Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
....and to get them re-elected.
The Real Micheal Moore?
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
....and to get them re-elected.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
At least someone is trying to help them.
I guess the poor are second class citizens with no party affiliation ?
Are most Liberal democrats rich?
And if these so called "rich liberal democrats" didn't try to help the poor,do you think the rich republicans wood do a better job,or just ignore them and hope they go away.Maybe the rich Reps could create more minimum wage jobs,nahh..China and India will,for less than poverty levels
tieguy
Banned
Yep and the liberal democrat helps the poor by telling them they have no value and no ability to fend for thierselves. The liberal democrat tells the poor that only through government handouts from them the liberal democrat can the hopeless and helpless poor possibly survive. Its your party dude if you don't like it change their ways don't get huffy because I merely point out how they operate.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I don't consider the poor second class citizens. I just consider them lazy. Sure there are some that have had bad luck. Such as job cuts, restructering, layoffs,etc. but whether that's the case or not it's still THEIR responsibility to help themselves and not the responsbility of Liberals, Rebublicans, or anyone else for that matter. Handouts only weaken the individual drive to succeed. If someone is rich they probably, most likely, worked hard and/or smart to get to where they are. They didn't depend on the government to pamper them. A minimum wage increase won't help that much if people are content to continue to take government handouts. As far as jobs in China and India go....talk to companys like Wal-Mart (AKA Lib-Mart) and anyone else who sells everything that comes from those countrys.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Tie dude,not huffy...so tell my how our country benefits the way your party operates by telling poor/low income people to fend for themselves and keep them supressed.Let's see.. GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare(b4 you go there,yes some people abuse welfare).So tell me how do we lower crime rate,un-paid health care,jail over-crowding and infrastructure,drug abuse,domestic abuse,more law enforcement etc...Are you aware how $$ America pays out as a result of the above mentioned by keeping the poor poorer?Cause and effect.
I don't care if people bash Moore,but just pointing out how the GOP works.
I don't care if people bash Moore,but just pointing out how the GOP works.
tieguy
Banned
Were you born with a silver spoon in your mouth? Did someone hand you the money to buy all that chrome or did you go out and earn it? Why should it be any different for anyone else. The opportunity is there all you have to do is bust your ass and earn it. My parents came from dirt poor. No one gave me a dnag thing. I went out and earned everything I have. That gives me the right to judge the kerrys and kennedys who simply had to be born to collect their wealth.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
The way the Democratic Party works is simple....pander to the poor by making them think that their poor financial status in life is the result of society and not their own lack of innitiative to earn their own way.
And back on Micheal Moore.....I thought "Sicko" was just about him in general and here I find out it's actually about socialist health care. LOL! Boy was I wrong!
And back on Micheal Moore.....I thought "Sicko" was just about him in general and here I find out it's actually about socialist health care. LOL! Boy was I wrong!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I know there are some here that rolled their eyes at the questions above but I found them to be thought provoking. The one that really struck me were the following:
One quick note, on the "B4 you go there" part, good point because if you actually study gov't abuse of subsidation via gov't programs, big business in the real world is more so the larger offender. Back to D's point. Much has been made of exporting of jobs, minimum wage pressures and cuts in such things as benefits, pressure on healthcare etc. just as D said. Those concerns are very real.
After WW2, the thought was to avoid war, one way was to critically link the world through trade and commerce so that war itself would be so costly to the individual, in this case countries, or even small groups of countries that war may become a thing of the past. This would require the large, more prosperous countries like the US to vastly increase not only monies but it's expertise and educational structures in the thinking this would elevate the lesser countries up close to western economic standards. You could say the US engaged in some wealth redistribution along the line of Marxist principles or you could take a capitialist (IMO not pure free market so don't confuse) point of view and consider the transference as an investment on future returns. Either way, US gov't was taking tax dollars from hardworking Americas and moving it about globally for the direct benefit of other nations and gov'ts.
The catalyst for this was Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations (he a democrat btw) but it just never gained any steam but it did introduce the idea of a larger global cooperation. During WW2, the idea surfaced again and once the war ended it took root in the United Nations under FDR, a democrat and a democrat powerful Congress. As a precursor and albeit a very important one in the sense of economic powers, the US was a party to what became known as the Bretton Woods Agreement. The United Nations idea really began in Jan. of 1942 with FDR and began growth even more in the 1943' Allied conferences in Moscow and Tehran. Anyway, as a result of many of these 1940's events we got several important things that delve to the heart of D's comment. Besides the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) we got something called GATT which joined the scene in 1947' under the Truman adminstration. Of course like Wilson and FDR, he also a democrat. Now GATT, known officially as the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs was never ratified so it languished for years as nothing more than a general agreement with not much real teeth. Now the idea of GATT was to reduce barriers that restricted or harmed international trade and thus was done over the years with further agreements under the banner of GATT but more importantly, ask yourself how would one enhance business and trade where none existed in the first place. If a lowly country presented a trouble spot and it appeared to have little of it's own to offer, then one way to get the ball rolling would be to encourage someone else to move there and take their capitial and expertise and get something going. Yeah, that'd work wouldn't it?
1945'? Middle East? Oil? Shutdown American Oil capacity over time? Evil oil companies? Or just seeing an area to profit from longterm US policy? Gray matter starting to function is it? No education structure in their poor country? Who has great universities and other institutions of higher learning? Where does one go for business, science and engineering expertise and experience when the home country has none? What's that beef again about excessive immigration and it's the fault of the repubs.?
Again, so far it's been democrats who've lead this charge. Now over the years we have everyone in the game but it was democrats like Wilson, FDR and Truman who paved the road to begin with but it does get better. Now let's come forward to the 1990's and 2 more important notes of history known as the WTO and NAFTA. Oh we've all heard about these 2 but what we also hear are claims of what with these 2?
I think D's quote sez it all so I'll use it again:
And you know what, D has a very good point too but who gave us the WTO and NAFTA? Bill Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council. More democrats? So wait a minute you say, it was the democrats who gave us the League of Nations, Bretton Woods, UN, GATT, WTO and NAFTA? Yep, the repubs were there as well with their votes in Congress and the WTO idea which replaced GATT actually began in 1986 during the Reagan years but for the most part, the international agreements that many point to as the root cause of "export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" were all put into place by a democrat controlled adminstration who at the time had total control of the bully pulpit and thus could vastly affect the legislative and foreign policy agenda.
I find it ironic that someone would make a statement such as "
GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" when in fact the gov't agenda over the last 100 years when looked at with open, historical eyes doesn't suggest anything like that at all. The more proper statement at the least would be "the Democrats and GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare."
The real bottomline IMO is the fact that the democrats cleared the land and graded the road in the early 1900's and then later paved it in the 1940's. Then in the 1990's another democrat made it a multi-lane interstate highway and put a high powered sports car on it. It just sounds like to me D that you are a spoiled sport because the democrats made the road and the fast car on it and repubs have the gaul to actually get in the car on your gleaming highway and speed. Or are you just really mad at yourself because your democrat heros just realized they never put up any speed limit signs or red lights?
Gov't is like a feast for the worse of humankind. "If you build it(or I should say cook it), they will come!" The repubs are deserving of much condemnation, they betrayed everything IMO they claimed to stand for, no argument from me but I will not sit here and let you protray the democrats as some innocent party either. For someone who boasts at times of trying to appear independent, you turn around and disservice yourself as nothing more than a party loyalist.
Your comments on Moore have a point of validity, I've no objection to that and I'm no fan of Coulter so nuke her boney ARSE but I just couldn't let that one point you made go without challenge.
BTW: If you take the time to investigate the big business subsidies I spoke of earlier, you'll find a whole host of democrats behind those as well. And I always love to hear Kennedy and Kerry make the same kind of statements that you did (monkey see, monkey do?) when the both of them voted for NAFTA for example. And surprise, surprise, Helms and Thurmond voted against it. Odd that these 2 were more concerned with the poor and downtrodden than Kennedy and Kerry!
diesel96
Well-Known Member
To my disenchanted Brethrens;
America's GOP's claim that the best way to achieve well-being for America's poor is by spurring rapid economic growth and that the higher taxes needed to fund high levels of social services would cripple prosperity.
The evidence may be found by comparing a group of free-market economies that have low to moderate rates of taxation and social spending with a group of social-welfare states that have high rates of taxation and social spendings.
The low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share an anti gov't control of economic affairs. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, such as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary spendings for social purposes average around 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 15 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.
On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.
The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by dissing public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a debacled system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.
WKMAC,
The man ,the myth ,the indep.Lib....The contributer of historical revelance to contemperary politics.The Author of Democratic ghosts of years past somehow infiltrating the amplification of the Demons the GOP represents and has released the past 7 seasons like a Charles Dickens novel of Ebenezer Scrooge.So knowledgable yet so dislocated.
Kmac=
Dislocated
These independents are overwhelmingly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, making them uncomfortable with increasingly polarized parties.
They are ideologically dislocated. But they are engaged and active.
Nearly two-thirds are male and they are the least religious of any segment. Three in 10 profess no religion, nearly half rarely or never attend services and six in 10 want religion to play a more limited role in public life.
A quarter volunteer that neither party represents their views on the budget and effective governmental management
America's GOP's claim that the best way to achieve well-being for America's poor is by spurring rapid economic growth and that the higher taxes needed to fund high levels of social services would cripple prosperity.
The evidence may be found by comparing a group of free-market economies that have low to moderate rates of taxation and social spending with a group of social-welfare states that have high rates of taxation and social spendings.
The low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share an anti gov't control of economic affairs. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, such as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary spendings for social purposes average around 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 15 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.
On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.
The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by dissing public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a debacled system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.
WKMAC,
The man ,the myth ,the indep.Lib....The contributer of historical revelance to contemperary politics.The Author of Democratic ghosts of years past somehow infiltrating the amplification of the Demons the GOP represents and has released the past 7 seasons like a Charles Dickens novel of Ebenezer Scrooge.So knowledgable yet so dislocated.
Kmac=
Dislocated
These independents are overwhelmingly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, making them uncomfortable with increasingly polarized parties.
They are ideologically dislocated. But they are engaged and active.
Nearly two-thirds are male and they are the least religious of any segment. Three in 10 profess no religion, nearly half rarely or never attend services and six in 10 want religion to play a more limited role in public life.
A quarter volunteer that neither party represents their views on the budget and effective governmental management
Tieguy said:
Tieguy said:And no Boss man Tie guy,I was not born with a silver spoon...just like you who was not born with a Sleek Armani suit and silk tie neither.
Why should it be different for any one else?
Besides my symposium above,opportunities has it's advantages and dis-advantages from pro-market locations to non-market locations, from proper parenting, quality schools, race,religion,luck,etc.. no matter how much you bust yourto earn it.What's wrong with raising the bar of opportunities???
Sorry for the long KMAC like post!
diesel96
Well-Known Member
One quick note, on the "B4 you go there" part, good point because if you actually study gov't abuse of subsidation via gov't programs, big business in the real world is more so the larger offender. Back to D's point. Much has been made of exporting of jobs, minimum wage pressures and cuts in such things as benefits, pressure on healthcare etc. just as D said. Those concerns are very real
Again, so far it's been democrats who've lead this charge. Now over the years we have everyone in the game but it was democrats like Wilson, FDR and Truman who paved the road to begin with but it does get better. Now let's come forward to the 1990's and 2 more important notes of history known as the WTO and NAFTA. Oh we've all heard about these 2 but what we also hear are claims of what with these 2?
I think D's quote sez it all so I'll use it again:
And you know what, D has a very good point too but who gave us the WTO and NAFTA? Bill Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council. More democrats?
I find it ironic that someone would make a statement such as "
GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare" when in fact the gov't agenda over the last 100 years when looked at with open, historical eyes doesn't suggest anything like that at all. The more proper statement at the least would be "the Democrats and GOP =export jobs overseas,minimum wage a joke,cut benefits and healthcare,and welfare."
The real bottomline IMO is the fact that the democrats cleared the land and graded the road in the early 1900's and then later paved it in the 1940's. Then in the 1990's another democrat made it a multi-lane interstate highway and put a high powered sports car on it. It just sounds like to me D that you are a spoiled sport because the democrats made the road and the fast car on it and repubs have the gaul to actually get in the car on your gleaming highway and speed. Or are you just really mad at yourself because your democrat heros just realized they never put up any speed limit signs or red lights?
Gov't is like a feast for the worse of humankind. "If you build it(or I should say cook it), they will come!" The repubs are deserving of much condemnation, they betrayed everything IMO they claimed to stand for, no argument from me but I will not sit here and let you protray the democrats as some innocent party either. For someone who boasts at times of trying to appear independent, you turn around and disservice yourself as nothing more than a party loyalist.
BTW: If you take the time to investigate the big business subsidies I spoke of earlier, you'll find a whole host of democrats behind those as well. And I always love to hear Kennedy and Kerry make the same kind of statements that you did (monkey see, monkey do?) when the both of them voted for NAFTA for example. And surprise, surprise, Helms and Thurmond voted against it. Odd that these 2 were more concerned with the poor and downtrodden than Kennedy and Kerry!
I'd like to clean up my statement to you.
As a Democrat, I’m reluctant to admit that President Bush is merely continuing the trend that favors investors and the established wealthy at the expense of workers. He didn’t start the trend, but he’s certainly accentuating it. And I must also admit that Clinton/Gore contributed greatly to the problem when they stole this part of the Republican agenda and claimed it as their own.
It’ll take courage and maybe the Democratic front runners will lose some of their financial supporters and make enemies in their own party—but it’s time for Democrats to say it out loud, and admit that THIS PART of the Clinton presidency along with Congress was a disaster for those who actually work for a living.
By separating ourselves from the globalization insanity—in its present form—will Democrats truly demonstrate that they have the interests of working-class Americans at heart.
I admit that statement was misleading and needed better clarification on my part it, that it was consistent with traditional Republican philosophy—and definitely not consistent with traditional Democrat philosophy.
Democrats must pledge themselves to rescinding NAFTA, WTO and present Fast Track agreements, and make bilateral agreements with other nations that are clearly in the interests of American workers and the long-term interests of our country.
The longer Democrats try to pretend that it never happened, the worse off they’ll be. And by clarifying the new Democratic position, we would force Republicans to expose to public scrutiny their true positions about globalization.
tieguy
Banned
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Sammie
Well-Known Member
Michael Moore, the entertainer, the self promoter, the biased truth spinner who exaggerates and takes things out of context. Just one more form of shock entertainment.
In the film “Sicko”, Moore, with his vast medical training, takes Ground Zero responders to Cuba for medical treatment to prove that Castro's socialized medicine is such an enormous step up from our own health care. And you can bet Castro and Bro let Moore in on a very well balanced cross-section of his dysfunctional nation. Castro. Who had the escaping Cuban tugboat “13 De Marzo” sunk in July of 1994, drowning 41 innocent men and women and 12 kids. Cuba. Whose citizens are so thrilled with their own health care that they make rafts out of sugar cane and take their chances with sharks and hurricanes to escape. Who convert old Buicks and Mercury’s into boats in desperate attempts to flee the hellhole. Cuba. Where food is rationed according to age. Where milk is given only to the elderly and children up to the age of seven years. Cuba. Where, because food is so scarce, malnutrition and blindness are rampant. In an attempt to feed their families, thousands of Cubans are considered “criminals" and imprisoned for breaking the law when they kill their own pigs, cattle and horses.
I have a friend who escaped from Cuba in 1973 and wouldn’t make it out alive if she went back to visit. And at a dollar a minute when she calls home, nobody can say much because the lines are tapped.
A true story about a UPS mgr who took his wife to Cuba on vaca a couple of years back - Cheap vacation. Where he got sick and ended up in a hospital (a real filth hole) and found that, among other things, if he wanted clean linens, towels and a hospital gown, somebody had to takes them home, wash them and bring them back.
So, so much for all the non-Americans who come to our hospitals for treatments that aren’t available with socialized medicine (but which Moore hopes we can emulate!!!) Check out the guy with TB who freaked the whole nation out when he fled Italy (whose socialized medicine who couldn’t treat him) and came to Denver for privatized care.
I can’t wait for MORE “ M..M. Hot Air” where we will once again learn what a failure we are as a people and a nation.
After all, you do remember the last time a boatful of starving, rag clad Americans fought their way the island of Cuba and begged for sanctuary, don’t you?
In the film “Sicko”, Moore, with his vast medical training, takes Ground Zero responders to Cuba for medical treatment to prove that Castro's socialized medicine is such an enormous step up from our own health care. And you can bet Castro and Bro let Moore in on a very well balanced cross-section of his dysfunctional nation. Castro. Who had the escaping Cuban tugboat “13 De Marzo” sunk in July of 1994, drowning 41 innocent men and women and 12 kids. Cuba. Whose citizens are so thrilled with their own health care that they make rafts out of sugar cane and take their chances with sharks and hurricanes to escape. Who convert old Buicks and Mercury’s into boats in desperate attempts to flee the hellhole. Cuba. Where food is rationed according to age. Where milk is given only to the elderly and children up to the age of seven years. Cuba. Where, because food is so scarce, malnutrition and blindness are rampant. In an attempt to feed their families, thousands of Cubans are considered “criminals" and imprisoned for breaking the law when they kill their own pigs, cattle and horses.
I have a friend who escaped from Cuba in 1973 and wouldn’t make it out alive if she went back to visit. And at a dollar a minute when she calls home, nobody can say much because the lines are tapped.
A true story about a UPS mgr who took his wife to Cuba on vaca a couple of years back - Cheap vacation. Where he got sick and ended up in a hospital (a real filth hole) and found that, among other things, if he wanted clean linens, towels and a hospital gown, somebody had to takes them home, wash them and bring them back.
So, so much for all the non-Americans who come to our hospitals for treatments that aren’t available with socialized medicine (but which Moore hopes we can emulate!!!) Check out the guy with TB who freaked the whole nation out when he fled Italy (whose socialized medicine who couldn’t treat him) and came to Denver for privatized care.
I can’t wait for MORE “ M..M. Hot Air” where we will once again learn what a failure we are as a people and a nation.
After all, you do remember the last time a boatful of starving, rag clad Americans fought their way the island of Cuba and begged for sanctuary, don’t you?
