Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by silas777 Alright, I said Liberals could have said any one on the left. I am talking economics here, don't care about homos, enviros, feminist etc.......... So here's the deal, you are for big Government, you think the government should be providing health care, Social Security, Medicare, all the goodies, education, on and on and on, we all know the gig. So the question is and it is a serious question, I expect civil responses.........what is the end game where does it end? We know that you are very willing and eager to cut spending from the defense budget, you think the "wealthy" are keeping entirely too much of their own money and Corporations are obligated to pay the government much more than they do. So, when you have brought the wealthy down to the appropriate wealth, gutted the military to an acceptable level and levied the maximum against the corporations,then what? Is there a point where you say all is good? Where do you go next? Do you lower the definition of wealthy? In your minds what does the perfect scenario look like? Is there a point where you think Government would be to big? Where and how does it end?
Your assumptions about liberals are all wrong. That is your biggest error. I know of not one single person who believes what you and other conservatives claim liberals believe in. Not one. But since you've been posting for several years and have yet to realize this, how could anyone answer your question when you insist on wearing blinders? Your question reads like paranoia, as if you think that liberals must be up to no good. That in itself should disqualify this entire discussion. However...
I believe in redistribution of wealth. You obviously think, like many do, that hard work brings success and wealth. No, it does not. I think the wealthy and especially corporations should pay taxes. Didn't I just read (I wish I could remember where) that ExxonMobil hasn't paid a dime in income tax over the last few years? Shouldn't a company making $100 billion in profit owe the government something in taxes? Why should the burden fall on the millions who make minimum wage? If redistribution of wealth is a liberal idea, it is the best idea out there. Trickle down, anyone? Nah, never happened.
I believe in big government because I don't trust any government. But what kind of "big" do you ask? I believe people should get involved in their government and watch its officials like a hawk. That would mean two or three times as many people working in our government...and continuing to do so until the government does its job: for the people and by the people. When it can be made to be the extension of the will of the population, then its size should be diminished.
Many others think of "big" government as one that is intrusive. Here I am not in agreement, but you can't expand government like I describe above and leave the corporations unattended. I believe in regulation of all corporate citizens, because they, above all, are the least to earn my trust. They are what turns the wheels of government and almost every law benefits them. If we're going to give citizenship status to corporations, then we should demand they be model citizens, ones that respect the environment, the law, and the will of the people. Until this major problem is addressed, small government is a very bad idea. Small government might as well be a dictator or no government at all.
I believe in socialized medicine just like we socialize police and fire protection, water and sewer services, etc. But unlike the misguided liberals who feel sorry for their fellow man when no such pity should be granted, welfare is something I oppose. It is the slavery of our times. Liberals' hearts may be in the right place, but they don't get how being nice can also mean being victimized.
The endgame of liberals is the exact same endgame as the conservatives: a better country. What people fail to realize first and foremost is that the goals are the same. It's only the method that's different.
What in the world are you talking about? You think that if the U.S. decreases its absurd military spending, the world will suddenly drop the front of global diplomacy and invade our shores?
Our moronic politicians, present ones included have demonstrated the willingness to spend billions, overspend you would say, to guard the front door while leaving the back door flung wide open. The answer to your question is yes, not only would they invade but they are invading. What the Islamic world for instance needs is a huge smack down, not a lash here and there, a knock out punch. Then there is China, et al. the answer to your question is yes. You nailed it yourself, "the front of global diplomacy".
The people that want the entitlement programs have been raised to be lazy and unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. What a pathetic lot we have become.
My grandfather loves his social security, and he is far from lazy.
You don't know what in the hell you're talking about.
Sorry, kev, but I am neither lazy or unwilling to take responsibility for myself although my savings did take a hard hit lately. I started paying in to SS at age 12 when I started working and paid up to the time when I stopped being self-employed at age 72 when I had a heart attack.
I suppose you consider SS as an entitlement even though it never was for its first 15 years in existence and then the Congress started spending what they called surplus SS payments. If they had kept their fingers out of that we would have more than $3 trillion in the fund and wouldn't be in so much trouble. SS is not an entitlement other than to some people who would work the system one way or another, anyway.
I have told this story too many times tonight so will gladly stop doing it. Nobody ever reads my rants about SS anyway.
I couldn't agree more. Most of the people on "entitlement" programs are those who worked all their lives, and paid into the system with their hard work, just like you.
People seem to think its a bunch of welfare cases, and that couldn't be further from the truth.
Alright, I said Liberals could have said any one on the left. I am talking economics here, don't care about gays, enviros, feminist etc.......... So here's the deal, you are for big Government, you think the government should be providing health care, Social Security, Medicare, all the goodies, education, on and on and on, we all know the gig. So the question is and it is a serious question, I expect civil responses.........what is the end game where does it end? We know that you are very willing and eager to cut spending from the defense budget, you think the "wealthy" are keeping entirely too much of their own money and Corporations are obligated to pay the government much more than they do. So, when you have brought the wealthy down to the appropriate wealth, gutted the military to an acceptable level and levied the maximum against the corporations,then what? Is there a point where you say all is good? Where do you go next? Do you lower the definition of wealthy? In your minds what does the perfect scenario look like? Is there a point where you think Government would be to big? Where and how does it end?
You guys just had 8 years of Bush,how close to perfection did you get with your man at the helm? ah yes so close that the American majority voted in a new party and a new leader
What are Liberal goals? make every one happy,
Where will it end? when every one is happy
Chances of Liberal success? Zero
Chances of Republican success? also Zero
Point of this topic? a satirical example of pointless.
Alright, I said Liberals could have said any one on the left. I am talking economics here, don't care about gays, enviros, feminist etc.......... So here's the deal, you are for big Government, you think the government should be providing health care, Social Security, Medicare, all the goodies, education, on and on and on, we all know the gig. So the question is and it is a serious question, I expect civil responses.........what is the end game where does it end? We know that you are very willing and eager to cut spending from the defense budget, you think the "wealthy" are keeping entirely too much of their own money and Corporations are obligated to pay the government much more than they do. So, when you have brought the wealthy down to the appropriate wealth, gutted the military to an acceptable level and levied the maximum against the corporations,then what? Is there a point where you say all is good? Where do you go next? Do you lower the definition of wealthy? In your minds what does the perfect scenario look like? Is there a point where you think Government would be to big? Where and how does it end?
Alright, I said Conservatives could have said anyone on the right ('cause you are all the same). I am talking economics here, as you obviously don't care about equal rights, the environment, pursuit of happiness, etc......... So here's the deal, you are for Chaos, you think the government doesn't represent the people, but is some sort of evil plot to steal your money, that our society should let old people die homeless and penniless like they used to, that sweat shops are a good idea to have here in America, that we should bomb the rest of the planet into submission, on a and on and on, we all know your complete lack of compassion, empathy and any sense of moral fortitude, we all know the gig. So the question is and it is a serious question, I expect civil responses.........what is the end game where does it end? We know that you are very willing and eager to invade other countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people, possibly start WWIII, you think having the poorest people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than rich people do is a-ok, you think that having the richest 400 people in this country have the same amount of wealth has 51% of Americans is cool even if some of those 400 people pay nothing in Federal income taxes, you think corporations can buy whatever politicians and judges they want to. So, when you have invaded Iran and Korea, started WWIII, concentrated 90% of the wealth to less than 1% of the population, put our nation in even more debt, then what? Is there a point where you say all is good? Where do you go next? What about all the poor homeless people (that used to be Republicans) and are now just servants of the richest? Do you lower the definition of poverty to a couple of nickels you can rub together? In your minds what does the perfect scenario look like? The top 2,000 wealthiest people control everything? Everyone has a gun and it's every man, woman, and child for them self? Is there a point where you think Government would be to small? Where and how does it end?
Is that a civil answer to a "reasonable' question?
So, again. The ball is in your court. Do you have a specific question, or are generalizations going to be the name of the game.
Tx , from this post you are obviously not who the thread was addressed too, yet you jumped in to criticize and badger , like somehow i was speaking to a group who does not exist. I respect your positions and you will notice I have not attacked any one who gave an honest answer to the very clear original questions.Like I said, I know where i see the end result of my belief, I want to know how those on the opposite side see it panning out. Why so confrontational?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
