Obama couldn't govern himself out of a wet paper bag

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

(the State-run media will no doubt try to call them the "Obama tax cuts" now LoL!),

Why would they do that in China? You're not implying there is anything close to state-run media in the U.S., are you?

and in return the conservatives gave the liberals a couple minor victories...the 911 First Responders,

It's sad that this is considered a victory for liberals. This should have been a no-brainer, especially for republicans. If anything, it should be a victory for them, since they're the ones constantly using 9/11 as a patriotic buzz word to stir up support.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Troublemane, we just don't get it. It was not explained well enough to us or we are too stupid to understand.

Actually, it's neither of the above. It's that you choose not to get it. You like your demonization of the other side, and your anger at people trying to "take what's yours". Trying to actually understand what we're saying would mean a complete shift in thinking for you guys, and it's clear you're too set in your ways for that. I know you're both intelligent enough to understand. That's the sad part.

We don't deserve to have more than anyone else even if we make good life decisions and work harder or smarter. The government allows us to have what we have and we should be thankful they don't swoop in and confiscate our possessions for the greater good.

And this is what I mean. No one has said anything like this. No one is saying people can't have more than others. In fact, I've said clearly and specifically many times that I want some people to have more than others. Having a progressive tax (which is what we're discussing) doesn't mean everyone has the same. I've given examples before, and I'll do it again.

$35,000/year X 10% = $31,500 take home pay
$70,000/year X 15% = $59,500 take-home pay
$150,000/year X 20% = $120,000 take-home pay
$2 million/year X 40% = $1.2 million take-home pay

It seems to me, you're still making significantly more at each income level, even after paying a higher percentage of taxes.

We cannot be trusted to do the right thing and participate in charities. We should succumb to the will of the people that want to be generous with other people's money.

You're actually correct on the first one. Counting on people to give to charities to solve problems like unemployment, poverty and medical bills is definitely not a good way to go. The second sentence is just stupid nonsense.

Once we understand this basic principle and share what we have with all the American people, we should ignore that our borders are unsecured and our collective wealth is being diluted with additional people who come here with nothing.

Nope. We should address that situation. But "our collective wealth" is not being "diluted with additional people who come here with nothing". I mean, if we just gave them a path to citizenship, they could contribute a lot more to our economy and government. But that's too much to ask, I guess.

Never mind the fact that some folks are beyond help and would waste any bounty we bestowed upon them. We should continue to fund their wasteful ways and refrain from even suggesting they get their act together.

Man, you're just full of misunderstandings, aren't you? I had hoped after this much time of correcting them for you, you'd have learned a little bit, but I guess not.

You're more than welcome to suggest these people get their acts together. You're welcome to help develop a plan to either get them to do that, or to weed them out of the group. What we're saying is that they're always going to be there, but they're not a huge portion of the people who need help. What we're saying is that we should help the people who need it, even if that means helping some people who don't deserve it. If you can find a way to separate the two completely to make sure we only help those who deserve it, go right ahead.

However, I find it funny that conservatives talk about this, even though it's as subjective as anything else. I get the response that my assertions are subjective, and yet deciding who deserves help is as subjective as anything I've suggested.

We just don't understand that we should live in a world where people are allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences.

Man, it gets tiring correcting all of your misconceptions, but I keep fighting the good fight. No, you shouldn't live in that world. The world you should live in is one where society actually cares about all of its members, not just the upper 2%. No one wants people to be allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences. What we want is what you'd do for your brother. I assume if your brother made some poor personal choices, and needed help, you'd be there to help him. Better yet, act as if those people are your children. Children make poor decisions all the time, even as adults, but good parents are supposed to be there for them, even if they don't deserve it.

I find your approach to things sad in most people, but especially sad in someone who supposedly is a follower of Jesus's teachings. Jesus wouldn't care why the person needed help. All he cared about was helping them. If someone asks for your coat, give them your tunic, too. You should either stop calling yourself a follower of him, or start abiding by his teachings.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

I think the trouble with conservatism is it tends to make people too optimistic about the future, and too generous toward other people. I mean, honestly, the downside of conservatism is it makes conservatives feel so optimistic, they tend to believe that if someone just experiences a little bit of it, well heck, that's all they should need to be won over!

Its hard for conservatives to understand that liberals live lives of quiet desperation, they hold to beliefs about money being evil, and if they have money then they hate themselves, or if they don't then they hate those who do. It makes them full of hate, and then they project that out onto the world. They see that bad things happen in the world, they see inequality, and they then lump the two together---bad things happening are the result of inequality. Therefore, if we abolish inequality we will abolish all bad things.

But the conservative approach is to accept the bad with the good, which is why conservatives, especially religious conservatives, not only pay higher taxes but also give more to charity than any liberal. The liberal thinks the role of government is to redistribute wealth, so charity is "somebody else's job". The conservative never thinks he is doing enough. And that, my friend, is why they have us at a disadvantage.

Wow, that is horridly warped view of things, although not surprising. I won't take long to debunk it, since it's not going to get through to anyone I want it to anyway.

I think instead, you should just say "It's hard for conservatives to understand liberals". And that's the major problem. There's nothing optimistic about conservatism. Liberals don't live lives of quiet desperation, and they don't hate money or think it's evil. All I have to do is point to Bill Gates for a blatant example of that. I'm not sure where the whole "equating bad things with inequality" comes from. Inequality is a bad thing that happens, and it should be stopped. Those other bad things should be limited as much as possible.

I'd like to see support for the claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. I'd also like to see support for the claim that conservatives pay higher taxes than liberals. It seems to me you're confusing rich people and conservatives. They are not the same thing. The liberal thinks the role of government is to provide the best possible environment for its citizens, which includes regulating the economy. The conservative thinks change should not happen, unless it benefits the rich.

And no, we don't have you at a disadvantage. Basically, a liberal wants everyone to be as happy as possible, and conservative just wants things to be as shallowly fair as possible, regardless of how it helps or hurts everyone. The conservative ideology appeals to people who like to get their ideas from others, while the liberal one appeals to people who like to use reason and compassion to form their own ideas. And that's why conservatives have us at a disadvantage. So much of the population likes to be told what to think, and not think for themselves. They also like to pretend that things aren't fair, and they love to feel persecuted and angry at something.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Actually, it's neither of the above. It's that you choose not to get it. You like your demonization of the other side, and your anger at people trying to "take what's yours". Trying to actually understand what we're saying would mean a complete shift in thinking for you guys, and it's clear you're too set in your ways for that. I know you're both intelligent enough to understand. That's the sad part.

Typical Liberal Elitism. Is this what they teach at Universities now, indoctrination? Is free thinking and reaching your own conclusions "not getting it"? You act like a person can only reach one logical conclusion, your personal opinion. I believe nothing short of socialism is your agenda, but you do give me hope that one day you will think differently. I understand what you are saying just fine, you are wrong however about me being angry. You accuse me of demonising, and yet you do the same thing. You act as if we Conservatives lack compassion or do not see a need for a social contract. Where we part company is when you want to extend these contracts and live in a nanny state.

And this is what I mean. No one has said anything like this. No one is saying people can't have more than others. In fact, I've said clearly and specifically many times that I want some people to have more than others. Having a progressive tax (which is what we're discussing) doesn't mean everyone has the same. I've given examples before, and I'll do it again.

$35,000/year X 10% = $31,500 take home pay
$70,000/year X 15% = $59,500 take-home pay
$150,000/year X 20% = $120,000 take-home pay
$2 million/year X 40% = $1.2 million take-home pay

It seems to me, you're still making significantly more at each income level, even after paying a higher percentage of taxes.

You are under the false assumption that I don't value each and every dollar the same. I have a problem with under performers paying 10% while others pay 40% IMHO it is draconian.

You're actually correct on the first one. Counting on people to give to charities to solve problems like unemployment, poverty and medical bills is definitely not a good way to go. The second sentence is just stupid nonsense.

Cutting off someones unemployment gets them off their butts and makes them find a job. I support 6 months of unemployment, not several years. No wonder we have high unemployment rates, no one has an incentive to go to work.

Nope. We should address that situation. But "our collective wealth" is not being "diluted with additional people who come here with nothing". I mean, if we just gave them a path to citizenship, they could contribute a lot more to our economy and government. But that's too much to ask, I guess.

I'm ready to give folks a path to citizenship, just as soon as our borders are 100% secure.

Man, you're just full of misunderstandings, aren't you? I had hoped after this much time of correcting them for you, you'd have learned a little bit, but I guess not.

When you wake up and smell the coffee, you will realise you hold the minority opinion and are not the great superior teacher your delusions of grandeur lead you to believe.

You're more than welcome to suggest these people get their acts together. You're welcome to help develop a plan to either get them to do that, or to weed them out of the group. What we're saying is that they're always going to be there, but they're not a huge portion of the people who need help. What we're saying is that we should help the people who need it, even if that means helping some people who don't deserve it. If you can find a way to separate the two completely to make sure we only help those who deserve it, go right ahead.

However, I find it funny that conservatives talk about this, even though it's as subjective as anything else. I get the response that my assertions are subjective, and yet deciding who deserves help is as subjective as anything I've suggested.

I help many folks who do not deserve help each week. I don't want their children to suffer because their parents are irresponsible.

Man, it gets tiring correcting all of your misconceptions, but I keep fighting the good fight. No, you shouldn't live in that world. The world you should live in is one where society actually cares about all of its members, not just the upper 2%. No one wants people to be allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences. What we want is what you'd do for your brother. I assume if your brother made some poor personal choices, and needed help, you'd be there to help him. Better yet, act as if those people are your children. Children make poor decisions all the time, even as adults, but good parents are supposed to be there for them, even if they don't deserve it.

I guess you have never heard of tough love, or being an enabler.

I find your approach to things sad in most people, but especially sad in someone who supposedly is a follower of Jesus's teachings. Jesus wouldn't care why the person needed help. All he cared about was helping them. If someone asks for your coat, give them your tunic, too. You should either stop calling yourself a follower of him, or start abiding by his teachings.

This is a low blow even for you Matt. You know that I believe in charity and practice what I preach. I just don't believe the federal government is the best at helping people. So let me get this straight, you now see yourself not only as the person who teaches conservatives the error of their ways but also believe you stand in judgement of who is worthy of following Jesus as well?

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I'd like to see support for the claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals...

Read this, you might find something of interest here.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

Just a side note, regarding the OP...I think Obama has shown he can compromise quite well. He managed to give the conservatives a major ideological victory by keeping the Bush era tax cuts in place (the State-run media will no doubt try to call them the "Obama tax cuts" now LoL!), and in return the conservatives gave the liberals a couple minor victories...the 911 First Responders, the repeal of DADT, and the START Treaty.

OMG...except for the "state-run media" comment, we agree on something!

But by far the biggest change was this...Obama telling the Press he had changed his view, essentially. He seems to have realized that it isnt the Dems or the Reps who are "driving the car", its the American People. If this is his genuine view, and he has really taken it to heart , I have to say I am quite impressed. We will see if this really changes how he runs things. If he will try to be an actual leader, no longer a "ruler".

To each his own. I think Obama had his reasons for getting all that legislation through the lame-duck session.

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Troublemane, we just don't get it. It was not explained well enough to us or we are too stupid to understand. We don't deserve to have more than anyone else even if we make good life decisions and work harder or smarter. The government allows us to have what we have and we should be thankful they don't swoop in and confiscate our possessions for the greater good.

We cannot be trusted to do the right thing and participate in charities. We should succumb to the will of the people that want to be generous with other people's money.

Once we understand this basic principle and share what we have with all the American people, we should ignore that our borders are unsecured and our collective wealth is being diluted with additional people who come here with nothing.

Never mind the fact that some folks are beyond help and would waste any bounty we bestowed upon them. We should continue to fund their wasteful ways and refrain from even suggesting they get their act together.

We just don't understand that we should live in a world where people are allowed to make poor personal choices without consequences.

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

My problem with Liberals are, they never have seen a dollar they did not want to spend on something. They often ask us why we need so much money? It is like they can't understand the peace of mind one has when they have money put back for a rainy day. They don't understand the importance of food storage or raising and canning your own food.

It is not about income either. It has always been about living below your means and saving and investing. People often say they cannot afford to save and invest. I say you cannot afford not to.

These same people go to the movies every weekend and have smart phones in their pocket. They wear designer clothes and go out to eat.

Just in case you've forgotten.

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how many people who cite a graph like that understand what phase lag is?

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

I wonder how many people who cite a graph like that understand what phase lag is?

Not sure we all do. Could you please explain?

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by Mercy Not Sacrifice

Not sure we all do. Could you please explain?

Influences acting upon a cyclic phenomenon actually lead the results. Delayed response is called phase lag.
Example:
The more sunlight falling on Revoltistan, the warmer it gets. But temperature reaches its maximum a month or so after the longest day.
This is because even as the days begin to shorten, we're still accumulating heat after a winter of cooler temperatures. Other systems (eg,
politics, economics, mechanical & electrical systems) behave similarly, so one must be careful about establishing cause & effect correlations.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

I wonder how many people who cite a graph like that understand what phase lag is?

Or a lack of a sufficient number of data points.