What Makes People Vote Republican?

Post Reply New Topic

Funny, I always thought that shorting the pound was one of the better things Soros ever did, but then again I barely consider the British police state to be a democracy anymore.

About the pound business, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did say several months before that unemployment is wonderful and should be promoted, observed the fact that most people aren't unemployed and shouldn't care about unemployment other than to celebrate it.

Didn't Nancy Pelosi say the same thing. Seriously, this is one of the reasons why I will not vote for Democrats unless they are actually sane. This last election was the first time I ever voted nearly completely straight party ticket in favor of Republicans.

You are making unsubstantiated concrete statements about something that is actually quite nebulous. There's something about right-wing ideology that lends itself to black-and-white thinkers.

....

No problem with the wealth gap? Wealth is power. A wealth gap is a power gap. A small group of people end up taking a preponderance of power and make all the decisions. It's tyranny. Are those claiming not to have a problem with the wealth gap are saying that they don't have a problem with tyranny?

You may say that wealth is not taken and more is produced (when the folks at the source decide to divvy it up more in their favour you can't say that this isn't acquiring more) but power certainly is a zero-sum game. Of that there is no doubt, and nothing can prevent the disenfranchisement of most people when the wealth gap passes a certain point.

Pelosi said that unemployment insurance is one of the most stimulative measures that increase the deficit side of the ledger... that unemployment insurance helps prevent job loss far more effectively than tax cuts. She spoke the truth. She never promoted unemployment, in fact she argued that she was helping to prevent further unemployment.

Norman Lamont, Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, in contrast said this in May 1991: "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."

The Party of Unemployment - they deserved that nickname, that's for sure.

Problem is we are going to be looking at massive inflation due to all the out of control spending from the Democrats. Massive inflation is not a good thing.

Certain people have predicted massive inflation for the last couple of years, and instead deflation threatens. Inflation would actually reduce the unsustainable debt burden that is crushing the people in the USA. It would help solve the problem, which is why it won't happen.

You're more likely to see inflation due to the tax cuts for the rich and the killing of the estate tax.

The fed is currently worried far more about deflation than inflation.

Actually if we don't extend current tax rates, we are likely to see a Depression. Why do you think California and New York are doing so badly? It's cause the rich are saying enough is enough and are moving away from those states to states like Texas.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem of trying to fund entitlements that we can't afford.



In my opinion, the Fed should be looking at an audit.

Good to see you are still thoughtlessly regurgitating the garbage you eat up on Fox News.

Tell me, would our "spending problem" be gone if we completely shut down all federal entitlement programs tomorrow? And do you really think doing that is a good idea, especially since shutting down Social Security would also require eliminating Social Security taxes at a time when SS tax revenues are significantly greater than payments for that program?

No clue about NY but in Cali, a big part of why things were slumping was because none of those multi-million dollar houses in Beverly Hills were paying any property taxes.

No taxes!

This way there would be no welfare!

And thus there would be no spending!

Economy FIXED!

..

Result: Tons of angry people rioting to take over your house. Call the cops! ... Oh, the cops are there, didn't you notice the unemployed cops among the rioters? Turns out taxes used to pay their salaries...

Want to go hide your house somewhere remote so the riots don't pillage it? Ok, bad news, there are no roads, oops.

You're corny, no one's advocating anarchy here. And who said to completely depend on cops? Most right wingers would rather be self-sufficient and grab a gun than pray for them to arrive in 10 mins when they could be dead within that time. I know if I owned a gun, I'd rather pick one up and have my finger on the trigger than pick up a phone and have my finger on a button. Not to mention the telephone line working isn't always a guarantee in the event of a power outage, riot, or w/e could possibly happen. Looks like you're projecting your dependence on cops on everyone else...

btw, you make an ass out of yourself when you resort to knee jerk reactions and straw man arguments. If you're gonna argue, grow up and realize everyone can see that crap from a mile away. It's called a political SPECTRUM, not a political BORDERLINE. Most people would find it reasonable to have the cops, electricity, water, roads, etc. handled by the public sector. But at the same time, you can't always take cops, electricity, or water as guarantees.