Republicans understand democrats better than they understand themselves

But, you have no problem posting an insult.
You seem to think I wouldn't know anything about those who think everything should be free?
Nothing talk about with that limit of logic.

 

They do consistently endorse screwing other people- but I can't say I find that something I like. The democrats of say 50 years ago were still democrats, but at least managed to keep the train on the tracks.
No more.

 

Aye. The performance politicians put on in front of the cameras bears little resemblance what kind of leader they are in fact. Although occasionally their performance is so grandiose, you can see just how black their soul truly is. As was the case with Anthony Weiner when he shouted down republicans for being the sole problem with Washington. Or has been the case with Matt Gaetz just being his affable self.

 

You seem to be stuck in some kind of bombastic right wing bumpersticker world where people can only live in unimaginative boxes or your own construction.
It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

There is an entire range of political thought in this country - Republicans who own guns and cattle voting for Biden - Democrats who don't support abortion voting for Trump - Independents who love muscle-cars voting for Democrats and Republican Generals voting
for a Democrat Commander in Chief.

A million different opinions and a million different views on the world ... but all you can think of is "they like free stuff ...". Sad and pathetic. And unimaginative.

 

Screwing other people in what way? Redistribution of wealth?

What democratic initiatives or proposals do you regard as off the tracks?

 

Define "fair share", as in what percentage of your taxable income you'd consider tolerable, just curious, as peoples concept of "fair share" varies wildly.

 

You probably haven't noticed, but not all that political thought is sane.

I just touched on the free stuff because it's like a common denominator, consistently part of everything the dems want to do. It's just one on the short list .

I personally don't care how a person chooses to live, or for that matter what they believe- so long as their choices and actions affect only their own lives. Once they start dictating how the rest of us must live, I'm going to have something to say. You can imagine yourself as a bat and sleep hanging from your own ceiling if you want to for all I care. But when you decide to hang from mine, or decide you are a vampire bat... you get unimaginatively boxed and sent away to the rubber rooms.

At this point in time, the left has been on an unparalleled tirade of hate for more than four years, and they seem not to know it. The results of their distortions have triggered the riots, fomented vast crime increases and turmoil of all kinds from destruction of national monuments to the cancel culture approach to silencing those who say something they don't like to attacking a person on the street for wearing a hat. The double standard has ruled it all. It's been mostly tolerated, but I would suggest they take heed of the developing signs and don't push their luck. That's still the short list.

Unlike the dem attitude with Trump, Biden will have a chance to do the job. The fact I think there's not a snowball's chance in hell is irrelevant. But when the train leaves the track, when he sells out the people as I believe he will do- things are going to get rough. What goes around comes around, and when it does, it will have bigger teeth.

 

While it's hard to imagine why anyone would actually have to ask-

"redistribution of wealth"- yes. When one man bust his ass to raise a great garden while his neighbor sits on his ass and grows weeds- He is not entitled to the other man's crop.
Wealth is not like the air we breath, it is acquired by working hard and smart. It is not stolen from poor people.

Basic income for everyone- yes. That would be stolen money, again the redistribution.

Free health care. Free college.
All the stuff being sold on the basis that somebody else will pay, so you can benefit.
It's like listening to a carnival barker telling the rubes how easy the game is and they can't lose.

"The words free, deserve, entitled and the equivalents dominate the advertisements of today- and democrats love it. Those are the sounds of the rocks in the bucket.....

 

I thought that was probably your perspective, but wanted to confirm. That seemed more polite than jumping to conclusions. I understand that perspective, and have a bit of sympathy for it, because I do believe redistribution can go too far. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that some redistribution is good for the long term health of our society.

I'm exactly the sort of moocher you despise. I took advantage of a (now defunct) government program to help pay for my college. If you were working at the time, some of your taxes subsidized me.

After college, I started my IT career, and was fairly successful, eventually moving into middle management at a top oil company. I ended up paying sizable taxes. Of course, unlike you, I never minded. I look at it as venture capital: investing tax money in the future of the nation through its people. Some will provide a good ROI. Many won't of course, but that's the nature of venture capital. But I get it: you earned it, and you don't like having it taken away from you.

 

How is that different than Republicans pushing their underfunded projects on future generations? Republicans have been pushing "free" stuff for just as long as Democrats - they just pretend it's different because it isn't this generation that is going to be paying for it.
Hell, Trump and the Republicans in Congress voted for the greatest "free" handout in US history this year. $4 trillion in government handouts to business and individuals over a nine month period.

 

Capitalism never rewarded "innovation." It rewarded the overhyping of any technological advance, meaningful or superfluous, to the point where people make up any unnecessary "improvement" that'll pay for itself once they've convinced enough customers they need it.

 

So you don't want Americans to be healthy or well-educated. Got it.

 

Roses don't grow in butts unless you have a lot of potting mix up there.

 

Well the "they like free stuff" is the one that matters. The number of people who are net contributors instead of net takers is shrinking every year.

Currently 60% of household receive more in transfer income than they pay in taxes. This is the worst percentage in American history. 40% of households are the cash cows that are generating the federal milk and 60% are the cash calves that are drinking it. As a lifelong cash cow, I don't think I and my fellow cash cows have enough milk left to feed all those hungry calves.

https://taxfoundation.org/60-percent-households-now-receive-more-transfer-income-they-pay-taxes/

It doesn't take an economist to recognize this as DIRE EXISTENTIAL THREAT to the country. It is an issue of paramount importance.

 

Projects are all dependent on congress- and many a good idea goes to congress and comes out crippled. I don't argue that both sides don't botch the job in various ways, but the things the dems favor tend to promote social imprints that curse those future generations and reduce the possibility of ever achieving anything better.

And the $4 trillion is likely not enough to deal with the pandemic fallout. Not the disease, but the damages done by our draconian ideas about handling it.
Reports indicate that as protections for rents and such expire in a month, 5.8 million people expect to be evicted or in foreclosure. Unlike most wasted money, this was a question of survival, and a lot will still fail to survive. Entire theater chains like Regal for example- closing 536 locations, laying off everyone. Disney today said their layoffs will reach 32,000 soon, and they have lost over 7 billion dollars due to the closures. The cruise lines billion dollar ships are idle, most of their 1500 per ship crews out of work. All that has consequences. While bankruptcies are up, we have yet to see the big wave of them, that will happen closer to spring. England's office of finance advised the government this week to expect the worst recession in 300 years- Our finance people aren't speaking to that yet, but they will have to.
Things will get a lot worse before they get better.

You just can't run a government like a frat house party, and I hold the dems responsible for the circus they have run for the last 4 years. It has distracted everything, entertained endless BS, and resulted in far less done that could have been. It takes both sides and some genuine character to work together, one side can't do it, and having the other block everything is the same as doing nothing- except damage.

You don't understand my point of view. Or, you just take the usual dem approach- if Trump is for it, they are against it. Good/bad doesn't matter.

 

Like the computer you are on? Your cell phone? Your flat-screen TV? Your microwave, your highly efficient car, the tires that now last 70,000 miles instead of 20?
IF you are smart, you wouldn't have fallen for all those sucker pitches, would you? Of course not. You probably never use those nasty things because they were invented and promoted as "unnecessary improvements".

 

Don't blow smoke here.
I want them to be healthy and educated, including you.
But you- want someone else to pay your bills; think those things are owed to you by the rest of society.
That is where we differ.

 

Explain the threat to the country. i.e. what bad thing is going to happen?

I get it that you don't like the idea of people not paying (what you regard) their fair share, like you, but you not liking it doesn't sound like an "existential threat".

 

Seriously? Well it goes like this, with more takers than payers, the bill has to go on the credit card. When the credit card reaches its limit, suddenly countries like China will no longer buy American debt, the dollar suddenly loses it's status as the world's currency, inflation kicks in, the wealth of the entire middle class is wiped out and the country collapses. This kind of collapse could threaten the food supply. Americans then will be introduced to suffering that they had no idea could exist, worse even than perhaps the Great Depression.

 

Nope, I think that health care and education is something that tax money should pay for because it benefits the country. Whereas you don't want to pay for anything that does not benefit you directly.

 

Unsustainable deficits are a problem, sure, but that can be addressed by increasing taxes on higher income people and corporations. This would maintain the current redistribution. Problem solved... ...unless you just don't like the idea that some people are taking while others are paying.

 

So- anything that benefits the country should be free to all. You assume that the government will pay for those costs- HOW?
You know that everything costs money; you know that someone has to pick up the tab for what you want to get free- and that is OK with you.

I probably pay more taxes than you, a couple times 6 figures. Government has taken a lot from me- yet I have taken nothing from government that wasn't paid in by me for me in the first place. Not so much as an unemployment check, and I have been broke as well as wealthy. I pay my own way; always have. My parents did the same.

JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you- Ask what you can do for your country"
It's the difference in being an asset to your nation, or being a parasite that feeds on it.

 

In your view, is everyone who takes more than he pays in taxes a "parasite"? Or do you acknowledge there are some who are deserving?

 

America has been and is a generous nation, ready and eager to help people in genuine need- but reluctant to support those who are in need because they refuse to take charge of their own lives. That old story about the farm communities helping out someone sick or injured is absolutely true. Such a farmer I knew well (Rod) developed pancreatic cancer in the spring couple years ago, and he farmed 2000 acres of wheat and beans. All the crops were harvested by friends and neighbors- free. While he died from the cancer, his family avoided some disastrous consequences because of that. All those volunteers knew well that if it had been them instead of Rod that fell ill, he would have been there for them. Nobody asked them to; they all volunteered. That is how we help others in genuine need. It's an honor to do so.

The point is that a system that supports people who won't support themselves does far more damage than good. Of course those receiving the aid do their best to appear qualified to government, and are willing to do what ever it takes. Such people defend it. They see "need" as not having, and make no connection to their not producing. It's a one-way street for a great many- and those people are parasites. They aren't much interested in getting back on their feet- often such people have never been self-sufficient. They take today, and assume the handout will be there tomorrow as well. They make make some token efforts to appear they are trying, but readily willing to emulate qualifying conditions. That is manipulation to insure they get the next check.

Governments can't tell the difference. I don't think democrats care about the difference, and that makes them worse- they promote the dependency which insures that person will vote for them again to continue the process.

It's typical for them to respond as you have, trying to cover both the deserving and undeserving in the same category- just like the undeserving do. Democrats DO know the difference, but are willing to dodge that truth to protect their power, keep dependents voting for them.

 

The very issue I was leading into was the deserving vs the undeserving. Democrats tend to err on the side of giving benefits, accepting or ignoring that undeserving people get them. On the other hand, Republicans err in the other direction, treating every recipient as a cheat or moocher. The truth is in between, and it's why I believe we need the 2-party dynamic. That said, it is a fact that everyone needs affordable healthcare, so there is no such thing as an undeserving recipient.

Political expediency afflicts both parties. Neither party is willing to take the political risk of increasing taxes on the poor. The Paul Ryan designed tax cuts reduced their taxes (temporarily), and increased the number of people taking more than they give. For that matter, Trump talked about eliminating the payroll tax, and wanted to buy the votes of the elderly by giving them a one-time gift card to pay for prescriptions.