Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?

Views: 3402

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


There are, at times, a lot more job openings for non-English speaking immigrants than there are for highly educated, well polished Anglophones.  I've experience exactly that in moving to French Canada where my lack of language skills has actually been appealing to certain employers.

So this comes to unions? Increasing the cost of goods? Reducing CEO compensations? Breaking Walmart up into smaller operations, or denying large market share?


Countries can reach multiple equilibrium in income equality or inequality with free market economies. In fact, more competition and better market conditions can lead to better income distribution without any redistribution been made. That said, redistribution policies might improve growth and be helpful for other desirable goals. Your dogmatic views on economics are very disturbing, especially when you clearly lack the background and the knowledge on the subject.  


"let the wealthy keep their wealth, they earned it" Really, how exactly, by mining resources at cut price leaving the land poisoned for those who live their a farmed it? They earned it by cutting and cutting wages thus increasing their margins and wealth, never mind that in their wake they left workers slaving all hours, unable to provide for their families and having worked them so hard they die young ? Did they earn it by cutting production costs by not providing safe working conditions, then not compensating those workers of theirs they injured ?

How much wealth is enough for one person when others die of preventable diseases and starvation? We live in a SOCIETY where we have responsibilities to one another regardless of our wealth. Wealth buys power and influence which is then used to further enrich at the expense of the poor, worse it is used to make "laws" that make criminals of people just because they do not have the money to work the system, and that destroys the legitimacy of law and shows the wealthy up for what they largely are.

Ask the poor if "wealth trickles down" and you will be told that while excrement may trickle down wealth most certainly does not.

Judith vd R.

Which brings us back to my comment that "limited government" means one thing to the uneducated working class, and yet something quite different for the privileged few.

I wouldn't mind seeing a flow reversal, some "trickle-up" economics, for a change --

I agree. I'm for maximizing the money the poor and middle class get. At least it's unlikely to go directly to a Swiss or Cayman Islands bank account, creating jobs who knows where.

RE: "I agree." - that's once in a row --

Oh, it's not that bad.

And again, he disagrees --#-o d'oh!

@Alejandro M:  Sorry, but you are just wrong on the facts.  The republicans say they are pro-religious freedom, but that's just not true.  They are the party of theocracy.  Their idea of religious freedom is that people should be free to be whatever flavor of christian they wish.  Likewise with their ideas about freedom of speech.  I know these things from long, bitter experience living here in the U.S. and interacting with republicans and observing what they do once in power.

Sadly, I expect that the GOP might once have been the 'Great Old Party', but they offer every indication of having made a Faustian bargain with the religious right, at least since the early 1980's. Harken back to the good old days before the Moral Majority, and the Lahay series of books that include 'The Battle for the Family', and 'The Battle for the Mind'. What ever 'party' is left has been cooped by extremists, that seem only interesting in 'reducing' the 'American Dream' to a shadow of its former self.



Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service