wars but really ended up paying for social re-distribution programs and buying votes. And the senate amendment was to give the people control over the senate, but really ended up removing the check on tyranny of the 51% majority.

The 14th is the one I would repeal first, because as it is now, States are not represented in federal government.

 

[dcraelin]

good article on pork in the Pentagon budget


The Men Who Really Run the Pentagon » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[RKMBrown]

You're right. Intentions of the 11th was stop a federal lawsuit against a states, but today it means something completely different.

Ayup and the civil war amendments were to free the "slaves" but really ended up enslaving us all.. and income taxes were to pay for wars but really ended up paying for social re-distribution programs and buying votes. And the senate amendment was to give the people control over the senate, but really ended up removing the check on tyranny of the 51% majority.

The 14th is the one I would repeal first, because as it is now, States are not represented in federal government.

I think you mean the 17th. But yeah, that one was a major screw up. Has turned the Senate into a cabinet of the president when controlled by the same party.

The problem with the 14th is the due process clause that allows the states to take our property as long as they say they are doing it with due process and "fairness" whatever the hell that means. Further, as seen with federal government programs like Obama Care and Medicaid, the federal government uses this state power via proxy to take away our assets for welfare programs that the federal government insists we have. States refusing to comply get screwed by not being able to receive federal checks for said programs. IOW if you buy into the federal socialist state, half the money for the welfare programs comes from the general fund (primarily income taxes and debt on income taxes, redistributing from conservative states to welfare states) and the other half from state asset recovery (taking of property), ... all based on "due process."