We just want to see people take responsibility for their actions, like they should have learned in preschool.

I can see why rich people have turned tax cuts into the ultimate economic philosophy. The less in taxes you have to pay the more you can invest until you are ready to buy giant sized versions of things like houses.

Sadly if we had a stronger smarter society that would make the most sense. As it is though we are instead tapping consumers completely out with predatory debt since their college years, overcharging them for education, fucking with an unstable housing market, supporting strict heteronormative social standards for them, letting them get and spread PTSD in ghettos, altering the global climate and so on and so on.

If tax cuts reward the people who create jobs then where are the jobs? And how will a job fix all of those problems anyway?

Sometimes you piss me off.

Sometimes I love you.


I think it's the latter in this instance. Well said, and Lewis Black is my hero today.

here's something that i think is a key problem. a basic liberal stance is to seek out what the nation can do for the individual--to empower the individual by providing him/her with a community that is empowering. you'd think that the opposing conservative line of thought would be to seek out what the individual can do for the nation--to make the community greater through individual effort.

at some point in the past, i'd like to think that the GOP espoused that line of thought. but Reaganomics changed that. the Republican ideal is not that the individual should help the community. the Republican ideal is, or has become, that the individual should help themselves, and that the community can go fuck itself.

greed is good, regardless of Gekko's comeuppance. it's a powerful motivator. the GOP has that much right. but what they fail to follow through on is how to use greed--they fail to grasp the concept of noblesse oblige, that greed is only good if you harness it and keep it in check. current conservative thinking is that if one guy can climb a ladder, anybody can climb that ladder--even if the first guy to climb it kicks the ladder away.

the reason noblesse oblige is an important concept is that the noblesse, in the US, wouldn't be noblesse without the level playing field provided them by their government (and, therefore, by their fellow voters, rich and poor). every successful enterprise in the US can be viewed as having a silent partner, a wealthy backer that has invested heavily to help produce every fortune that has ever been made here. if one invests in something that becomes a success, one expects dividends--not just "trickles", crumbs that fall from the tables of the rich, but a return in keeping with the value of what has been invested. let it be said that freedom is pretty fucking valuable.

TL;DR version: tax the rich, because we helped them get rich and we want our cut.

ah hahahahha.

PS- Laws don't keep people from doing shit. They punish people for doing "bad things". Social norms are what keeps people from "kicking toddlers and old people in the stomach."

Everyone fucks up a lot of the time, it's usually just the lack of an ability to learn from and correct your mistakes that we have issues with.

The government too often says "we didn't mess up, you just don't understand yet," and continues to go further down the rabbit hole. Although now we are to the point where we have a whole drowning ant farm going on.

Go team!

Um, that may be true for you. It's not true for me. On account of I'm law-abiding.

You don't believe that laws have any deterrent effect at all? Nor any social-norming effect?

hm. i would say that laws reinforce social norms. people whose social norms include breaking the law are going to break the law; the prospect of being caught and punished provides a level of deterrent, but (judging by the growing prevalence of street gangs) not necessarily a very powerful one.

if you ask people why they don't commonly commit crimes, one of the answers you may receive is "because i'll get caught". but how many people have actually sat down and considered whether or not they could actually get away with a given crime?

So if there were no law against it, you'd be stomach-kicking left and right?

Why say Ron Paul at random?Do you support Ron Paul or some thing ?

Oh and by the way if you want to say you have a problem with my grammar than "btw" is not an actual word as it is an abbreviation how ever "my" and "self" are words but what and ever.Ha.As if I care being as how last I checked I am not in school here and do not answer to any one.I like how many people prefer to assume things of other people by claiming as a collective if you are with one political party or another you must all be the same,what is that?!?Since when does being with a political party equal being the same as one mind and one voice?By that note Clinton and Obama are the same person mentally and bring the same "new" change.I do not think so.Sure there are some things people have in common when in a political party but that does not mean people think exactly the same.If you want evil from a political parties past the Democrats also have their fair share of it so I strongly recommend doing some research in your history and no that does not imply I care to debate all this and history as it is annoying and does not change any thing for me.I truly hope people will some day learn that two wrongs do not make a right and that we all bleed the same and we all share the same planet and no one is clean of having done evil at some point in their career upon having been a president or world leader.I am happy to live in a country that has more than one political party so when there is corruption and the people are ignored and in need eventually we the US citizens get the change that is needed and eventually can get back on track to success regardless of political party.No matter what political party is in power it usually starts as good and ends in bad and go's on and on this way with one hand shaking the other.I wish we did have more realistic options for alternative choices when voting as we have thirteen political parties and they were all over shadowed by (for better or worse I am not the judge) mass media and international support for Obama and very little attention on Mc'Cain besides aiming blind hate at Mc'Cain due to the failings of Bush as is to be expected given the times.Why do I say blind hate you may be wondering,well no I am not Republican but it seemed obvious that some one voted for Bush or he would not have won twice in the presidential election so people are obviously tired of him as any fool (including my self) can see that so any one going with the same party as Bush is not popular,hence blind hate.Funny to me that Mc'Cain used to be a Democrat.All thinking the same based on political party?I do not think so.If people that live in the USA do not enjoy this country than why live here when there are many other countries that have a big government waiting for you.Why live where you are not happy?Other big governments will from what I understand treat you so much better.

Holy Hell.

There is so much wrong with this post.

Including John McCain not being a democrat, ever, and the complete lack of paragraphs to make that gibberish actually readable.

oh, he was actually attempting to communicate? i thought some sort of spambot had gotten loose in here, spewing random letters and punctuation.

I'm kinda proud that I was able to set him off like that.

I have an account here as well and you did not set me off like any thing as I responded to what you said and than went on with what I felt like saying.