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.
The GOP hands down are the kings of forcing big government and anti-freedom on america..
You might want to rethink that statement. I know the GOP likes to control some freedoms, but the Dems have outdone them by far. Here are just a few of the things Obama and Dems like to control, oppose, outlaw or restrict;
1. Oppose legalized gambling
2. Oppose legalized prostitution
3. Oppose free speech
4. Oppose legalized drugs
5. Oppose smoking
6. Outlawed flavored cigarettes
7. Control salt
8. Outlawed Trans fats
9. Outlawed Foie gras
10. Restrict gun ownership
11. Restrict business hours
12. Control product packaging
13. Restrict who can operate a business
14. Require registration when purchasing Draino.
15. Control wages.
But how is national sales tax better when it will increase the burden on lower wage earners who spend most of their income on purchases and have virtually no savings? This would be against the philosophy preached by Adam Smith.
There would be plenty of revenue at the state and federal level to
take care of the "very poor", not to mention a thing called:
"Charity" - theory of moral sentiment, I'd say....
There would be plenty of revenue at the state and federal level to
take care of the "very poor", not to mention a thing called:
"Charity" - theory of moral sentiment, I'd say....
There is never a definition of "plenty of money" is there? And this country wasn't founded on charity dictated policies. As for charity, Adam Smith was well aware of self-centered motivations, which would not exclude lack of charity. If anything, he recognized that the rich and the poor are in no position to share the same burdens. If those who make a lot more, complain about having to pay more, why is it that the society would be better off if they were given what they wanted to begin with? They will suddenly become charitable?
So I have been confused on this for some time now. I can't figure out if I am supose to like them or even if they are the same thing.
They're far from the same thing, though the Libertarians somehow manage to make themselves sound warm and fuzzy, like Dems.
Libertarians believe in virtually no government. Like the Republicans, but more radically so. Dems believe that gov't needs to step in to provide services, to distribute tax revenues (tax the rich, provide aid to the poor, and unemployment benefits to people who've lost their jobs due to corruption in the banking industry and poor fiscal policy under the Republicans), etc. There must be plenty of info on Libertarians, as well as analysis of their policies, on the internet.
You are exactly right. This country was not founded on charity dictating
policies of taxation.
Churches already get tax exempt status.
I surely believe they would/do exert their "charitable" nature on a daily basis.
I have no reason to think otherwise. Do you?
A high production economy benefits society. Not
one choked by government taxation. It's the "government's "hand"
that gets in the way...
And did you know, they have automatic checking withdrawal to
give monthly, to the charity of your choice
You are exactly right. This country was not founded on charity dictating
policies of taxation. Churches already get tax exempt status.
I surely believe they would/do exert their "charitable" nature on a daily basis.
I have no reason to think otherwise. Do you?
A high production economy benefits society. Not
one choked by government taxation. It's the "government's "hand"
that gets in the way...
And did you know, they have automatic checking withdrawal to
give monthly, to the charity of your choice
And I have a problem with that.
Choking of economy is a poor excuse given the times this country actually grew, versus when it didn't and hasn't. What we should demand is efficient use of tax cuts, not promote a political agenda and ideological grounds. The same goes for government. Instead of an anti-government crusade, people ought to grow up and work to fix it and make it work.
What we should demand is efficient use of tax cuts, not promote a political agenda and ideological grounds. The same goes for government. Instead of an anti-government crusade, people ought to grow up and work to fix it and make it work.
Start with no tax hikes in the first place.
What ever your personal political ideological stand is, or mine,
neither one of us should be paying for it at the federal level.
I agree with Paul.
You want to fix the government, and make it work?
Start with cutting five government agencies:
Dept. Energy,
Dept. Commerce,
Dept. Education
Dept. Housing and Urban Development
Dept. of Interior
All "unnecessary bureaucracies" at astronomical cost.
We can go from there.
Start with no tax hikes in the first place.
What ever your personal political ideological stand is, or mine,
neither one of us should be paying for it at the federal level. I agree with Paul.
And I don't agree with the idea of going back to the Articles of Confederation. Federal government has responsibilities that it must undertake, constitutionally granted.
Quote:
You want to fix the government, and make it work?
Start with cutting five government agencies:
Dept. Energy,
Dept. Commerce,
Dept. Education
Dept. Housing and Urban Development
Dept. of Interior
And hence come the push of ideological grounds masquerading as a fix. Radical ideas won't work. These departments exist for a reason, and we must fix something, we ought to consider why they were brought about. Of these, President Obama proposed elimination of Dept of Commerce and replace it with one that focuses on trade and exports. Which would make sense, towards a fix, but ain't radical enough for those who keep the push on ideological grounds. This is why our government is inefficient. We don't work to make it better, we work to push ideologies and politicians (Ron Paul and Rick Perry alike) go at lengths to take advantage of that fact.
The GOP hands down are the kings of forcing big government and anti-freedom on america.
You can see how the GOP has gone off their rockers with attacks on women over contraceptives, forced mammograms, attacks on a woman's freedom to choose what they can and can't do with their body, the patriot act, forcing religion on others, very strict alcohol regulations, mainly in the bible belt etc,..
When it comes down to it, liberals and libertarians are much more in line with wanting freedom..
Total nonsense. What do you even get out of these exchanges? You clearly have no interest in a reasoned, rational discourse, so what is it all about?
A libertarian believes in self reliance a liberal believes in reliance on the government birth to grave
Lol
Liberals tend to be more educated and tend to want equal rights for all people. Equal rights can be good or bad depending on how you look at it.
Libertarians tend to be very old school, don't really value change and tend to rather rather a isolated country with little issues than a bigger country with more issues, if that means having more enemies then so be it. Pretty much from 90 amd beyond was mostly liberal, every president including the last bush had serious liberal views.
I don't think liberal are assistance lovers, a tad bit more understanding than the just die and focus a favor strong armed view of the right.
Last edited by stick2dascript; 04-25-2012 at 03:23 PM..
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.
