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.
giving tax money back to allow people a choice in their lives is the best thing the government can do but liberals hate that because it means less control over the masses.
Prove this. All the arguments I see against the corporate welfare you support involve either less money being left for the public schools and the poorer students who use them. Or they involve the fact that this is corporate welfare; why is it up to your government to provide customers to these private schools? Or that quality of these private schools will drop because they won't be allowed to tune their student body such that only students who score high are admitted. There are others, but these are the ones that come to mind.
But I've never seen one that states liberals oppose school vouchers because it means less control over the masses. Could you provide me with whatever it is that led you to believe this is the case? Because it sounds like another of the silly claims so many right-wingers make here regarding "what liberals think" to me. Which is to say, mindless drivel.
Why do you hate the idea of allowing health plans compete across state lines?
Why do you feel children should be made to go to public schools even if the public school in their
area is a total mess ( i.e. Philadelphia ).
If you are so concerned about freedom, why not let the people decide what is best for their lives?
What I read here is mirror thinking. The right-wing believes that the government should do very little and can't do anything correctly. They are for smaller government as a matter of principle -- smaller government for its own sake. And so they naturally imagine that liberals must want bigger government as a goal in itself.
But it’s not true. I don’t know any liberals who gloat over increases in the federal payroll or the government share of GDP. Progressives have things they want the government to do -- like guaranteeing health care, making sure the environment is clean and making sure people are protected against big corporations. Size of government per se doesn’t matter. But people on the right apparently can’t get that.
On health care, there is really no such thing as "allowing health plans to compete across state lines." Health care is dominated by a small number of big insurance companies that exist in each state. Blue Cross of NY isn't going to compete against Blue Cross of NJ. They are the same company that happens to operate in different states.
Your public school "choice" question is really asking "why don't we give out vouchers so people can choose the school that fits them." Why? Because the vouchers never cover the full cost of sending a child to a private school. So poor kids can't afford the difference to attend the "better school." Vouchers are really a flim-flam designed to subsidize, with public funds, rich people who are going to send their kids to elite private schools anyway.
Quote:
If you are so concerned about freedom, why not let the people decide what is best for their lives?
I can ask the same question of conservatives. If they are all for freedom, why not let the woman decide what is best for their lives instead of trying to control their reproductive choices? You see, conservatism is hypocrisy. They are all for deregulating polluters and financial companies but really want to control different aspects of people's lives.
Republicans and Liberals are pretty much the same when it comes to the government spending, regulations and failed ideas. Bush II was a big spending, big government, more government regulation guy despite years of data showing big government has failed. Even Clinton admitted the era of big government was over but Bush II just "went against the grain" and expanded spending regulations and government programs.
. And so they naturally imagine that liberals must want bigger government as a goal in itself.
But it’s not true. I don’t know any liberals who gloat over increases in the federal payroll or the government share of GDP. Progressives have things they want the government to do -- like guaranteeing health care, making sure the environment is clean and making sure people are protected against big corporations. Size of government per se doesn’t matter.
You are being disingenuous, as liberals know by advocating government as the sole enforcer, their mission is accomplished, gov't grows in size.
Why do you hate the idea of allowing health plans compete across state lines?
Why do you feel children should be made to go to public schools even if the public school in their
area is a total mess ( i.e. Philadelphia ).
If you are so concerned about freedom, why not let the people decide what is best for their lives?
Liberals don't. I would like to see where some Liberal thinks that it is.
It's a straw-man argument where you are assigning this caricature of what you believe liberals to be, an intentional misrepresentation of people's positions, and attempting to assign it to everyone who disagrees with you. Straw-men only work when you are arguing with the voices in your head, not with real people.
Look at the squatter in the White House. He wants government in your everyday life.
Look at the squatter in the White House. He wants government in your everyday life.
Many actual liberals actually believe in a much smaller government then we have. Meanwhile, many of them are dumbfounded how so called "conservatives" sit there and think the government shrinks under their watch, when in recent decades it's grown faster than under the liberal watch. Oh that's right! It's in the name of "nation security" from all the monsters lurking in the shadows... Fear-mongering keeps you stuck in the past and docile.
and last I checked... liberals were much more a long the lines of personal freedoms than conservatives. Liberals aren't typically trying to tell a woman the rules of her body or who can marry who.
You are being disingenuous, as liberals know by advocating government as the sole enforcer, their mission is accomplished, gov't grows in size.
Relying solely upon your phraseology, who do you suggest should play the role of enforcer other than government? You, the mob, some corporation with a contract with Black Water (I don't think Pinkerton is still in the business)? Should we have a bunch of little fiefdoms acting as multiple adjudicators?
I patently await your reply.
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.
