How Do We Collectively Make a Change?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Great posts from you on this thread, I agree 100%. Conservatives should be a lot more concerned about their culture and communities than about winning elections, with the last two decades as all the evidence you need.

But without dragging this thread into the usual debate, it makes me wonder how you so happily vote Republican. The Democrats may well be the Party of Death, or close, but the Republicans are the Party of Greed. And as Andrew Bacevich has written, Ronald Reagan, conservatism’s Dear Leader, was probably the apostle of that cultural shift.[/quote]

I am not happily voting Republican in this election. I am much more willing to vote for them now that Palin is on the ticket, though. In fact, if you will look back at my posts prior to Palin being picked, I was begging for Kinky Friedman to join the race.

This election is about the Supreme Court. I do not want to be a party to allowing Opie to pack the court with 3 more Ginsberg’s. Voting 3rd party is helping Opie just as much as pulling the lever for him.

I have to take issue with the notion that Republicans are the party of greed. Take a look at Freddie and Fannie. Who are the profiteers in that? Well, 2 of the biggest are on Opie’s economic team. Look at Biden. He’s made over 200K a year for several years, and his charitable contributions for the last 3 years total less than $3000.

Greed isn’t defined exclusively as the desire to make money - it is also what you do with the money you have.

I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I want to make as much money as I possibly can. Is that greed? I certainly hope not.

I can’t be a democrat because those guys think that the gov’t can do a better job raising my family than I can.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
Without getting into too much detail (and Rainjack’s input was all good, by the way), I think the ultimate answer has to be that we need to get past our essentially rigged two-party political system.

Every year it comes down to these two dolts running for president, one of them having at least half his policies that you don’t agree with but he’s beholden to have them because of his party’s “base,” and the other one . . . in exactly the same situation, only with the issue stances reversed.

It’s corrupt, it’s horrible and it prevents good, qualified people from (a.) wanting to run for office and (b.) being able to win if they ever did try to run.

I am befuddled as to how it came to be that the system is so rigged that a legitimate third party contender (and a fourth party contender, and a fifth party contender) CAN NOT have a shot.

It is ruining our country.

Without saying it, that was kinda what I was driving at. You are not going to rebuild the system from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

The most basic building block is the individual. Take care of yourself first. Then move to the family, then the community, then the city, county, state, etc.

Once I paid off my debt - well, even during the process of getting out of debt - I became a missionary for the cause. Every single one of my clients had to endure me telling them of the power and the freedom that you take back when you are out of debt. Several folks listened. And they are now on their own mission to take back their lives.

Tip O’Neal said that all politics are local. That’s about the only place where real change can begin.

Great posts from you on this thread, I agree 100%. Conservatives should be a lot more concerned about their culture and communities than about winning elections, with the last two decades as all the evidence you need.

But without dragging this thread into the usual debate, it makes me wonder how you so happily vote Republican. The Democrats may well be the Party of Death, or close, but the Republicans are the Party of Greed. And as Andrew Bacevich has written, Ronald Reagan, conservatism’s Dear Leader, was probably the apostle of that cultural shift.

While I was too young to understand the concept of shitting my pants when Reagan was in office what I do know of him he is a far cry from today’s republicans.

Republican 1980s = Small government

Republicans 2008 = Democrats but spending in different areas.

Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.

Promoting greed for the people is a great thing.

It is? Been reading the papers lately?[/quote]

Well I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong about Reagan then.

But don’t think I mean greed as in fuck over the economy and the guy next to you greed.

I meant it as promoting business and personal financial growth. A socialist state doesn’t exactly allow people to spend their money and grow their wealth as they like to.

Well “fixing” the problem economically is pretty darn hard. There are really two models with which to work with and both work, but both have problems.
A good economy is when there is a lot of money in circulation, not stagnating.
A bubble-up motif works but it has a myriad of issues. First, it gives money to people for nothing. This kills off incentive and keeps people poor. It creates indebtedness and that makes slaves of people. Also, nothing is free, so this money comes from somewhere which ends up being a case of wealth redistribution; which is socialist. Lastly, it devalues currency. Where it works very well, is that this money gets spent and is infused in to the economy and puts a lot of dough in to circulation.

The trickle down motif also works and it has fewer problems, but they are huge problems. The problem is greed. If nobody is greedy it works really well, but reality has shown that there is some epic greed out there. This creates the problem of pooling of money. It stagnates and does not trickle. This intern creates tremendous splits in financial class and is a direct link to recession because they are taking money out of the economic flow.

So how do you solve that? A lot of these problems are human weakness issues. I do not like giving people money for doing nothing. A CEO’s getting 118 million for driving companies into the ground just chaps my ass.

Perhaps a mixture of philosophies or maybe an oscillation between bubble-up and trickle down? I am not sure, but I know a series of checks and balances need to be established quell assholeness in the short term.

[quote]pat wrote:
Well “fixing” the problem economically is pretty darn hard. There are really two models with which to work with and both work, but both have problems.
A good economy is when there is a lot of money in circulation, not stagnating.
A bubble-up motif works but it has a myriad of issues. First, it gives money to people for nothing. This kills off incentive and keeps people poor. It creates indebtedness and that makes slaves of people. Also, nothing is free, so this money comes from somewhere which ends up being a case of wealth redistribution; which is socialist. Lastly, it devalues currency. Where it works very well, is that this money gets spent and is infused in to the economy and puts a lot of dough in to circulation.
The trickle down motif also works and it has fewer problems, but they are huge problems. The problem is greed. If nobody is greedy it works really well, but reality has shown that there is some epic greed out there. This creates the problem of pooling of money. It stagnates and does not trickle. This intern creates tremendous splits in financial class and is a direct link to recession because they are taking money out of the economic flow.

So how do you solve that? A lot of these problems are human weakness issues. I do not like giving people money for doing nothing. A CEO’s getting 118 million for driving companies into the ground just chaps my ass.

Perhaps a mixture of philosophies or maybe an oscillation between bubble-up and trickle down? I am not sure, but I know a series of checks and balances need to be established quell assholeness in the short term. [/quote]

A change in philosophy from the top is all well and good but how do we as the people get them to change it?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.
[/quote]

This fact is what most right-wingers want kept from public knowledge.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.

This fact is what most right-wingers want kept from public knowledge. [/quote]

Who was in control of congress pretty much the entire time Reagan was in office? Who is responsible for passing the spending bills?

Blaming one man for an entire liberal fucking congress’ actions is about the most chicken shit move the brain dead sycophant left-wing dipshits can make.

But they do it all the time.

The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.

Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

I agree with Rainjack’s basic premise, which is ‘responsibility for the individual needs to begin WITH the individual’.

This most recent turn of events may force this realization on a lot of us – hopefully. The sting from this experience may generate a lasting distaste and aversion to overextending via credit – hopefully.

But beyond that, I don’t think the system is ‘broken’. We don’t need a revolution – we need an improvement, an adjustment on the current system. The system we have in place – which is perhaps the least imperfect in human history, STILL WORKS. The changes that made this country the most prosperous in the history of the world came in small, incremental steps. Now we simply need to recognize where we erred and make small, incremental steps in the right direction.

Downturns happen – and they end. It’s cyclical. Everyone KNOWS markets are cyclical, but each time the market is flat (let alone negative), people are in the street shouting that ‘the system is broken’. In this case, lots of regular people took huge, uninformed risks and lost on the gamble. Huge companies took huge risks and lost on the gamble.

The repercussions and the magnitude of the errors have played out in recent events, and are due in no small part to mistakes we’ve made – so we need to LEARN from them, make improvements where we can, and move forward – in small, incremental steps.

And in large part, this starts with the individual, as Rainjack stated.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think it requires every man and woman coming to a point where they are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

People are slaves in this country. Slaves to the acquisition of “stuff”. And in order to get this stuff, they gladly become slaves to the credit card companies, and the mortgage lenders, and whoever they are sending their car payment to every month.

The first step is to become the master of your own life - Get Out Of Debt.

The second step is to take greater pride in your family - keep a parent home with the kids. Don’t pay the childcare center to raise your children. They are your responsibility.

Third step is, once you have 1 and 2 down, to look at where you live. Can you help others achieve the first two steps? If you can, then you have an obligation to help where you can.

The rest of the process gets progressively larger.

I can only hope that this banking crisis wakes people up to the fact that being debt free is far more enjoyable than the intoxicating new car-smell.

[/quote]

I see little hope of that. At least on the monetary end. No past crises have instilled proper sense. People are stupid and forget very quickly when things are good again. But I agree-to make a real change at a fundamental level, that’s what’s necessary. Making it against self-interest to engage in corporate fraud and irresponsible ridiculous lending practices helps too.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.

Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?[/quote]

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.

This fact is what most right-wingers want kept from public knowledge.

Who was in control of congress pretty much the entire time Reagan was in office? Who is responsible for passing the spending bills?

Blaming one man for an entire liberal fucking congress’ actions is about the most chicken shit move the brain dead sycophant left-wing dipshits can make.

But they do it all the time. [/quote]

If you’re referring to pork, as McCain incessantly and obtusely does, that is not the issue. Pork/earmarks may be incredibly wasteful, but they are not the cause of deficits and government size. They are pennies in the bucket next to the real places the money goes: entitlements, tax policy, the military. Reagan does not get a pass on these.

And needless to say, he had a veto. Which he did exercise just slightly more often than the current disaster in the White House.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think it requires every man and woman coming to a point where they are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

People are slaves in this country. Slaves to the acquisition of “stuff”. And in order to get this stuff, they gladly become slaves to the credit card companies, and the mortgage lenders, and whoever they are sending their car payment to every month.

The first step is to become the master of your own life - Get Out Of Debt.

The second step is to take greater pride in your family - keep a parent home with the kids. Don’t pay the childcare center to raise your children. They are your responsibility.

Third step is, once you have 1 and 2 down, to look at where you live. Can you help others achieve the first two steps? If you can, then you have an obligation to help where you can.

The rest of the process gets progressively larger.

I can only hope that this banking crisis wakes people up to the fact that being debt free is far more enjoyable than the intoxicating new car-smell.

[/quote]

I agree. People have gotten ridiculous with living outside their means. That’s the biggest change that needs to occur- people being responsible with their own money.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.[/quote]

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity where did you get the 80% statistic? Being in a county governement job I deal with alot of governmentally assisted people and see a continous reliance on the system.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.

This fact is what most right-wingers want kept from public knowledge.

Who was in control of congress pretty much the entire time Reagan was in office? Who is responsible for passing the spending bills?

Blaming one man for an entire liberal fucking congress’ actions is about the most chicken shit move the brain dead sycophant left-wing dipshits can make.

But they do it all the time.

If you’re referring to pork, as McCain incessantly and obtusely does, that is not the issue. Pork/earmarks may be incredibly wasteful, but they are not the cause of deficits and government size. They are pennies in the bucket next to the real places the money goes: entitlements, tax policy, the military. Reagan does not get a pass on these.

And needless to say, he had a veto. Which he did exercise just slightly more often than the current disaster in the White House.[/quote]

I am not going to say Reagan had nothing to do with the massive increase in spending - but I am not going to say he gets all the blame. You can’t just gloss over the massive amount of congressional spending in the 80’s.

I will never be against Regan’s increased defense spending, as it is a direct constitutional responsibility of the government.

Entitlements is the killer. Has been since FDR and LBJ decided on wealth redistribution as a way of gaining power.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

[/quote]

Not to steer this off topic but let’s be realistic, how often is aboriton used as a method of birth control? At the same time how often is it used by some one on medicaid who relies on a local clinic for the procedure?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

[/quote]

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.

This fact is what most right-wingers want kept from public knowledge. [/quote]

National debt in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be used as a very positive form of leverage – i.e. investment. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Other factors need to be looked at as well: How does it compare with national income/output? How much of the Government’s debt (i.e. investment) is in domestic vs. foreign economies? Why is the debt being incurred?

Since a country’s economy (hopefully) expands over time, it makes sense that it’s debt (i.e. investment) will increase – hopefully somewhat proportional to what it’s income can reasoanbly support. Similarly, as a person’s income increases as they move up the income ladder professionally, they are better suited to take on a larger mortgage.

Conflict can put a different perspective on what is a ‘reasonable national debt’. In 1945, the US Federal Deficit was $260B, while the US National Income was $180B. In other words, our debt was 41% HIGHER than our nation’s income. The alternative was to sit with our thumbs up our collective asses while Germany and Japan had their way with the world.

Much of the spending incurred during the Reagan Administration was on increasing the military’s potency and infrastructure. Arguments can be made for or against the logic and justification for such spending, but it ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the crumbling of the Wall. And our economy survived, to put it mildly. Not a terrible end result.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Just out of curiosity where did you get the 80% statistic? Being in a county governement job I deal with alot of governmentally assisted people and see a continous reliance on the system.
[/quote]

I believe I read it in a Wisoncon-based comparative study. Wisconsin was the first state to adopt comprehensive work requirements and job training after the reform bill. I’l try and dig up the study and post a link.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.
[/quote]

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress.