open letter to the GOP

[callmeslick]

Nice try comrade slickster on throwing up the 'ole smoke anwheed mirror gambit. First off Obama won because of uninformed people being led by the nose by a media who positively fawned over Obama.

whee! Talk about uninformed.....

Now that that's cleared up, quite the reverse is true from what you stated about the congressional "rank and file". Like Cuda broached, those whom you may think will flip their vote for Obama's non- plan, understand quite clearly what the tea party organization can do to congress people that appear to be getting into bed with the Democrats.

but, most of the lost seats in Congress were 'Tea Party' types. Further, there is in most quarters(certainly here in the MidAtlantic) a major re-thinking
going on about the damage the Tea Party has caused the GOP. I suspect that, going forward, traditional GOP types are going to push back a bit harder.
This might not be true for the Deep South, but, if the GOP doesn't wish to solely represent the Deep South, they had best 'rethink'.

Now, since I am older than most of you, the scare tactics you hear today about the fiscal cliff are no different than similar scare tactics used by Democrats in years gone-by. It always comes down to the wire with the Democrats wanting more money so they can spend all of it and then next year try scaring people so they can get even more money. I say let the sequestration go into effect. Let the politicians figure out little things like base line budgeting doesn't have to mean a nice 7% budget increase every year. Let politicians like Princess Nancy understand she doesn't need to fly around on a nice cushy air force jet. Let department heads like the one at GSA understand he doesn't really need wine and roses surrounding him while he takes a bath. In short, let the politico's figure out what is really important and what is fluff.

actually, I agree with some of this, except that the folks who will pay for this 'figuring out' process will be the general public, due to the timing of it all.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm betting neither side will blink, and I think the Dems want it that way. We'll go right back to about the 1995 tax rates, or worse. It comes down to the fact that Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. Americans don't like to pay taxes, but they want to have a government with a balanced budget and a reduced national debt, still want those entitlement programs, still want good free public education, still want government protection from the excesses of the free market and still want a strong military. Well, we're all going to have all make painful choices and no one's going to be happy about it. It all comes down to what's fair for everyone, not the few, rich or poor.

And this pipe dream of trickle down economics is just that, a pipe dream in a new global economy. It hasn't worked for the last 12 years, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, and it isn't going to work now or in the future. The U.S. just can't compete with global wages and maintain our current standard of living. To raise more revenue, we either need to pay people more, so that they will have more to tax, raise taxes, which will cut into already lowered wage scales, or cut our social spending and personal living expenses to the levels of the third world. Europe's seeing it happen, we're next.

[snoopy]

I'm betting neither side will blink, and I think the Dems want it that way. We'll go right back to about the 1995 tax rates, or worse. It comes down to the fact that Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. Americans don't like to pay taxes, but they want to have a government with a balanced budget and a reduced national debt, still want those entitlement programs, still want good free public education, still want government protection from the excesses of the free market and still want a strong military. Well, we're all going to have all make painful choices and no one's going to be happy about it. It all comes down to what's fair for everyone, not the few, rich or poor.

I agree with your synopsis of the situation. We can't have it all, and we're trying to have it all right now. I don't know if I agree that "fair" should be the goal. What about "equal opportunity?"

Here's why: "Fair" for everyone really makes me think of the Marxist idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" which is great in principle, but never really seems to pan out in real life. Also, since I see myself as having above-average ability, I don't particularly want to be held down by the masses. I can see independent wealth as "unfair", but I also see a robin-hood mentality driving away the best, richest, and brightest.

At the same time, I'm quite souring to the whole capitalistic mentality (especially when it comes to suppressing the free-sharing of ideas or discarding ways to improve because they would cut profits) - I've recently jumped on the idea of eliminating interest... and maybe super-super low interest is a good answer. Theoretically, if no interest were charged, the rich would have to keep working to remain so, and those in trouble wouldn't get locked into the credit card trap.

[callmeslick]

I've recently jumped on the idea of eliminating interest... and maybe super-super low interest is a good answer. Theoretically, if no interest were charged, the rich would have to keep working to remain so, and those in trouble wouldn't get locked into the credit card trap.

short of massive government involvement, I see no way to maintain low interest for a really long term. Who would lend? Without freely available credit, commerce as you know it would come to a quick halt. You would kill liquidity. Also, the rich would still remain so, as they would maintain in an environment where others were sinking, and could easily invest in dividend bearing stocks(most currently rely on those, anyway) and steady growth vehicles such as agricultural real estate and mineral rights. They would control the commodity markets, without ready credit, and would soon be dictating much higher prices on basic foodstuffs because, well, because they could.
Interesting, though, that you are starting to lean toward a primary tenet of Islamic economic culture.

[woodchip]

Nice try comrade slickster on throwing up the 'ole smoke anwheed mirror gambit. First off Obama won because of uninformed people being led by the nose by a media who positively fawned over Obama.

whee! Talk about uninformed.....

It seems I'm not the only one with the impression of uninformed voters:

"Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society"

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... mistake-0/

Perhaps comrade, you should read more of your parent socialist paper than the "uninformed" blogs you seem to prefer.

[Top Gun]

For the umpteenth time, get help woody.

[woodchip]

No U

[snoopy]

Interesting, though, that you are starting to lean toward a primary tenet of Islamic economic culture.

I'd argue that it's a Christian & Jewish idea, too - though Christians and Jews seem to have abandoned any efforts to do it a long time ago.

You're right that I don't see it happening... but if you assumed that everyone had an equal share of land to start with, and then you ran a no-interest society, things would have more of a tendency to stay balanced; while with an interest-based society classes would tend to diverge.

[callmeslick]

no interest generally equals no commerce, which equals no progress. Still, an interesting way of looking at things, Spidey.




oh, and Woody, funny to read how when you lose, you quickly blame the voters. Didn't mention that beforehand, I note. Also, good to see someone
still reads Pravda.

[Spidey]

If you say so, sept it was snoopy’s idea, not mine.

[callmeslick]

doh! Sorry for the misattribution. Both started with an 'S'.....

[snoopy]

I want credit when this idea is proven to be the greatest ever.

Here's the tension that I see:

Capitalism caters to people's greed, which is a great motivator, but also leaves the weaker parties out there in the lurch.

Socialism (this interest idea in, in a sense, an extension of socialism) theoretically creates equal outcome for everyone; and in a world where love for our fellow man is a great motivator, it would really be the ideal solution for society as a whole.

Unfortunately, greed seems to always make its way in.... which breaks the spinning cogs of socialism. So, on a practical standpoint, we're stuck with capitalism with some jury-rigged system to encourage social caring/awareness that ultimately caters to people's greed.

[Spidey]

The only equality socialism can “create” is somewhere at or near the bottom. If everyone could have an “equal outcome” of affluence, well I would be on board in a minute.

The only places where socialism seems to work is in homogeneous populations, where people believe that what is taken from them will benefit people of the same, and where “everyone” contributes.

[CUDA]

I see it differently.

I find it a matter of moral character and personal strength.

I see the Sin of man at play on both side. Greed and Sloth.
To me it's a matter of a persons character. you work hard because that's the right thing to do. you don't take advantage of anyone else.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

1 Timothy 5:8
But those who won't care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

people need to realize that you cannot legislate morality. and life IS NOT FAIR, get over it. and thinking that the Government is going to make it fair is a delusion. the people will still suffer, and only those in power(the government) will prosper.

[callmeslick]

I disagree, CUDA, to this extent:
Government can be available to overcome disadvantages and cushion society from unexpected blows(calamities, disasters, wars). Government, properly run, can level the playing field a bit. Government can create and mantain a commonly beneficial infrastructure and economic framework that is beneficial to most members of the society. That said, life WILL always be unfair. Human nature will always present us with greed, sloth and a range of other imperfections of humankind. I don't want a nanny state, but neither do I relish unbridled capitalism. There is a middle ground. We had it in the 1950s and 1960s, in the US. We can rebuild that model, IMO. And, also in my opinion, we should, ASAP.

[Spidey]

First of all, this is not a “capitalist” country, the economy is primarily based on selling labor in the free market, capitalism is using money, mostly other peoples to make profit.

Banks, Insurance, Wall Street are examples of capitalism.

Manufacturing, Farming are not capitalism, but benefit from it.

The analogy would be that capitalism is like the turbocharger on an internal combustion engine. The motor can run without it, but has more power with it.

Second, I wish people would stop thinking it has to be one or the other, what this country and others need in my opinion is…a proper blend of the two, you need the free market to work for most people, and you need socialism for the “truly” needy…not everyone.

Both systems have their flaws, but together…you get something that works.

The big question comes down to how much of each, therein lies the problem.

[callmeslick]

First of all, this is not a “capitalist” country, the economy is primarily based on selling labor in the free market, capitalism is using money, mostly other peoples to make profit.

Banks, Insurance, Wall Street are examples of capitalism.

Manufacturing, Farming are not capitalism, but benefit from it.

BENEFIT from it? Under our system, they wouldn't function without capital liquidity. Maybe farming, if one limits it to subsistance farming. Still, you cannot divorce one part of the economy from the cornerstones that drive that economy. Now, what you say about limited socialist governmental programs is correct, in fact, we've had some amount of this in the US for a century or more.

[Tunnelcat]

Nice try comrade slickster on throwing up the 'ole smoke anwheed mirror gambit. First off Obama won because of uninformed people being led by the nose by a media who positively fawned over Obama.

whee! Talk about uninformed.....

It seems I'm not the only one with the impression of uninformed voters:

"Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society"

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... mistake-0/

Perhaps comrade, you should read more of your parent socialist paper than the "uninformed" blogs you seem to prefer.

No woody, the GOP still doesn't get it. This is NOT a nation of all white males, but the House GOP doesn't seem to have figured that out..................yet. If you want to think the rest of the population is made up of illiterate woman, blacks and immigrants, you've got a problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-gop-pick-wh ... itics.html



And they're hypocrites to boot. It's not all the Dems fault that no one in Congress can agree on anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/debt-ceiling-deba ... 46015.html

[Top Gun]

Reminds me of those C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! images when Obama was first elected.