Strange Bedfellows
 

I'm not going back to find your whole post so let's just stay with this one-

"Tax retirement funds- just a little- investing in them'll still be a good deal"

You mean take more money from those with more and give it to those with less right? That is movement towards equality- isn't it?

I think you even had one that said if you really don't need it you don't get it (not that extreme but on that path)

Strange Bedfellows
 

It's a "I'm talking out of my ass and have no real standards" thing. Or maybe a factors thing.

Which is OK, it's true of all of us, especially on here -- it's just better not to do a definitive test that screws up your immediately prior characterizations.

Strange Bedfellows
 

I see. A conservative taxes the poor to benefit the rich; A liberal taxes the rich to benefit the poor.

Now I understand. Thank you.

Strange Bedfellows
 

http://www.timble.me.uk/uganda/cathe...p-hole-300.jpg

First rule -- stop digging

Strange Bedfellows
 

Wow, it's battle of the broad, meaningless generalizations! Watch out!

Strange Bedfellows
 

Digging what? If you don't like my test, come up with your own.

Strange Bedfellows
 

Oh, darling, help me! The guy says he's not for achieving equality - I say how about when you said you want to take more money from people with money and give it to people w/o? I didn't say it would be a bad thing to do, I just said it is a step towards equality.

I am trying to be nice but he is trying.

Strange Bedfellows
 

Eliminating SS would value individuals by letting each individual keep money they earned. But it also values groups by favoring the groups of individuals who earn more money, many of whom are given other government-sponsored advantages.

In other words, any government policy can be viewed as benefitting both individuals and groups. Arguing that "liberals" value one and "conservatives" another is moronic.


SS is a safety net, not even a marginal step towards equality. It's been in place for 70 years; has SS made any poor person as any wealthy person during that time? It was neither designed nor promoted as a step towards equality. It was created to keep old people from starving to death.

Strange Bedfellows
 

No, it means that he would treat rich people and poor people equitably, by not favoring income earned from passive investment over income earned from work.

Tell me, do you think the mortgage interest deduction is a "step towards equality"?

Strange Bedfellows
 

Why would I ignore you? You entertain me. If I wanted to avoid stupidity I'd focus on work (well, most of the time).


Again, I'm not worked up. Seriously, clubby -- Even though you barely know me, do you really think that I care whether you regard me as a liberal, a moderate, or a horse with five legs? What label you apply to me is neither good nor bad; it is just not meaningful.

I think that your "test" reflects a number of idiotic stereotypes about "liberals" -- including about anyone who supports any policy that you deem "liberal". Stereotypes like that prevent rational thought. If you were a blond anorexic dominatrix who once had decent tits, it might be okay, but that job is taken. Saying these things does not indicate that I am "mad" or that your belief that I am a "moderate" bothers me. I see stupid, I call stupid.

But, out of curiousity -- since you've told us that you aren't a conservative -- what's your test for that?

(This oughta be fun)

Strange Bedfellows
 

http://members.rogers.com/triedit/conservative.html

http://www.vorck.com/conservatives.html

I think there's some overlap between the two.

Strange Bedfellows
 

So part of his taking my retirement money is he'll take less of my income than he will of poorer people? Cause it sounds like he wants both. Or is he thinking it'll only apply to the Kennedy like amongst us?

That is encouraging home ownership by making taxes less. But 1)the taxes I would otherwise pay don't go directly to anything- so it's not like the deduction takes from the poor (SS, especially G's SS, takes from the richer to give the poorer) it takes from the general fund- and home ownership can extend pretty far down the economic ladder.

Strange Bedfellows
 

I don't think you care what I think, other than it gives you another excuse to call me stupid, which is laughable coming from you, but I've learned to accept it with a smile :)

I think my test is right on. If you don't agree, please explain. Calling it idiotic is not helpful to the bi-partisan atmosphere I'm trying to facilitate here.

With that said:

Here's a start at the conservative test:

1. Do you believe that government should be able to have control over social issues in order to foster moral behavior?

2. Do you believe that the first amendment permits the practice of religion and/or belief in god in or by public institutions, so long as it is not overtly coercise?

3. Do you believe taxes are too high?

4. Do you believe that the federal government has usurped the powers that should be reserved to the states.

Strange Bedfellows
 

Do you even NOTICE that your first two questions, and even the last one, are considerably more detailed than ANY of the questions on your "liberal" test? Or are you that un-self-aware?

Criteria looking for a test
 

Additions:

X. Do you believe that government spending should bear a relationship, however slight, to government revenues?

Y. Is your new favorite term "off budget?"




Hmmm. To which test should I allocate these?