Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone :
There are others. For example, I believe in a message of economic populism. I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider. I believe that the investment class should NOT get a tax cut. I believe that the Republican party in the White House is by FAR too in bed with Corporations to the detriment of the average American. I believe in bettering the student loan system and fully funding NCLB if that's the direction in which we're headed. I believe that you can't fund a war on a tax cut. I believe the Republican party in the White Hosue has stretched the concept of executive power PAST the point of breaking and requires oversight for all of our sakes (because the executive is the executive, regardless of party and precedents set by this one will extend to the next one). I'm pretty hard-over in these beliefs.
Oops well you lost me there. As a self-employed person working a small business I'm relying on my investments for retirement. We've worked up from the bottom. I guess I am considered "investment class"?
This is what I DON'T like about the Democrats. They will never let people get ahead.
Thanks for the feedback, but since your answer would be not to have a war in Iraq, how on earth would you and your guy Webb have handled Saddam?
You may not have noticed, but the deficit is dropping like a stone.
Thanks to economic growth.
Thanks to tax cuts.
You wrote---"I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider".
That one statement makes you a left wing socialist democrat. Your lack of understanding capitalism. A "gap" between high and middle is strictly up to the individual. If you want to be middle income, that's what you'll get. America gives everyone the opportunity to do as well as they see fit. You are completely responsible for everything that happens to you from the time you leave home and before. Every action you take, bears a reaction. To socialist dims like yourself, it's all about hand-outs and entitlement.
Economic populism is a milder variety of the failed economic policies of the late and unlamented Soviet Union.
Go away. Go read some of Webb's kiddie porn before the theocrats you fear have a resurgence and take it away from you.
Because you know that's what we're going to do, don't you?
I was willing to put up with you till you started spouting this nanny state liberal crap.
You have a problem with people making money and people who pay most of the taxes getting a tax cut.
You have no problem giving other peoples money to people who didn't earn it.
Its ok to kill unborn babies because that is a choice.
You're a hard line lefty. Nothing moderate about you.
Economic populism, otherwise known as soaking the rich, is why you are not really a moderate.
When you give a tax cut to the "investment class", where do you think it goes? What group invests in their businesses, hires empoyees, and uses the economic expansion of their business to drive the economy? Who creates wealth for others... the poor, or the wealthy?
As far as the concept of executive power is concerned, take a look at the last administration and the new House and Senate majorities. There is more protected corruption, more bribes and kickbacks, and more executive privilege than Bush could ever dream of.
Please provide ONE concrete example of executive power being pushed "past the breaking point" with this administration. The typical liberal bumper-sticker arguments you are offering up fail miserably.
The Democrats can always find someone poorer than you to import into the country. Unrestricted immigration of extremely poor unskilled people creates a large mass of poor people who can't take advantage of our advanced economy, but they make a natural constituency for those who preach the politics of envy. The states with the highest economic stratification are those that have the highest vote proportion for the Democrats.
"I believe that the investment class should NOT get a tax cut. I believe that the Republican party in the White House is by FAR too in bed with Corporations to the detriment of the average American."
Ah, the stripes on the Zebra (aka Moderate Democrat) become apparent now.
Now, besides defining "resonably pro gun," please define the "investment class." Do you mean "The Rich?" Are you referring to the economically regressive capital gains tax, which should rightly be zero???
If I bought a stock in 1900 for a dollar, and I sold it today for $2, I should have to pay tax on the $1???? Even though I lost money on the investment (if you follow...).
Do you think the Dems are "in bed" with special interests, including the NEA? If so, what are the economic/tax ramifications?
Take it up with John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. Between the two of them they're worth a fair fraction of a billion dollars. They don't have to wait to be taxed to give up their money to worthies such as yourself. Nothing prevents them from writing you a check or sending an eight figure check to the IRS for deposit into the federal treasury.
But they won't do that. They want the tax man to hit you up. Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to me. Wealthy people--even wealthy Democrats that I detest--tend to be wealthy because they wisely manage their excess money or place it in the hands of wise managers. That benefits everyone.
Placing it in your greedy, shortsighted, uneducated hands seems downright foolish by comparison. How many jobs have you created for other people in your lifetime?
The smart thing to do is to leave the money with the people who earned it. That way it is reinvested to create more jobs and more wealth. That in turn keeps unemployment low, productivity high, and shrinks the budget deficit--which is EXACTLY what has been happening over the past six years.
Start your own business and quit complaining that everyone else owes you a cut of their pie, parasite.
Post number 88 brands you as a socialist, which is not moderat, and certainly not a traditional Virginian position. It is, however, the position associated with the modern Democratic party.
Consider the following:
The investment class is using money that they have already been taxed on. That they choose to risk it and have to pay taxes on those gains is double taxation. Earning money is not amoral (if done on the up and up) and it is the willingness or people to risk capital that allows people to start businesses and create jobs. How else do you think that people are able to have some place to go to work?
That 55% of people own stocks and invest their AFTER TAX dollars is telling.
You are correct in saying that you cannot fund a war on a tax cut but you also left out the fact that you cannot fund a war, cut taxes and then boost spending the way that Bush did with NCLB and the Medicare benefit that the people getting benefits from it never funded it!
What you call the rich pay most of the taxes. Why give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes. The Corporations create the jobs which results in more revenue pouring into the government coffers. People keeping more of their money results in a booming economy everytime its done. Taking the peoples money and sending it to Washington where they are fiscally irresponsible is the reason we have recessions.
You wrote: "There are others. For example, I believe in a message of economic populism. I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider."
I agree.
You wrote: "I believe that the investment class should NOT get a tax cut."
I agree.
You wrote: "I believe that the Republican party in the White House is by FAR too in bed with Corporations to the detriment of the average American."
I agree.
You wrote: "I believe in bettering the student loan system and fully funding NCLB if that's the direction in which we're headed."
I agree.
You wrote: "I believe that you can't fund a war on a tax cut."
I agree.
You wrote: "I believe the Republican party in the White Hosue has stretched the concept of executive power PAST the point of breaking and requires oversight for all of our sakes (because the executive is the executive, regardless of party and precedents set by this one will extend to the next one)."
I half agree. The President would have all the powers he sought, and more, using good strong precedent (FDR's precedents in World War II) had be asked Congress for a Declaration of War in September, 2001. The precedent of Presidential power in an actual, full-on, declared war is one of practically dictatorial power, including full censorship of the mails and the press...whatever it takes.
But Bush (and the Republican Adminstration) were like LBJ. They wanted to fight a massive war WITHOUT sacrificing their domestic agenda (see the tax cut issue above. You don't CUT taxes in a war. You raise them, and start massively expanding the armed forces, and kick ass and take names). Had he asked, Congress would have declared war. Had Congress declared war, there would be no NEED for the Patriot Act, and we'd have never heard of Abu Graib or probably GTMO. The World War II, World War I precedents are all any President needs. But to get those precedents, you need to throw domestic policy aside, reach for national unity on WAR, and go to war. Bush didn't. So now the war is just another domestic political issues, like Vietnam and orea were. This damns us to lose it. It's a tragedy, but there you have it.
I don't have any problem with the President restricting civil liberties to win a war. I have a problem with restricting civil liberties WITHOUT being willing to iorrecovable committing the country to full-dress, formally declared war. So, we half agree on this, and agree full on everything else. But...
You wrote: "I'm pretty hard-over in these beliefs."
And in order to reach agreement with me on everything else, every one of those tother things, you will REFUSE to compromise on letting me have the law that saves the babies. So, when you come right down to it, you'll throw away all the rest of your agenda in order to preserve abortion rights, won't you?
Won't you?
LOL.....you must have LOVED the Clinton administration........
One of the children Clinton "saved" at Waco
An excellent compilation from Free Republic's own alamo-girl
I do not believe in class warfare ie Populism. It is anti freedom and anti-liberty. I do not belive the rich getting richer (if they are) has anything to do with anyone else getting richer or poorer. I grew up dirt poor and now am middle middle class. I do not resent any rich person. Their money is not mine and I want none of theirs. I am not a socialist or candy coat it as a populist. You leave my money alone and I will leave yours alone. Do away with all welfare and I mean all social and corporate and get rid of the income tax then maybe we can speak to each other as equals until then you are just wanting to take what is not yours. Sorry I disagree totally with your economic progrome commrade.