<p>democrats don't have faith in the individual....they have faith in the government, and no trust in individuals and that with more freedom, more people can erach their individual potential. </p>
<p>and that's the fundamental difference between Republicans andDemocrats</p>
<p>Hey jaug...im middle middle class...technically my family is the one who should be suffering most from Bush's tax cuts...and i would vote for him...</p>
<p>Honestly, its getting annoying arguing with you people. You think that you are smarter than everyone else. I hope that the election showed you that you're out of touch with the majority of the country. The fact that you still don't get it just explains why Democrats can't win an election. It's times like this when i just like to say "You can protest as much as you want. We still won."</p>
<p>Pixie...you are joking right? Europe is undergoing one of the greatest economic growths in history. The Euro is 135% to the dollar right now. Their economy gets combined under one system within the EU and that makes them an extremely powerful adversary to the US. Western Europeans may not have that "extra" drive that Americans do, but seemingly their policies have increased the strength of their currency compared to ours. </p>
<p>Also, why wouldn't we institute a tax policy on the upper 2% where taxes are raised and for the rest taxes are lowered? That way small businesses can thrive under a lower tax bracket system and the rich are forced to actually pay a fair amount of what the earn so that everyone can have a high standard of living? I mean, what could you do with 500 million dollars that you couldnt do with 200 million? That honestly makes the most sense to me.</p>
<p>I find it ironic however that people in the lower tax brackets actually expect supply side economics and tax breaks to help them increase their wealth. All this does is give a larger portion of money back to the wealthiest people in the nation, where it doesn't need to be. The vast majority of Hollywood (I hate Hollywood and how everyone follows actors/actresses lives like its important) are liberals and they are making some of the largest sums of money around. They all support paying more than they do now to the government so that people in lesser fortunate situations can have a better life. I think it is better to give money to help others rather than let them fend for themselves. </p>
<p>Welfare is not a great system and the way it is currently setup, is pretty bad. Redesigning welfare would be extremely hard to do and I am not sure if there is a better way of doing it than the current institution. Giving people an education instead of paying welfare money is nice, except the possibility of finding a job in the current recession is extremely difficult. While welfare needs an overhaul sooner rather than later, we might as well keep the system in place we have now.</p>
<p>Jake, us people? Wow...thats not arrogant to say, at all...</p>
<p>You need to get off your high horse just because the candidate you supported won an election in which you didn't even vote. You would vote for Bush not because of his economic policies, but more so for his social convictions and his subborn leadership. </p>
<p>Democrats do have faith in the individual, but sometimes that individual needs a little push from big brother in the government. I am currently reading a lot of literature on whether or not free trade and absolute capitalism (as the US currently preaches and practices) is a positive or negative policy. The more free trade we have, the more resources get used up, large corporations make more money and the individual consumer is stuck paying the bill. As in East Asia, before the IMF, WTO and World Bank got involved with economic policies and globalization, their economy was rising at a far more rapid rate compared to any country at any other point in history. </p>
<p>And being out of touch with the majority Jake? I seem to recall reading the latest poll of Bush's approval rating...and it was at 47%...which means that 53% disapproves of him...making me in the majority...</p>
<p>yay..9 pages!...hehe</p>
<p>yeah the conservatives felt so bad that we abandoned our own board haha.</p>
<p>i actually like this discussion with the conservatives, though ill admit pixie is a lot easier to communicate with than 'bigjake' for reasons that are mostly self evident.</p>
<p>besides i'm not used to talkign to conservatives, i'm around liberals so much (like @ school and whatnot) that it just gets weird only being agreed with haha.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If we were really bent on stopping terrorism we would be invading North Korea where they do have Nuclear Arms in the open.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>This is ********. North Korea are not supporting terrorists? Where you got the notion that DPRK = terrorists? They are actually anti-imperialist, and they have helped poor african nations with arms in order to fight off imperialists. Whether you like it or not DRPK and South Korean people want to unite, but it's the U.S puppets in South Korea that are preventing them from uniting. That is the main juice of this whole deal. I burst out in laughter when U.S pundits say Kim Jong-il is the president, he actually isn't the president he is the Commander of the armed forces, and has less constitutional power than the U.S president himself.Heck, U.S has nuclear arms in the open, and they were the first to use it. Invading N. Korea = endless Civil War.</p>
<p>The real reason for the Iraq war was the impending collapse of the dollar, and Saddam's decision to switch to the Euro.</p>
<p>The US, since bush came to power, has printed 1.5 trillion dollars American. To put that in perspective, America's entire economic worth, from the revolution onwards till 2000 was equal to that amount. It took what, 200-300 years? To produce real wealth equal to that. In 4 years, they have created fake wealth equivilant to that. That's massive devaluation. And it's beginning to hurt.</p>
<p>The world is already moving away from the dollar, expecting collapse, China, which is the US's biggest creditor who single handedly holds up the worth of the dollar at this point, has already begun to diversify its holdings of foreign capital. Patience is running out. This is why the European imperialist nations and the yankee imperialists, two camps that usually see eye to eye in such things, were so split on invading Iraq. Currently the Euro is worth more and switching a country with the 2nd largest oil fields in the world to the Euro is not good for the yankee imperial economy, not good at all.</p>
<p>Whether you like it or not, capitalism is a system founded on the objective necessity, not the subjective choice, of maintaining profitability. When economic realities begin to put pressure on profit rates, business loses both the ability and the desire to support any serious social reforms. The hard economic facts that you discard so easily, not "evil politicians," are what have transformed the Labor Party from one claiming it could bring about a "capitalism with a human face" to one implementing economic policies harsher than those of Margaret Thatcher twenty years earlier -- as well as the NDP's current admiration for that transformation. What the state of the world today proves is that socialism is not only the sole moral choice, but the only choice based on economic realities, not on fantastic make-believe about the capitalist economic system.</p>
<p>While not only is the idea of "capitalism with a human face" no longer viable today, there is no reason whatsoever why such a state of affairs should come about in the first place. The number of facts and statistics I could cite indicting the consequences of the capitalist system around the world are endless. As you're apparently one of the few open apologists for the profit system on these forums, I'd like to see your rationalization for the fact that more than thirty six million Americans -- more than 12% of the population -- were forced to live in poverty last year, or that twenty million American children faced food insecurity because they had the misfortune of living in families unable to afford basic daily nutritional requirements. If your only response is to blather about the virtues of "regulated capitalism," don't bother. That's no more serious a response than to say you're going to grow a money tree or persuade CEOs to give 99% of their income to charity. These social problems are the consequence not of greedy corporations or heartless politicians, but the objective economic processes of a society based on the pursuit of profit, a society you want to preserve by papering over its worst features with outdated policies of social reform.</p>
<p>The worst thing of all is the growth of religion.</p>
<p>Religion is unfortuantely more important now than it was 20-30 years ago. It has been a long long time since religion was so central to so many of the worlds conflicts, and the president of the USA is more guided by religion than others have been for awhile. Alot of people thought historically that with 1. the separation of church and state and 2. the emergence of science as an explanatory framework, would eventually lead to the decline of religion. But the revolution in Iran, the Balkans, conflict in the Middle East, 9/11 and now the cleavages in Iraq have put paid to that. And in the worlds most dominant country, there are unparalleled numbers of people who think God plays an important role in their life, in the worlds emerging dominant power China there are conflicts emerging as people demand religious rights even before they demand extensions to political rights, and the Republican Party that dominates political affairs in the US is heavily indebted to religious groups.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think religion per se is the problem, I mean I don't personally believe in God or gods - I am pretty much in agreement with Karl Marx who suggested that religion is the opium of the masses, but who am I to dictate to others what to belive in. The problem is when religion becomes an instrument of power and an excuse to pursue particular agendas, whether it be flying planes into buildings or invading another country.</p>
<p>Oh, and when Churches take so much money off the congragation, often 10 per cent of their income, allowing the fat cat preachers to live large whilst the majority sit in poverty waiting for 'salvation'.</p>
<p>I think in future 9/11 will be seen by historians not as the 'rallying call against terror' that Bush would like it to be, but as the defining moment of the culmination of American political decline on the global stage. Culturally and politically, the US has never been so distrusted as they are now. Which leaves economics and military might... and their eventual passing as global economic leader leaves but one area of might - and we saw all the good that did for Britain, didn't we. It will be interesting to see how the US copes with this slide, since noone likes to give up their place when they are so dominat. But it is inevitable, and the Project for a New American Century guys may have to cut their timeframe in half.</p>
<p>what provoked this? erm, i'd like to distinguish between a liberal and a ranting nut, just for the record.</p>
<p>You know pixie, Republicans don't have faith in the individual either. Libertarians do.</p>
<p>being democratic has to do with your values and beliefs, not your economic status.
being republican does not make a poor person rich, nor does being democratic make you poor.</p>
<p>just my two cents</p>
<p>"You would vote for Bush not because of his economic policies, but more so for his social convictions and his subborn leadership."</p>
<p>Nice. Liberals telling me why i would vote for Bush. No. I couldn't care less about his social convictions. I would vote for Bush for his foreign policies. </p>
<p>And why don't you tell me where you're getting this 47%?</p>
<p>uh...last i checked, this thread is for democrats. OUT ALL YOU INFIDELS!!!</p>
<p>Folks. Calm down. Republicans can speak freely here.</p>
<p>New word out from NBC tonight that an independent study has confirmed that Iraq has become the world's largest breeding ground from terrorism. So...we have stopped this by toppling Saddam? I don't think so.</p>
<p>Oh, and Jake, the poll is here:</p>
<p>I need to correct my statement. It is 48%, not 47%.</p>
<p>lol, loosen up the tie buddy, you can breathe (...quietly)</p>
<p>does anyone find it amusing that no matter the outcome of the presidential elections, the politics of the US always move to the left? certainly bush's election is retarding the movement in that direction, but nonetheless the country is headed that way.</p>
<p>Jaug, of course Iraq has become the biggest breading ground for terrorists. Islamic extremists, Al Queada, and all the rest of the terrorists over there realize that if we establish a strong, free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East it will be a terrible defeat for terrorism and the beginning of a rapid elimination. So of course the battle is going to be hard, because they are throwing all they have at us. But the payoffs are huge - if we win here, terrorism will have been soundly defeated and we will have taken a huge step forward in the war on terror, which is so why it is so important that we stay and fight!</p>
<p>Right...except not only are we talking about the current generation of terrorists, but we are also discussing the next generation. The youth in Iraq are growing up to hate the US and that new generation is far more of a risk to us than anyone else. If we keep fighting, we anger more and more radical and non-radical Islamic people. </p>
<p>How exactly will a free Iraq be a huge defeat for terrorism? The vast majority of terrorists in the world day grew up in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran...the three major Middle East countries we havent attacked yet. All terrorist organizations have to do is move their large operations to one of those countries...which we won't attack because they have lots of oil that they give to us. </p>
<p>There was something that Bill Maher said that was very poignant. Iraqis have a lifetime and a constant flow of people willing to defend their own country. The US has to recruit our fighters in that country and we have limited resources. Eventually, we won't have the staying power anymore and the war will have been a lost cause. </p>
<p>While we must support the troops there now, we can debate the validity and necessity of the war at home. That is what we are doing.</p>