[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Liberals with guns (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 4/15/2008 12:04:52 AM EDT
|
So... I'm a Liberal with guns. I own a little over a dozen or so and go shooting about once or twice a month. Other then that I am a normal classic liberal. I want Church and State as far apart as possible. I'm Pro choice. I want nationalized health care, but with private options. I'm pro Union and would like to see more of them. Pro gay marriage. ect... I find it very hard to vote like this. Do I vote for the Republican that thinks Jesus is talking to him on a two-way radio? Or do I vote for the Democrat that gives speeches about the evil guns made to kill cops and babies? So I have to vote my interests. Republicans on average pass laws that favor the upper tax bracket and Democrats on average pass laws that favor the lower. Since I'm closer to the lower than the upper I have to vote Democratic. I wish I could vote more pro-gun/pro-self defense but other things come before that. Does anyone else have this issue or am I the crazy one in the room? |
Laws that help the rich also help the poor. Laws that hurt the rich hurt everyone unless you are a worthless welfare queen that just leaches off society. Do you have a job? Who provides most jobs in this country? If they are hurt who do they have to fire? If you let them keep more money what do they do with that money? |
Would you mind showing me one? You know trickle down economics don't work right?
Do you honestly think that? Because its pretty pathetic if you do.
Yes. A non-union one with almost no benefits. The pay is decent for the area though.
I honestly have no idea of the company or industry.
There is a difference between taxing rich people and taxing companies and corporations.
I have no idea what they chose to do with their income but companies rarely give raises based on the years profits. At least not to their low level workers who make up the majority of their employees. |
What is your definition of "Upper Tax Bracket" and "Lower Tax Bracket"? Can you cite some specific examples of laws the Republicans have passed that favor the upper tax bracket? Can you cite some specific examples of laws the Democrats have passed that favor the lower tax bracket? |
|
You're not crazy. Or if you are, we're both drinking from the same punch bowl. Some issues I'm right on, some I'm left. I'm pro-gun, individual rights oriented, privacy concerned, anti-welfare, anti-illegal alien, pro-Iraq. However, I'm also for very limited, basic universal healthcare/retirment, pro-choice, gay marriage, legalized mary jane, seperation of church/state, and all that hippy bullshit. Honestly? I just don't vote. I catch a lot of crap for it from people, though I feel not voting because of a lack of canidate is preferable to voting for a canidate I "sorta" agree with on some issues, but strongly oppose on others. |
Of course if you let ANYONE keep more of their money it is good but the effect is larger for corporations and the rich because they have more money to inject into the economy. |
Nationalized health care and Unions? Unions have killed the US auto industry, and in this day and age with all the Federal employer laws they are unnecessary and archaic. If you want to see what .gov run health care would be like take a look at Walter Reed and other VA hospitals. It is going to cost way too much and people aren't going to get the care they need, at least this way the system may be broke but if you're sick you don't get turned away for being too old, too fat or too sick. As far as abortions and gay marriage, I could care less. How do you feel about illegal immigrants? If you want them all gone we could still be friends. |
|
What is your definition of "Upper Tax Bracket" and "Lower Tax Bracket"? I would say Upper being a +$500k yearly single income, lower being $8000.
Free trade agreements normally favor the rich. They can move manufacturing over seas and save money. The company makes more profit and the rich, who have more money to invest, see a better return on their investment.
The nationalized health care, if it ever is passed, would favor people with lower income. Thats just off the top of my head at 3am. |
|
Free trade agreements favor EVERYBODY, by providing lower prices and encouraging commerce which CREATES jobs. In many cases it helps the poor more. The rich will still be able to afford products. History proves this. Go look at the unemployment levels before the wave of FTAs the unemployment levels after the enactment of FTAs. They actually create jobs because they encourage more commerce. National Health care MIGHT lower the cost of HC for a very narrow group but it WILL lower the quality of care for all. It also WILL cause rationing of care. If you make something free or very low cost demand skyrockets. |
So you want the government, that most liberals think can't do anything right, to have control over your health care?  Have you heard any of the issues that Canada and the UK are having? I have several Canadian friends that come down here (at the recommendation of their doctors) for health care because we either do it better or we can do it MUCH sooner. You also realize that a hospital can not refuse treatment based on your ability to pay now, right? And you also know that thousands of people a year (probably WAY more than that) never pay a dime for their procedures. So if there is already a plan in place for people that can't pay, why add the government to it? |
Thus lowering costs, which leads to a lower price of goods, which lets poor people save a shit ton of money by buying stuff at Wal-Mart. Go take an economics class. |
Free trade is what is lowering the standard of living for the working class who now have to compete with people from countries who are willing to do the same jobs for much less. Our strength is our working class and anyone that favors free trade favors the corporation over the American working man. The Democrats primarily opened up this free trade with China deal and it has hurt our economy ever since. You also fail to realize that it doesn't matter how much money you earn, the Liberals want to tax your capital gains, tax your earnings more, and consider someone who is making more than $40K/yr "rich" by their standards. I am not a rich man but not until recently have I ever made above $75K yet my standard of living is not going up since I pay nearly half my earnings in taxes between the state and federal. You want national healthcare yet fail to realize it comes without options, it's no wonder these countries that have introduced national healthcare have five times the death rate for normal avoidable diseases, Breast Cancer, Colon Cancer than those whom have private healthcare. Why limit yourself to what some government can provide you when you can afford your own private care with much more. You should ask yourself if the Union is really doing you favors are are they negotiating your contracts, your benefits, to allow you to remain competitive with the possibility of your job going over seas. I don't know all your specifics but anyone that favors more government control has failed to realize that the government can't even manage the half of your earnings it takes already and you want them to take more. Finally you can't be Pro-Gun and Pro-Government, it doesn't work that way. The only way the government can have more control is if you give it to them and honestly if your not happy then perhaps consider moving to Canada. They have Universal Healthcare, they have state retirement benefits, they also pay upwards of 60% of their earnings for such luxury and most live in crappy housing. I think the more you stop listening to the idiots among your friends and open your eyes and realize that the Liberals are selling your job overseas, the Liberals are taxing your corporation such that your union has to negotiate your contract to the lowest bidder, then perhaps you might start to wake up. I also feel as you do, I don't want my President to think he's got the ear of God but I sure don't want a President who thinks the Constitution is something in way of more power. We do have a national retirement system, Social Security, which the government has raided so many times that now people under the age of 45 may never actually recieve benefits- that's something to think about. RR |
Thats not always a guarantee. Some keep their earnings in foreign banks or invest in companies in different countries.
Like I said its not a guarantee. Its the rich guys money, he can do with it as he sees fit. If he wants to invest in another part of the world, he can. There is no assurance that money is staying in country.
So that exempts them from paying taxes?
There is more commerce done by the middle class than the upper. If we gave more tax breaks to the middle class they would buy more.
Some times they do... some times they don't. They have no requirement to expand or to expand in this country. It's their money. If they want to invest in a company in England or Germany they can.
If we taxed the rich more and the middle class less we could achieve the same thing but effect more people because the middle class is larger than the upper. |
  This is the classic liberal mind set. "No guarantees..." If you approached everything the same way, we'd have to ban all guns, because that would stop gun crime. Then we'd have to cut off everyone's penis to prevent rape. Because some people do things a certain way, makes the argument invalid? The truth is, when it comes to businesses, if they aren't investing in themselves or hiring they are probably failing. Publicly traded firms have shareholders that make sure that the companies leadership has the best interest of the shareholders in mind and if they don't, they lose their job. |
|
The upper 10% pay more than the lower 90% combined. You fail to realize that. It's the rich who invest into companies who in turn grow and in turn hire more workers. Sure it's nice to want to "punish" the rich because they worked hard to get an education and spent their lives building companies but they also are the ones who hire people. When I was young I thought as you did until I actually made a little money and was penalized accordingly. You honestly should go to a local community college and take some economics classes followed by some accounting and finance courses. You'll learn that punishing the upper class hurts even you because they can't afford to pay you, the worker more. I personally favor a flat tax of 10%, no reason the government needs more than 10% of your earnings to operate. RR
|
|
Has anyone ever calculated the rate of return for Social Security? You pay 7.2% which your employer matches you. So during your liftetime, all your working years, you've invested about 14.4% of your total earnings. Then when you retire you get like $1100/month. Now if you just got a 3% rate of return on your money, the average person earning $35K per year with a 3% cost of living ajustment from age 18 to age 59 would get over $6,000 per month. It's sad that you already invest 14.4% of your earnings and still fall short by investing another 15% of your earnings into a 401K, that's nearly 30% of your earnings invested and you can't even retire comfortably- plus they tax your earnings on retirement accounts. Fuck any idiot who is for more government, they already mismanage things so badly that had they been any company, any retirement account, they would have been brought up on charges. |
Vote your conscience! |
No no no, things ALWAYS get better when they become more complicated and accept greater responsibility. 
|
But I believe, at leasts partially, in what both parties stand for.
The best safety I can offer them is a life in a good area of town.
So NAFTA brought in more, better paying, jobs? Are you sure about that?
I said national health care with private options. If you can afford private health care, you can have it. If you cant there is still the national health care system if the need arises.
I don't remember saying the government cant do anything right.
That's probably because they can afford it.
Only if your life is in immediate danger. If your not going to die, and die soon, then that your on your own.
What procedures are you talking about... I would like some more info on that.
Hell no... I already said I was pro-self defense.
But at the same time moving well paying middle class jobs over seas. So I guess we’ll all be shopping there soon. |
Weak, weak weak. Start here if you REALLY want to learn. Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell It will be the best $1.50 plus shipping you ever spent. |
Says the guy from MD. |
That figure is too high if you are are only talking about just a federal income tax, IMHO. |
NAFTA would be a specific example of a Free Trade Agreement: NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor;(hardly an overwhelming Republican vote) 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[6] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[7] Hardly a "Republican driven intiative favoring only the lower tax bracket" |
And if they can make more money making a product in Mexico and then shipping it to the US for sale, while making a larger profit, then their shareholders see a larger return and they don't lose their jobs. |
You are dead WRONG. NOTHING NOTHING comes before this. It is the 1st basic human right. |
|
As far as the rich investing in other countries. Most people (rich included) do what I do. They invest in mutual funds. Here are two that are in my portofolio. This one has 7% foreign investments. https://www.allianzlife.com/Variable/content/public/Literature/Documents/PIM331.PDF This one is the most heavily foreign invested I could find and it is still 60% US. https://www.allianzlife.com/Variable/content/public/Literature/Documents/FVF846.PDF |
Which is exactly WHAT they should do. What do you think the PRIMARY purpose of a corporation is? |
Twenty years ago I was a liberal and thought this was the stupidest idea I'd ever heard. Years of living in Europe have convinced me, however, that BlackDog714's proposition is correct. You are only as free as much as you are willing to fight and die for that freedom. Most people are pliant sheep and are not willing to give at all. |
WTF are you talking about? Besides building more jobs in the logistics, supply chain, and international shipping industries, without manufacturing jobs (that are becoming more and more automated anyway), lots more jobs are created all the time. Start reading. I would say that exporting manufacturing has INCREASED middle class jobs in the US. But that isn't anymore supported than anything you're spewing. Do you know how many foreign companies are creating jobs in the US? |
|
I never said it was to punish the rich. I have nothing against people making money, even great amounts of it. I just dont think someone making 50k a year should be taxed the same % as someone making 3million. Also not every rich person worked hard to get it... Look at Paris Hilton. 
I would be ok with that too... but what about state, personal property, ect. Or does that include state as well? |
Do you have this framed somewhere in your house?
|
Sadly, we would all be living like Paris Hilton had our families not been taxed at death or had enough earnings to buy life insurance to make the next generation richer. If you do anything in this life, make sure you leave a nice estate for your kids, I'm talking millions, it might cost you a few thousand a year but it will be worth it. RR |
granted
I never said I haven't disagreed with what the democrats have done.
Yes, thats plan.
I never said Social Security was perfect or didn't need fixing.
And I have a buddy in canada who broke his leg and got to see a doctor right away when he got the the emergency room.
Just because you cant pay for an operation doesn't mean your poor.
And I do... thats why im not voting for his wife... at least I didn't in the primary here. |
Well I don't have kids yet so I don't know if I'll like them that much to make that kind of investment. I guess I could always cancel it and on my deathbed tell them to pound sand with my last breath. |
Most people aren't dying from a broken leg. In a lot of ERs in the US a broken leg can go through expedited care because x-rays, bone set, and cast are pretty simple. Also, compare some random hospital in Canada to a place in NYC, and who knows how many people are waiting in line? Canada and the UK have only 10% and 20% of our population and their health care systems can't handle .gov run health care, and all three have roughly the same amount of physicians per capita. (CAN 213, GBR 230, USA 256). Operations are insanely expensive for people that don't have health care, instead of ruining hospitals all over America, why can't you liberals just support .gov sponsored health insurance? Why force the same thing on everyone when its a hand full that need help? Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. |
+1 What the Lib's will never figure out. A poor man has NEVER signed my paycheck. Samuel |