Here comes the war on income inequality!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Just give the Walmart workers their .007514705882353 / hr raise and end it......

Yes, that will allow all the Walmart stockboys to buy a summer home on Nantucket.

This is the liberal agenda - give poor people enough to survive, but not what they need to get ahead and be self sufficient. Because once people become self sufficient...they are less likely to vote 'Democrat'.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, that will allow all the Walmart stockboys to buy a summer home on Nantucket.

This is the liberal agenda - give poor people enough to survive, but not what they need to get ahead and be self sufficient. Because once people become self sufficient...they are less likely to vote 'Democrat'.

Yup, the Democrats are worried more that female CEO's are not paid as much as their male counterparts than whether or not poor people make move up the ladder. Without poor people Dems have no base. Obama's Executive order to raise the minimum wage on government jobs isn't helping people that work at the Walmarts, McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts in this country. He doesn't give a rats ass about them.

All he cares about is hooking up illegals anyway he can, and playing golf. He is an idiot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Yup, the Democrats are worried more that female CEO's are not paid as much as their male counterparts than whether or not poor people make move up the ladder. Without poor people Dems have no base. Obama's Executive order to raise the minimum wage on government jobs isn't helping people that work at the Walmarts, McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts in this country. He doesn't give a rats ass about them.

All he cares about is hooking up illegals anyway he can, and playing golf. He is an idiot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You bring up a good point, something I think about often...the liberal solution to poverty is to give these people a little bit of money - enough to keep them alive, but not the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty.

All of the available empirical evidence suggests that this does not work, and in the case of the extinction of the black family, you can make a very compelling case that these cash payments actually make things worse, by providing a financial incentive for self-destructive bahavior (unwed teemage moms qualify for more welfare than married teenage moms, so teenage moms elect not to get married).

Do the liberals know this is the effect of their policies? Is it the intended effect? Or do they not bother to see the havoc they have wrought?

It's like Social Security and Medicare...any honest person who took 5th grade arithmetic knows that those plans are not sustainable. Yet when Paul Ryan says that out loud, liberals make a commercial of him pushing an old lady off a cliff. Do the liberals really believe that Ryan actually wants to hurt old people and poor people? Do liberals really believe that entitlement programs are not headed for disaster?

It's hard to know what they think, because when you bring these things up, they yell at you for being a racist, sexist, intolerant, anti-immigration, homophobic hate monger who is waginbg war on women.

[Fly Rod]

the bottom line is that the GOP has no balls...they proved that yesterday when voting

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

the bottom line is that the GOP has no balls...they proved that yesterday when voting

It's hard to have balls when every TV station except one, will call you every name in the book for simply stating methematical facts out loud. Is it better to compromise and win elections, or stick to your guns and lose? I don't know. What I know is that in our lifetimes, we will reap the whirlwind for not fixing entitlement programs, and the fallout will be so bad, I predict everyone will see that the liberals were 100% wrong, and the conservatives were 100% right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's hard to have balls when every TV station except one, will call you every name in the book for simply stating methematical facts out loud.

Isn't that exactly the time when balls are needed. You don't need balls when the majority agree with you. It is easier to steam roll a ball-less opponent if your opposition is prone to timidity rather than courage. I can understand occasional retreats against overwhelming odds. But if the retreats are constant, and courage is usually only a brief show before the ultimate cave, you are eventually seen as ball-less, untrustworthy, and not deserving of respect. Recovering from that may be more difficult than overcoming a majority bias against you.

Maybe the "establishment" Republicans are copying George Washington's tactic of retreating from overwhelming odds in order to maintain a fighting force, but his army did actually fight, and it was vicious, deadly battle, and they inflicted great damage to the British even in retreat. And they did not cower either from well funded Tory opinions and opposition nor threats from the Crown. And they did win a number of battles before the final one. It was difficult to maintain morale in the troops against the lack of funding, food and clothing, disease, overwhelming odds, the lack of support from half or more of the populace. And it was, as well, difficult to keep the faith of that portion of the populace who were for the revolution. But a basic morale, and hope, was maintained by a vigorous leadership which refused to compromise its goals and principles and was able to forcefully and inspiringly articulate those goals and principles.

If that Revolutionary tactic is being employed, it is a dangerous ploy. Washington sought to take advantage of whatever opening was available to win battles. To turn a tide, or gain a momentum. And he never allowed his troops to cut and run. He inspired them with the strength of his character, and he punished them for betrayal. If he had shown weakness, lack of character, was dull and uninspiring, the revolution would have been crushed very early on. Insofar as the Republican leadership appears to be weak, without the inspirational character needed to achieve its goals, nor, even a clear definition of what those goals are, cut and run tactics only erode whatever confidence the base has.

Abandoning all battles and skirmishes for fear of media disapproval in order to wait for the final big battle--rather to wait for the big collapse of support for Democrats because of the public's hate for the ACA--might "work," or might fail miserably. The Repubs, if that is there plan, better start fighting deep and hard right now to attack what little opening they have left after abandoning opportunities because of fear. Obama keeps putting off the ultimate effects of his health care plan until after elections. If they don't attack hard and fast NOW against his unconstitutional power to do so, their ploy of instigating public outrage against the Dems because of the ACA will dribble down the same drain of failed retreats they have shown for the past five years.

Is it better to compromise and win elections, or stick to your guns and lose? I don't know. What I know is that in our lifetimes, we will reap the whirlwind for not fixing entitlement programs, and the fallout will be so bad, I predict everyone will see that the liberals were 100% wrong, and the conservatives were 100% right.

Yes, that pyrrhic victory is visible on the horizon of failed strategies and lack of principled courage.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, that pyrrhic victory is visible on the horizon of failed strategies and lack of principled courage.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating that if you stick to your guns but get clobbered in the election, is that better than a pyrrhic victory? I dunno.