Angelsjunky's Quick Takes on the Republican Candidates

[wopphil]

Nice personal attacks AJ, great way to respond and refute my points. And the irony here is that I have defended your attitude on this board on a number of occasions.

Not that you deserve a response or explanation as to my position, but here it goes: I support a strong middle class. I believe the best way to achieve that is by promoting business, big and small. The better businesses do, the better their employees do. Lower taxes promote business growth.

I believe in education, and I don't mind if my tax dollars are used to provide low interest loans to those who truly can't afford higher education. I don't think our schools are failing our kids, I think it is a parenting problem.

I support a strong local police force to make communities safer. I have no sympathy for those communities (largerly inner cities) that treat their police like criminals. This is a huge problem in the black community.

I believe big government is a crutch that holds people back and perpetuates the poverty life style. I believe the left tells people they are victims and promotes big government as a means to getting elected to cush political jobs.

And I agree with you on one thing: I am self-interested and want what is best for me and my family. I am willing to work hard to do that. And I am fu#$%ng proud of that.

[Adam]

Actually most of us actually like and respect each other and any jabs we take are pretty clearly just that.

I think when you build relationships with people beyond just spin forum political banter you gain a bit of freedom and the benefit of the doubt.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Adam

[Angelsjunky]

Nice personal attacks AJ, great way to respond and refute my points. And the irony here is that I have defended your attitude on this board on a number of occasions.

Not that you deserve a response or explanation as to my position, but here it goes: I support a strong middle class. I believe the best way to achieve that is by promoting business, big and small. The better businesses do, the better their employees do. Lower taxes promote business growth.

I believe in education, and I don't mind if my tax dollars are used to provide low interest loans to those who truly can't afford higher education. I don't think our schools are failing our kids, I think it is a parenting problem.

I support a strong local police force to make communities safer. I have no sympathy for those communities (largerly inner cities) that treat their police like criminals. This is a huge problem in the black community.

I believe big government is a crutch that holds people back and perpetuates the poverty life style. I believe the left tells people they are victims and promotes big government as a means to getting elected to cush political jobs.

And I agree with you on one thing: I am self-interested and want what is best for me and my family. I am willing to work hard to do that. And I am fu#$%ng proud of that.

 

Wopphil, I apologize for that. As I said, it was a bit harsh. I tend to find the attitude of "I don't want to help those who are unable or unwilling to help themselves" to be judgmental and harsh, which is why I said what I said. But I probably spoke too harshly. I do find it kind of ridiculous that I get piled on for stuff like that when a lot worse is thrown around, but that isn't your fault.

 

Anyhow, I appreciate you responding to the real stuff, which is where I wish the discussion would stay focused rather than the other BS.

 

I agree with you about businesses, but what about corporate corruption and the fact that over the last few decades, CEO wages have increases while the minimum wage has stagnated? Or to put it more broadly, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer?

 

Re: education and parenting, you may be right. I think it is a complex matter and wouldn't reduce it to any one factor.

 

Re: police and the black community, I think it goes both ways. Do you disagree that there is a lot of institutional racism still prevalent in this country, and that blacks are unfairly targeted by the police?

 

I partially agree with you about "big government," but one thing to consider is that if you look at various lists of quality of life, most of the countries that rate highest are what we would consider "socialist" - Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, etc.

[Angelsjunky]

Actually most of us actually like and respect each other and any jabs we take are pretty clearly just that.

I think when you build relationships with people beyond just spin forum political banter you gain a bit of freedom and the benefit of the doubt.

 

It points to one of the problems of internet communication: you and I aren't real people to each other, we just see an avatar and have a gist of the other, but it is really rather narrow.

 

Maybe I should get myself to Fanfest one of these days, and then you can tell me what you really think about me, face to face.

[Adam]

I'd enjoy that.

[Angelsjunky]

Of course the implication is that you'd be telling me what you think about my Angelswin avatar and persona, "Angelsjunky," which is a fraction of who I am, and a hat I wear in this context.

[Adam]

I'm guessing (hoping) when you relate to people face to face you refrain from trying to make them feel inferior. We would probably have a good time, bud.

[nate]

Are you guys going to race?

[Adam]

Free throw contest

[Angelsjunky]

I was assuming he was actually a ladyboy, which got me mildly curious.

 

And no Adam, I would refrain from saying things that made you feel inferior to me.

[Adam]

Just trying to help, homey

[Blarg]

What do you hate about socialism? And while we're at it, what do you understand socialism to be?

 

For instance, do you realize that the military is essentially one big socialist organization? Do you see the need for social programs at all? Do you think FDR's New Deal was necessary? Etc.

 

Wide brush and no context. First off you need only to look at Greece and see Socialism at it's greatest achievement where everyone except those running Greece are either out of work or wretchedly poor. But at least they are suffering at the same economic abyss and they've managed to reduced their class structure to two; rich or poor.

 

Let's skip the military in that is an obscenely stupid argument, every country has one regardless of their government philosophy.

 

Let's move on to the Square Deal. It was only possible because the untapped resources of the US and a population wasn't overburdened by taxation that Roosevelt could put the entire country on a credit card and later let following generations pay off the debt. We were on a gold standard that clearly defined the wealth of the country backed by a tangible source. We do not have that anymore, we went Socialist back in 1971 when Nixon freed the treasury from the Gold Standard and made the government, not the solvency of the US, the standard by what the dollars worth is dictated.

 

Welcome to Greece where the dollar isn't worth a plug nickel anymore and yet let's talk about social programs because they are feel good placebos for a country that has reached the point it doesn't want to work anymore. And then you play the shame game because those that look at the national debt realize we have reached the edge of the cliff and really don't want the lemmings to push us off as they holler for more free stuff.

 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” Margaret Thatcher famously observed.

[Angelsjunky]

notti, while you make some good points, I see two problems with your post. 

 

1.You are presenting it as if its a black-or-white issue. It isn't "socialism vs. capitalism" but to what degree and in what way socialism can be incorporate in a free society. Or to put it another way, how can we integrate the best of socialism and the best of capitalism? To me that is the Holy Grail of domestic politics.

 

2. You mention Greece but ignore Scandinavia and northern Europe, countries which are generally doing quite well, with high quality of life, and strong socialist elements.

 

It is generally agreed upon that this country has thrived the most in terms of cost and quality of living for the most people, and the strength of the middle class, from the late 40s to the early 70s. It is also interesting to note that during these years the very rich were taxed enormously - as high as 92% during Eisenhower's presidency (a Republican!). The tax rate for the wealthy plummeted in the 80s under Reaganomics and has remained at 40% or below since then, and consequently then the middle class has suffered and cost of living has gone up. This is one of reasons--the main reason, really--that I think Reagan is not only the most overrated president in the history of the US, but one of the presidents who did the most to hurt this country.

[Angelsjunky]

To put that another way, "trickle down theory" didn't work. It benefited the wealthy and greatly damaged the middle class.

 

One of my favorite memes:

 

[wopphil]

AJ, here is a simpler way of looking at it: you don't want the government interfering in your private life. You don't want them telling you who you can and can't marry, legislating your sex life and reproductive rights, or imposing religion on you.

I don't want the government interfering in my financial affairs. I don't want the government taking my money and giving it to others or telling me how I must save/invest.

I view my financial affairs and the government's right to intervene in the same manner you view your private/social affairs.

[nate]

notti, while you make some good points, I see two problems with your post. 

 

1.You are presenting it as if its a black-or-white issue. It isn't "socialism vs. capitalism" but to what degree and in what way socialism can be incorporate in a free society. Or to put it another way, how can we integrate the best of socialism and the best of capitalism? To me that is the Holy Grail of domestic politics.

 

2. You mention Greece but ignore Scandinavia and northern Europe, countries which are generally doing quite well, with high quality of life, and strong socialist elements.

 

It is generally agreed upon that this country has thrived the most in terms of cost and quality of living for the most people, and the strength of the middle class, from the late 40s to the early 70s. It is also interesting to note that during these years the very rich were taxed enormously - as high as 92% during Eisenhower's presidency (a Republican!). The tax rate for the wealthy plummeted in the 80s under Reaganomics and has remained at 40% or below since then, and consequently then the middle class has suffered and cost of living has gone up. This is one of reasons--the main reason, really--that I think Reagan is not only the most overrated president in the history of the US, but one of the presidents who did the most to hurt this country.

 

"In character, in manner, in style, in all things, the supreme excellence is simplicity."

 

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Edited December 19, 2015 by nate

[Angelsjunky]

Those are great quotes, nate. I had to look them up, but I really like Schumacher. How are you relating them to what I said, though?

[nate]

You always post these complex responses but in most cases the issue is simple.  I think both parties make things way more complex than they should be but especially Democrats.

 

Juan's posts are the same way.

 

The first is Longfellow and the second is Einstein by the way.

[Angelsjunky]

AJ, here is a simpler way of looking at it: you don't want the government interfering in your private life. You don't want them telling you who you can and can't marry, legislating your sex life and reproductive rights, or imposing religion on you.

I don't want the government interfering in my financial affairs. I don't want the government taking my money and giving it to others or telling me how I must save/invest.

I view my financial affairs and the government's right to intervene in the same manner you view your private/social affairs.

 

Yes, I understand that. But where do you draw the line? Do you think you should be taxed at all? If not, how do we pay for roads and other public services? If you are OK being taxed a bit, where do you draw the line? What are you OK with being taxed for and what are you not?

[Angelsjunky]

You always post these complex responses but in most cases the issue is simple.  I think both parties make things way more complex than they should be but especially Democrats.

 

Juan's posts are the same way.

 

The first is Longfellow and the second is Einstein by the way.

 

When I googled the second it came up with EF Schumacher. Hmm, weird. Sounds like something to investigate.

 

Anyhow, so what's your answer? You say I'm making it too complex--although I don't see how that post was complex--so what's the simple solution?

[nate]

When you take away incentives you take away the driving force of human nature -- competition and the drive to succeed.

[Angelsjunky]

That's a reductionism, in my opinion. It is a partial truth, but one that is woefully limited and, well, overly simplistic.

 

Also, not everyone is driven by competition and success. That is part of it, but there are other driving factors, other needs (see, for instance, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).

[Glen]

I feel like I'm in a community college philosophy class.

My first experience with college was a community college philosophy class. Man, that was great. Led to a fling with a hot broad with low self-esteem.

[GrittyVeterans]

OK, cool, so you are judgmental and don't give a shit about other people and believe in the fallacy of laissez-faire economics. Got it.

 

Lmao. This was an actual rebuttal to why socialism, a system that robs people of hard-earned money and allows the government to muck around in society, will never work in an economy as big as the United States.

 

You know, for as much as you criticize "laissez-faire" economics, the United States happens to have the best economy in the entire world. Somehow, someway, we do just fine without the government giving money to lazy pieces of shit for no apparent reason(for the most part - it could still be better with a more fiscally conservative president).

 

You want poor people to have all those benefits you have? It's coming out of your pocket and quality of life in order to happen. I don't see how that could possibly be a good thing for this country

Edited December 19, 2015 by GrittyVeterans

[Adam]

This is a good paper that sheds a different light on Sweden specifically.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sweden%20Paper.pdf