What Direction Is The US Moving?

That's exactly what I'm asking, retorically of course. There is no line to read between when someone happens "to like much of where this country is today," are they truly comfortable with the condition of the country? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

You didn't ask what he liked today versus yesterday. You listed a bunch of negative things and asked if he thought that was better. Hell, I don't like 1/2 of what that Yankee (no real harm meant DG..) opines and even I thought that was a BS question.

If you have something important to say, it is just as important to present it judicially as to say it at all. Otherwise you lose your opportunity to persuade...which should be, of course, the purpose in speaking.

I could come up with 10 things, off the top of my head, that I think are better today than yesterday. Whether life was better back then, or better now, is not the point. Who cares? We live today. Let's improve today. If you got a way how...let's hear it. Otherwise we have to listen to folks like DG and TTH. There has to be better than that.

Opinion warning here. You asked what I liked, I'm responding, I'm really not interested in getting into a debate.

I don't like that unemployment is what it is today (Bush, now Obama as President), neither did I like it in the 1982-83 recession (guy by the name of Reagan was President), or the 1991 recession (Bush as President). But just as a sample of what I sure as hell like since 1959 (50 years ago): Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, other anti-discrimination laws, Title IX, hate-crime laws, laws protecting our water and air, the theory that financial institutions should be allowed to both bank and invest - basically revoking Glass-Steagall (the practice is the problem here), lower tax rates.

DG

ps thanks RK

Opinion warning here. You asked what I liked, I'm responding, I'm really not interested in getting into a debate. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I don't like that unemployment is what it is today (Bush, now Obama as President), neither did I like it in the 1982-83 recession (guy by the name of Reagan was President), or the 1991 recession (Bush as President). But just as a sample of what I sure as hell like since 1959 (50 years ago): Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, other anti-discrimination laws, Title IX, hate-crime laws, laws protecting our water and air, the theory that financial institutions should be allowed to both bank and invest - basically revoking Glass-Steagall (the practice is the problem here), lower tax rates.

DG

ps thanks RK Originally Posted by discreetgent

Thanks DG, that is exactly what I was hoping for. I agree that there have been laws enacted to advance civil rights. But there have also been a lot of laws that oppress individual rights since that era. There would have been nothing wrong with a law that challenged the definition of WE THE PEOPLE to advance civil rights. Wouldn't it have made more sense if a law said, "We The People is defined as all citizens regardless of race or gender and all citizens are guaranteed the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States," instead of individually grouping people to advance civil rights at different time periods throughout our history.

I noticed you named names when you referred to the republicans, but you failed to mention the name of the democrat that repealed Glass-Steagle. At least Clinton moved back to the center and reduced taxes. The highest tax base in our history came from the programs FDR tried to fund. But let us not forget that the Reagan era recession happened as a result of policies put into action by Carter. Presidents stopped enacting laws a long time ago that actually too affect during their terms.

Lets take health care for example; if it is such a "valuable piece of legislation" and if passed, why don't they make effective immediately instead of after the first term of the current administration. If he isn't re-elected 10 years from now they will blame the next pres in line, as the effects won't be felt until then.

Some on the right actually think that it was Perot that gave us Clinton over Bush Sr round 2 as the prez. It had everything to do with "read my lips" Bush Sr. Contrary to popular belief, I dislike the "compassionate conservative" Bush Jr. His anti-individual liberty bill, The Patriot Act, which was attacked vehemently from the left and it was just extended by the current administration without a whimper.

IMHO some people need to realize that the left/right paradigm is the problem. When some of us say we want to "go back" and are attacked because of our Constitutional principles they fail to realize that we can still go back to Constitutional values without giving up civil rights.

How many people read our history and know that even though Ben Franklin was a slaveholder at one time became involved with the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society after freeing his own slaves? He even petitioned against slavery. How many people know that Washington said, "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]." It is sad to know some people have not learned a lot of our history. There was definitely some travesty in the US, but there was also a lot of good.

Individual liberty would also include the decriminalization of prostitution. How many here wouldn't want that?

Individual liberty would also include the decriminalization of prostitution. How many here wouldn't want that? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

From a consumer standpoint....I sure as hell would.

If you have something important to say, it is just as important to present it judicially as to say it at all. Otherwise you lose your opportunity to persuade...which should be, of course, the purpose in speaking.
Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I thought the purpose of speaking was to see if your eardrums were still working...we are trying to persuade people in this forum?

I think every person should pay at least some tax. everyone needs to be a part of it and every time there is an increase in tax it needs to hit everyone, not just the upper tier. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Word. If you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's support.

Word. If you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul's support. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Poor people are tax'd regressively. Everytime they raise a fee on these people they pay a much larger portion of their income towards it. You do not hear them crying to raise fee's according to income.


Furthermore when a rich person goes down to pay their car registration they do not ask to pay the same % of income that a poor person pays for his car.

Almost everyone in this country pays tax's. It is just not correct to focus on the FEDERAL income tax aspect of this equation.

[FONT=Verdana]I noticed you named names when you referred to the republicans Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I didn't know that Obama was a Republican

BTW we are in complete agreement on things like the Patriot Act.

I thought the purpose of speaking was to see if your eardrums were still working...we are trying to persuade people in this forum? Originally Posted by WTF

Sorry, WTF. I meant everyone but you.

...
I thought the purpose of speaking was to see if your eardrums were still working...we are trying to persuade people in this forum? Originally Posted by WTF

And sometimes the purpose of speaking is not to educate, but to entice someone to find out for themselves. A lot of the things I have learned have not been a result of being taught, but digging and asking questions to find the answers for myself.

But then again jousting or fencing can be a lot of fun...


Agitator time: If we really want some tin-foil hat conspiracy, look at Dick Cheney who was a Director at the CFR. Then dig for the history of the CFR. When you find one of the founders, Colonel Edward Mandel House, dig some more. You will note that he was an advisor to Woodrow Wilson. Then read House's book "Philip Dru: Administrator" where he wrote a passage stating, "communism as only dreamed of by Karl Marx." Is your blood boiling yet?

Poor people are tax'd regressively. Everytime they raise a fee on these people they pay a much larger portion of their income towards it. You do not hear them crying to raise fee's according to income.


Furthermore when a rich person goes down to pay their car registration they do not ask to pay the same % of income that a poor person pays for his car.

Almost everyone in this country pays tax's. It is just not correct to focus on the FEDERAL income tax aspect of this equation. Originally Posted by WTF

The principal should apply at every level of government - so it is appropriate to focus on Federal taxes.

Regressive arguments are bullshit -- where is it written that taxes should be the same percentage of income? Are cars? Is food?

And don't even get me started on social security -- low paid people get far more out of it (on the order of $3 to 41) than high paid folks. It is after all a pension scheme where the benefit is related to what you put in -- so it is not a pure tax.

"What Direction Is The US Moving?"

CHAPTER 11?

generally it moves west to east as the rest of the planet.

"What Direction Is The US Moving?"


...generally it moves west to east as the rest of the planet. Originally Posted by Buonas

We have a WINNER! Best answer so far!!!!!

The North American plate is actually moving southerly.