Hillary for President

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Democrats hate the rich. I am not rich, but I don't hate them. And I believe Reps are more economy friendly.

In a perfect world, we would have low taxation, low regulation, libertarian representatives who didn't pass many lawas. We would also provide a very low level of services at low cost to the taxpayer, avoiding expansionist tendencies unless the spoils of war could be returned to the general populace. Neither party fits the bill, but the class warfare of the Dems is the most offensive. And my political coming of age was during the sixties, when Dems were the tax and spend ones, they controlled Congress by large margins and the White House. Top marginal tax rates were in the seventies, but we did have a few good loopholes.

Simple questions: Which party has most raised the national debt?

How much in taxes are required to service that debt (forget paying it down)?

If current spending rates continue, is there anything that can be done to avoid raising taxes?

Answers:

1. Republicans
2. 16% of taxes currently
3. No

You may blame Democrats for targeting the rich in their tax schemes, but the reason we are getting stuck with the taxes in the first place is largely because of Republican spending. Remove that spending and how Democrats want to allocate taxes becomes much more academic.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Simple questions: Which party has most raised the national debt?

How much in taxes are required to service that debt (forget paying it down)?

If current spending rates continue, is there anything that can be done to avoid raising taxes?

Answers:

1. Republicans
2. 16% of taxes currently
3. No

You may blame Democrats for targeting the rich in their tax schemes, but the reason we are getting stuck with the taxes in the first place is largely because of Republican spending. Remove that spending and how Democrats want to allocate taxes becomes much more academic.

I am happy to remove that spending but nobody would listen to me and I'd be shot before I could implement it. Bottom line is government spends, and we citizens are too placid to stop them from spending until it's too late.

I don't even care if we default on our bonds, but that would ripple throughout the ecnomy, so I'm not too happy about it.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

How so and to what extent? You're going to have to do much better than citing isolated cases of arguable grievances. I fly the flag and suddenly I'm a fascist? Where's the rampant sexism ushered in by the Bush administration? We suffer attacks on U.S. interests outside the U.S. and then 9-11, so we focus on national security. Is that such an odd reaction? What exactly is the predominant religion of the U.S.? (Christianity? Wrong answer.) Corruption and cronyism, to the extent that they exists, were with us well before Bush arrived and will remain after he leaves. Richard J. Daley's well-organized Chicago Democratic political machine comes to mind.

Who is Dr. Lawrence Britt anyway and why should I listen to him?

Dr. Lawrence Britt is a political science professor that studied fascist governments. I suppose you don't have to listen to anyone you don't want to. At least for now

I would argue that any case would be a cause for a grievence, whether isolated or not.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll post more this evening. Here is one to wet your appetite.

#5- Fascists are notably sexist and homophobic. Sexism - The abortion debate heats up every election year. Homophobia - The Republicans homophobia led to bans on gay marriage.

I'll be back a little later to answer the rest of your questions.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am happy to remove that spending but nobody would listen to me and I'd be shot before I could implement it. Bottom line is government spends, and we citizens are too placid to stop them from spending until it's too late.

I don't even care if we default on our bonds, but that would ripple throughout the ecnomy, so I'm not too happy about it.

You dodged question number one! You complain a lot about the Democrats and their taxing and spending. Why not focus on those who have spent the most, requiring higher taxes?

And it is actually 17% now to service the debt, not 16%.

http://www.businessforum.com/debt01.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You dodged question number one! You complain a lot about the Democrats and their taxing and spending. Why not focus on those who have spent the most, requiring higher taxes?

And it is actually 17% now to service the debt, not 16%.

http://www.businessforum.com/debt01.html

Because Democrats only reduce spending by eliminating national defense. That's the only place we're they are cheaper. In all other avenues they spend more.

So what happens is the Dems underspend on national defense then the Rep overspend and damn it all forget to reduce domestic spending for election purposes. It's a vicious cycle. The Dems aren't better they just chince us in defense.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Dr. Lawrence Britt is a political science professor that studied fascist governments. I suppose you don't have to listen to anyone you don't want to. At least for now

I would argue that any case would be a cause for a grievence, whether isolated or not.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll post more this evening. Here is one to wet your appetite.

#5- Fascists are notably sexist and homophobic. Sexism - The abortion debate heats up every election year. Homophobia - The Republicans homophobia led to bans on gay marriage.

I'll be back a little later to answer the rest of your questions.

Yeah, Dr. Britt, a political scientist that studied fascist governments; I did the same google search. That's it. Surely there's more to this guy.

We debate abortion and that is rampant sexism? What about all the progress women have made over the past 40 years? Women far outnumber men in universities and catching up quickly in the board room. Women run our foreign policy, head our House of Representatives, and are viable candidates for president. How does this factor into the equation?

As for homosexuals, there has not been a better time for gays and lesbians in the history of the United States in terms enjoying the freedom to live opening as they wish and having access to the same benefits as their heterosexual colleagues. The head of my agency is an openly gay man who is very, very close friend to the President (hence his appointment). That society has yet to grant them official sanction to call their unions "marriage," while at the same time providing them essentially the same legal status in many states (and within the federal government and that evil corporate structure), can hardly be seen as the rampant sexism noted by the esteemed Dr. Britt.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because Democrats only reduce spending by eliminating national defense. That's the only place we're they are cheaper. In all other avenues they spend more.

So what happens is the Dems underspend on national defense then the Rep overspend and damn it all forget to reduce domestic spending for election purposes. It's a vicious cycle. The Dems aren't better they just chince us in defense.

National defense, as you may have noticed, is the area far and away most accountable for the national debt. Would it be so terrible to demand that the government not spend $3,000 on a hammer rather than attack the government for spending $3,000 on a widow on welfare?

And I think once again you are giving Republicans quite the pass. When they spend on domestic programs, it is because they "forgot" to cut them. When Democrats do it, it is because they are evil taxraising devils.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

National defense, as you may have noticed, is the area far and away most accountable for the national debt. Would it be so terrible to demand that the government not spend $3,000 on a hammer rather than attack the government for spending $3,000 on a widow on welfare?

And I think once again you are giving Republicans quite the pass. When they spend on domestic programs, it is because they "forgot" to cut them. When Democrats do it, it is because they are evil taxraising devils.

When Republicans try to cut domestic spending the Dems portray them as insensitive, throwing out the widows, scaring the old and poor. Every time Social Security is brought up you can hear the clarion call from the Dems. Be candid in this.

What is ironic is the only party that can cut defensive spending without criticism is the Republican Party and the only party which could cut domestic spending is the Democratic Party but neither party is willing to do that. And the Reps aren't even willing to cut domestic for fear of losing votes. They are both pathetic.

And fraud happens amongst "widows" and the like. That's good spin, but not an accurate review of accounting issues.

And Bush is no Reagan Republican.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Dr. Lawrence Britt is a political science professor that studied fascist governments. I suppose you don't have to listen to anyone you don't want to. At least for now

Ah, it looks like my persistence has paid off. The mystery of "Dr." Lawrence Britt has been revealed by Ryan Cragun, a blogster sympathetic to much of what you believe. Here he unveils the great "Dr.":

Ryan Cragun's Blog

The pertenent info:

"As it turns out, Dr. Lawrence Britt is actually just ‘Lawrence Britt,’ a contributor to Free Inquiry, a magazine published by The Council for Secular Humanism. The article is freely available online. But as far as Mr. Britt being a political scientist, there is no reference to this in Free Inquiry. In fact, it says he is writing a novel to be released in 2004. While Lawrence Britt may have come up with these points, I’m hesitant to accept his analysis without the confirmation of actual political scientists. If his 14 points were published in a peer reviewed journal, I’d believe them. As they stand - propaganda!"

Another writer sympathetic to your cause, Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, wrote this of Britt's 14 points:

"The Britt article started with what is happening in the U.S. and then crafted a description of fascism that only highlights those points that will support the thesis. This is a logical fallacy (the false notion that things that are similar in some aspects are identical in all aspects)."

His full review can be found here:

Reviewing Britt's 14 Points

So he's neither a political scientist nor a doctor, and is prone to logical fallacies.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Yeah, Dr. Britt, a political scientist that studied fascist governments; I did the same google search. That's it. Surely there's more to this guy.

We debate abortion and that is rampant sexism? What about all the progress women have made over the past 40 years? Women far outnumber men in universities and catching up quickly in the board room. Women run our foreign policy, head our House of Representatives, and are viable candidates for president. How does this factor into the equation?

As for homosexuals, there has not been a better time for gays and lesbians in the history of the United States in terms enjoying the freedom to live opening as they wish and having access to the same benefits as their heterosexual colleagues. The head of my agency is an openly gay man who is very, very close friend to the President (hence his appointment). That society has yet to grant them official sanction to call their unions "marriage," while at the same time providing them essentially the same legal status in many states (and within the federal government and that evil corporate structure), can hardly be seen as the rampant sexism noted by the esteemed Dr. Britt.

Banning gay marriage is a lot more than society not granting them official sanction to call their unions "marriage". You can call it whatever you want, but banning gay marriage is homophobic. They created a divisive issue to bring out religious voters. I've never been offered any evidence of gay marriage harming society. It doesn't matter if today is the best day ever in the life of a homosexual. They are still not given all that we heterosexual people enjoy.

Banning abortion is sexist. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I'm sure I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Incidentally, I don't like abortion and wouldn't advocate it. I just don't think it's something for a politician to decide. I don't want government making decisions about my body. Abortions should be debated in homes and churches, not congress.