English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Proven you increase taxes on the wealthy for the benefit of the poor. This slows the economy and decreases available jobs creating an unemployment state. Why do you persist?

Proven you want to leave Iraq yet have no plan of departure that stabilizes the Middle East? What's your plan?

Proven you want us to "do something in Darfur" just like Amnesty International wanted us to "Do something" in Iraq in 2002 yet you turned rabid when everything became a challenge? What's your plan for recovery of Darfur?

You want zero environmental industrial base. Yet you want bio based products and all natural products whenever you turn around? How can you accomplish this?

These are just a few but the trend becomes a Kid's Christmas list and you are never satisified. You all want and demand more yet give and create the strategy less and less.

2007-03-20 04:35:39 · 12 answers · asked by Jim from the Midwest 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

12 answers

1- Not proven. Clinton raised the taxes on the rich and the economy was the best it had been in decades.
2- If we had never gotten into Iraq we would not have a problem. The answer is to get the Arab world to help solve the problems in Iraq.
3- What? We want the country and the world to stop polluting the Earth. Companies can still make a profit if they get environmentally wise. GM is still building SUVs when the market is down. Make environmentally friendly cars and people will buy them. The Prius is a good example, Toyota can't keep them in the showroom.
4- That is your opinion.

2007-03-20 04:55:16 · answer #1 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 0 0

Ok... Let me point something out you. Here's a real answer for you to ponder, so you can see the man behind the curtain. Your first response is about the poor. The activist days of the 60s are long over...so nothing gets passed in Congress unless one of two things happen.

The first is a headlining grabbing event such as Katrina or 911. Then Congress becomes a reactionary body and passes something usually overkill. The other which is more common is passed by a lobby, people who pay campaign donations to political people to influence your Politicians vote on passing something. IMPORTANT: Nothing gets passed in Congress without a lobby. And this is not cheap.

Now my question to you, is who lobbies congress for the programs for the poor. Is it advocate groups...NO. They barely have enough money to keep the phones on. Its the special interest, who represents the entity who is getting the money at the end of the program or process.

Take food stamps... who lobbies Congress for the increase in funding for this. Is it the Poor or is it the Grocery and Food Industry who get an increase in sales. The poor is used as a sell job for passing for someone else to get the money. So the poor gets the sandwich and rich guy gets the money and the middle class gets the bill. That's how it works. You're getting angery over an illusion. Liberals have little influence unless they pool their money...and they are not very good at that.

You can do it on all issues such as Public Housing or whatever.

So to understand these issues better, its the wealthy, who lobbies for programs for the poor. Not the poor lobbying for themselves. I know I use to work on K-Street. If you know what that means then you should understand I'm giving you a little tip here.

I would cover other issues but I'm too long winded. But was that a real enough answer.

2007-03-20 04:57:56 · answer #2 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 0 1

The economic destruction of the industrial base of the United States by the removal of protectionist tariffs on imports, and the effects of NAFTA and GATT on the American industrial base are far more detrimental to "the poor" than taxes on the rich in the U.S. Your wrong about increasing taxes on the wealthy for the benefit of the poor being "proven" to slow the economy and creating an unemployment state, that is simply a lie to justify the lopsided "Wealth fare" state our corporate run Federal government has created.

The blogbaba persists at the pursuit of the the truth.

I am a liberal, and believe we never should have even gone into Iraq, but I do not want to "leave" Iraq, I have never been there, so I cannot "leave" the place. Odds are pretty good the majority of our troops who are getting shot at and blown up ain't too happy with being there and most would like to "leave" thought. The people doing the shooting and blowing up most likely wouldn't mind them leaving either.

I do not ignore the horrific disaster the Bush administration has made of the place, and as ruthless as it may seem, I do not care about "Middle East stability", Iraqi or otherwise. In the forty six years I have been alive, ten of which were spent serving in the U.S. Military, the Middle East has never been "stable", and it never will be so long as one Arab and one Jew remain alive to fight over it. The fact that they are slipping in most of the worlds oil supply doesn't warrent "stability", never has, never will.

I am sure it sucks to be in Darfur, and if I was there, I would have an opinion, but I live in the U.S. and I rank New Orleans a lot higher on my to do list than Dafur. I do not condone injustice and death, and have little power to fix either place. Bush and his wealthy elitist power base do however have that ability, and they have failed both places, not you or I.

No one wants zero industrial base, but everyone "must" have clean water and air to survive. A balance would be nice instead of an argument while rich wealthy elitists destroy the river I fish in and argue for years in court before paying a small fine for polluting the water source of a metropolitian area and causing thousands of deaths of innocent people through cancer and other pollution related disease.

This can only be achieved by stricter EPA guidlines and Much Stricter Enforcement of envrionmental law coupled with real punishment of the wealthy elitist criminals who own the offending industry.

You are blaming the victims of corporate greed for the crimes others assult them with. It is your elitist Wealthfare state, created, run and owned by wealthy corporate elitist's who have the ability to create and impliment strategy who have the ability to demand, not the poor. Your reference to a kid's christmas list is also dictated by corporate media, not economic reality, corporate greed cannot ever be satisfied.

2007-03-20 05:22:34 · answer #3 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 0 1

You will find most liberals can only criticize they don't really come up with solutions and when they do it is so illogical you wonder if there is any thinking process going on. I will give you an example they are now saying the government should institute universal health care.

Well anyone that takes a look at any government program observe one universal truth it is expensive, inefficient, slow and no one is accountable yet this is their solution for all of us.

Shaz is a classic example of a empty head liberal even though he denies it Which country increase taxes to the wealthy and has made that society richer (please give example) We are still in South Korea after 55 years why no complaint I could go on and on but why bother.

2007-03-20 05:02:54 · answer #4 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0 0

Not a liberal but here we go.

1) Increase taxes on wealthy to provide for poor gives poor more money which they spend which increases economy making rich richer, etc. Also the majority of wealth is not to be hoarded as it is it is to be invested and not given to the top officers as raises and bonuses as they layoff at the expense of those who actually do the work.
2) Plan of leaving is tell Iraq to be a big boy now and get off their lazy *** and say "We are leaving in 3 months..get on it" instead of just moving in for the rest of time like Conservative want.
3) Well considering conservs want to invade everyone we figured you would be all for invading darfur..where lots more badness is going on than in Iraq. Wasn't the challenge people hated it was the sending of more and more troops to mill around aimlessly as you gave them less and less equipment needed..proving conservs hate the troops and want them to die.
4) I like to breathe..I have a nasty oxygen habit that I just can't shake. I like money too but I prefer to breathe more and if we have to sacrifice a little now for the ability to live seems cheap to me..but then again I am a realist. We pay farmer not to grow stuff that we could use as fuel..seems idiotic.

Finally since the conservative regime was a labyrinth of confusion, blunders, non-accountability, indecision, I find it funny you want others to solve all the problems you created

2007-03-20 04:59:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

i do not listen Obama speaking a lot of a few thing! I listen him poke and prod and say issues about human beings like a school backyard whiner yet that's about it. Veterans do favor help and that i do now have self assurance that's time to eliminate from Iraq, the human beings are killing one yet another off besides so what the heck, they are going to get their personal job finished speedier without us there, they are going to not in any respect have a good authorities and could always be below a dictatorship. until eventually very last week i replaced into keen concerning the conflict, a majority of those years I actually have supported it yet now i'm like, carry em homestead, that's getting rediculous. If the middle east needs to kill themselves off them so be it, no loss!

2016-12-02 07:06:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They give you answers, they see what you want an tell you what you want 2 here ,this time, what ever makes them look good at the time. Then change there answer for the next group. Say nothing do nothing.

2007-03-20 05:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Isn't it just like a moronic Bushbot con to mess everything up royally and then ask me how to fix it.

2007-03-20 05:00:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

GREAT question!

It's been easier for them to complain than to act. They own the House and Senate and we see where that has got them.

I figure they have two more years and the adults will take over, again...

2007-03-20 04:40:42 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1 2

Good luck.....they have to answers or concrete strategies.....only rants!!!

2007-03-20 04:39:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers