The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: What annoys the Left more?||Date: 10/13/2012 9:35 PM|
|Author: JediGALT||Number: 648693 of 847022|
I'm glad you're around. You do it right, you're fun to discuss stuff with. And you do it without the personal venom, that certain Liberal Bay Area Jihadist Racist come here and do, lol. (Let them know that California and Europe deserve what they get, lol)
:OK....1. A person who eats, drinks, or drugs their way into permanent disability. Show some responsibility, and when you're 150 pounds overweight because you didn't care, don't go crying for help. I've seen it happen up pretty close"
I'm ALSO all for personal responsibility. But where it comes to soda, or school lunches, sorry, I have NO RIGHT to tell you or your kids how to live. You may however want to chat with Leftists who love to peddle the "it's only pot" theme. Also, you may want to ask yourself if the march AWAY from the traditional nuclear family has helped obesity and drugs or crime, or hurt. Maybe, just maybe we can have a national chat on CULTURE, without Leftists screaming "you christian jerk!!!" Oh, and if you are ready to tell the Left to stuff it on that score, I'm willing to tell corporate America and Corporate Media that they also bear responsibility too.
"2. People who think reducing tax rates from the current numbers will increase revenues and reduce deficits."
Well, there's good people on both sides of the issue. I hate absolutism on this one. One side REFUSES to admit that tax hikes are needed. But the other side oooooozes contempt for those with lots of money and they cite the crooks and the Paris Hilton's as their evidencia. That's like citing Mohammed Atta as the sole example of Islam.
Para, as annoyed as you are with the tax hawks, I'm annoyed by those who REFUSE to admit that many times, letting people keep more of the rewards of their labor or risk, encourages them to work and risk more. And rising tides lift all boats.
In reality, if you are willing to FREEZE spending levels across the board and go back to Clinton era spending levels, you've got a willing partner in me to reverse Bush tax cuts, and go back to Clintonian rates. Why? Because we gotta make a deal that's why. And making deals means we can't have it all.
"3. Corporations getting tax breaks via expensive lobbying, and paying lower effective tax rates than small businesses. There has to be a change where small businesses can compete better with these monstrous corporations. (Note: This does not help me, as I am invested primarily in the big guys.)"
As someone who has stood AGAINST "trade deals" that give corporations power to ship industries to the 3rd world, and as a Conservative who has REPEATEDLY had praise for men like Nader or Kucinich, I can applaud you on this one. Amen. Trouble is, DEMOCRATS as much as REPUBLICANS are owned by the Big Boys. This is why I've always said: Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are cousins. They just can't figure it out.
"4. The Republican candidates saying they will get tough on government spending. I'm sorry, you have no credibility. You had eight years under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and great the budget significantly each time. Republicans talk tough during the campaign, then fail to act. You know why? Any President and Congress who truly gets tough with spending will cause a (worse) depression.:
OK, I can NOT argue that Repubs cut spending. Not recently. HOWEVER, you gotta admit that when Bush or ANY Republican proposes spending cuts, it's the LEft who starts shouting school lunch and killing granny. Paul Ryan has proposed tough cuts....wanna thank him for being courageous? Just like my side needs to accept revenue hikes, you need to ENCOURAGE the Paul Ryans of the world. Hard to swallow aint it?
"5. The jobs meme, as if the government has grand control over job creation. If you ask me, the only way government creates more jobs is to hire and pay people. I'm disappointed with the Obama administration, because I would have liked to see a stimulus program of $1-2T, solely devoted to national infrastructure: roads, bridges, railways, wind and solar power, and electrical grid. But he got no cooperation whatsoever from Congress. Once again, I think this "I know how to create jobs better" line is dumb.:
The vast majority of millions of immigrants who risked life and limb didn't come for a government job. They came to be left the hell alone, and to be allowed to pursue their betterment via private employment and business. Also, dollar for dollar, the private sector can and has created jobs better than the Feds. Oh, and that "spending" you claim to be upset about, well, there's only so much spending and inefficiency that the government can blow cash on. NEITHER gov't or biz has monopoly on job creation.....but gov't has much more inefficiency and loss and deficit associated with it's job creations.
"6. The lack of acknowledgement of global warming and diminishing world natural resources. That may annoy me more than Fox News. Tough call."
Trouble is, the Left has become Religious on this issue.
It's like Falwell is in charge of promoting Global Warming messages.
I think you've got some good stuff to say on diminishing resources. Again, IF you'd green light developing our OWN sources of energy be it Alaska or Keystone, I'd agree to simultaneously work on national policy that conserves or curtails resource usage, or encourages alternative resource findings. But I'd like to do it cause we need it, NOT because the typical Leftists can't stand that Americans "have too much" and need to be given a demotion in standard of living.
See Para? Civilized politics....always possible with 2 participants.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|