It wasn't meant as an insult, more like a light-hearted jab in the arm ya know? Perhaps I did word it a tad too harshly to come across that way.
I haven't exactly treated this thread seriously, and that'd probably be why you find my comments rather short, snide if you like, and apathetic towards other viewpoints.
Although, I love political debates, and were it in person and not in this format yes you you'd probably find me quite an aggressive debater, and let's be honest, everyone thinks they're right here and when that's the case one tends to defend their position rather adamantly. My fascist pig (he's the fascist pig, I'm the commie tree-hugger) of an uncle love each other very much and we love debating politics even though we know there's no point in debating politics unless you're a politician.
In reference to my 250k comment, I stand by it. If you're pulling in more than 250,000 dollars of
personal wealth anually, even if he does raise taxes on you you certainly can afford to pay them. This does leave out the fact that everyone else will get a tax
break, which I do acknowledge is unfair. If taxes are going to be raised, they should be raised on everyone. However, there's a problem with that, as the people at the bottom can't exactly afford to pay them.
Now, I'd like to throw in what I believe to be "progress," even though you mockingly asked for it and I can't seem to figure whether you actually wanted a constructive response or just wanted to flame me. Regardless, in my view, some things that represent progress, which the base of the republican party and the current administration have stood against for their entire term are as follows: Science, Peace, Diplomacy, Social Welfare (no, not Socialism, I'll get to that in the next paragraph), and the separation of religious laws from state laws.
Now, the stereotypical conservative will now label me a socialist, which is ridiculous, as I believe in capitalism. If I were a socialist, I would believe in scrapping and outlawing private industry altogether in favor of government-run industry. I do not believe this works, though I do not believe lasseiz-faire capitalism works either. A moderate amount of government regulation in the private sector is a necessary evil in order for the government to fulfill its only job: the protection of its people. When its people are taken advantage of due to the unfortunate issues with capitalism, it falls to the government to fix the issue, because it often doesn't fix itself. Take the recent injection of Fed money into the banking system as an example. Is George W. Bush a socialist? No, he just has finally realized that if the government doesn't do something then we'll all go down in flames. The same thing applies to welfare. I do not believe poverty, the lack of health insurance, the lack of retirement funds, etc. have to be necessary evils. It's been proven that they can be mostly avoided with a
reasonable amount of government spending. Ask yourself this: what right do we have calling ourselves the greatest country on earth if twelve percent of our people live in poverty? Do we just write that off as "oh well they're just too lazy to go out and get real jobs," even though the large majority of them are either children, or are physically or mentally unable to?
Capitalism may not be perfect, but neither is socialism. Everyone knows the obvious major issue with socialism: the lack of incentive to work. However, allowing the government to regulate the private sector to a reasonable degree in
sole the interest of protecting its people, which has been in place since Roosevelt's New Deal, is not socialism, or else we would've been termed a socialist country ages ago. We live in a social democracy, and I happen to be a social democrat.
I'll also add (though it may sound like a currently typical liberal retort, and probably is) that the progressive taxation system has been in affect since Theodore Roosevelt's day, and is nothing new. Again, if you'd like to label progressive taxation, which is what Obama favors, as socialist then go ahead. Just acknowledge then that we've been a socialist country for the past hundred years.
On a side note, I happen to have a couple conservative viewpoints. I support the second amendment (at least until it comes to civilians having military-grade weapons), and I favor the death penalty due to the impracticality and fiscal impact of banning it.
I could go on and on and on and on. Whole point of this post I guess is exactly that. I'm never going to change your mind just as you're never going to change mine, and that shouldn't be the intent. We should debate politics because debate is a fun way to socialize and think on our feet. I did not intend to start a flame fest, and again I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Though I must admit to a tad bit of offense at your mockery Mike, I understand it was only in retaliation to my perceived attacks.
-Began humming "Why Can't We Be Friends."-
Sign In
Register
Help
But I'll be the first to inform you the moment I start giving a damn.
MultiQuote
