| Author |
Message |
    
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 02:19 pm: | 
|
No, there are CONSERVATIVES and there are REPUBLICANS. The likelihood that they are both is simply less.
McCain, as an example, is a REPUBLICAN but is no conservative.
He is now what a Democrat used to be in the 80's.
Specter and Snow don't even TRY to be Republican. They are Democrats in the best sense of RINO.
Real conservatives stand up for conservative ideals even when it isn't politically expedient.
I'm radical. I want the complete termination of Social Security for anyone younger than A40. With 50% of the SS taxes paid released to these folks to private fund retirement. I want medicare greatly curtailed. Complete revocation of the prescription plan. Flat tax, national sales tax or something similar. Do you realize how much money is spent each year trying to sort out the tax laws (and I'm in that industry)? Terminate the UN. Term limits. Education vouchers. Strict constructionist judges. States rights. Generally a radical shrinking of the Federal government. |
Mortarmanmike120
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 02:31 pm: |
|
Glad I'm not the only one that feels that way! |
Mortarmanmike120
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 02:41 pm: |
|
Since this "crisis" broke my IRA and mutual funds have dropped 2/5th of their value. They still blow away any return I'll get from SS. I'd love to have the money I throw into the PIT of Social Security available to keep buying right now. Yeah I'm 36, my social security payments will probably not be enough to buy a happy meal when I retire.
Social Security = Ponzie scheme. |
Gentleman_jon
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 02:59 pm: |
|
<---------------Outraged. But not outrageous.
 |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 03:19 pm: |
|
But not outrageous.
Says who?  |
Strokizator
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 03:19 pm: |
|
People need to look at the social security system in Chile.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5981
Do a google search if you don't trust the Cato Institute. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 03:29 pm: |
|
To equate the Republican party with strict conservatism is not correct.
I would define the Republican party as the party that looks out mainly for the interests of corporate America and the wealthy...
Let the rest "eat cake" |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 03:29 pm: |
|
Yeah, but that would give the PEOPLE too much self control.
We can't control the masses if they aren't dependent and frightened.
Throw off the yokes folks.
10% flat tax and an 80% smaller federal government! |
Ducxl
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 03:38 pm: |
|
I would define the Republican party as the party that looks out mainly for the interests of corporate America and the wealthy...
Let the rest "eat cake"
Yeah...I used to believe in the trickle down theory.But with this so called "global market" big biz seems to find more and MORE profit out of using foreign labor instead of promoting domestic labor.So much to discuss.
I like what i've read HERE regarding privatization.Jeremy is onto something with his comment about dispersing that 50% of monies paid to a private retirement account.
That would/could satisfy the problem for us who've paid and want something tangible for our S.S. taxed.Keep it coming |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 03:42 pm: |
|
My highest local taxes are for the school district.
I never attended a public school. My kids didn't attend a public school.
I think it a good thing to have free public schools.
All of you here who decry socialism.
How is the public school system not socialism??
You say you are for school vouchers - Why should the government pay to educate your children. - If you oppose socialism.
Are some forms of socialism OK with you?
I think it necessary.
I paid the full bill myself with no cost to the school district.
(Message edited by old_man on February 27, 2009) |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 04:32 pm: |
|
I would define the Republican party as the party that looks out mainly for the interests of corporate America and the wealthy...
Only because that is how it's been framed to you by the left.
Specifically what advantage has been given to the "wealthy" that isn't given to the rank and file?
"Tax breaks for wealthy" simply mean we take less than we did, but it's still more, as a percent of income, taken from the wealthy than anyone else.
If we equate freedom to succeed with wealth, how can being a strict constructionist seeking the fullest extent of freedom NOT be aligned with the mechanisms of success leading to wealth?
The founding fathers KNEW that the greater the entanglements of government the lower the probability that the average man would be able to succeed and achieve wealth.
The founding fathers knew that the central core to obtaining and building wealth was private property rights. Work for wages, use the wages to buy land, life stock, equipment, build wealth. The founding fathers would be APPALLED with the Eminent Domain rulings of late. They would be APPALLED at the confiscation of wealth.
They went to war for independence over less. Much less. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 04:35 pm: |
|
But you must admit that it is the Republican party that looks out for THEIR interests. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 04:40 pm: |
|
It's over, folks. You all are pissing in the wind. Put a fork in it - it's done !! |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 04:40 pm: |
|
You say you are for school vouchers -Why should the government pay to educate your children. - If you oppose socialism.
Are some forms of socialism OK with you?
I think it necessary.
I paid the full bill myself with no cost to the school district.
That's the point. I am paying for the school system. The government isn't paying for my kids to go. I am paying for my kids to go. I should have some choice as to where my children attend. Schools should have to compete for my education dollars. You paid into the system and got nothing for it. Vouchers would have allowed you to take the money you wasted in the system and use them for your own educational purposes.
THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!!!!!
It's ours. We are getting exactly dick for it. It's time we took control back and got what we paid for. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 04:47 pm: |
|
But you must admit that it is the Republican party that looks out for THEIR interests.
The Republican party (those that are actually conservative) are looking out for EVERYONE'S interests.
The CEO of Costco is a socialist. Pro-business includes Costco. Hollywood is heavily socialist/progressive/liberal/communist. Pro-business includes Hollywood.
Allowing those who make money to keep as much of it as possible isn't improper.
If you can prove that ONLY wealthy people vote Republican, I'm all ears.
Conversely, those who are wealthy and vote Democrat are financially suicidal. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 04:48 pm: |
|
Public schools are government schools - socialism.
To be consistent you should oppose public schools.
Should people with no children pay to educate yours?
Your taxes don't pay the entire cost to educate your children. - I know.
By the way, I fought to get vouchers myself.
I was told it was unconstitutional by my representatives.
Don't get me wrong, personally I am all for free public education. Even if it is socialism. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:00 pm: |
|
You are right, many poor vote Republican, including many in my family.
Most of the men who worked for me voted Republican, I, in fact, have many times voted Republican.
But, I know, the interests of corporate America and the wealthy are what is behind the party.
When I was a child I asked my father what we were, Republican or Democrat.
My father had a job that required he be registered Republican.
He told me "Republican, but when I vote, no one knows how I vote."
I didn't understand exactly what he meant.
So I rooted for Ike in the election. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:09 pm: |
|
To be consistent you should oppose public schools.
I do. I think it's the single worst idea hatched and has been corrupted as an instrument of propaganda by the left.
The only reason that it hasn't been overthrown is that most perceive it as "free". If they were presented with a bill at the beginning of each school year, the average person would ask "what the hell am I getting for THAT?"
If 15 people got together and each paid $5000 per student, they could pay for a teacher with benefits. This is how they do home school co-ops in my area.
The average cost per child for public schools is about $7,000.
I'm pretty damn sure that I could do a better job of hiring a qualified high performing teacher for what I am spending on public education.
We are NOT getting what we are paying for.
Right now, I am using the public schools in our area (which are really good btw) because I can't afford to pay for private schools. Were the government to provide me with an education voucher, I would join the local home school co-op and hire my portion of a teacher to teach my kids.
I am enslaved by the system. Give me MY money, and I will make BETTER choices. |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:10 pm: |
|
quote:- I want the complete termination of Social Security for anyone younger than A40.
- I want medicare greatly curtailed.
- Complete revocation of the prescription plan.
- Flat tax, national sales tax or something similar.
- Terminate the UN.
- Term limits.
- Education vouchers.
- Strict constructionist judges.
- States rights.
- Generally a radical shrinking of the Federal government.
Ft. for President!
>>>But, I know, the interests of corporate America and the wealthy are what is behind the party.
No different than the unions that bankrolled so many democratic campaigns. Everyone seeks out a source of funding and trades favors.
>>>My father had a job that required he be registered Republican.
I don't generally park at the union hall with my republican bumper sticker on . . . even though most the cars there are now Honda and Toyota. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:12 pm: |
|
But, I know, the interests of corporate America and the wealthy are what is behind the party.
As right they should be. Consider the alternative.
Why would a sane person vote for a party that PROMOTES the fact that they are going to tax your balls off and redistribute it?
As I said, financially suicidal. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:15 pm: |
|
Ft. for President!
You help me fund raise, and I'll run. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:48 pm: |
|
I preferred the old Republican party, that was more toward the middle, where I am.
I did like IKE! |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 05:55 pm: |
|
Actually both parties were in the center with minor philosophical differences.
Think Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. There is no place in the DNC for these folks.
They didn't change. The party changed.
They have more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats.
Who really "moved"? |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 06:03 pm: |
|
Public education IS free to the very poor.
The rest of us do foot the bill. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 06:26 pm: |
|
The poor pay as well in the form of rent, sales tax, lower wages (because the employer is having to pay local taxes), etc.
The majority, though, is paid via property taxes. The poor, by proportion, own less property, and therefore pay a smaller proportion of the taxes.
The wealthier you are, though, the less "bang for your buck" you get with public education.
If you take it to it's fullest iteration, the wealthy fund the majority of the cost for education they don't use in order to "educate" folks who in higher and higher proportions vote to further confiscate the wealth of the wealthy.
The wealthy are being hosed exponentially. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 06:43 pm: |
|
The very poor mostly live in public housing here and public housing pays no taxes to the schools.
I pay the school district and paid around $7000 per year per each of my grand daughters to attend non public school.
It was less when I went and when my children went.
But without public schools most of the poor could not afford to sent their children to school.- even if you cut all their taxes. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 10:18 pm: |
|
But without public schools most of the poor could not afford to sent their children to school.- even if you cut all their taxes.
Vouchers would create an open, competitive market for childhood education. Right now, public schools have a strangle hold on the market. Talented teachers, those who are not able to find slots within private schools, are stuck within the public system.
If everyone had the ability to utilize a voucher, multiple good teachers would leave the system and seek "free agency". Imagine those teachers with talent and the ability to connect with children being able to be paid what they are really worth. The public schools would have to compete for good talent just like the rest of the schools and free agents. ALL teacher income would rise. Options would increase. Education would attraction more and better talented folks. I LOVE to teach, but I can't take the pay cut. I would teach school in a heartbeat. I hope to be able to teach as part of my retirement plan. I want to give back to the educational system and contribute my life lessons.
How much better would our educational system be were the majority of educators not only "professionals" but Professionals who worked nearly all their careers outside of academia? Imagine how more well rounded the student and how much more rounded the education with all that life experience to draw from.
This is the way that education used to be. This is how our founding fathers were educated.
Vouchers are not tax refunds or deductions. They are tax credits. You can pay NO taxes and still receive a voucher. Even the poor would be able to get out of failed schools.
Not everyone would be able to leave the system immediately, but supply of education options will quickly swell to fill demand. It's what the free market does best. We could see a 50/50 mix of education within 3 years with the majority of education being done outside of the formal public system within 5 years.
The interesting model that I've seen is that as individuals choose to exit the formal system, we will have several schools that will be vacant. These schools will have the opportunity to rent class time to home school and free lance education operations. Children could be in classes in their old school but being taught by a teacher they've had for several years.
There will be several new industries spring up to serve the new system. Caterers, equipment suppliers, book publishers, computer programmers, builders, etc.
We throw dollar after dollar after dollar into a system that gets worse and worse and worse. More money simply buys you less.
It's time to make a change.
Give the good teachers the ability to do what they were born to do. Give parents and children the ability to get their kids with the best teachers.
In a generation, we will have an entire nation of Bill Gates, Albert Einsteins, and Howard Hughes (except not crazy). |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Is public school socialism? good question. schools are not the means of production, just the tool to make it possible.
Are roads socialism? Don't think so, and schools.. not so much.
Don't confuse the control of all things by the Holy State with services that made sense to pay taxes for back in Babylon or Athens. Who could afford to pay for private water delivery? How can you have a city without Sewers or Plague?
I know many teachers, and I've watched as the schools get worse & worse, the teacher's budgets get slashed, and layer on layer of non productive management get's rich.
The local urban district has more people in the Superintendent's cabinet than the President of the U.S.A. Better paid, too. Also some of the worst results. Less than a 50% high school graduation rate.
I don't like Ted Kennedy's education laws, (no child gets ahead...I mean left behind ) they crush smart kids & falsely encourage the less gifted. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut. Genius's should be allowed to soar.
There are great rant thread possibilities in bitching about education. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 11:28 pm: |
|
The main reason my kids didn't go to the public school is the poor education there.
Most of my buddies went to the public school.
At the end of my junior H.S. year I took my books and papers home (They were mine, I had to buy them) One of my pals was looking through them. He found my listing of element valences and asked what it was.
I said you took chemistry (public H.S.)- He said yes, he got all As.
I don't know what he learned there.
That listing was given to me the first day in class to learn. You couldn't do chemistry without it. |
Dbird29
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 12:43 am: |
|
I don't' have kids, so let me have my vouchers so I can sell them to a needy family. |
|
