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.
A man's greatest personal liability can be cynicism. Not in short supply here. Again, a part of the woe is me, self inflicted defeatism and entitlement syndrome. Why do some feel the need to split the profits withthe guy that initiates the work, takes the risk and in the long run contributes the most. Never understanding the behind the scenes contributions, the risk factor etc.
Scream about how it's your toy and you don't want to share. That's fine. We all have a right to our own property.
It's just that we notice that we have people who can't even meet the first two tiers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If they can't do that, then of course they can't get further. But your point of view is to kick them while they're down.
Why can't we just insure that all people have those basic survival needs met, to enhance the quality of society as a whole? Obviously charity doesn't cut it, or else there wouldn't be such problems now.
Quote:
If commmunism socialism should prevail in this country the equality many seek will be the equality of the lowest common denominator. Remove the reward potential I am not likely to try to better myself or work harder for greater reward. I am not envious that my boss makes more than me. I am one of those that think I am better qualified at half the pay. That does happen, but I think it is not the norm. I still don't envy those that make more.
Here we go with the black-and-white simplicity fallacies again.
You are arguing against a tiny fringe of people who want pure communism in this country - they are so fringe that they are basically irrelevant. They are a far cry from actual liberals in main stream society, yet you equivocate to make a fallacious point. Nice job.
The two party system you guys have is a joke. Sorry. Might have worked 200 years ago but the political views are all so diverse that two parties cannot cover them. Germany has 5 parties in the parlament now. They all represent different views and have voting power.
I think that would work in the US as well, but Rep/Dem are not gonna give up their power.
No apologies needed. Our two party system is a joke because in actuality they often act in unison to represent their own interests and not the people they claim to serve. You are right they will not give up their power with out a fight (figuratively I hope). They serve corporations, special interests, and pursue the expansion of their own power through legislation. Sadly, in America our politicians have legislated themselves in a ruling class just as it has happened so many times in human history. It would be very interesting to see they dynamics of 3, 4, or 5 parties in congress. More gridlock and corruption or less? I don't know the answer.
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?
First...we want to take over the world, of course, providing we win the swim suit competition.
Scream about how it's your toy and you don't want to share. That's fine. We all have a right to our own property.
It's just that we notice that we have people who can't even meet the first two tiers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If they can't do that, then of course they can't get further. But your point of view is to kick them while they're down.
Why can't we just insure that all people have those basic survival needs met, to enhance the quality of society as a whole? Obviously charity doesn't cut it, or else there wouldn't be such problems now.
Here we go with the black-and-white simplicity fallacies again.
You are arguing against a tiny fringe of people who want pure communism in this country - they are so fringe that they are basically irrelevant. They are a far cry from actual liberals in main stream society, yet you equivocate to make a fallacious point. Nice job.
How ridiculous your last comment. Obama is taking every imaginable step legally and illegally to reduce us to the lowest common denominator. nothing fringe about it it is quite mainstream with the libs. Why do we have to insure equality of outcome? I will repeat. This country offers sufficient benifits to its poor in both opportunity and downright gimies to insure basic comfort to those who will get off there asses and go get it. My dad was a truck farmer. A hard working truck farmer that raised 12 children and he had a first grade education. I remember how he would laugh at people that he offered food from a large garden he always raised. All they had to do was to come and pick what they wanted. Many of those he would offer the produce to would say, "Could you pick it and bring it to me"?
This is your mentality Logic. You and yours want us to plant, cultivate, and harvest and bring it to you. The concept is rather funny...ahhhaaa. Grab a spoon and dig in!
Their end game is to be told what to do, and how to live. They don't want anyone to have more success than them. They want everyone to be equal, so that they don't have to feel bad about themselves. Sad.
Their end game is to be told what to do, and how to live. They don't want anyone to have more success than them. They want everyone to be equal, so that they don't have to feel bad about themselves. Sad.
They will never admit that though. Instead they call conservatives fascist.
Funny how there are lots of people on the Left who have answered the question but people who disagree just choose to make up their own answers and pretend that it's true.
Funny how there are lots of people on the Left who have answered the question but people who disagree just choose to make up their own answers and pretend that it's true.
And because you are blind to what is going on, you say we are pretending. How is forcing us to buy a government product, going to make our lives better? Assuming that you are working, how is it that the government should take your money and tell you that they know better how to spend it? Why should everyone get a piece of your pie, if they didn't earn it?
How ridiculous your last comment. Obama is taking every imaginable step legally and illegally to reduce us to the lowest common denominator. nothing fringe about it it is quite mainstream with the libs.
Obama is going for full-fledged communism? Please!
Quote:
Why do we have to insure equality of outcome? I will repeat. This country offers sufficient benifits to its poor in both opportunity and downright gimies to insure basic comfort to those who will get off there asses and go get it. My dad was a truck farmer. A hard working truck farmer that raised 12 children and he had a first grade education. I remember how he would laugh at people that he offered food from a large garden he always raised. All they had to do was to come and pick what they wanted. Many of those he would offer the produce to would say, "Could you pick it and bring it to me"?
This is your mentality Logic. You and yours want us to plant, cultivate, and harvest and bring it to you. The concept is rather funny...ahhhaaa. Grab a spoon and dig in!
No one is starving because they are too lazy to go pick readily available produce themselves. Get real.
And because you are blind to what is going on, you say we are pretending. How is forcing us to buy a government product, going to make our lives better? Assuming that you are working, how is it that the government should take your money and tell you that they know better how to spend it? Why should everyone get a piece of your pie, if they didn't earn it?
Are YOU blind to what is going on in this country? Do you know anything about the current trend in the country's stratification of wealth?
You've totally ignored virtually everything anyone on the left has said in this thread, and are now honing in on health care as if that's some frivolous privilege. Why? I don't like our health care plan insofar as it maintains private insurance companies. Obviously, I would rather it be single payer, but nonetheless, I think everyone should be able to get health care. I don't think that counts as someone receiving something they didn't earn. No one should go bankrupt because they were injured.
The government has always taxed citizens, but now you complain because people will have better access to healthcare?
Conservatives want to continue the myth of social mobility without recognizing that our economic system militates against it without government intervention.
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.
