Obama & mitt
-
63vette;327547 wrote:
You see what you want to see. No more, no less. It's the progressive mindset.Calling someone who votes republican/libertarian on most issues progressive is kinda crazy. I want my taxes to go down, I want WAAAAY less government involvement/spending, I don't want to pay for anyone else's problems/laziness, etc.... However, I'm on pace to earn more money this year than I have at any other point in my life and my taxable income will be lower than it was a decade ago due to investments, write offs, and other expenditures. Yes, I'm using the hell out of the system to make sure that I get every damn penny I paid in back.... but it seems the more I earn, the more expenditures I have.... if I play my cards right this year, I will pay in virtually no federal income tax ($1000 tops) according to my accountant.
Am I bitching about getting my money back? No, but I am pointing out that there are flaws in our tax code. Some of those problems are that the poor don't pay enough (any) some are that there are provisions in the tax code that say a guy (me) that can afford a $350,000 house, 2 new cars and 2 vacations per year can get by paying ~$1000 in income tax when some of my friends w/ half of what I have earned are paying in more than that.
Same story with my parents. They have been farmers for 42 years now, they weren't "big" farmers but I never went without anything as a child and we were probably around the average for our area of the state on income in hindsight. My dad had his first year of actually paying any income tax was 2002. It was also as he started buying/investing again to offset his income.
Point being it is hard for someone making $40k/year household income w/ a family to really invest in the same things that I as a business owner and insurance agent can invest in to get my taxes down because they need that money just to live and provide a decent life for their family.
If you want to label me a liberal/progressive/conservative/libertarian/etc... so be it. The fact is I'm somewhere in the middle of all of those things. There isn't a party of Chuck Schwan.... therefore I vote for who I think is most likely to have an influence on the things that matter most to me at any particular time. I don't/won't vote 100% by party lines. Never have.
-
63vette;327550 wrote:
I am surprised that you are so offended. I figured calling you progressive was a complement. Why you so mad bro?
Mostly because the title does not fit, but still I'm not overly offended. I've been called worse, but like those things I don't feel that the title fits perfectly. I prefer being called Chuck.... or tjamz... or asshole, those titles fit me much better.
Are some of my beliefs progressive? Perhaps. Are some conservative? Yes. I truly believe that there are some ideas worth looking at from both sides of the aisle. Libertarian fits me most closely, but even then not 100%.
-
How old do you think I am? I'm more curious than anything.... I'm probably older than you suspect.
But you are right about one thing, the older I get and the more active I become in things the more I realize that neither party has all the answers.
The republican party is fiscally a superior platform.
I don't think either of the two parties is right socially.
Culturally I think the conservative platform is best, however that all goes out the window once they start talking about religions role in politicsIn doing some research I'd say that "Classical Liberalism" might most closely match my belief system. It is defined as:
"Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants."
Basically the approximate same beliefs as modern libertarians.
-
The modern liberal's mindset is so fucking ass-backwards its comical. They claim they are pro business, pro free enterprise, pro liberty, but their actions speak otherwise. They press their agenda forward with equality in mind before liberty. An old Friedman quote "A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality, nor liberty. A society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other kind of system that has ever been developed. You can only aim at equality by giving some the right to take things from others. What ultimately happens when you aim at equality is that A and B decide what C shall do for D. Accept that they take a little bit of a commission of the top on the way."
I love capitalism. I love free trade. I love free individuals perusing their own self interests. I love corporations and profits (GASPS!!). I love the constitution.
If you haven't seen this, do press play. This man was beyond brilliant. He had a way of articulating and making his points so crystal clear.
[video=youtube;RWsx1X8PV_A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A[/video]
-
Also relevant to this topic is a quote by ancient roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero
"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious."
It is so incredibly remarkable to me. As the old cliche' goes, history repeats itself. When the hell will we as a country truly realize this? Our freedom and personal liberties will not be perverted and revoked over night, it will happen slowly and gradually. It will be deceptive and misleading. Government will give with the perception that we as a people are receiving a benefit when in reality they are transferring the power from the individuals to the bureaucrats in washington who will then decide what is best for the individual. Social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare... its all a fucking fallacy. The cost-benefit analysis does not add up when you analyze things on the aggregate levels.
Wake up America.
-
See, I agree with everything you have stated above. Always have. What I want to know is when will people wake up and realize the Republican party is no better at DELIVERING on those promises than the Democrat party. The Republican party does talk a damn good talk, but when given the power they tend to borrow and spend just like liberals. They tend to vote to enact legislation that strips away the liberties of their citizens (Patriot Act anyone?) It's not JUST the Republican party. It's BOTH parties. But I don't have to convince anyone about the democrats being horrible at protecting liberty so I spend more time arguing that the Republican party is just as bad in practice.
I'm not saying it's fair to "blame Bush" for our current mess, but rather to blame the entire government from 2000 to present, during that period Government growth has EXPLODED. Democrat, Republican and Independent have ALL lead us to this shitty path. In some cases it was predominantly Democrats (Obamacare) no doubt and they SHOULD get the blame for that as it is absolutely hindering economic growth. But it is NOT the only thing doing so.
-
Trafik Jamz;327562 wrote:
See, I agree with everything you have stated above. Always have. What I want to know is when will people wake up and realize the Republican party is no better at DELIVERING on those promises than the Democrat party. The Republican party does talk a damn good talk, but when given the power they tend to borrow and spend just like liberals. They tend to vote to enact legislation that strips away the liberties of their citizens (Patriot Act anyone?) It's not JUST the Republican party. It's BOTH parties. But I don't have to convince anyone about the democrats being horrible at protecting liberty so I spend more time arguing that the Republican party is just as bad in practice.I'm not saying it's fair to "blame Bush" for our current mess, but rather to blame the entire government from 2000 to present, during that period Government growth has EXPLODED. Democrat, Republican and Independent have ALL lead us to this shitty path. In some cases it was predominantly Democrats (Obamacare) no doubt and they SHOULD get the blame for that as it is absolutely hindering economic growth. But it is NOT the only thing doing so.
While I agree with you, the republican party has supported those ideas that are pro small business pro business with emphasis placed on individual freedom. Naturally, I tend to lean that way because of this
Now, like you stated above, this is certainly not always the case. I will however submit to you that they are far better than the do-gooder that make up the democratic party. The ones who pass programs with sound intentions w/ little analysis of their true cost (Social Security... ect. you name it, they have done quite the
inverse of their intentions).Another aside: On the social spectrum, the rep party is twisted in some ways. I however, realize the grave importance of placing the economy and our monetary/fiscal policies in a paramount position.. above vaginas, gay marriage, and health care. I feel as though too many people do otherwise. With out a prosperous economy, social issues are not even debatable.
Party humping is bad news, nonetheless.
-
Eurofan;327566 wrote:
While I agree with you, the republican party has supported those ideas that are pro small business pro business with emphasis placed on individual freedom. Naturally, I tend to lean that way because of thisAs do I
Now, like you stated above, this is certainly not always the case. I will however submit to you that they are far better than the do-gooder that make up the democratic party. The ones who pass programs with sound intentions w/ little analysis of their true cost (Social Security... ect. you name it, they have done quite the inverse of their intentions).
Social Security was fairly bi-partisan when it passed back in 1935. Only 30 members of the house voted against it (15 from each party) and 6 from the Senate (5 R 1 D). The biggest problem with SS is that it is not being used as intended. In 1935 the average life expectancy in the US was only 61.7 years. Social security benefits started at age 65... so really the AVERAGE was that people were living about 4 years and drawing from it accordingly.... now you can draw a portion at age 62 and fully at 66/67 (depending on the year you were born)... but the problem is the average life expectancy is now 78.5 years meaning the average person can draw full benefits for 11.5 years. Add to that the number of people reaching retirement age (baby boomers) vs the number of people paying into the system (generation x/y whatever) due to smaller family sizes and the problem compounds. I don't have an answer that will allow those currently on the system to remain on it while allowing others who want out of Social Security the ability to exit it without furthering the bankruptcy of the program. I'd get out tomorrow if I could and go private on my investments (even if they mandated that I contribute the same portion to the private investment as I am required to pay to SS).
Another aside: On the social spectrum, the rep party is twisted in some ways. I however, realize the grave importance of placing the economy and our monetary/fiscal policies in a paramount position.. above vaginas, gay marriage, and health care. I feel as though too many people do otherwise. With out a prosperous economy, social issues are not even debatable.
I agree with this as well. The economy needs fixing FIRST, but I'm not entirely sure that gay marriage will hurt/help the economy in any way.
Party humping is bad news, nonetheless.
I agree 100%. Until we break free from the horrible 2 party system that we have now where both parties have way too much power over their people in how they vote we will just be stuck in the same continuous cycle for years to come. If the Republican party wins in 2014 (House/Senate) as well as the Presidency in 2016 I have absolutely zero faith that they will legislate conservatively.... even with a super majority.
Well, Rexwagon does have a good exception to the above quote I guess....
You must never been to a swingers party
-
MisterCMK;327496 wrote:
Therein lies the problem. With President Obama you know you are going to get a person who wants to put us on the road to recovery and one who has taken the steps necessary to do that.With Governor Romney, who knows what you are going to get? It would be foolish.
I hope you all marked my words.
CMK was right.
Again.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login