Yes, and I disapprove of many of the changes
Yes, and I approve of many of the changes
No, his policies are what liberalism really has always been
No, I see no changes from traditional liberal and Democratic principles
your not serious.
the hippies you talk of are long gone the way of being millionaires and could care less about politics.
liberalism is being destroyed by corporate banishment of individuality in the young.
it's not so much redefined the dems as the dems have the same problem as the republicans.
loss of intellectualism in party politics.
it's easier to knock the insanity going on in the republican mess...
but the Dems are suffering from the same mediocrity it's just not as well honed in late night comedic venues.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
Republican and conservative interests more or less overlap because Republicans are happy to do the one thing conservatives show any real commitment to, which is obstructing liberal goals -- easy, since Democrats do most of the leg work themselves. The fact Republicans never took any action against illegal immigration when they held power derives from the fact that conservatives themselves don't really care about immigration issue. If they did, they would have severely punished Republicans for not taking action against illegal immigration and replaced them with politicians who did. Same with minimizing the role of the federal government and returning power to the states. Those issues make for great bulletin points, but nobody in the right seriously cares about them or would go to the bat to make sure their congressman gets it done.
Last edited by Morality Games; 03-16-13 at 09:58 PM.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
I'd say you still sound pretty liberal. I don't know how people can say that the rich don't pay enough, unless you want to go back to the pre-JFK days when money was essentially redistributed through 90+% taxation brackets. America has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. I also detest the liberal view on capital gains because they have no idea what the word "risk" means. The fact that you acknowledge the failure that is entitlement keeps you on the right side of sane.Here is what I think on the questions I asked, you tell me if you think I'm now a lepper. Tax rates should be fair. You should get to pay less taxes because you can afford an army of lawyers who can find you every loop hole in the book. I think it's a bit of a cop out to simply say, well you make more, so your taxes should go up. We need to look much closer at the tax code, and make it more efficient, but yes, I don't think the wealthy are paying enough taxes in general. I think capital gains taxes (which I do not pretend to know a lot about), should remain higher on short term gains, then long term gains. I also think that those tax rates should be tied to inflation and interest rates, since all of them affect the stock market. As far as entitlement, that needs a whole overhaul, from top to bottom. Entitlement programs do not work the way they did 20 years ago. Do I think they can still be useful and helpful to improving the quality of life for citizens of this country, absolutely. However, they have been used to often to pander for votes, and have lost all semblance of being productive and insentivising people. Those programs just aren't what they were intended to be.
So, you tell me, where does that put me on the political scale?
[/QUOTE]I'd say you still sound pretty liberal. I don't know how people can say that the rich don't pay enough, unless you want to go back to the pre-JFK days when money was essentially redistributed through 90+% taxation brackets. America has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. I also detest the liberal view on capital gains because they have no idea what the word "risk" means. The fact that you acknowledge the failure that is entitlement keeps you on the right side of sane. [/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how you can say the rich do pay enough, lol. Do you not think that there are an abundant amount of loopholes, and reckless deduductions that could be eliminated for the code and make the whole system simpler? I'm not saying raise taxes on wealthy, just because your wealthy. I'm saying you should be rewarded for finding loopholes in the rules. There is an immense amount of stupidity in the tax code that I think could be addressed with some pretty effectual results. When it comes to capital gains, I will admit, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of it. However, my basic understanding, says to me, that you should be rewarded for long term investments. I think short term investment in the stock market seems to invites quite a bit of unstable fluctuation in the market. That's been a long term problem for our economy over the last decade.
I would say however, that as of yet, capital gains taxes have not effectively addressed the issue of our unstable stock market, so there may be a better solution to the problem. To me, it's one of those things that has the potential to be effective, but no Democrate has the political will to say that, and no Republican has the political will of work anyone interested in correcting that problem.
"....The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...." -Jefferson 1787
Capital gains need a lower effective tax rate because it requires a significant amount of risk. Everyone hears about people who make money with capital gains. Nobody ever hears about the people who lose money that way. Not every investment pays off. Not every asset appreciates.
Let me put it this way: Would you go to a casino's roulette wheel and put your money on a number 1-36 if the payoff was 10:1? Statistics say that you'd be a complete fool to do that. Why? It's simply not proportionate to risk.
Did you forget G. W. Bush already? As if he held up the principles of conservatism.
After watching the idiotic support of him by Reps. during his tenure, I am sure that Dems. have learned a thing or two about loyalty and how powerful it can be. Fragmenting the party through betrayal of the party leader does nothing to strengthen the party. It is instinct to rally around your leader even if they are doing something that you don't entirely agree with.
Seems your post would be more accurate to ask, are democrats embarrased about having to resort to acting like Republicans to furthur their own causes?