Poll: Majority of Republicans welcome a

[preacherman76]

You see, that is the thing : People see "Planned Parenthood" and assume that it is an abortion factory when it also helps people get contraceptives and also provides support for actually planning parenthood as well.

Of course. But it doesnt take away from the fact that they perform more abortion per year then any other non profit US company.

And as for unions - why do you want to hand the govt more power? Because that is what you do when you go after public unions - teacher unions in particular. Remember - those teacher unions also lobby for smaller class sizes, better resources for their students, and changes to the curriculum. By arguing in favor of taking their ability to bargain away, you hand to the govt the power to unilaterally determine those things as well - without input from the actual teachers. It's not always about wages that they collectively bargain you know.

Honestly I have no sympathy for them. I work in the private sector, were Im paid based on performance. Where I could be fired for under performance. Where I have to pay for a good portion of my health care. Where I have to worry about my own retirement. If they want to lobby for these things like smaller class room sizes, let them lobby to the people who vote on thier budget. Personaly I always vote in favor of the school budget. If people care about the schools thier children go to, they would to. And not worry about thier school taxes being raised cause of it. If the US has proven one thing, its that tons of money doesnt always equal a good education.

[Wookietim]

Of course. But it doesnt take away from the fact that they perform more abortion per year then any other non profit US company.

Honestly I have no sympathy for them. I work in the private sector, were Im paid based on performance. Where I could be fired for under performance. Where I have to pay for a good portion of my health care. Where I have to worry about my own retirement. If they want to lobby for these things like smaller class room sizes, let them lobby to the people who vote on thier budget. Personaly I always vote in favor of the school budget. If people care about the schools thier children go to, they would to. And not worry about thier school taxes being raised cause of it. If the US has proven one thing, its that tons of money doesnt always equal a good education.

Abortions are legal. And the simple fact of the matter is that it is wrong for the govt to say "It's legal but we will make sure it is priced so far out of your price range you can either have it done with a coat hanger in a back alley or be forced to have a child you don't want."

And your second paragraph addresses none of my points. You are still focused on only wages. But by taking away collective bargaining you also hand over to the govt unilateral power to determine everything else that collective bargaining does. In other words, WI just claimed the power to determine class sizes, textbooks, and curriculum without the input of the teachers - in other words, they increased govt power.

[preacherman76]

You know, that is the thing... Somehow I doubt that the founding fathers were writing a document that encouraged a govt that essentially says "You're on your own, we aren't going to help you", although that seems to be the vision that the Tea Party has for the country...

It clearly outlines powers granted and not granted to the government. And the powers not granted, every single one, they have taken apon themselfs to over step. And that very much includes powers this government has given to corperations to hold the little guy down.

Nothing brings prosperity to a people like freedom. When the average American pays 40% of thier income in a wide range of taxes, that isnt freedom. That is modern day slavery.

To me, it both republicans and democrats that are ruining this country. Have designed a situation where people are dependent on them, and it doesnt need to be so. Look into the cloward piven strategy. And you will see whats going on.

[Wookietim]

It clearly outlines powers granted and not granted to the government. And the powers not granted, every single one, they have taken apon themselfs to over step. And that very much includes powers this government has given to corperations to hold the little guy down.

Nothing brings prosperity to a people like freedom. When the average American pays 40% of thier income in a wide range of taxes, that isnt freedom. That is modern day slavery.

To me, it both republicans and democrats that are ruining this country. Have designed a situation where people are dependent on them, and it doesnt need to be so. Look into the cloward piven strategy. And you will see whats going on.

That's the thing - to the Tea Party (And, apparently, you), the constitution says "Blah blah blah... Right to bear arms... blah blah blah... States rights... blah blah blah". They forget all of the stuff that they gloss over with the "blah's".

The federal govt (And state govts) are not there just to help the rich (As Republicans seem to think). And you do not reduce the debt by reducing the tax rate for the Millionaires and above from 35% to 25% (As Republicans want to do).

[preacherman76]

Abortions are legal. And the simple fact of the matter is that it is wrong for the govt to say "It's legal but we will make sure it is priced so far out of your price range you can either have it done with a coat hanger in a back alley or be forced to have a child you don't want."

Abortion may be legal, but thieft isnt. If I cant pay for something, that doesnt give me the right to go next door and steal the money I need. Thats what the US government does. And in doing so infringes on my rights. To me killing a child in the womb is murder. I shouldnt be forced to pay for it. Maybe if it didnt cost 10 to 25 thousand dollar to adopt children, good homes could be easily provided.

And your second paragraph addresses none of my points. You are still focused on only wages. But by taking away collective bargaining you also hand over to the govt unilateral power to determine everything else that collective bargaining does. In other words, WI just claimed the power to determine class sizes, textbooks, and curriculum without the input of the teachers - in other words, they increased govt power.

So are they. NTM, teachers arent even close to the only ones who are represented by public unions. I dont want the government handed anything when it comes to education. I think they should have nothing to do with education on the federal level. That is a power granted by the state, and to the people.

[Wookietim]

Abortion may be legal, but thieft isnt. If I cant pay for something, that doesnt give me the right to go next door and steal the money I need. Thats what the US government does. And in doing so infringes on my rights. To me killing a child in the womb is murder. I shouldnt be forced to pay for it. Maybe if it didnt cost 10 to 25 thousand dollar to adopt children, good homes could be easily provided.

So are they. NTM, teachers arent even close to the only ones who are represented by public unions. I dont want the government handed anything when it comes to education. I think they should have nothing to do with education on the federal level. That is a power granted by the state, and to the people.

Taxes are not "Theft" - and to compare the two is, simply put, silly and stupid.

And your support of breaking public unions hands more power to govt and takes away power form the actual teachers. How is that a good thing?

[preacherman76]

That's the thing - to the Tea Party (And, apparently, you), the constitution says "Blah blah blah... Right to bear arms... blah blah blah... States rights... blah blah blah". They forget all of the stuff that they gloss over with the "blah's".

What "stuff" is that? We are granted the right to bear arms. We are granted the right to powers not directly given to the government.

The federal govt (And state govts) are not there just to help the rich (As Republicans seem to think). And you do not reduce the debt by reducing the tax rate for the Millionaires and above from 35% to 25% (As Republicans want to do).

If the federal government wasnt bloated to 1000 times larger then it should be, it wouldnt have the need to up the tax rate on anyone. Just cause someone is rich, doesnt mean they owe you anything. Check the tax code. Income tax for working Americans is voluntary. We are all suckers to by force scheme. This is the result of giving power to create currency to a private bank.

Edited April 8, 2011 by preacherman76

[Wookietim]

What "stuff" is that? We are granted the right to bear arms. We are granted the right to powers not directly given to the government.

If the federal government wasnt bloated to 1000 times larger then it should be, it wouldnt have the need to up the tax rate on anyone. Just cause someone is rich, doesnt mean they owe you anything. Check the tax code. Income tax for working Americans is voluntary. We are all suckers to by force scheme. This is the result of giving power to create currency to a private bank.

What "Stuff"? Perhaps you ought to take a look. The federal govt has the power to levy taxes, has the power to regulate interstate commerce and is charged with ensuring the general welfare. You know - the things you labelled "Theft" in your previous post?

I find int interesting that you are now arguing that the wealthiest people must have their taxes lowered and the poor need to have their services cut... But then again, that's the conservative mindset "Only the wealthy matter", right?

[preacherman76]

Taxes are not "Theft" - and to compare the two is, simply put, silly and stupid.

It is when they dont have the constitutional authority to collect taxes for that specific thing. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government authority to pay for someones abortion with my money. That is thieft.

And your support of breaking public unions hands more power to govt and takes away power form the actual teachers. How is that a good thing?

It doesnt give them any more power then private sector bosses have. If you dont like it go work in the private sector, where we dont get nearly as much as those who work for the government in most cases.

[Wookietim]

It is when they dont have the constitutional authority to collect taxes for that specific thing. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government authority to pay for someones abortion with my money. That is thieft.

It doesnt give them any more power then private sector bosses have. If you dont like it go work in the private sector, where we dont get nearly as much as those who work for the government in most cases.

Where in the constitution does it say that the federal govt does not have the power to collect taxes for a perfectly legal activity? Please feel free to point that clause out for me.

And yes - it doesn't give them any more power than private sector bosses do. Except private sector bosses have the power to unilaterally decide things for their employees - just like you and your conservative cohorts have handed to the govt now. And without unions, that power is now able to be exercised by politicians sitting in a chamber rather than by the people that know what they are talking about. In other words, this union busting is a power grab by the govt... because, last I looked, the govt was not the exact same thing as a private sector company and isn't supposed to have the same goals and powers.

[Guest]

It doesnt give them any more power then private sector bosses have. If you dont like it go work in the private sector, where we dont get nearly as much as those who work for the government in most cases.

I think thats because you p***ed away your rights in the deregulation frenzy of the 80-90. Its your own fault you have no rights as an employee - you voted them away - and thanked those who took them.There is no use begrudging those who had the good sense to not follow the private sector lead.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

What "Stuff"? Perhaps you ought to take a look. The federal govt has the power to levy taxes, has the power to regulate interstate commerce and is charged with ensuring the general welfare. You know - the things you labelled "Theft" in your previous post?

Right they have the power to levy taxes, which acording to the supreme court must be defined. And it is, in the tax code. And the average american person or company isnt included accept voluntarily. Thats what happened when you willfully fill out a W2 form. You volunteer to pay taxes on your income.

Define regulate? Cause I highly doubt that gives them the power you think it does.

Define general welfare? If you are going to pass legislation under that term, you have to prove a case where it benefits everyone.

I find int interesting that you are now arguing that the wealthiest people must have their taxes lowered and the poor need to have their services cut... But then again, that's the conservative mindset "Only the wealthy matter", right?

I think EVERYONE should have thier taxes lowered. Cut taxes for the average Joe from 40% to 10% (In a wide range of taxes) and watch this economy come back with avengence.

[Wookietim]

Right they have the power to levy taxes, which acording to the supreme court must be defined. And it is, in the tax code. And the average american person or company isnt included accept voluntarily. Thats what happened when you willfully fill out a W2 form. You volunteer to pay taxes on your income.

Define regulate? Cause I highly doubt that gives them the power you think it does.

Define general welfare? If you are going to pass legislation under that term, you have to prove a case where it benefits everyone.

I think EVERYONE should have thier taxes lowered. Cut taxes for the average Joe from 40% to 10% (In a wide range of taxes) and watch this economy come back with avengence.

So, let's see... You want to cut taxes for "Everyone" (Which really translates into "Let's cut taxes for the rich because the poor can't exactly pay a lot less than they are now") and still pay down the debt... by removing services that the poor and middle class need.

So let's be blunt : what the conservatives want is a country in which all the perks are handed to the rich (In the form of lower taxes) and the middle class and poor get to suffer the payment for that. That is what you are now arguing in favor of... is that the conservative version of Utopia now? Because if so, I don't think I want to live in this country anymore.

[preacherman76]

I think thats because you p***ed away your rights in the deregulation frenzy of the 80-90. Its your own fault you have no rights as an employee - you voted them away - and thanked those who took them.There is no use begrudging those who had the good sense to not follow the private sector lead.

Br Cornelius

I do have rights as a employee though. I have a right to educate myself enough to put my self in a position of need. I have no problem with my working conditions at all. Heck I had no problem with the public unions till our government started spending money like a drunken sailor. I feel bad that they, along with many in the private sector have to suffer for it. But it is what it is. Now we have to put people in place who will face this situation for what it is, before we all go down for thier mistakes.

Problem is the same people are in power.

[Wookietim]

I do have rights as a employee though. I have a right to educate myself enough to put my self in a position of need. I have no problem with my working conditions at all. Heck I had no problem with the public unions till our government started spending money like a drunken sailor. I feel bad that they, along with many in the private sector have to suffer for it. But it is what it is. Now we have to put people in place who will face this situation for what it is, before we all go down for thier mistakes.

Problem is the same people are in power.

So, your "Rights" mean that you have the ability to make yourself more like what the employer wants you to be. How is that a "Right"?

Unions bargain for things other than just wag increases - things that help everyone. You are arguing on behalf of taking that ability away and handing complete power to the govt to decide those things. It feels odd that conservatives re arguing for increasing govt power....

[Guest]

I do have rights as a employee though. I have a right to educate myself enough to put my self in a position of need. I have no problem with my working conditions at all. Heck I had no problem with the public unions till our government started spending money like a drunken sailor. I feel bad that they, along with many in the private sector have to suffer for it. But it is what it is. Now we have to put people in place who will face this situation for what it is, before we all go down for thier mistakes.

Problem is the same people are in power.

But your solution disproportionately effects those who can least afford to shoulder the hit. The idea that letting individuals with billions keep it all and see if it trickles down to the rest of the economy has been shown to be BS by the increasing disparity between the super rich and the super poor. Its just fantasy land economics dreamed up by the SUPER RICH.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

So, let's see... You want to cut taxes for "Everyone" (Which really translates into "Let's cut taxes for the rich because the poor can't exactly pay a lot less than they are now") and still pay down the debt... by removing services that the poor and middle class need.

So let's be blunt : what the conservatives want is a country in which all the perks are handed to the rich (In the form of lower taxes) and the middle class and poor get to suffer the payment for that. That is what you are now arguing in favor of... is that the conservative version of Utopia now? Because if so, I don't think I want to live in this country anymore.

You just dont get it. The poor persons enemy isnt the rich. Its the government who enslaved them to begin with. Like I said, when the average Joe pays 40% of his income in a wide range of taxes, that is slavery. The only rich people to blame are the ones who lobby the government to work for them, instead of us. You want to talk about evil rich people, lets talk about the federal reserve. Who have devalued our dollar 97% in the last 100 years they have been in power. You want to keep solving our problems with band aids, while I want to cut out the tumor.

[Guest]

So, your "Rights" mean that you have the ability to make yourself more like what the employer wants you to be. How is that a "Right"?

Unions bargain for things other than just wag increases - things that help everyone. You are arguing on behalf of taking that ability away and handing complete power to the govt to decide those things. It feels odd that conservatives re arguing for increasing govt power....

Any place where this deregulation frenzy has been tried it has always gone hand in hand with authoritarian government. Its a strange kind of freedom which needs to be enforced by banning unions, killing union leaders and torturing the workers into submission.

Newspeak can redefine any word.

Br Cornelius

[Wookietim]

You just dont get it. The poor persons enemy isnt the rich. Its the government who enslaved them to begin with. Like I said, when the average Joe pays 40% of his income in a wide range of taxes, that is slavery. The only rich people to blame are the ones who lobby the government to work for them, instead of us. You want to talk about evil rich people, lets talk about the federal reserve. Who have devalued our dollar 97% in the last 100 years they have been in power. You want to keep solving our problems with band aids, while I want to cut out the tumor.

I don't see this as "Enemies". I do, however, see a simple problem of cutting taxes so that the rich have more and the poor have less.

And you are the one who is arguing on behalf of greater govt powers through the destruction of public unions - it is you that is happy to hand more power to the govt, not I. So if I were you I wouldn't be discussing about how the govt has "Enslaved" anyone when you are the one encouraging a hell-bent run towards that.

And, by the way, I think you really ought to look up the definition of the word "Slavery" - taxes are not really a good fit for that word.

[preacherman76]

But your solution disproportionately effects those who can least afford to shoulder the hit. The idea that letting individuals with billions keep it all and see if it trickles down to the rest of the economy has been shown to be BS by the increasing disparity between the super rich and the super poor. Its just fantasy land economics dreamed up by the SUPER RICH.

Br Cornelius

BR, till this latest economic decline, we had one of the biggest prosperous middle classes in our history. It wasnt a fantasy at all. It was wall street thugs who were never brought to justice from our government who robbed the people of a big chunk of thier wealth. It was this government through insane treaties that made it more profitable for companies to move over seas. And now you want these same people to solve the problems they created?? No no no, we need to go back to the basics, and kick all these clowns out ASAP.

[Wookietim]

Any place where this deregulation frenzy has been tried it has always gone hand in hand with authoritarian government. Its a strange kind of freedom which needs to be enforced by banning unions, killing union leaders and torturing the workers into submission.

Newspeak can redefine any word.

Br Cornelius

I find it interesting that somehow taking away workers voices suddenly has become a way to decentralize political power... It seems that if you actually want a counter-weight to the power of govt you would encourage the workers to have more power behind their voices - not less...

[preacherman76]

Any place where this deregulation frenzy has been tried it has always gone hand in hand with authoritarian government. Its a strange kind of freedom which needs to be enforced by banning unions, killing union leaders and torturing the workers into submission.

Newspeak can redefine any word.

Br Cornelius

Thats the thing BR, the only ones who have been "deregulated" is top corperations through loopholes. And it did what it was meant to do, hold down the little guy. Bring back Glass steagall.

[Guest]

The vast majority of the public gain more from their tax dollars than they lose by paying them.

Have you ever considered what it would be like if citizens had to fund the building of the road network, the sewage system, the water supply, the police force, the fire brigade, etc etc.

Yes it would be chaos and most things simply wouldn't get done.

Societies are successful when they pool their resources and create synergies of scale. the modern world is an expression of cooperation over self interest. Basically Preacherman wants to chuck away the progress we have made and return to a more primitive and brutal time.

Lets call a spade a spade here. He's a Utopian who really doesn't understand that utopia is a dream.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 8, 2011 by Guest

[preacherman76]

I don't see this as "Enemies". I do, however, see a simple problem of cutting taxes so that the rich have more and the poor have less.

And you are the one who is arguing on behalf of greater govt powers through the destruction of public unions - it is you that is happy to hand more power to the govt, not I. So if I were you I wouldn't be discussing about how the govt has "Enslaved" anyone when you are the one encouraging a hell-bent run towards that.

And, by the way, I think you really ought to look up the definition of the word "Slavery" - taxes are not really a good fit for that word.

Definition of SLAVERY

1: drudgery, toil

2: submission to a dominating influence 3a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

When a person spends 40% of thier work week paying for the right to work, that is submission to a dominating influence.

[preacherman76]

I find it interesting that somehow taking away workers voices suddenly has become a way to decentralize political power... It seems that if you actually want a counter-weight to the power of govt you would encourage the workers to have more power behind their voices - not less...

I never said it had anything to do with "decentralize political power". The point is, we just cant afford to contiune to pamper them anymore. We are on the verge of collapse.