Surprised by Majority of NS Political Views.

While I'm not surprised to see you talking out your ass on yet another topic you have a pseudo understanding of. I do find it really ironic that you were talking about how you should get to decide how to spend your money because the government does a bad job of it - yet you're using the incorrect "steal".

The bottom line is, if you're fiscally conservative, you don't have an understanding of global economics, or the social contract. You live your life solely because society has allowed it. The redistribution of wealth conservatives cry about? They weren't crying with the government allocated tax dollars for the roads they use every day, or the grants that allowed for the advent of computers, or the internet. They're not crying when the government subsidizes grain prices so their morning Honey Nuts cost $3.25 a box instead of $15.

Sure, there is waste, there are people that take advantage - but that is called society. You're never going to change that, you're never going to weed all of the leaches out, no one is every going to contribute or benefit in a completely egalitarian way. None of that matters, you get to live your life because hundreds of millions of other people pay into the system just like you.
 
Why is everyone on this site who says theyre conservative immediately called out as a pseudo-conservative and told they dont know what they are talking about? My parents have nothing to do with my political standpoint.

I can say the same about liberals, none of you are actual liberals, you just think you are cause its the cool thing for younger people to do. The media is usually hardcore left, and so is the education system. Im sick of kids thinking "Oh I think gays should be able to marry! I am forsure liberal!"

People need to learn more about politics before engaging in political discussions. It saddens me how many people have said something like "Obama 2012!" and when I ask them why they are voting for him or what political standpoints of his they prefer will respond "Idk. I like him better"
 
libratarian but would rather vote republican because i think controlling government spending is more important than gay marriage, legalizing drugs, ecthowever no party seems to show any control in spending so were all screwed anyways
 
I really dig this - you're so altruistic and responsible. I especially like that part in your signature where you have a link to your Clymb page - and you say you'll give people +k for the $10 in free money you get.

Honestly, you're full of shit, nice sob story though.
 
Sir, I hate to break it to you, but I would just like you to know that the roads argument, is simply bullshit. Conservative americans are not asking for there to be know roads built. There are necessary things in society that everyone uses. Roads included. And the government subsidizing of farmland, is currently being attacked by the reputable PIRG non profit groups. A completely liberal group. They are trying to end grain and corn subsidies. Just an FYI.

Republicans argue for the cutting back of social policies which we spend billions on and the reduction of a heavy percentage wise trax burden across ALL INCOME LEVELS. Not just the top 1% as seems to be such a common thought. When everyone has more money and is comfortable with investing, more people are employed, wages are increased, infrastructure is expanded and business thrives.

I see the arguement that Romney payed just 14% taxes on his income last year. He also made 20 million dollars, donated hundreds of thousands to charities of his choice, and payed almost 3 million dollars in taxes.

Taxes are essentially the only thing in America where the rich pay more than the poor. If Romney wants a big mac, he will be charged the same amount as me. Its that simple Taxes are made to help the poor and impoverished pay less. The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005. thats from the congressional budget office. I'll say it again.

The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005
 
I'm 30, I've paid self employment taxes and owned a home for 9 years. I pay roughly 35% of my income to taxes each year. Mitt Romney recently bragged about paying 13% on his $49 million a year in dividend income. His tax cut package lowers the corporate tax rate to 25% and pays for that cut by getting rid of my yearly mortgage interest tax deduction, which is one of the few things that makes owning a home financially feasible for anyone in the middle class.

Tell me more about how I don't have grounded political standpoints when I say I'm voting for Obama in 2012.
 
You can ask my friends if you like, not sure how the clymb link takes away in any way from what i said. I would love to get that explained to me.
 
or is it 65% are in college/highschool and have liberal views just because its the cool thing to do?

actually i turned way more conservative after moving out and supporting myself. after trying to grow my business ive gotten to see how fucking hard even having a liberal president for just 4 years has made it. now yes, there are a lot of BS regulations that have been in place well before Obama, but the more liberal our country and laws/regulations become, the less i would want to work my ass off to start/grow my business. it just makes it a huge pain in the ass and creates so much unnecessary work and you dont get shit for it in return, even now though i really dont make much i get taxed up the ass for how much my business brings in, it just makes it extremely hard to grow. but hey at least those taxes are going to some lazy fuck mooching off welfare, im glad i could sacrifice my business for his well being.
 
Are you saying that you pay 35% income tax on your earnings? because that would mean you make at least $373,000 a year. That in no way puts you as middle class. stop bullshitting me.
 
Look, only the complete and utter idiots want to stop Government spending all together.

We know that it is important for the Government to provide roads, civil Services such as Police and Fire departments. We have reached a point in society where governments are able to provide more than the simple level of security that prompted the first Social Contracts. We expect more out of our governments now than at any time in history. It is far from a white and black issue. There is a full spectrum between the two, and amazingly enough you will find many Americans have a view that is somewhere between the two extremes. The debate is not about which extreme it should be, but rather where in the middle it should rest for the current social-economic situation.

There is a big difference between the Government providing a solid and maintained network of roads, and running a Nanny state that pays for 48% of the countries welfare through various handouts.

The grain subsidy is a whole other issue.

And I spell creatively.
 
So what youre telling me is if you could legally do the same, you wouldnt? Not trying to start an argument, im just asking. To me it makes sense to save money on taxes if possible.
 
I know we've had our differences in the past, but thank you for this post. Not that a post on the internet will change anything, but a lot of people need to hear this.
 
I made a huge response to you about tax breakdowns, because it appears you don't understand how federal taxes are calculated - but it is pretty much a lost cause.

For brevity, I pay roughly 28% in self employment and small business tax after deductions, and 35% in capital gains tax. Before my deductions, I owe about 35% total annually. No where in any of my posts did I say I pay a middle class tax rate. I do however understand that this country was built on a successful and stable middle class. Over the last three decades, we've tried trickle down, we've tried the extremely rich increasing their wealth by 600%, we've had massive cuts to corporate tax rates, and that hasn't done much to stabilize the middle class.

In response to your earlier post about subsidies, it appears you're taking your talking points from Fox News.

Here's a great article about farm subsidies under Bush vs. Obama.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/24/mitt-romney-visits-subsidized-farms-knocks-big-government-spending.html

Since I doubt you'll click through - I'll highlight the important part - they received over $44k in subsidies with Obama and just $1,700 with Bush.

Also - there are two types of subsidies for corn and grain - one is a federal subsidy when prices rise too high. The second is a subsidy that the government grants to farmers, regardless of costs. Farmers receive two sets of federal funding - at the expense of taxpayers. PIRG wants to subsidize farmers only when consumer costs are too high for product to be reasonably purchased. Technically, this "completely liberal group" wants to be more fiscally responsible than the conservatives who whine about government spending.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12309276

Honestly dude, I think you have the typical American Dream syndrome. Everyone thinks they're going to be millionaires, it's just a few days or weeks or years ahead. They just have to work a little harder, just have to grind it out a little more. Therefore, everyone sees someone who is a millionaire and has some innate desire to defend their ability to thrive off the system, thinking that soon it will be their turn. The reality is, wealth is scaled at an unsustainable angle. The economics for our country are very black and white. If the middle class continues to drop, the rich continue to get richer, deficits increase exponentially, our buying power and the value of our dollar disappear, and we're Greece.

You talked about Clinton and the increase in social program reliance - before the Bush Tax cuts, with Clinton's social programs, we were slated to have the deficit (not debt) paid off by 2014, that was also stated by the CBO.

Here's a fun reality check about conservative vs liberal tax and spending policies, all in easy to read chart form:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-deals-of-reagan-bush-clinton-and-obama-in-one-chart/2011/07/06/gIQA98w11H_blog.html

 
No, honestly. I could write so much bullshit off in taxes that I don't. I work in real estate and own a related business.

This is an extremely general way of how I look at things - but basically I believe I reap strong monetary gain from government spending. Basic stuff, like roads and bridges and transportation means. I also value the importance of government spending in education; neighborhoods and districts are strongly weighed by the success of the public schools in the area.

I look at health care - fortunately my wife's employer gives us a great coverage plan, but if I didn't have that, I would pay roughly $700 a month for basic coverage as a totally healthy 30 year old guy. I take that assessment to my clients - if I'm working with a family that has to pay that amount for their healthcare coverage, that is money they don't spend in relation to their home. That is an unreliable expense that could skyrocket at any point, and creates insecurity in their investments.

I can go into why I value higher taxation rates across the board - I don't agree with all government spending, I absolutely see some of the spending as wasteful - and ultimately yea, I'd like to pay less in taxes. I just don't see that as my reality or to the benefit of our society.
 
Someone mentioned how socialism does not work. I would hardly call Finland or Sweden or France for that matter failed economies.
 
35d6zt.jpg
 
What's your definition of "nicest"? Most expensive? Least socially diverse? Best schools? Try not to use relative adjectives for descriptions like that.

Also, I don't believe there is a positive net benefit to an unsupervised private sector.
 
Perhaps not all, but generally populists are very religious members of the lower class, and therefore they are likely tk be socially conservative while desiring more liberal economic policies
 
Interesting, I've always understood populists as simply for the good of the people and against the privilege of the elite.

I think modern populists are for social and fiscal equality, completely devoid of religion. I think people often confuse Tea Partiers with populists.
 
You seem to have the "theres no way im getting anywhere because of rich people syndrom". Fuck man, 81% of the millionaires in this country are classified as self made. Doesn't seem like it's impossible to make millions.

You stated that it would otherwise be impossible for the middle class to own a home, which is why i stated it did not seem like you were middle class. Supply and Demand is a wonderful thing. With supply and demand, as you seem to not understand, prices are set at a point where people are likely to buy a product without outside interference. So with the bullshit that you tried to throw saying middle class families would not be able to afford a home? what the hell do you think is going to happen? Millions of homes for sale? No. thats not how supply and demand work.

If you are a proponent of Marxian economics than cool. That's fine. I respect that idea. However, in my mind, I find that the capitalist system works best. Allow people to thrive, personal responsibility, small government, etc. That is what America was built on, and I am fully behind that.
 
And based upon what you said later, here you are comparing apples to oranges. He pays 4 dollars for a big mac, but I have to pay 12 dollars for a lobster. That is the comparison you make here.
 
god damn your arrogant. Just because your a conservative doesn't mean your rich and i don't understand why people always say that. Im nowhere near being rich and my parents are some of the most right wing people i know. They're idea revolves around the American Dream. The Dream was to work hard in America and make a living that could sustain yourself and a family. But the democrats wanna penalize people for achieving the dream by taxing the shit out of the rich. I don't want the Governments help because when the government gets to involved with the civilians personal life, they get to powerful. Socialism. All of sudden, republicans are racist too because we don't like Obama, its not because he is black, we don't agree with what his ideology is and the direction he is pushing the country.
 
Thank you so much. There is a line between people who are responsible for themselves, and those who want a free ride in life while the rich take care of them. Complete bullshit in my opinion. Not everybody will be rich in life and its not fare but get fucking use to it. Im not rich and i don't think its the duty of the rich and powerful to cary me along. They earned what they have, I have to work just as hard to achieve what they have.
 
Yes, when in doubt name drop somebody to bitch who knows far more about economics than you seem to. Not surprised, it's just annoying.
 
Sorry pal, too much idealist theory, not enough reality.

The government has become exponentially larger under the governance of those that run on exactly the qualities you're espousing. Again, it's unfortunate you're unable to conceptualize what the reality is. You displayed it in your inability to understand the tax comparisons I was making, and you're doing it when you spout dislocated garbage about supply and demand.
 
I'm still not sure if you're trying to troll me or this is really you're viewpoint but whatever. If it's not fucked enough, add some government intervention, that works pretty well. Obama doesn't give a fuck about green energy, that's just another point in the political game. Yeah he does but is roe v wade going to get overturned while he's in office? I'd say 99% chance of no. So honestly what does that matter.

I'd rather have somebody that was against the patriot act, and supported a sane economic policy. But you are never going to find that in the main candidates these days. If we don't have any freedoms and our country is completely fucking broke, what good does it matter if the guy you voted for said he supported this or that.
 
I could explain your argument to

a child. There is no way it’s above anyone’s head… Do you really think taxes

and the “social contract” are that complicated? Do you really think everyone

who is a "fiscal conservative" wants to get rid of government altogether?

Maybe the term “fiscal conservative” is above your head?
 
Could you quote where I said everyone who is a fiscal conservative wants to get rid of government all together?

I get you're super reactionary and hyperbolic - but it's pretty difficult to not understand how my statement didn't go over your head, when your entire response isn't based on what I actually said.

However, since you could explain my statement to a child - why don't you jump in and explain the global economy, and the trivial nature of American fiscal conservatism in relation to global markets.
 
There are still a lot of kids that aren't in anyway rich, and actually doing pretty poorly as far as financials that ski. I guess it's just not as many. I just hate everyone grouping it as a sport you have to be rich to enjoy.

I could get enough money for a board,bindings, boots, outerwear, and a pass to a mountain off of a summer job. And you don't need new shit every season, so once you've got stuff you're in good shape.

I mean it is in a away these days. A lot of spoiled kids out there but whatever. I wish my parents could afford to send me to summer camp for a week, or multiple weeks like some. But whatever, can't blame them for being able to do that.

I just hate when it becomes grouped as something you have to be rich to do, and that's not true at all. Location plays a much larger factor.
 
Lately, Obama's statement that "If you have a business, you didn't build that" has been getting a lot of heat, and rightfully so. I vehemently disagree with his thoughts because although people claim that the government built the roads/services, who the hell do you think paid the taxes to fund the these projects. THE BUSINESSES AND THEIRWORKERS!!! The other day I went to one of the Romney/Ryan rallies, Paul Ryan made an analogy that I thought was really good, when a student makes honor roll, you don't credit the bus driver that brought them to school, you credit the student that made the effort to get the good grades!
 
That's a pretty short sighted way to look at things. Do you credit the customers who purchase from your business and offer you patronage, purchase your goods and allow you to prosper - or does the sole credit go to business owners and their employees, for simply paying taxes to build roads?

How about teachers? Do we credit them with educating children, or providing an environment in which to succeed? How about the bus driver who votes yes on an education levy, sees his taxes raise, to build a new school for those kids he drives?

The ultimate issue here is the willful ignorance of those that criticize Obama for statements like this. The point is, it takes a community. No individual has come into this world, and produced on their own. That is the entire point and the fundamental difference here; the people who understand and are thankful for what the combination of society and their individual efforts have produced - and people who think they're solely responsible for their own successes.

The saddest part of this, is that no matter how much anyone argues, no matter how many irrefutable facts are provided - this type of ignorance can't be overcome.
 
Don't get me wrong I think people definitely help you along the way, but in my opinion, Obama has an anti-business/anti-success mentality that doesn't correspond with the core values of the majority of Americans. The idea that the government will always be there to save you is the downfall of America... I am not against a safety net. But, do people who get saved by nets in real life stay there, NO! You work to bring yourself up!
 
Also, I am unsure how my posts display ignorance... Ignorance suggests that I am not familiar with the issues at hand, which I am. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are ignorant. The left has made the word "Ignorant" toothless, and I plan to keep ignoring it and disregarding any opinion who's argument is based upon "Ignorance".
 
i vote the way i do because i want someone to represent ME. More people should vote this way because the downfall of america is not systems helping the less fortunate its the partisanship that goes on in every part of american politics. Its gridlock nothing can get done because politicians are failing their job to represent their constituents and are focused only on their party.
 
Really? So I explain how your narrow viewpoint, I-did-it-myself-mentality, and lack of understanding for what Obama is talking about, is ignorant. And your response is the 'left' leaves ignorance so undefined it is 'toothless', and you're going to ignore people who call you ignorant.

You literally could not possibly have exampled my point any better.
 
Also, Obama is in no way, shape or form anti-business and anti-success. This is a Fox News talking point, and is not substantiated with any fact.

This is again my statement about your ignorance. You claim to be educated on the issues; I challenge you to link any non-partisan, independent resource stating that Obama is anti-business or anti-success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top