Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Which way is the US going.... politically?

I was told "clearly ... we as a nation have moved left" or have we.

 

Yes same sex marriage, health care, marijuana legalization would seem to indicate so, but gun rights have increased, school choice, and lower government spending. 

 

White, married Christians, the core of the Republican Party, are a shrinking percentage of the population, and the Democratic Party is considered to have a structural advantage in presidential elections. Well so it seemed until the last election. The party’s left-wing champions, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders and Bill de Blasio, are increasingly setting its agenda, with left of center democrats losing influence. 

 

It appeared after the election of Obama, it was concluded the Clinton coalition days were gone. Conservatism would be vanquished forever. Done. Then the storm rolled throught the states and republicans took control and now the federal government. Incredable turn of events. Democrats still wheeling. 

 

So which way?.... not party wise, but liberal or conservative? Republicans have established theirs as the party of conservatism, but not the party of conservative solutions. We see "some'' democrats trying to build a more conservative reputation, but will be a tall order because they will lack party support.  The public has not turned to the left ideologically, and it remains unhappy with the status quo under Obama. 

 

 


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
245 Views
44
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Where is government spending lower?  Trump's proposed FY18 budget is $4.1 trillion, same as Obama's FY17 budget request. 

 

IMO, conservatives have never spent less at the federal level.  They just spend differently.   They love military spending and hate welfare spending.   That has never meant "less" spending.

 

The country is definitely more liberal, and still trending that way.   Liberal policies benefit urban areas more than conservative policies do, and the country continues to trend urban.    At least 80% of Americans live in urban areas, and that percentage continues to increase. 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

@ NM

Pew research ... fed higher-states lower... who controls most of the states? It varies greatly by state with red states considerably lower. Very complex if you have the time.

And federal dollars still were a bigger share of states’ spending in fiscal 2012 than they had been for much of the previous two decades. As a share of the economy, 50-state spending from federal dollars was 0.5 percentage points higher in fiscal 2012 than in fiscal 1993, but spending from states’ own sources was 0.1 percentage point lower.

Regarding population movement there seems to be a changing tide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/cities-growing-more-slowly-than-suburbs-for-the-f...

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
234 Views
19
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
@ NM

Pew research ... fed higher-states lower... who controls most of the states? It varies greatly by state with red states considerably lower. Very complex if you have the time.

And federal dollars still were a bigger share of states’ spending in fiscal 2012 than they had been for much of the previous two decades. As a share of the economy, 50-state spending from federal dollars was 0.5 percentage points higher in fiscal 2012 than in fiscal 1993, but spending from states’ own sources was 0.1 percentage point lower.

Regarding population movement there seems to be a changing tide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/cities-growing-more-slowly-than-suburbs-for-the-f...

If you are looking at FY12, state and local governments were still trying to crawl their way out of the recession.   So yeah, federal dollars would be a larger portion of their total budgets.  

 

Re population shifts:  I suppose it's how you define urban.   I live in the Baltimore Washington metropolitan area.   That includes suburbs.  It's all urban, comparatively speaking.    And liberal policies fit well with high density areas.   For example, we don't have well water and septic.  We have a shared water and sewer system that we need to regulate, maintain, and expand as our population increases.  Government does that.   We don't have open, sparsely-traveled roads to work.    We have massive congestion and a need for a robust public transportation system to ease that congestion.   Government does that.   We don't need guns for protection because we have fast, responsive police.   No matter how good rural police are, they can't travel 45 miles at light speed to respond to a home invasion in time to do any good other than collect finger prints.  Government provides that effective police force.    Rural folks don't have 4 or 5 people begging for money at every street light. We see suffering like that multiple times a day.   Government helps eliminate homelessness and hunger.   

 

Urban folks see government working every single day.   And most know that government is us.  The people.    Government is not as visible in rural areas.   It's easy to see why rural folks aren't big fans.    None of us is self-sufficient.   Not even rural folk.   We have to work collectively, like an Amish barn raising. Just on a much grander scale.   

Honored Social Butterfly

@ NM

 

In light of the topic... which way are we moving politically, I'd say most of what you said is accurate and incomplete, with the exception of self sufficiency and dependency.

Only independent people can choose dependency otherwise it "must" be provided at a cost, nothing is free and the "price" is what?

Once the need is established ... who's in control? You remember the ole sayin' "can't fight city hall".... well isn't that like biting the hand that feeds you? I get that, but I don't like that, I won't have that. I also understand how the left uses this "advantage" to tell voters.... "those on the right want you to starve, get sick and die".

Rural folks are self sufficient the same way as the Amish, except we use money for help. Enjoy the music!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0sYnro_3Rc

I'm guessin'.... but I'll bet there ain't no Amish in cities. .. maybe a Mennonite but not Amish.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
309 Views
15
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Nobody in this country is self-sufficient unless they are living off the grid somehow, and that's very hard to do.    Rural or not.  Our cars, our houses, our internet, our clothes, our fuel, our computers, our electricity, our food -- all built, processed, transported by someone else, on roads, trains, planes, and other vehicles owned and built by someone else.    


If we erased the products/services of other people's labor from our lives, we would have a very different lives indeed.  

 

We all depend on this, like it or not.   Human beings are social creatures.  That is how we survive and (ideally) thrive.   We are not meant to be independent organisms. That's why we organize ourselves into different types of groups and organizations to meet our societal needs.  Government is one.  Religious organizations are another.  Family is another.   Business is another.  And so on.

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 

Trusted Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 


You might have added...."and eventually extinct".  That's what happens, donchasee?

Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

 

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 


Are you referring to the 47%ers?

0 Kudos
309 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

 

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 


Are you referring to the 47%ers?


Those "47%ers always were nothing but a figment of Romney's fetid conservative imagination - what are today recognized to be delusions from the conservative/republican "alternate reality"...

 

44>dolt45
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:

 


@rk9152 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

 

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 


Are you referring to the 47%ers?


Those "47%ers always were nothing but a figment of Romney's fetid conservative imagination - what are today recognized to be delusions from the conservative/republican "alternate reality"...

 


You may be right. I heard that it is now only 45%.

 

So, NerdyMom, is it the 45% not contributing that you referred to?

0 Kudos
547 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 


@rk9152 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

 

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 


Are you referring to the 47%ers?


Those "47%ers always were nothing but a figment of Romney's fetid conservative imagination - what are today recognized to be delusions from the conservative/republican "alternate reality"...

 


You may be right. I heard that it is now only 45%.

 

So, NerdyMom, is it the 45% not contributing that you referred to?


Nope.  I'm talking about people with the mentality that taxation is theft.   They don't want to pay for the benefits they receive from society.   

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 


@rk9152 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

 

 

Trying to get away with only taking from society and not contributing to it doesn't make someone independent.  It just makes them selfish. 


Are you referring to the 47%ers?


Those "47%ers always were nothing but a figment of Romney's fetid conservative imagination - what are today recognized to be delusions from the conservative/republican "alternate reality"...

 


You may be right. I heard that it is now only 45%.

 

So, NerdyMom, is it the 45% not contributing that you referred to?


Nope.  I'm talking about people with the mentality that taxation is theft.   They don't want to pay for the benefits they receive from society.   

 

 


I suppose there are some that want "something for nothing". But for the purposes of political discussion there is another mindset that you may be mixing in with them. Those would be the people who are fully accepting of the need for paying taxes to fund the government but draw the line at taxes being used as a vehicle for wealth redistribution.

 

Are we in agreement that they are two different mindsets?

Honored Social Butterfly

Pity KUDOS.

 

Did you read this posted by Scout?

 

So who doesn't pay Federal Income Tax?

23% aren't paid enough - Inc<$8500. Includes the disabled.

10% are retired with income from tax-exempt sources

7% are the working poor who receive Reagan's EITC

7% have deductions that exempt their income, includes 4000 millionaires


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
493 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Pity KUDOS.

 

Did you read this posted by Scout?

 

So who doesn't pay Federal Income Tax?

23% aren't paid enough - Inc<$8500. Includes the disabled.

10% are retired with income from tax-exempt sources

7% are the working poor who receive Reagan's EITC

7% have deductions that exempt their income, includes 4000 millionaires


Sounds like Romney's 47%. 

0 Kudos
471 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Do we blame the rich folks for utilizing deductions or do we try and address the problem of a terrible tax code. My guess is 99% of Americans would love a simplified equitable tax code.
If the price is $10 for a steak and I have a coupon for $10 off my next purchase does that make me a bad person? I probably got the coupon from spending a $100 initially. That's how deductions work.... you spend where the government wants you to spend (or invest like muni's) and they give you a break.

Buy a house, get a mortgage, get a break. Buy a house without a mortgage get nothing. How is that fair?



Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
481 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

So who doesn't pay Federal Income Tax?

23% aren't paid enough - Inc<$8500. Includes the disabled.

10% are retired with income from tax-exempt sources

7% are the working poor who receive Reagan's EITC

7% have deductions that exempt their income, includes 4000 millionaires

 

INCOME tax cannot redistribute YOUR WEALTH because it only addresses riches, or "cash" received in a given year. WEALTH is your claim to FUTURE goods and services, your home, your other real estate, your stocks bonds and other investments, your retirement package and your job.

 

But what it CAN do is permit others to redistribute your wealth by altering the way the profits from your labor are distributed. When the TMR was 91%, every dollar an executive gave himself in a pay increase only resulted in a nickle in his pocket - the rest went to Washington (91 cents) and his State (about 4 cents). As a result, the profits were given to the workers based on their productivity increases for the previous year, because while the senior management may have hated their workers, they hated Government more, and they knew from long experience that when workers were happy, they were more productive and the managers' OTHER wealth - mostly his stocks and bonds or equity in the company - would continue to grow.

This worked consistantly for 40 years, with 96% of every dollar of increased productivity going to the workers pay. Then the connection was broken in 1965 when LBJ cut the TMR to 70% and the one's dividing the profits could keep a quarter of each dollar they gave themselves, so they gave themselves more and the workers got less. the connection was completely severed in 1985 when Reagan dropped the TMR to 28%, and ever since virtually all income gains have gone to the ones dividing the profits - senior management - while workers real wages have shrunk back to 1964 levels.

 

Wealth redistribution for the past 30 years has been FROM the middle class to the very top of the 1%, changing America from one of the most "egulatarian" Nations on earth to the most UNequal distribution of wealth among the developed Nations.

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

So who doesn't pay Federal Income Tax?

23% aren't paid enough - Inc<$8500. Includes the disabled.

10% are retired with income from tax-exempt sources

7% are the working poor who receive Reagan's EITC

7% have deductions that exempt their income, includes 4000 millionaires

 

INCOME tax cannot redistribute YOUR WEALTH because it only addresses riches, or "cash" received in a given year. WEALTH is your claim to FUTURE goods and services, your home, your other real estate, your stocks bonds and other investments, your retirement package and your job.

 

But what it CAN do is permit others to redistribute your wealth by altering the way the profits from your labor are distributed. When the TMR was 91%, every dollar an executive gave himself in a pay increase only resulted in a nickle in his pocket - the rest went to Washington (91 cents) and his State (about 4 cents). As a result, the profits were given to the workers based on their productivity increases for the previous year, because while the senior management may have hated their workers, they hated Government more, and they knew from long experience that when workers were happy, they were more productive and the managers' OTHER wealth - mostly his stocks and bonds or equity in the company - would continue to grow.

This worked consistantly for 40 years, with 96% of every dollar of increased productivity going to the workers pay. Then the connection was broken in 1965 when LBJ cut the TMR to 70% and the one's dividing the profits could keep a quarter of each dollar they gave themselves, so they gave themselves more and the workers got less. the connection was completely severed in 1985 when Reagan dropped the TMR to 28%, and ever since virtually all income gains have gone to the ones dividing the profits - senior management - while workers real wages have shrunk back to 1964 levels.

 

Wealth redistribution for the past 30 years has been FROM the middle class to the very top of the 1%, changing America from one of the most "egulatarian" Nations on earth to the most UNequal distribution of wealth among the developed Nations.

 


It seems like you came up with 47%, just like Romney. And then you went on to blame President Reagan (as usual) for everything that happened since Ike was President.

 

Wealth redistribution - well, you got that right. Taxes permit "others" (the government) to redistribute the property of citizens. Sounds like support for "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs".

0 Kudos
473 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I always saw taxes as the cost of citizenship... and I'm about the bottom line. I just don't want to be overcharged.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
508 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Believe me... I get man does not live by bread alone but when you eat today thank anyone you choose.






Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
306 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

NerdyMom , you just hit it out of the park !!!

Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
@ NM

Pew research ... fed higher-states lower... who controls most of the states? It varies greatly by state with red states considerably lower. Very complex if you have the time.

And federal dollars still were a bigger share of states’ spending in fiscal 2012 than they had been for much of the previous two decades. As a share of the economy, 50-state spending from federal dollars was 0.5 percentage points higher in fiscal 2012 than in fiscal 1993, but spending from states’ own sources was 0.1 percentage point lower.

Regarding population movement there seems to be a changing tide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/cities-growing-more-slowly-than-suburbs-for-the-f...

I'm not sure of your point on the Federal dollars.

 

As regards population movement, I would point out that a one year lull does not indicate a sea change and there are some significant factors driving the move to cities. Mostly economic but some social. Still, I am not sure it makes as much difference WHERE the population is as to WHAT they percieve themselves to be. 

0 Kudos
304 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

When we look at the data... some cities are losing A LOT while others are gaining. The data is all over. Demographics, retirement, tax laws make it hard to know the actual number but the data is there for the **bleep** minded to see.

Top 10 cities... looks like Chicago is the only loser. However St. Louis and Detroit are big time losers. Realestate suggests the "burbs are growing".

I still think Winston Churchill's quote is still apropos... 'If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

Where is government spending lower?  Trump's proposed FY18 budget is $4.1 trillion, same as Obama's FY17 budget request. 

 

IMO, conservatives have never spent less at the federal level.  They just spend differently.   They love military spending and hate welfare spending.   That has never meant "less" spending.

 

The country is definitely more liberal, and still trending that way.   Liberal policies benefit urban areas more than conservative policies do, and the country continues to trend urban.    At least 80% of Americans live in urban areas, and that percentage continues to increase. 

 


Excellent point. Bill Clinton came into office to find a huge deficit left by the Republicans specifically to hinder his ability to implement his programs. James Carville maintains Republicans use deficits like a weapon to hinder government. Seems to be the case. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

Where is government spending lower?  Trump's proposed FY18 budget is $4.1 trillion, same as Obama's FY17 budget request. 

 

IMO, conservatives have never spent less at the federal level.  They just spend differently.   They love military spending and hate welfare spending.   That has never meant "less" spending.

 

The country is definitely more liberal, and still trending that way.   Liberal policies benefit urban areas more than conservative policies do, and the country continues to trend urban.    At least 80% of Americans live in urban areas, and that percentage continues to increase. 

 


Excellent point. Bill Clinton came into office to find a huge deficit left by the Republicans specifically to hinder his ability to implement his programs. James Carville maintains Republicans use deficits like a weapon to hinder government. Seems to be the case. 


Be honest now, it was the Republican Congress and the leadership of Gingrich that gave Clinton his two most rational bills to sign - the budget and welfare reform.

Honored Social Butterfly

Be honest now - the buck stops with the President , unless of course in your case he happens to be a successful Democrat !!! When something good happened under Obama's leadership - he could get no credit , but when things went bad - it was all his fault !!!

It's a cute game the Far Right have played since G.W. Bush !!!

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

Where is government spending lower?  Trump's proposed FY18 budget is $4.1 trillion, same as Obama's FY17 budget request. 

 

IMO, conservatives have never spent less at the federal level.  They just spend differently.   They love military spending and hate welfare spending.   That has never meant "less" spending.

 

The country is definitely more liberal, and still trending that way.   Liberal policies benefit urban areas more than conservative policies do, and the country continues to trend urban.    At least 80% of Americans live in urban areas, and that percentage continues to increase. 

 


Excellent point. Bill Clinton came into office to find a huge deficit left by the Republicans specifically to hinder his ability to implement his programs. James Carville maintains Republicans use deficits like a weapon to hinder government. Seems to be the case. 


Be honest now, it was the Republican Congress and the leadership of Gingrich that gave Clinton his two most rational bills to sign - the budget and welfare reform.


Perhaps. It was also a Republican congress and president that gave Bill Clinton and Barack Obama huge deficits to fix.  Bill Clinton is the one who left a surplus. Republicans hate surpluses.

Honored Social Butterfly

We do hate RINO's... so we voted for businessman who loves surpluses.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
310 Views
13
Report
Trusted Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
We do hate RINO's... so we voted for businessman who loves surpluses.

      "Hate is not a Christian virtue, neither is liberal sanctimony"

 

Guess you really didn't mean that tag line after all.....or does it only apply to liberals?  Hey...you said it I didn't.

Honored Social Butterfly

Yep ... Hate the act not the actor. I'm a self admitted sinner. How many lashes?

Proverbs 6:16-19


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
539 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
We do hate RINO's... so we voted for businessman who loves surpluses.

But does not understand how government works. A bit like hiring your plumber to do your colonoscopy, after all "pipes is pipes".  Governments are supposed to break even, not show a profit.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png