Republicans are no more greedy than Democrats.  Greed crosses the political spectrum and it corrupts to the core.  Republicans tend to have a different philosophy as it pertains to how to help those in need.  We want to give them a hand up, not a hand out.  Some Republicans take it too far and tend to get a bit condescending and cold towards the poor,

We must remember that Jesus didn't ask too many questions before giving to a person in need or stopping to address that person's needs.  On the other hand, the liberal philosophy, when taken too far is an insult to the poor because it sends the message that the giver is go wonderful and powerful and that the poor person is inferior and must solely depend on the generousity of the "liberal" giver. 

As a liberal, I would never accuse you, or anyone here, of being greedy. How stupid is that? I don't know you, or anything about your personal life. I can't think of anyone from the left side of the aisle accusing anyone on the blogs here of being personally greedy. Most of the arguments on where our economy sits, and how it got to this point, concern policy decisions both parties have made. From my point of view, those who favor less taxation, less regulation, oppose collective bargaining and oppose civic projects with shared financial community responsibilities have hurt our nation a great deal.

It has become one of the continuing great dichotomies of our society to see people shrink their tax liability with various offshore shelters and charitable organizations/foundations created to selectively donate to their pet causes/beliefs while starving the funds necessary for infrastructure, education and health throughout this land.

For  workers it is hard to share in the enterprise and become a stakeholder when you have next to nothing financially to contribute. Labor used to be the hammer in the hand of management to forge our nation. Labor was the contributing element for the multitudes who had no financial clout in making this country work. Labor means nothing to the industrialists today, who will pursue every tributary to find the bottom of the wage pool and move jobs to portions of the world where humane and hard fought work guarantees are figments of the imagination.

We have no American companies today. We have companies of the world who market to populations that reside in nation states. Go to any department store and check for any goods on the any shelf and try to find something that was made in America. Movie making is one of the very few remaining American oriented industries, but even the major studios use foreign financing and foreign locations to shoot and edit much of the films made today. The bulk of great family wineries are now just labels of foreign investment conglomerates who control a very fixed and anti-competitive business market.   

This is not about your greed, but a failure to acknowledge a shared responsibilty of what it takes and how much it really costs to keep a nation viable. Govenrment was used in the Great Depression to address many of the same anti-competitive forces of too much concentrated power and wealth we see today. I am hopeful that more citizens will understand that having too much wealth in too few hands puts an enormous stress on the world at large and always leads to violent confrontations. But I guess we have gotten accustomed to that this past century.

I don't think conservatives are greedy.  They seem very willing to give tax breaks to huge companies in the hope that those companies won't keep that money for themselves and will allow a little to trickle down to the peons.

That's very charitable.

IMHO-no conservatives/Republicans are not greedy. Each side has it's own way to view the world~ we all see problems and want to help.

Some are greedy, some are  not. Honestly, throwing money at a charity to help yourself out with your taxes isn't helping people up, that's giving a handout. Not that people shouldn't give to charaties, it's just that it's more important to be an active participant in helping people up rather than giving money to charity and then looking down on people that aren't as fortunate.

They have this idea that it's "their money" and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Warren Buffet

It's not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor or greed. It's about insuring opportunity. Under the Bush administration the poor get poorer, the middle class get no rise in income, and the top 1% or so get a 500% increase in purchasing power.

1/3 of our kids do not graduate high school. Parents with 401K's wiped out and higher cost-of-living expenses can't pay $20K or so for the next year's college tuition. States are asking for funds to keep public services functioning; California is not unique. Mexico abides a hands off policy on their wealthy citizens. The only opportunity their increasing poor have is to cross an open border.

What critics call socialism or communism are measures to keep a quality of life for those who keep the economy strong and stable.  Without a middleclass or the opportunity to attain middle class standards (jobs, careers with equitable wage). we don't have an economy.

 PP2: throwing money at a charity to help yourself out with your taxes isn't helping people up, that's giving a handout. Not that people shouldn't give to charities, it's just that it's more important to be an active participant in helping people up rather than giving money to charity and then looking down on people that aren't as fortunate.

So, does that mean I can get my money back that is taken out of my taxes for the welfare folks? I mean after all, welfare is a "hand out" not a hand up. I donate to charities, but I don't get to take it off my taxes as most of what I donate is time and/or gently used items. The actual money I donate is not enough to war rent a deduction.

CATPAW: 1/3 of our kids do not graduate high school.

Who's fault is that? Government? NOT. Getting an education is an individual choice along with parental participation in said education. Many of the "poor" have financial aid and grants available to them so as far as I'm concerned there is no "financial" excuse.  Many "middle income" kids learn responsibility from their parents and GET A JOB(S) or student loans to get through college, as my daughter did.  My son-in-law comes from a "well to do" family. He and his brothers were required to WORK to get money for their educations. It would have been easy for the parents to just hand out the $$$$ but they did not do that. Two of the boys went in the service to get assistance with college finances - one is now a Col in the Army one is a Lt. Col in the Marines.  Both are making THEIR children EARN the "toys" they want.  "needs" are supplied "wants " are earned!

Greedy?  No, probably not.

Ill-informed?  Almost certainly.

I thought it took---huge stones---for a man to say--"I'm am an American First"...regardless of party...and put America first...why is it that if someone has an opinion--he/she is this or that---can't anyone no more voice an opinion WITHOUT being classified....

I don't know about you....but I'm NOT better off than I was 8 years ago...and I'll be damned if I'll take 4 more of the same with no hope in sight...anybody else lose money-work-etc...???Do you know who did???Are you next???Just food for thought before the holidays folks....

Random, I've been noticing your stupid remarks for some time now and I wonder how you contribute to the society.  Sitting on your butt and throwing out remarks is not adding value to the society.  If I am ill informed, prove me wrong and go donate your time / money.  I would like to see the left donate their time / money at least as much as the conservatives.  Don't give me this ill-informed crap unless you yourself have actually stepped out of your home and helped someone else.

Lingtaowoo, what do you mean 4 more years of the same withno hope in sight?  What have you done for your self to improve your situation or were you hoping the goverment will step in and do something?

pp2, your liberal dribble is typical.  "throwing money at a charity to help yourself out with your taxes" - this is the dumbest thing I have heard you say so far. 

catpaw; the lack of passing on education value is still parents responsibility.  You really have an invalid argument when you continue the same garbage about lack of education opportunity in this country.  I am a proof American success - I funded my own education and I wasn't even fortunate to get some of those really good scholarships saved for 'minorities'.  If you define what you want, you can get it.  It is purely a matter of how hard you're willing to work. 

AudreyB; if Obama gives you a tax break, what job are you going to create?  Even though Obama threatened to 'keep those companies in US', he will drive many out of US if he starts levying additional taxes (i.e. windfall / excess profit tax) or they'll simply pass on those burdens on to the consumers.  By giving those tax breaks to you and your liberal friends, you're not going to create economy.   The term is market economy. 

casooner,

"I've been noticing your stupid remarks for some time now and I wonder how you contribute to the society.  Sitting on your butt and throwing out remarks is not adding value to the society.  If I am ill informed, prove me wrong"

"pp2, your liberal dribble is typical.  "throwing money at a charity to help yourself out with your taxes" - this is the dumbest thing I have heard you say so far."

Maybe you aren't around very much. I've said things that were way dumber than that.

I'll vouch for PP's last comment.

I will say I think conservatives are a little anxious now and prone to panic~ and clearly they have some rather harsh opinions.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...

CATPAW:  "..............high school class of 2009, which next fall will send the greatest number of graduates on to college in American history."

For some reason students and their parents have, over the years, decided they were "entitled" to a 4 year University education right out of HS. Many have gotten away from their local 2 year and 4 year colleges. Going "away" to school has become the "norm". students have "expected" that their parents "will provide".  Reality has just raised its ugly head.................these kids might actually have to stay local and, God forbid, work to EARN college money.  I had a friend who became a pharmacist. He worked one semester full time, went to school one semester full time, etc. Took him longer then most but he did it - on his own. I know of many who today are professionals who got their educations that way.

One thing is certain. Under Bush, the middle class shrunk a whole lot. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. How has that worked out so far economically? If that trend continued, we'd end up being Mexico. George has put us in as much debt in 8 years, as his 42 fellow Presidents....COMBINED.

Trickle down economics? I don't know. If your personal wallet gets bigger because of lower taxes, are you going to create more jobs, or are you going to Cancun in your new boat? Why would you need to create new jobs, you're doing just fine with the status quo.

A graduated tax structure helps to keep the middle class healthy. The middle class is what makes the country thrive. Certainly you don't want to weigh down corporations with unfairly high taxes, but the system needs to be less complicated. There are far too many write offs that don't deserve to be write offs. If you want to entertain clients with rounds of golf and expensive dinners, you need to do it on your own dime. Those kind of write offs create an elitist sect of people who are taking money out of the nation's coiffures so they can basically party. Take Phamaceutical companies. You know what their biggest expenditure is..no not research...marketing. Overwhelmingly marketing. They take free lunches as bribes to medical facilites, while your Aunt May can't afford her blood pressure pills. Most of the real drug discoveries are done by Universities who get about 1% of the profit for their new drug. Most of the drugs that the Pharmaceutical companies create on their own, are drugs that are already out there. They just add an ingredient to get around patent laws.

Just as Colin Powell suggests, Obama has it right about the middle class. You can make the point that with more taxes on corps there will be less jobs, but if the middle class can't spend discretionary funds because they have to pay high gasoline and utility bills, then you're not going to need those extra jobs anyway, becaue there will be no one to buy what you're selling.

There has to be a balance. The balance has gone too far in the interests of guys making 19 million bucks for three weeks work (WAMU), or corporations getting 85 billion dollars only to go party at resorts with OUR money. And it is OUR money now, not theirs. So now the pendulum must swing back the other way. You can call medical care for children socialism. I prefer to call it an obligation as a member of the human race. Children aren't lazy bums living off the government, they are our most precious resource. If they have lazy no good for nothing parents, they can't be held responsible for that, and it's all the more reason they need help. If we don't get our education system going, if parents continue to have 4 jobs between them just to get by while CEOS get 20 million bucks as a "thanks for running our company into the ground" reward, the next generation will start their lives with shackles on them. Because they won't receive a good education, and the parents will have little time to parent.

Capitalism is great. It's the best system devised by man yet. But the kind of capitalism that works is the kind where you actually earn what you get. Instead of paying leadership by their potential, like a major leaguer making 5 million a year who can't hit his own weight, they need to be paid like golfers or tennis players. Show me results, I'll show you the money.

I don't know about greedy, but I would say there is an element of naivete when it comes to taxes. If you think taxes are going to shrink or remain the same with the current $700+ billion bail-out plan, then you're being naive. Some tax brackets, if not all tax brackets, are going to bear that burden.

The confusion I'm having here is that the topic is about conservatives, but then the word conservative is being replaced by Republican.  That's two different things.  The largest and loudest uproar ABOUT the Republican Party that is COMING FROM the Republican Party is coming from Conservatives who say they don't recognize the Republican Party any more because the vast majority of Republican don't behave like conservatives.

If you join the GOP it does not grant automatically that you embrace conservatism and the evidence we have of that is especially clear from the actions of the Bush Administration.

If you compare, for example, the Bush Administration's practice of paying for the things our country wants using credit, that is in NO way a principle of conservatism. It's the exact economic policy equal of what conservatives say about liberalism: that they "tax and spend".  Well, "borrow and spend" is even worse because it allows the government to run up enormous credit debt and the payment on that credit is deferred to the next, then the next, then the next generation. When you do that, the INTEREST on the credit snowballs so end up pay collasal debt that, if you had simply collected a tax for in the first place, you'd have paid off immediately and not have to spread the payments and interest over the next several generation of Americans.

Conservatives like myself see this practice of the Bush Administration as the major failure he had and he has had several failures that exceed biblical proportions.

So, what can you say about the people who voted for George Bush? I think it's fair to say that they supported his economic policy and, if so, they could in NO WAY be called conservatives.

So, CASooner90 (Go Sooners! I'm a born and raised Okie!), whom are you actually speaking about - conservatives or Republicans?  The term that has been used for the kind of Republicans we are seeing aligned with Bush economic policies are being called "neoconservatives" and they are the in the tank fundamentalist Christians for whom SOCIAL issues are the main draw to the the Republican Party, particularly the Pro-life and anti-gay issues.  Economically speaking, they are middle class people and one of the reasons this group is noted for being big givers to charity is because they belong to churches with full-time charitable missions.  What the research does not tell you is that a great many liberals are counted as conservatives because they, too, support most of the charitable causes that are religious based and tend to be lumped into the conservative category simply by virtue of giving to faith-bases charatible causes.

You'll have to read Adam Smith's "The Weath of Nations" to get the most objective answer about whether conservatives are greedy.  What Charles Darwin was to natural selection, Adam Smith was to economics. Smith's contention is that when it comes to money, we're ALL extremely selfish and, mind you, he wasn't taking about our morals. He was talking about who our real, everyday self-interests play out in reality.

Thanks for rewording what I've been saying, antiexteme. What I posted is not something I made up, it's fact. Ranting about lazy people on welfare and dependence on government and how I made it 10 or 20 years ago does not alter the state of affairs.

Incidently, when asked in the last debate who would he appoint as a Sec. of Treasury, McCain suggested Warren Buffet. Obama followed, saying Warren Buffet would be considered.

"BACK, BACK, BACK! DOWN, DOWN, DOWN! MINE, MINE, MINE"!   Daffy Duck, 1962.....Guess HE was a Conservative too!

I love Daffy Duck.

Exactly what I've been trying to say for years HM. Just exactly how is George Bush a conservative?

Just exactly how is George Bush a conservative?

Steal from the poor and give to the rich.  You don't think the politicians believe that stuff about "traditional values," do you?  That's just for the rubes, like Daffy.

.

Incidently, when asked in the last debate who would he appoint as a Sec. of Treasury, McCain suggested Warren Buffet.

Because he'd get lynched if it got out he's promised Phil "You're all a bunch of whiners" Gramm that spot.