A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican

[ThaSaltCracka]

I am just gonna throw this out there just for discussion purposes. It seems that the federal government works at its best when no party holds the majority in both the house and senate. Because of this, the two parties have to work hard to compromise and appease the others. What do you guys think about a law stating that no party could hold a majority in both the house and senate, or is this just simply to absurd(which it probably is).

[Knockwurst]

Uh, not true. If you think the GOP has the goal of reducing toxic emissions into the environment, you are sadly mistaken. W.'s only priority in this regard has been easing environmental restrictions on major polluters and rolling back Clinton-era EPA standards. He eased restrictions on polluters from coal burning power plants to mercury emitting oil refineries. Why do you think Christy Todd Whitman quit the EPA? Let's at least be straight up about this one.

[nolanfan34]

Yes, a law like that would be absurd. But they do get the best work done with split houses.

[nolanfan34]

I don't argue that point.

I'm just enough of an idealist to believe that in a general sense, both parties are trying to make life better for everyone, and have different beliefs on how to get there.

[ThaSaltCracka]

why would it be absurd?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
why would it be absurd?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're essentially suggesting that regardless of the results of Congressional and Senate elections in each state, the final total of members would be manipulated in a way to assure the two houses would be under separate control. A better question is why this ISN'T absurd.

(I know you just threw it out there for discussion, but let's hear your argument)

[MMMMMM]

"Historically communists and socialists led the battle for the working man."

I don't even believe this. They said they did but really they didn't. Communism was just another way for the political elite to oppress and control the masses. Socialism, while purporting to look out for the working man, really lowers the overall average living standard, so while under socialism Joe's income might not be so far away from Dave's, they are both earning less.

Winston Churchill put it well: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing or blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".

I for one would rather share blessings unequally than share miseries equally. When you get older you will probably realize that so much of the socio-economic stuff you are now learning is a crock, and that Communism is the biggest crock ever invented. Its nephew, Socialism, is a crock overall too, but at least it is not unadulterated nonsense in every last respect as is the uncle.

Safety standards are indeed important. Labor unions aren't really very important today, in my opinion, although they may once have been so.

Social security provides the average contributor with a 1% lifetime rate of return on investment. Pretty crapy, eh? It was a Ponzi scheme to begin with, and the miserly rate of return has caused many retirees to live pinched economic existences, whereas if they had instead been able to invest that money taken from their paychecks each week for Social szecurity, they would now be far better off. Social Security contributions have helped to keep many people poor. Heck the average Joe would have been much better off just putting 7.5% of his paycheck every week in a bank savings account drawing interest and letting it compound for 40 years, rather than being forced to "invest" it in Social Security.

Class warfare speech is becoming so much drivel nowadays, as continual globalization and the breaking down of barriers renders moot many of the issues of yesteryear.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, not true. If you think the GOP has the goal of reducing toxic emissions into the environment, you are sadly mistaken. W.'s only priority in this regard has been easing environmental restrictions on major polluters and rolling back Clinton-era EPA standards. He eased restrictions on polluters from coal burning power plants to mercury emitting oil refineries. Why do you think Christy Todd Whitman quit the EPA? Let's at least be straight up about this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did Clinton wait till his final night in office to finally approve the new arsenic standards which had remained the same for the last 60 years? Yes in between signing all those pardons for his crooked political cronies he slipped in an 80% reduction in the arsenic standard. You guys miss all the details and end up fooling yourselves into believing that the Demmies are pro environment and the conserv(atives) are con.

Just an FYI the standard was set in 1975 but based on 1942 data.

[riverflush]

Rage Against the Machine, brotha!

Take the power back...protect us from the evils of industry!

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
A better question is why this ISN'T absurd.

[/ QUOTE ] haha, well how about this then, what if each state was required to have one democrat and one republican senator? I know it seems absurd, but I would have to think the benefits would outweigh the cost.