It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you Progressive or are you Conservative?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
It strikes me as odd that so many people in this nation are at once fiscally conservative and socially progressive. This seems to be the utmost selfish manner of political maneuvering I see. You want to be rich but you also want to feel like you're furthuring the acceptance and tolerance. You want to be rich so that you can help those in need. It is all self-gratification.

Either vote for legislation that will help everyone to have an income with which they can live in a moderately comfortable place, or vote for legislation that will help you get rich and that will screw over the poor.




posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
how about one that will make those who work hard for their money rich and those who hardly work get screwed over.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Joey, that would screw over most execs and businessmen. They wouldn't make a dime. Seeing as it is they control all of the money...I don't think that one will fly...but I know what you are saying. I don't fully agree with it though.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner
how about one that will make those who work hard for their money rich and those who hardly work get screwed over.


Why is working hard always equated with getting rich? Ask any construction worker who works on a major site if they work hard or not? Or maybe their job is very easy, nothing to it at all. And then ask them how rich they are and compare that to the workload for those who are really rich.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
my dad worked hard, and he is now raking it in after many years of tiol and putting up with idoits at his place of employment. is that a bad thing?



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
my dad worked hard, and he is now raking it in after many years of tiol and putting up with idoits at his place of employment. is that a bad thing?


Of course thats not a bad thing. When someone does work hard and it does pay off, well then that is how the system is supposed to work. But i'm afraid that it doesn't always work that way. Not hardly.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by meddled
This seems to be the utmost selfish manner of political maneuvering I see. You want to be rich but you also want to feel like you're furthuring the acceptance and tolerance.

Either vote for legislation that will help everyone to have an income with which they can live in a moderately comfortable place, or vote for legislation that will help you get rich and that will screw over the poor.


___________________________________________

Your basic premise has a flaw, in that you equate selfishness with bad. Being selfish means being concerned with one's own interests. You must help yourself before you can help others. Even the flight attendants tell you to put on your own air mask before you help your child.

Being rich might be nice, but I'm satisfied with being comfortable. I have no desire to screw anyone over to get that extra dollar. I don't think most people have, either.

How about working to create an environment that allows everyone to achieve their own level of competence? One that creates jobs that allow one to provide the basic needs of food, shelter, medical care

We don't need more legislation. The government cannot give you cradle to the grave necessities. If they could, believe me, you wouldn't want to pay the price they'd demand.

john




posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
Joey, that would screw over most execs and businessmen. They wouldn't make a dime.


Are you implying they don't work hard? And that they didn't work hard to get to where they're at? If that's your contention, then I have to whole heartedly disagree!

Typically the executives and officers of companies, large and small, are the first ones there, and the first to leave. They work the longest shifts of anyone who works for them.

But then, you say, they go on golf outings, they get to go home, they go on vacations, they get, typically, a months vacation, if not more (here in the US, where 1 or 2 weeks is typical).

The thing is, they never really leave work. On those month long vacations they get, they don't actually take the whole month at a time, they take them in 1 or 2 week blocks. Fine, so what, right? It's still a month. Well, unlike you and me, when we go on vacation, we get to get away from work for the time we're gone. Typically, when an executive or officer of a company goes on vacation, they spend about 2 hours on the phone with work, doing their "nothing".

The golf outings? Always, always, always with business contacts. They usually don't just go out to play golf, but rather to enhance business relations, recruit someone's services, find out about a product from a vendor, etc. If you've ever been in a board meeting, especially of a larger company, you know that it's constant prodding and vying for position. Of all the business meetings I've ever been in, the most stressful I've ever been in was a board meeting of TeraSys, which isn't even a large company. It sucked! Now, imagine that strees, compounded with the stress of having to make your first impression, or an impression, on someone through how well you play a sport. It's stupid, and has nothing to do with running a company, but there it is.

The life of an executive is a 24-7 job. It's not as easy as some people like to think. And that's just the job. In order to prove that you're capable of performing such a job, you need to be doing the same thing all the way up the ladder. No, my friends, being an executive is not a walk in the park...



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
selfish

\Self"ish\, a. 1. Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others.

In this definition, and that being the one that I was intending, selfish is bad. People needing to help themselves to help others is not selfish behaviour. However, do you really believe that once you become rich, you will feel the obligation to help all you can? Most of the philanthropy that I see done by the rich is so they can have a photo-op with the press to further their own image as a "kind warm-hearted person who cares about others." Bull#. If anything, this type of media coverage is a smoke screen for the various illegal monetary operations they have running (read Enron, Healthsouth, Martha Stewart, etc...).



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How about working to create an environment that allows everyone to achieve their own level of competence? One that creates jobs that allow one to provide the basic needs of food, shelter, medical care


This sounds a bit like a communist-totalitarian society no? Where everyone is judged by a certain test of aptitude to determine how smart they are and what they can and cannot do. They cannot escape the job they are given? In a manner, yes, it would be nice because everyone would be able to live comfortably based upon their skill sets, but it does not allow for any freedom for the citizens if they feel they want to change.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by meddled
It strikes me as odd that so many people in this nation are at once fiscally conservative and socially progressive. This seems to be the utmost selfish manner of political maneuvering I see.


I'm surprised you're not getting flamed here. You just described LIBERTARIANS (of which we have many) to a tee. Probably most independents as well, and any Republicans that are pro-choice or okay with gay marriage. I'm a Democrat and you also described me. So you pretty much just insulted everyone.


I'm impressed.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by meddled
It strikes me as odd that so many people in this nation are at once fiscally conservative and socially progressive. This seems to be the utmost selfish manner of political maneuvering I see. You want to be rich but you also want to feel like you're furthuring the acceptance and tolerance. You want to be rich so that you can help those in need. It is all self-gratification.

Either vote for legislation that will help everyone to have an income with which they can live in a moderately comfortable place, or vote for legislation that will help you get rich and that will screw over the poor.


That's a bit askewed. No, on second thought, that is totally screwed up! As a matter of fact, this has been hashed to Hell and back in a tote basket in another thread, and I believe you even participated in it. Can't let the nonsense die, huh?

You are totally aware that what you are saying is screwed. You know that "helping the poor" in the liberal manner means stealing from the producers and giving to the non-producers. You know that handouts hurt more than they help. You know for a freaking fact that it would have been cheaper to have just paid for higher education for everyone than to give them foodstamps and public housing, but the liberal way makes you feeeeeeel good. And that is the true point, right? Not that you'll ever cure poverty, but that fact that you did the liberal, feel-good but non-accomplishing government program thing, right?



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
That's a bit askewed. No, on second thought, that is totally screwed up! As a matter of fact, this has been hashed to Hell and back in a tote basket in another thread, and I believe you even participated in it. Can't let the nonsense die, huh?

You are totally aware that what you are saying is screwed. You know that "helping the poor" in the liberal manner means stealing from the producers and giving to the non-producers. You know that handouts hurt more than they help. You know for a freaking fact that it would have been cheaper to have just paid for higher education for everyone than to give them foodstamps and public housing, but the liberal way makes you feeeeeeel good. And that is the true point, right? Not that you'll ever cure poverty, but that fact that you did the liberal, feel-good but non-accomplishing government program thing, right?


Did you actually think about a damn word that I was saying or did you just see some what you thought was a blatant liberal agenda and run with it?

I know full well what the liberal definition of helping the poor means, and I don't necessarily agree with it. That was part of another post, but not part of this one. I have talked about the self-congratulatory efforts of many, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS, that do nothing to help those who really, truly want help. No one, and I mean no one, is immune from wanting to feeeeeeel good about helping someone else when they didn't actually do a damn thing that will help anyone.

Now what I was really saying, and you should actually read and attempt to understand this time, is the nature of the everyman that wants to be financially secure, yet also feel like they are furthering tolerance. This is not about people giving money away. This is about progressive social politics like gay marriage, abortion, or whatever. But you can't have both. With the way the current party system is set up, you have to be either financially secure and feel like you're always being oppressed by the liberal agenda, or you have to be in a class where you feel you are poor because of the evil corporate machine and feel like you're contributing to the cause of human rights or whatever you want to call it.

You're a fan of the Bible Thomas, and so am I. Did we all of sudden forget that we must be accepting to all and that also implies giving handouts, trusting in people to do the right thing even though they might not? Doesn't that mean that to be socially progressive you cannot, cannot, cannot be wealthy because then you are just picking and choosing the morals you want to follow based on your own individual idea of what is comfortable instead of listening to a moral code that has proven itself true century after century?

Democrats, Republicans, I don't care who the # you are. You are all guilty. I am guilty of this, and so are you.

Is there a solution? I don't know, but the current state of affairs is leading us down a path in which we are all hypocritical.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by meddled]

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by meddled]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by meddled

Originally posted by jsobecky
How about working to create an environment that allows everyone to achieve their own level of competence? One that creates jobs that allow one to provide the basic needs of food, shelter, medical care


This sounds a bit like a communist-totalitarian society no? Where everyone is judged by a certain test of aptitude to determine how smart they are and what they can and cannot do.


__________________________________________

No, this is the total opposite of communism. Aptitude, ability, and effort will determine how far you go in CAPITALISM. In what has passed for communism, nepotism runs rampant. You don't get to follow your dreams; you do what the state says you will do. If your father or uncle is in a position of power, then you get the soft job. Your ability doesn't matter.

Creating an environment where people can flourish means letting people reach their highest abilities. I create a successful company that provides jobs so that you can take care of your family.

BTW, I don't agree with philanthropy being only a photo-op. I know many successful people that give away what amounts to many times my yearly salary, to charity, from their heart. And even if there are those doing it for a photo-op, well, at least the money is getting out there. We should be looking at the corruption that exists within some of these charities, IMO.

john



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Did I think about a damn word you said, Meddled? I thought I did, but maybe I didn't. As far as me being guilty, buddy, innocent until proven guilty so don't drag me into your confession!

I'll reread your post later and do it slower this time.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by meddled
It strikes me as odd that so many people in this nation are at once fiscally conservative and socially progressive. This seems to be the utmost selfish manner of political maneuvering I see. You want to be rich but you also want to feel like you're furthuring the acceptance and tolerance. You want to be rich so that you can help those in need. It is all self-gratification.

Either vote for legislation that will help everyone to have an income with which they can live in a moderately comfortable place, or vote for legislation that will help you get rich and that will screw over the poor.


That's a bit askewed. No, on second thought, that is totally screwed up! As a matter of fact, this has been hashed to Hell and back in a tote basket in another thread, and I believe you even participated in it. Can't let the nonsense die, huh?

You are totally aware that what you are saying is screwed. You know that "helping the poor" in the liberal manner means stealing from the producers and giving to the non-producers. You know that handouts hurt more than they help. You know for a freaking fact that it would have been cheaper to have just paid for higher education for everyone than to give them foodstamps and public housing, but the liberal way makes you feeeeeeel good. And that is the true point, right? Not that you'll ever cure poverty, but that fact that you did the liberal, feel-good but non-accomplishing government program thing, right?


Thomas, you say stealing from the producers and giving to the non producers, etc. That is a skewed train of thought also. Many millions of people work hard everyday in this country and are still unable to make ends meet. They do the best they can with what they have. These people are producers yet many don't make the money to put food on the table. I guess you are saying tough # on them? What you advocate is survival of the fittest. That has never worked in human history, and never will.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Socialism doesn't work, either, and you know it.

Are we able to better ourselves? Of course. Haven't you? I know I have. I started out at McBurgers and now am doing much better. As a matter of fact, I do well enough where they allow me to go dozens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt! Nobody has to stay stagnant, and there are in place programs to help people go to school and better themselves. It's cheaper to train people than it is to provide for them what they could provide for themselves.

And, you know as well as I that there are people working who also draw food stamps. You tell me, how long are they supposed to do that? Do I have to provide for my family and for theirs because they don't seem to have initiative? Was God being mean when He said if you don't work, you don't eat? Was He aiming that at the truly needy and helpless? Of course not. Neither am I. Am I saying that aid can be better given by local and private groups, insuring it gets to the truly needy? Yes, that is what I am saying. Why is it that if someone does not go along with a socialist federal government then you guys try and paint me and folks like me as being mean spirited? Is it because you don't trust you and your kind to give to those who truly need it and to local programs that can administer it, or is it that you want the government to handle it through taxes so that well over half of the money goes to the government machine? The only reason I could figure that would be a good reason for anyone is if they are employed by the money gobbling government machine.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As a matter of fact, I do well enough where they allow me to go dozens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt!


i think just about everyone get can into enormous debt through credit cards. there's a story in the uk at the moment about a pensioner who got into debts of 30,000 whilst living on a standard state pension of 70 per week. after she died, her daughter described her as 'a very generous person'. shame it wasnt her #ing money really.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I guess as long as they need to be fed. I certainly hope you are not an advocate of cutting such things off.

Yes, I started from the bottom also. A cook at Shoney's restaurant. However, people such as you and I do have a higher intelligence level than over 80% of the population. We are able to work our way up due to intellect. Many aren't as fortunate as us.

The problem lays in that many of the large corporations pay their people at such a minimum and then the owners of such corporations have so much money they really don't know what to do with it all. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people getting rich and having money to burn as long as the people who work for them and help them get that way are taken care of.

Let us use health care as an example. There are individuals rolling in money, and making it off of others misfortune and bad health. Millions can't afford health insurance, and someone somewhere is trying to decide on a 30 foot or 40 foot yacht.

I am far from a socialist. However, I do believe that people who WORK should be taken care of. I have no qualms about not giving money to the lazy jerks that expect something for nothing.

I'll say it again. Survival of the fittest has never worked in the history of the human race. It seems throughout history the have nots sooner or later rebel against the haves. The haves never win for there are a lot more have nots. It all seems to have a way of evening out and then starting over.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join