A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

Look, identifying someone as a conservative or liberal is a nice way to set up a dichotomy during an election where things come down to A v. B, but on an intellectual level it's far better to focus on perspectives on an issue than what label appropriately applies.

Many of the above are self-identifiers, while the liberal bullets were opposition identifiers, corners conservatives try to paint liberals into. You know those liberal, it's all group-think, anti-individualistic, moral relativistic, anti-religion, tax and spend. Guess what? That's bullshit and you really ought to know it.

As an example of how the above are self-identifiers, conservatives are quick to say the federal goverment has usurped powers of the state, until it is time to ban flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, or any number of other issues. Conservatives are anxious to foster "moral issues" until someone says that civil rights are moral issues. So how do liberals define conservatives? Greedy, self-serving bastards without a heart. Holier than thou uptight religious nuts who can't respect other's religious beliefs. See Shape Shifter's links for more. Is that really productive?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Look, identifying someone as a conservative or liberal is a nice way to set up a dichotomy during an election where things come down to A v. B, but on an intellectual level it's far better to focus on perspectives on an issue than what label appropriately applies.

Many of the above are self-identifiers, while the liberal bullets were opposition identifiers, corners conservatives try to paint liberals into. You know those liberal, it's all group-think, anti-individualistic, moral relativistic, anti-religion, tax and spend. Guess what? That's bullshit and you really ought to know it.

As an example of how the above are self-identifiers, conservatives are quick to say the federal goverment has usurped powers of the state, until it is time to ban flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, or any number of other issues. Conservatives are anxious to foster "moral issues" until someone says that civil rights are moral issues. So how do liberals define conservatives? Greedy, self-serving bastards without a heart. Holier than thou uptight religious nuts who can't respect other's religious beliefs. See Shape Shifter's links for more. Is that really productive?

See, but club would say that people who are in favor of the federal bans on flag burning, recognition of same-sex marriage and abortion are not actually truly conservative.

It's cute watching y'all do the same things and then yell at each other about it. are you taking over for Ty?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Look, identifying someone as a conservative or liberal is a nice way to set up a dichotomy during an election where things come down to A v. B, but on an intellectual level it's far better to focus on perspectives on an issue than what label appropriately applies.

Many of the above are self-identifiers, while the liberal bullets were opposition identifiers, corners conservatives try to paint liberals into. You know those liberal, it's all group-think, anti-individualistic, moral relativistic, anti-religion, tax and spend. Guess what? That's bullshit and you really ought to know it.

As an example of how the above are self-identifiers, conservatives are quick to say the federal goverment has usurped powers of the state, until it is time to ban flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, or any number of other issues. Conservatives are anxious to foster "moral issues" until someone says that civil rights are moral issues. So how do liberals define conservatives? Greedy, self-serving bastards without a heart. Holier than thou uptight religious nuts who can't respect other's religious beliefs. See Shape Shifter's links for more. Is that really productive?

[note to self]This test thing is fun. Never knew it was so easy to get people worked up around here. There's a truce in the middle east, and no one posts on it, but post a couple of tests, which were solicited, mind you, and they all come out of the wood-work. [/note to self]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

It's cute watching y'all do the same things and then yell at each other about it.

I hope it was clear when my comments were tongue in cheek.

are you taking over for Ty?

Ouch! OK, thanks for that dose of reality.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

Any deduction necessarily imposes greater costs on those who don't get the deduction -- either you make up the lost revenue from them, or you make it up by borrowing and they bear at least some of that burden.*

So, the mortgage interest deduction shifts costs. Generally onto poorer people. And we do this because we want to favor the "common good" of home ownership, and the group of homeowners. And all of them individually, too.


*And no, you can't say "just make it up through not spending it" because unless all taxes are zero, any deduction means the government is getting funding from some other source.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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?

I'm confused -- is that the liberal test? Or the conservative test? Or the Club is an idiot test?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm confused -- is that the liberal test? Or the conservative test? Or the Club is an idiot test?

Hank, I now know what you mean. I'm sorry I doubted you.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There's a truce in the middle east, and no one posts on it,

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Any deduction necessarily imposes greater costs on those who don't get the deduction -- either you make up the lost revenue from them, or you make it up by borrowing and they bear at least some of that burden.*

So, the mortgage interest deduction shifts costs. Generally onto poorer people. And we do this because we want to favor the "common good" of home ownership, and the group of homeowners. And all of them individually, too.


*And no, you can't say "just make it up through not spending it" because unless all taxes are zero, any deduction means the government is getting funding from some other source.

If there was no deduction the government would take some more money from me. Maybe they'd pay for a school or a bomb or food stamps. SS is taking money from one to give another. I'm in favor of SS Sidd, but it is a step towards equalizing. I'm done-

PS: Safety nets equalize- you're a hippy- you haven't read Harrison Bergeron?

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
2. Part 2 of my "fuck the oldsters" plan: shift the healthcare subsidy out of late-stage radical intervention for the elderly and into preventative care for citizens with their lives still ahead of them. Repeal Medicare and instead provide G subsidized healthcare for everyone under 18 (or 21 or whatever).

There's over-spending on medical care at all levels. A better proposal is to make health care spending on employees non-deductible for employers and deductible for employees. Health care costs are sky rocketing because individuals don't actually feel a direct link between their health care consumption and costs. People would shift to lower cost health care plans with higher deductibles, co-pays and other cut backs on care, so they'd have money left over to buy faster cars, better TVs, &c, &c. This would hold back medical spending in the US in a huge way.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fortunately, McClellan has new allies in the Briefing Room. The surprise is that the ally is a credentialed member of the press corps. Move over, FNC, there's a new sycophant in town!

Sadly, the Wachowski brothers are right: all things with a beginning must have an end. McClellan's days became just a little darker this week with the announcement that newly minted WH Correspondent "Jeff Gannon" resigned his post, seemingly before the ink on his credentials could dry.

• The Talon News correspondent at the center of a scandal over his White House press credentials quit last night amid a growing online investigation into his history, including allegations of involvement with several websites appearing to support gay pornography and promote male prostitution.
  
  Jeff Gannon (a pseudonym) announced last night via his personal website that he had found it "no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life."
  
  It's this "private life" that may have precipitated Gannon's departure. In the last week, Investigative bloggers at World O'Crap, Daily Kos and Eschaton have dug up evidence that implicates Gannon as the owner of web domains hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescorts.com, and militaryescortsm4m.com, which are registered under the same owner as Gannon's home page www.jeffgannon.com. Two of the three web addresses are no longer active. The third, hotmilitarystud.com, requires registration before viewing the content.

Pity. You'd think that after Kerik, the vetters would've learned to kick over a few rocks.

[Replaced_Texan]

I guess this explains why the GOP was so suspicious of Kerry's purple hearts. (spree: WaPo article)

[Gattigap]

We've linked to Michael Dobbs before -- the WaPo correspondent who was in Sri Lanka at the time of the tsunami.

Sounds like he's back in Sri Lanka and WaPo is hosting a blog for him re: tsunami relief.

An excerpt:

• Like most days here, it's been an interesting day. But before I describe it to you, I want to tell you a true story that perfectly illustrates the risks of outsiders blundering into a country like Sri Lanka with the best of intentions, but only a hazy idea of the way things operate here.
  
  A group of German divers arrived in Weligama soon after the tsunami to help in the relief effort. Brimming with altruism, they began scouring Weligama Bay, one of the largest natural harbors in Sri Lanka, for engines from wrecked fishing boats. The plan was to return the engines to local fishermen, so that they could begin going out to sea again. Since this was humanitarian work, they did not charge for their services.
  
  The German divers thought they were doing everyone a favor -- until someone threw a few sticks of dynamite into the water after them. Fortunately no one was injured, but the Germans were frightened enough to suspend the salvage operation. It turned out they had been taking business away from local Sri Lankan divers, who had been charging the owners of fishing boats around $50 for every engine they recovered.
  
  I mentioned this story to the head of a seven-man team of Belgian army divers, Capt. Jean-Paul Stevens, whose men have been scouring the bay for wrecked fishing boats for the past few weeks. He nodded sagely. "Yes, you have to know the right people to go to, and you must approach them the right way. Otherwise, they will do whatever they want with you."
  
  The Belgians, who were working separately from the Germans, also had some trouble with local divers. But they resolved the problem by getting everyone together--fishermen and divers--and threatening to stop work unless they received full cooperation. For the last week or so, the local divers have been pointing out wrecks to the Belgians, in return for free supplies of compressed air for their tanks.

[sgtclub]

the Jordan Eason scandal? Can you catch me up?

[Replaced_Texan]

Query: If we raise the minimum wage, would we raise contributions to the SS trust fund enough to avert the impending "crisis"?