musings - way waay OT

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, Jay!! Give this a read; long, almost 30 pages, but well worth it if
anyone thinks the Repubs are going to change any of this, ever.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...nservatism.asp

I'll check it out, but I don't need it to outline the decline and fall
fo conservatism. I've watched it die on the vine for the last 8 years.

How about 40 years?


We need a socially liberal (and I don't mean welfare-state liberal),
fiscally conservative third party in this country, and we need it NOW.

One that will get 5% of the vote?

Funny thing is, so many people declare themselves that way in polls, but
they don't vote that way.

Take away the rhetoric from the polls (ie, just ask questions about one's
principles) and the overwhelming majority of people are socialist, or at
least collectivist, despite what they CLIAM to be.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
We need a socially liberal (and I don't mean welfare-state liberal),
fiscally conservative third party in this country, and we need it
NOW.

One that will get 5% of the vote?

That's pretty much what the Libertarian party polls - I assume you had that
in mind when you mentioned the 5% figure?

"Matt Barrow" posted the exciting message
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, Jay!! Give this a read; long, almost 30 pages, but well worth
it if anyone thinks the Repubs are going to change any of this,
ever.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...cline-fall-ame
rican-conservatism.asp

I'll check it out, but I don't need it to outline the decline and
fall fo conservatism. I've watched it die on the vine for the last 8
years.

How about 40 years?


We need a socially liberal (and I don't mean welfare-state liberal),
fiscally conservative third party in this country, and we need it
NOW.

One that will get 5% of the vote?

Funny thing is, so many people declare themselves that way in polls,
but they don't vote that way.

Take away the rhetoric from the polls (ie, just ask questions about
one's principles) and the overwhelming majority of people are
socialist, or at least collectivist, despite what they CLIAM to be.


Well, it's tough to have them voting that way when most of the time the
choices boil down to:

Socially liberal and Financially liberal.
vs
Socially conservative and Financially conservative.

Unfortunately we've also discovered with the current administration that
we have

Socially very conservative and Financially very liberal!


I couldn't agree more with Jay's post.

Tim Long
CMA

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

We need a socially liberal (and I don't mean welfare-state liberal),
fiscally conservative third party in this country, and we need it NOW.

Can I wordsmith that a little: We need a socially and fiscially responsible
third party.

"Liberal" and "conservative" have been misused and abused for so long now
that the meanings of those words are too ambiguous.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

I like "what you are with other people's money."


"Liberal" and "conservative" have been misused and abused for so long now
that the meanings of those words are too ambiguous.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
We need a socially liberal (and I don't mean welfare-state liberal),
fiscally conservative third party in this country, and we need it NOW.

Libertarian party (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml):

"Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of
both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with
conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of
lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and
charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also
agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s
right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles."

P.S. This thread is definitely way off topic. While I agree with Jay's
complaint, there are other forums where these political issues are on
topic.

P.S. This thread is definitely way off topic. While I agree with Jay's
complaint, there are other forums where these political issues are on
topic.

*MY* complaint???

Dang, Denny, now I even get blamed for YOUR off-topic threads!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 20 Oct 2006 07:08:07 -0700, "Denny" wrote:

I just finished writing out paychecks... My employees are a mix of
more skilled and lesser skilled folks... The higher skills are paid
more obvious averaging a $100 a week more in gross pay... One my
more skilled employees has a husband with MS (is on expensive drugs)
and both of them continue to work... A lesser skilled employee
receives Medicaid and food stamp assistance for herself and her
child...

The bottom line is that I just did the payroll and after tax witholding
and despite the higher gross income, my more skilled employee took home
exactly $10 more than the employee on public assistance... And besides
monthly assistance (money taken from her co-worker) the person on
welfare will receive an income tax credit with a check from the US
gov't at the end of the year...

Am I the only person who sees the system as being broken?

One possible conclusion is that you don't pay much. You can't use that
as evidence that there's something wrong with the rest of the world.

Low pay, no medical insurance, are these commonplace in your industry?
What's your employee turnover? Are employees frequently moving on to
something better? In that case you can think of your establishment as
a halfway house to getting off of welfare.

RK Henry

Meanwhile... people like those in our state's Red Capitol of Madison can't
believe that we let the more talented and skillful employee earn that extra
$10 and would prefer that we give it to the less skillful employee because
he "needs" it more. They would REALLY prefer that we pay the less skilled
employee MORE than the skilled employee. But what they REALLY REALLY want
is that we just send THEM all our money because then they can create more
programs to help the less skilled. Which, if these programs ever succeeded,
would lead to their own demise, so instead they spend the money on
administration and bureaucracy (read self preservation and self promotion)
Jim

Denny wrote:

Am I the only person who sees the system as being broken?


Well of course the system is broken and you have pointed
out exactly why. Things will not get better unless some
serious reform is enacted. A flat tax, or a national sales
tax would be an excellent start.