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.
Hello? The entire social conservative agenda isn't "government intrusion?" Here's what drives me nuts about the new republicans--the radical right wingers. You want to regulate personal behavior that doesn't impact the rest of society, but you want NO government for the things that do. I'm a small business owner--is it "over regulation" to stop companies from dumping toxins in my drinking water? No. Is it "over regulation" to make sure drugs we release on the market are actually safe for people to use? No. Putting those safe guards in place are part of the cost of doing business--they protect MY rights. You have to use some common sense. I believe in a free market, but not when it's unrestricted to the point where you can cause harm to others to make a higher profit. That's why NO government doesn't work.
We have anti-dumping laws. I don't think anyone is calling for their repeal.
And you have to be naive to think the FDA does a good job at making sure drugs are safe. How many people die because of prescription drugs? Didn't VIOXX kill over 50,000? Nice job FDA. How many side effects do these things have? Do any of them actaully cure anything? The government does nothing to protect us from the dangers of drugs. Neither do the drug companies.
And what personal behavior do republicans want to regulate that doesn't affect others. I always hear this claim but never any evidence. Gay marriage? Just look at election results in places liek California and Oregon. It's pretty obvious liberals want to regulate behaivior also. What other behavior do conservatives want to regulate? Behavior that doesn't harm others.
I'm a moderate (a "small c" conservative) and here's what I don't get--so called big C "Conservatives" (you know, the ones that call people like me a RINO) are for HUGE government when it comes to enforcing socially conservative behavior, and then they basically want almost no government on economic issues. In doing that, you create a rule free, survival of the fittest type environment where a few people make it big on the backs of everyone else, and the rest of the country suffers.
In civilized societies, people create rules, or laws, so that one group can't easily take advantage of another. This country is founded on LAW. It's not about a free ride--it's about a level playing field--if the rules are completely stacked against you from the beginning, there can be no upward mobility. I'm a small business owner--I pay out the nose in taxes (my personal income tax rate) and HIRE people, while some big companies make huge profits, and often pay no taxes by hiding money off shore, hire off shore, and get pork on top of it from the government (because guess who funds Conservative politicians?). The rules aren't fair, and we're moving back to the days of corporate robber barons in this country. That isn't about smaller government--it's about no protections for most of us, and a free ride for big business. That's why I'm not opposed to unions--what's wrong with a group of employees banding together to sell their services through a fair, negotiated contract to their employer? I insist on fair terms for my business--why shouldn't they?
We have anti-dumping laws. I don't think anyone is calling for their repeal.
And you have to be naive to think the FDA does a good job at making sure drugs are safe. How many people die because of prescription drugs? Didn't VIOXX kill over 50,000? Nice job FDA. How many side effects do these things have? Do any of them actaully cure anything? The government does nothing to protect us from the dangers of drugs. Neither do the drug companies.
And what personal behavior do republicans want to regulate that doesn't affect others. I always hear this claim but never any evidence. Gay marriage? Just look at election results in places liek California and Oregon. It's pretty obvious liberals want to regulate behaivior also. What other behavior do conservatives want to regulate? Behavior that doesn't harm others.
Welly you already mentioned gay marriage. There's also abortion. Most people I know who want censorship are usually conservative. Don't forget about the "PATRIOT" Act and warrant-less wiretapping that are both supported by right wing Republicans. Then we have the bloated, expansive military and our foreign policy of sticking our noses into our countries' business. Add in the tax kickbacks and pork that they give back to their corporate paymasters....er I mean donors. Put it all together and you have a large intrusive expensive government.
That's just a dumb recognition. The private sector has and does provide every single service the government "performs". And does it better. And at 2-4 times less cost. The only reason anyone wants more government is because they are naive or power hungry. That's it. There is no evidence that the market has ever failed at providing anything.
If you are so naive to think the private sector moves for any reason other than profit then you are deluded. If you recall the private banking sector created a great economic mess we are facing today. With the beginnings in greed they created ways to soak the public and then get the public to cover their bad bets. .... and this is the sector you want to put all your eggs in? That's the perfect solution for getting poached in the process.
To equate liberals with big gov is yet another attack from the right... you know the side that in gov allows the business to strip the country of resources, ship jobs overseas and then give them their money back when they have a bad bet....
If a liberal is for anything it is holding accountable the thieves in either government or business. Give me a year to run things and expect to see the prisons bristling with some starched shirts. You want to see smaller gov... you would from me, but that doesn't mean I'd close the doors of the watchdogs, just eliminate the duplication, and unneeded services.
I would give Congress notice their health care would end in 1 month and that they need to come up with a new one but the package they come up with will be theirs as well as the rest of the country. Think they will still allow insurance companies to rule the roost?
influence pedaling would become one of the most egregious crimes in the country. Would gov solve everyones problems...NO but they would do what they can to make roads smoother and not make the problems worse.
When you like to lay all the woes of the world on liberals... remember the biggest gov, the largest tax increases and the greatest attacks on the Constitution came from the right side as did the greatest looting of the US.
I guess the right has reason to hate us liberals... we are the ones that will put you in jail when we catch wind of the misdeeds....(of either side)
Poor people get food because of capitalistic farmers, not because of food stamps. Look at the history of events leading to the first Thanksgiving to see what happens when you get government involved in feeding people. Hint: people starve.
Capitalists also provide for peoples retirement. And at a better return than Social Security.
What atrocities by private comapnies? WWI? WW2? Vietnam? Chernobyl? Ukranian Terror Famine? the Cultural Revolution? Government is responsible for over 200 million deaths in the 20th century alone. How many is the private sector responsible for? LOLs.
There are plenty of examples of private firefighters, law enforcement, museums, libraries, schools, zoning rules and everything else you mention. All one has to do is look around. And they all work just fine and at less cost.
Toxins are kept out of water because some private engineer developed a machine and/or process to make it so.
Government has made health care more expensive. It suppresses the number of doctors, it makes people purchase insurance through employers, it makes doctors hire excess people just to fill out paperwork. And most reports show that under Obamacare millions will still not have health insurance.
There is a doctor in Greeneville, Tennessee. He won't take Medicare, Medicaid, insurance etc...He has one nurse working for him. He sees every patient on time. He charges 80% less than other doctors. He has to turn away potential patients because he cannot keep up with demand. Imagine that, if we got government out of the medical business costs would drop 80%. At the least.
And religiuos people are going to decide your medical care if the government doesn't? LMAFAO. There is a religious hospital a couple miles from me. They don't turn away patients based on religious orientation nor do they make you go to services. Matter of fact, a Muslim friend of mine goes there on occassion.
So far you have mentioned absolutly nothing that the government does that the private sector can't also do. Except for protesting. Funny though, people almost always only protest controversies created by government. Rarely do you see a protest of a private entity (unless prvate entity is messed up with the govt somehow). No government=no need for protests.
You need to provide some proof that only government is capable of providing certain services. It sounds like a radical claim to me. Especially when the private sector provides every service that government does. And what seperates certain goods? What is the difference? Why are some easily provided by capitalism while others aren't? Surely there is something that makes it easy to determine.
You have blinded yourself to reality, kid. There's not much I can say except to wish you well. Your views are completely wrong as the facts have proven:
If you think farms are capitalist, you are simply uninformed. Look up the "Farm Bill" and educate yourself. Farming is the most subsidized industry we have. That said, I never said food stamps replace farming. That's absurd. As I said in the beginning, government is best at filling in the gaps where the market fails.
Free market health care left 30 million uninsured and denied coverage to anybody with pre-exisiting conditions. The U.S. was ranked 39th worldwide, right behind Slovenia. I'm a pro-life Christian, so protecting the sanctity of life is important to me and this new health care law is a step in that direction.
I was referring to the private contractors in Iraq and the lack of a moral code in undertaking their duties. I don't defend most wars, though some are necessary and one of our Constitutional charges is national defense.
The whole reason fire and police went public in the 19th century is because of the chaos created by multiple private firms competing for every emergency.
As is evident by companies flooding to the least regulated, lowest-wage markets in the world, as well as our own dubious industrial track record, toxins are not universally kept out by innovation. Just look at the mining industry and the landscapes in our own country they have devastated. Look at the increased cancer rates in many factory towns.
Again, though, you seem to have a black-and-white view that doesn't see the nuance of my position. Technology and innovation is an incredible tool for minimizing pollution, and as that increases our need for regulation decreases. However, we are not there yet. We need government to fill in the gaps until we get there.
Religious people do refuse to conduct medical procedures with which they disagree all the time. The bottom line is, I want a voice and government by the people, of the people, and for the people, when executed properly, provides that opportunity. The insurance industry is driven by profit, and therefore has a built in self-interest to deny as much services as possible once they have your money. As a pro-life Christian, I just don't think life and death should be left to such short-sighted ambition.
There's no need to go back and forth on this. I won't be here all day and I have no interest in having you regurgitate your radical agenda over and over. I get it. You're wrong, but I understand your position.
Depends on what you're talking about, exactly. I think most liberals would say that the government has no right to interfere in our personal social behavior. Social liberals usually fight for less government regulation in who we marry and what we do with our bodies. Liberals also fought to give blacks and women the right to vote. Conservatives wanted the government to continue to restrict these groups from participating in the democratic process.
Who gave women the right to vote:
Alice Paul fought for this and she and her group is why women have the right to vote against the Democrats that tried to keep that away from women. Alice Paul was a Quaker
There is a movie you can watch if you dont want to read it is called Iron Jawed Angels with Hillary swank and a few other top actors that depict the women getting the vote process. The DEMOCRATS were the anti women ones.
Welly you already mentioned gay marriage. There's also abortion. Most people I know who want censorship are usually conservative. Don't forget about the "PATRIOT" Act and warrant-less wiretapping that are both supported by right wing Republicans. Then we have the bloated, expansive military and our foreign policy of sticking our noses into our countries' business. Add in the tax kickbacks and pork that they give back to their corporate paymasters....er I mean donors. Put it all together and you have a large intrusive expensive government.
I said a socail issue that doesn'rt harm another. Abortion harms people. Only person I remember seriuosly making an effort to have government censorship was Tipper Gore. A Democrat.
Democrats support the Patriot Act and everyting else you say. Dems just had 2 years to reverse these laws and did nothing. Obama has more ex Wall Streeters in office than any president before him.
I said a socail issue that doesn'rt harm another. Abortion harms people. Only person I remember seriuosly making an effort to have government censorship was Tipper Gore. A Democrat.
Democrats support the Patriot Act and everyting else you say. Dems just had 2 years to reverse these laws and did nothing. Obama has more ex Wall Streeters in office than any president before him.
Who gave women the right to vote:
Alice Paul fought for this and she and her group is why women have the right to vote against the Democrats that tried to keep that away from women. Alice Paul was a Quaker
That long ago the parties were mostly switched, the GOP was widely liberal and the Democrats (mostly from the South) were conservative. They didn't start to switch to present day form during the Civil Rights movement.
If you are so naive to think the private sector moves for any reason other than profit then you are deluded. If you recall the private banking sector created a great economic mess we are facing today. With the beginnings in greed they created ways to soak the public and then get the public to cover their bad bets. .... and this is the sector you want to put all your eggs in? That's the perfect solution for getting poached in the process.
To equate liberals with big gov is yet another attack from the right... you know the side that in gov allows the business to strip the country of resources, ship jobs overseas and then give them their money back when they have a bad bet....
If a liberal is for anything it is holding accountable the thieves in either government or business. Give me a year to run things and expect to see the prisons bristling with some starched shirts. You want to see smaller gov... you would from me, but that doesn't mean I'd close the doors of the watchdogs, just eliminate the duplication, and unneeded services.
I would give Congress notice their health care would end in 1 month and that they need to come up with a new one but the package they come up with will be theirs as well as the rest of the country. Think they will still allow insurance companies to rule the roost?
influence pedaling would become one of the most egregious crimes in the country. Would gov solve everyone's problems...NO but they would do what they can to make roads smoother and not make the problems worse.
When you like to lay all the woes of the world on liberals... remember the biggest gov, the largest tax increases and the greatest attacks on the Constitution came from the right side as did the greatest looting of the US.
I guess the right has reason to hate us liberals... we are the ones that will put you in jail when we catch wind of the misdeeds....(of either side)
Q-Why are liberals against limited government? A-look how brilliant they are.
Last edited by westwaswon; 03-05-2011 at 07:57 AM..
Reason: I did not know this was a child
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.
