Many here (including myself) have flamed the opposing side but we really haven’t discussed why we believe the way we do.

I believe myself to be an independent.  Yet I find myself leaning to the more moderate, liberal side the last 8 years or so and the reason is pretty simple.  While I do believe in open and free trade, in smaller government and lower taxes in theory; the fact is- because our system works the way it does, the wealth of our country is now controlled (and will continue to be controlled) by an esoteric group unless a balance is struck.  I suppose it is human nature, for those on the right, to try to hold onto what they have (finances) but I think it is selfish and damaging to our nation.  America is no longer a land of opportunity; it’s the land of those who have been lucky enough to inherit wealth and are able to use that wealth to further capitalize.  I understand the desire to take care of your own blood and to protect what you have, but I think unless our morality as a nation evolves to allow those in the middle and lower classes the opportunity to succeed we will fall into a state of a small wealthy ruling class and indentured servitude.  

Most (including the left) don’t do what is in the best interest of the country they profess to love, rather what is best for them personally.  This idea of “me first”, “country second”- from both sides- will lead us to ruin.  This is why I support the Democratic side so fervently in this election year…the balance needs to be adjusted for the overall health of our country.  My life typifies the struggle of the underclass and while I will achieve success (I already have to be honest), I know I the exception and not the rule.  Most cannot see past their overwhelming financial and social structure to anything higher than themselves.  When we are all educated and healthy, we will have more productive citizens working for the betterment of our nation as a whole.  There is nothing wrong with working hard and reaping the rewards, but most of those who have the rewards now have done so because they had successful parents, they are the right color or were just plain lucky.  That is not the America I want, even thou she is the best game going- she can be better.  Our two party system is one of the most beautiful things about our country; it helps to maintain a balance- if we make the right decisions.

I was going to go further but I am watching the 9/11 coverage and I just am overcome.  

XO
Melanie

"America is no longer a land of opportunity"

Tell that to all the immigrants coming over here working hard and getting rich..
 Those that give up on their dreams didn't really want them anyway.

America is still the land of opportunity. I have never been given a dime, and I've been working full time since I was fifteen. There are plenty of opportunities in the country, wealth redistribution will not increase opportunity it will have the opposite effect.

I take offense to the statement, "but most of those who have the rewards now have done so because they had successful parents, they are the right color or were just plain lucky"

I have not had the benefit of an Ivy league education,or too much of any formal education to speak of. I have been supporting myself since my early teens and I am not white. By your line of reasoning I should never should have worked so hard, I should have lobbied the government to give me some of the "rich white people's" money to me since I was so disadvantaged.

After traveling the world extensively I no longer have any pity to anyone in this country of able body who cannot make something of themself. This country has plenty of opportunity unless a person is too stupid or too lazy to do something for themself.

There is only the center and the right.

A true lefty would be arguing for the nationalization of the oil business and transportation, for a single payer health care plan funded with tax dollars, true one man, one vote representation, an end to the imperial actions of the U.S., legislation strengthening labor unions rather than weakening them, free public education through grad school, day care subsidies, a tax system that's actually progressive, existence of more than one more party than in China, etc...

Compare Obama's policies with those of an actual lefty and it's easy to see that he's actually centrist. At least to anyone who's not a raving right wing lunatic.

Unfortunately, that describes most of the 'conservatives' on this board.

Amen, GG

Have you read what Game Theory says about this?
http://www.scientificblogging.com/amorca/evolutionary_game_theory_and_the_mathematics_of_altruism

In the absence of sufficient private charity, it's necessary to redistribute wealth or the economy collapses, as in 1929.

Keep in mind that you did take advantage of many institutions funded through redistribution of wealth- public education, roads and highways, etc.  Redistribution of wealth doesn't necessarily mean direct payments to individuals. It also refers to using that redistribution to create infrastructure which benefits the entire society.

You don't think all roads and highways should be private toll roads, do you?

Anyone not to the left of Chavez is a raving right wing lunatic.

When you start making stupid stamements like "there is no left in the US. There is only the center and the right", dialogue with you becomes pointless

leftist and not just left of your right wing views.

Chaves is about as far left as Cheney is to the right. Any U.S. politicians advocating policies similar to those of Chaves? Anyone advocating a 30 hour work week? $15.00/hr minimum wage? A cap on CEO salaries? That corporations be owned by labor? Hell, even that boards of directors of corporations be required to have representatives from labor?

Didn't think so.

Dialog died on this board a looooong time ago. Thanks for doing your part to keep it in the ground.

Well said!!!

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Levin, Reid, Rangle, Biden, Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Lewis, Durbin.....

Enjoy a list for you to worship.

How much for the golf outing?  You better give me some tips on my short game or something.

$300

1 HOUR

INCALL
$500

2 HOURS

INCALL
$650

3 HOURS

INCALL

$550


2 HOURS


OUTCALL

$550


3 HOURS


DINNER/ LUNCH DATE

$250 + $50/hr


TBD- 9 or 18 holes


Golf Outing

While I would agree that some pass on wealth to their families of decaying abilities and morality, I would offer that those families sadly cling to the glories of their parents - witness the Kennedy Clan - in all of its manifestaitons - multiple accusations of rape, murder, cheating and downright corrupt behavior.  So if you wish to take away their core wealth, I might be for that.

Or if you are talking about the son of a wealthy lawyer and long time House and Senate member, whose family owend a tobacco farm... yea, - lets make sure he also cannot inherit... after all, Al Gore has all those awards and speaking engagements to support himself with... and he should be paying for all those little cabon atoms he is a usin.......  I guess I could go for that as well....

But if you are talking about the poor slob who works hard, accumulates a house, a bit of insurance and a 401K... well, my comment would be why would you not wish him to pass on to his family the $1M or so if he dies an untimely death.... if he lives into retirement, he'll spend it anyway just staying alive...

But your statement "it’s the land of those who have been lucky enough to inherit wealth and are able to use that wealth to further capitalize" floors me.  My ex (and we all know what things i've said about her) was born into a moderately middle class family, and her parents divorced while she was a kid... well guess what, her mom spent "the family fortune"  married again, and took what she could from her 2nd hubby... and left him.  Then she spent that!  leaving NOTHING for my ex... well, my ex works hard, is wealthy - but was given NOTHING - in fact, she supports her mom....   I know several like that....

or take the local family I know from Thailand... they came here, worked their buts off, earned enough to open a restaurant... wonderful place... they earned every dime...

or take my son's Karate instructor- he was an accountant - put himself through school by teaching kararte... then earned enough as an accountant to open up his own gym....

my list is somewhat endless but you get the drift... in short, THEY EARNED every dime they have... no one gave any of them a free ride... and at least they had the good sense to refuse a free ride from "Ted, swim instructor, Kennedy."

But let's talk about being "able to use that wealth to further capitalize"  Who stands to gain the most from using wealth to capitalize investments?  The rich- or those who are not rich....  Most Americans who work, have a 401K - or some other retirement instrument.... How do you think that makes the money "grow?"  Through the capitilization of investments....  You've a choice, you can participate or not... but the offer is there at most places of work.

And MOST americans take advantage of this...  why would they not?  and why would you make it more difficult for folks to try to "Grow their money" either in a 401K or through straight investing by increasing the capital gains tax rate?

Careful the things you wish for, you may get them....

Have you not seen what other providers are getting per hour?  $300/hr is cheap by comparison.  Of course I am not most men's (or at least TER men) idea of an ideal provider but for those that like GFE in a soft, curvy package I am a bargain.

As for your short game, I really would suggest seeing a pro- that's what I do.  If you're in NYC I can recommend some wonderful instructors....

XO
Melanie

You can't argue with the numbers....the "haves" and the "have nots" are so polarized that the ruling class has lost touch with reality.

There are a few that can overcome, but when the system is stacked against it's citizens then that system needs to be changed.

If you don't recognize that the system is broken and is excluding a vast majority of it's citizens then you are out of touch.

Any system that rewards someone like GW, who has not succeeded in any aspect of his life, with not just one but TWO presidential terms is flawed.  He is the poster child for what I am talking about.  He (and his family wealth) bought power- that is an issue.

I think it is unwise and horribly prideful to make the blanket statement "too stupid or too lazy to do something".  It just isn't true.

However, thank you for expressing your views.  I found them interesting.

XO
Melanie

She's talking about the folks who are wealthy enough to buy and sell all of us and not blink an eye. There's a greater difference between the people at the very top and the next .5% in the economy than there is between those at the 99.5% and those at the bottom.

http://www.lcurve.org/

I can vote for the more rational candidate who shows little, may very little sense and has served the people before.

Voted for Bill twice, voted for Gore and Kerry (which was basically voting against Bush) this time it is McCain.

I do not like far out left and far out liberalism. Centrist kind of guy.

This country with all its flaws is still the land of opportunity. Why do you think people will still do virtually anything to get here?

Your George Bush analogy is specious, if money were the only factor, why did Perot and Forbes, and Kerry for that matter fail? They all have more money than the Bushes.

How about George Soros and Warren Buffet, not to mention Bill Gates? People talk about how rich and evil Dick Cheney is, Soros personally is worth more than twice than all of Haliburton. Warren Buffett could buy Haliburton out of pocket change

I never said that this country isn't the best in the world.  But just because immigrants are doing "virtually anything to get here" does not dispell the need for improvement.  It is a precious system that must be protected...that is what I support.

How is my Bush analogy false?  Tell me how he has succeeded?  What business?  What GPA?  Anything?

You mentioned many wealthy people and really made no point.  They are not politicans who have succeeded on daddy's coat tails.

M

You are the one that brought up the subject of wealth, and your opinion that all the wealth is controlled by people either born to it, the right color, etc etc ad nauseum

Now you want to talk about politicians, lets talk politicians, Let's talk about Gore, born to wealth, Kerry, married wealth. Kennedy, let's not even go there. All democrats, never did shit on their own.

You've got one POTUS who was born into wealth and prestige, you've got to go back to JFK to find another, and what party was he from?

Bizzaro,

First thanks for the reply.

As far as the folks you mentioned taking money from (liberal, of course) I just want to point out that I believe I said both sides have issues.  I am not so naive to think just Republican politicians believe in the kick-back system of the rich get richer, thou I think Al Gore has done much to improve his fellow Americans lives…as did the Kennedys.  This extreme right movement has had help and some of that help came from across the aisle to be sure.  I just want to protect the delicate balance necessary to keep our country a haven for all of her citizens.

The people you mentioned are fine, but that is anecdotal.  I am talking about the masses slipping into poverty.  There are many people who work very hard and get rewarded, but there are many more still that do not.  The numbers don’t lie.

I did a little research about the capital gains tax.  Turns out Obama wanted a 28% hike across the board (for those that had 401Ks, as you pointed out, as well) but he has revised that idea.  Now he wants to raise capital gains 20% on households that make over $250K.  I’m sorry- I find no issue with that.  You should not be able to pass along enough wealth that your child doesn’t have to work, and if he does, he just grows the wealth further.

Thanks you for a thoughtful reply, it is really appreciated.

XO
Melanie

reread your original post.

thickredbeauty"
America is no longer a land of opportunity; it’s the land of those who have been lucky enough to inherit wealth "

I never said that this country isn't the best in the world"


  The above written by the Same person??? Someone is confused

and the ones on top are feeding the bottom..From another perspective the ones on top are making sure the ones on bottom are fed.. From another pespective 95% of the feeders are also followers so someone has to lead them..And they certainly deserve more money for keeping the feeders fed.


-- Modified on 9/11/2008 4:54:29 PM

Oh you meant she was confused. I am so confused. lol

I truly believe anyone who thinks there is no oppourtunity in this country should check out some other countries that have true poverty and NO opportunity, but somehow some people make it.

I think ThickRed ought to visit Nicaragua or Honduras, or virtually any country in Africa or Southeast Asia. Now that's real poverty.

I stand by my earlier post, if you can't make it in this country there's just no hope for you. I do of course make exceptions for those who are disabled and children of worthless parents who need a hand up. Even then it's not a lifetime exemption just because your parents suck. I've supported myself since the age of fifteen and I've done pretty well for myself.

When did the logic "America is better than everything else so it doesn't need to be improved" become correct?

Again with the divisive Republican politics.

I want to protect and restore the delicate balance so that America can continue to thrive.  So many things have changed about our nation in the last 50 years, we need an updated game plan.  The power and wealth needs to be checked, within reason- that is what I am supporting.

M

Do you actually get hobbyist taking you out to golf? I will give you points for originality.

You just can't seem to pick one topic and stay on it. First inherited wealth is evil, except when it applies to the Kennedys, the Gores etc.

Then you say your not speaking about wealth, but about politicians. Your one and only example is George Bush. Granted GW owes his position to his families wealth and connection. If we are talking strictly about the office of POTUS, then this is the only POTUS to which this applies since JFK and he was a Democrat. I don't see much of a case here. If you are talking about politicians at large Republicans hardly have a monopoly on buying office. Gore, Kennedy, Pelosi, the list goes on and on.

I fail to see any point that you have made, except to make it very clear that you don't like Republicans, especially wealthy ones, but that you are willing to give Democrats a pass on the same issue.

massive inherited wealth (i.e., more than $2.5 million) is bad in every case, whether Republican, Democrat or Demigod.

Obama wanted a 28% tax hike... but revised that idea... now here is one problem with the argument that you make... Why the need to revise the idea... why did he NOT get it right the first time????  

As to the "good" good ole "Uncle Ted" done... please - go ask Mary Jo how she feels about that... sorry - but I believe in equal justice and equal punishment for all - and not for the privaledged.... Imagine that!  He got a pass cause he was a kennedy.... He is only where he is because of his father's bootleggin money and his brother's accomplishments... but Teddy?  gimme a break...

As to Gore - yet another "scheme" to bilk the hapless.

Sorry, just cannot stomach folk who lie... I know - Bush does too.  

Wealth is kinda funny though... I seek investments for small companies....   ya know, the types of companies that employ peeps... and have the potential to create millionaires... guess what, the incentive to become wealthy is a pretty effective driver to get folk to work hard... and guess what else... I can't raise money from the homeless... gotta get it from the wealthy... you know- those with money that will not leave them destitute if the gamble does not pay off.  

in short, we do need the wealthy... but lady - if you've looked at the stats... we are really not talking about the masses running around who make more than $150per annum...  to unfairly tax... well, isn't that something that kinda seemed settled over 200 years ago??? Remember - it was the elite and well to do who revolted.... not necessarily the "poor man"!  

me?  I strongly support a flat tax.  I stongly support taxing Universities - if THEY DO NOT OFFER FREE TUITION to all who qualify for their school... I strongly support taxing ALL religious organizations.  PERIOD....

Posted by Mister Red Baron, 9/11/2008 8:53:48 PM

massive inherited wealth (i.e., more than $2.5 million) is bad in every case, whether Republican, Democrat or Demigod.


You have got to be kidding...You call 2.5 million MASSIVE inherited wealth?? or did you mean 2.5 billion???

dismiss actual data without any research or thought.

Good job.

Maybe in 1920.  Sounds a little communistic to me.

is now property of the state according to MRB, because it's over the $2.5 MM threshold. Sounds a lot like communism to me.

You ever notice libs just throw shit out there without ever considering the facts or the consequences?

It's kind of hard to ever build a legacy when the state just takes it all when you are gone. Who would ever strive to actually build something lasting if they knew Obama, Pelosi and MRB were just going to give the proceeds to someone else kids who's parents never got off their ass?