Democrats Disingenous in Their Rhetoric

[GenuineRisk]

B, thank you for posting the quote correctly so I could actually google it (take note, Timm; that's one of the things that makes him so fun to debate with- he does his homework. ).

Here's the context, from the AP report:

<<Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." >>

I'm sure you'll all be shocked, shocked to hear that I don't really have any issue with rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If it cuts the deficit and helps pay back the enormous cost for Bush's little experiment in nation-building, fine. What, so the super-wealthy (who were the ones who benefited most from the tax cuts) get five luxury houses instead of six? Cry me a river. Props to Clinton for actually telling it straight to the rich people it would affect. Hey, if they can afford $10,000 to hear her speak, they can afford to see the tax cuts rolled back.

Next, Timm?

Again, Bababooyee, thank you for taking the time to post the quote correctly. Much appreciated.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

No prob. You owe me, btw (and I might call on you soon for that! ).



What does history show about nations that place the "common good" as the paramount concern of the state? Well, the wealthy can afford it...yeah, well Pol Pot had some warm fuzzy feelings for the rich, too.

And if you really think that we need to start paying back for Iraq or whatever, surely you are putting your money where your mouth is and volunteering some extra cash to help right the ship, aye?

As an NYC resident, I pay more taxes than anyone else in the country (well, not me myself, as I am not rich, but as a proportion of my income, NYCers pay more). So I don't have an issue with taxation. And, as a believer in progressive taxation, I don't have an issue with the wealthy, who got a heck of a tax cut in the past six years, finally ponying up to deal with the deficit and the cost of Iraq. We're going to have to pay for it, and I don't fancy taking food stamps away from nursing mothers, thanks very much.

Well, European nations made national health care a priority, and for all the things we criticize about their national health plans, they spend less, per person, than we do on health care AND they have lower infant mortality rates and longer life spans than the USA. Can you imagine buying a car that gets less milage, breaks down sooner and paying more for it than any other car? And yet we do that with our health plan because we're not interested in the common good.

Pol Pot's genocide was racially-based more than class-based, Bababooyee. He went for the the Cambodian Muslims (the Cham) first, then the ones of Vietnamese descent, and then, I believe, onto the military, professionals and intellectuals (or as Timm would call them, the Democrats. Sorry Timm, I'm going to be teasing you about the "liberals think they're smarter than everyone else" for a long time.). My stepmom's first husband was Cham, and in the military and was one of the first ones to be executed.

And I think comparing progressive taxation to a mass murderer is really tasteless. I'll be sure to pass along your thoughts to my stepmom and ask her whether she thinks the tax cuts on the rich being repealed compare to the four years she spent in a labor camp. Very classy, B.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I'm not talking about just taxation. If you truly feel that we need to start paying back for Iraq or whatever, put your money where your mouth is. You are able donate money to the government, fyi.



Please. Enough with the strawman-type bull$hit - it's just rude (and I know rude when I see it, pot-kettle, yeah yeah, I know ). I was talking about what making the "common good" paramount can lead to (even if the rich are the ones taking it on the chin...for now). The issue is the underlying philosophy. Why don't you ask your stepmom the right questions: what does putting the good of the nation, the "common good" (or any other such collectivist term) above the individual lead to?

Explain to me how the rich are taking it on the chin? They pay less of their income in taxation than at any time in the past 50 years. Where do you get that? How on earth are they taking it on the chin? The gap between the rich and poor is approaching gilded age levels. If anyone is taking it on the chin, it's the middle class, not the rich. Where do you get the idea the rich are suffering?

Working for the common good leads to the end of slavery, women's suffrage, labor rights and minimum wages. Along with national health care, though we're not there yet.

Having been in Cambodia a few years back, the divide between rich and poor is very great- there's no progressive taxation, you see. The rich run the government and are as corrupt as can be. We went to lunch with a very wealthy lady-- she was very nice-- and she has full-time bodyguards to protect her because, as a wealthy person in a very poor country, she's not safe walking by herself. It's not a nice feeling, eating lunch with armed bodyguards standing near you. That's the flip side not believing society owes something to the poor, B. Their fellow citizens are starving and their lives are at risk from said starving people. Some of us don't think gated communities are an ideal living circumstance, you know. But then maybe you favor aristocracies, which is what the kind of economic system you want leads to. Worked out very well for the Tsar, didn't it?

So you're claiming that religion and ethnicity had nothing to do with the genocide in Cambodia? Is that what you're claiming?