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 proper question is, To The Right You Obviously Don't Like The Way The Country Was Founded So What Nation Would You Prefer Us To Be Like?
Answer:
Republicans want small government (they want to abolish the EPA, IRS, FCC, FDA, ex.ex.)
Republicans want corporate deregulation.
Republicans want low taxes or no taxes.
Republicans want to abolish welfare, public schools, public libraries, government run SS, ex.ex.
What countries have small government, no EPA, FCC, or FDA, low taxes, no corporate regulation, no public schools, no welfare, ex.ex. ?
Answer: Afghanistan or Somalia.
Why don't you move to a country that already has your dream government installed, instead of destroying our present country that past Americans created?
And if (republicans) Reagan and GW Bush never cut rich peoples tax rates, and then wasted money on military spending. Then we would have no dangerous national debt or deficits, and everything would be fine.
Wrong! The Republicans don't want to eliminate those programs they want to stop the abuse and scam of them. They aren't opposed to helping the truly needy.
I am all for eliminating wasteful military spending and all other wasteful spending. Interesting you only mention military spending but not other wasteful spendings that I mentioned above. How wasteful is it of the liberal left to advocate for wasteful spending on illegal alien's social needs? Don't want to talk about that one either, right? Do you actually think that illegal aliens don't contribute to our national deficit?
I think the problem with those who argue that "we were not founded on Christian principles" is that many of them (perhaps all of them) were products of the public school system after any mention of religion in any teaching became taboo. Thus, they were not taught anything of the religious heritage of the founders, or of the influence of Christianity on the founding, and on our system of justice, and our laws.
When I was young, our history books did not leave out the fact that the Pilgrims were Christians who came to escape religious persecution, or that religion played a large part in the politics of the day. In fact, the colonists' belief that they had a "right to resistance" came from their interpretation of the Bible.
My parents were in charge of my religious upbringing. That was not the fuction of the school. I can not for the life of me understrand why people that so mistrust the government and want self-sufficiency would ever let their children be indoctinated by bureaucrats.
If the school wanted to start to teach a homogenous watered-down version of christianity...emphisising Christ socialist mesages. How many folk would be clamoring for the school to stop.
I'm not so worried about the way the country was founded. I'm worried about the way it is now, mostly shackled by a bunch of weirdo fringe tea party idiots in congress.
The country I wish we were more like would be the country before the insane took over the asylum.
So, you provide no evidence in support of your assertion that "welfare doesn't expand rights or economic opportunity," and everyone is supposed to accept that assertion as fact?
It doesn't need support. It is self evidently true. Anything that is purchased with money is by definition not a right. That would necessarily mean you had a right to someone else's labor - and that is slavery. So handing out money does not expand or guarantee rights. No evidence is needed to support fundamental truth. It's like asking for evidence that slavery is evil.
Quote:
David Mamet is a play-write, with no particular expertise in this field. Michael Medved is radio host, author, political commentator and film critic -- again, with no particular expertise. David Horowitz is a conservative writer and generally considered a crank. I see no reason to accept their view in light of so much contrary evidence that helping the economically distressed does increase economic opportunity.
That comment was in regards to the experience that former liberals have when they convert to conservatism, not about economics. Each of them has written books about their conversion from liberalism to conservatism and how it caused their self-described open minded and tolerant friends and associates to shun and attack them:
The fact that poverty has dropped dramatically since 1959, as programs that aide the poor have come on-line, is evidence that can't be ignored.
The fact that poverty was already dropping dramatically prior to 1959, before programs that aid the poor came online, is evidence that can't be ignored. Poverty was already declining, so declining poverty is not evidence of liberal tax and spend policies working. Correlation does not imply causation.
The fact that poverty was already dropping dramatically prior to 1959, before programs that aid the poor came online, is evidence that can't be ignored.
Except that it is factually incorrect.
Aid to Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935, along with Social Security for which the act is named after. The federal minimum wage was established in 1938.
The rapid drop in poverty levels that occur between 1959 and 1967 was due to a substantial increase in Social Security benefits.
The first back projection uses the simplest projection procedure, scaling all incomes by the ratio of average earnings in the simulation year to average earnings in 1997. This procedure substantially underestimates poverty rates of the elderly in 1959, approaching the correct levels only in the late 1970s.
This underestimate is almost entirely the result of a series of increases in Social Security benefits from 1950 through the mid-1970s that gradually worked their way through the elderly population. The structure of benefits in 1997 is not appropriate for the simulation of the structure in 1959, both because the overall level of benefits relative to average earnings was lower in 1959 and because the age structure of benefits--average benefits paid to 85-year-olds compared with average benefits paid to 65-year-olds--was much different then.
Because the benefit formulas have been relatively stable since the early 1980s, the simple projection procedure performed better in the second half of the historical period and should perform better for projections into the future. There is reason, however, for caution about merely extrapolating that procedure. As shown later, the poverty rate simulations are much more sensitive to changes in Social Security benefits than to any other component of retirement income, so it is important that the structure of Social Security benefits in the projection be as accurate as possible. The 1997 benefit structure differs from the future benefit structure in two known ways. First, it does not include the effects of the scheduled increases in the normal retirement age for workers who reach 65 from 2003 through 2025, increases that will have the effect of slightly reducing benefit levels. Second, as the 1997 population of beneficiaries dies, the effects of some expired benefit provisions that do not apply to new beneficiaries will gradually disappear.
The impression I get is that some on the right have an equally dislike of US principles. Many here seem to argue that we should NOT have equality while a much larger group seems to support the idea that Christianity should be the official state religion while all others should be suppressed.
None of those ideas are typical of the left-leaning posters.
So, to paraphrase your thread title and make equally sweeping and nonsensical generalizations:
If the Right doesn't like the way the country was founded, similar to what nation would you like us to be?
rubbish. i am a conservative, and i want the country to follow the constitution as it is today. that means marriage is left to the STATES, as is education and a number of other things the federal government has usurped from the states illegally and unconstitutionally.
Not to speak for the Democrats... no. The Communists have their own party.
Of course they do.
But the more pragmatic ones align more closely with liberal (D's) than (R's), and will vote (D) as well. They are clearly not shunned by the (D's) as they are by the (R's).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Your assumption that Communists are criminal or evil is a problem. They are neither. So it doesn't matter if they are on the left side of the political spectrum. Their numbers are so small in the United States, in the 1950's and today, that they are politically irrelevant.
McCarthy's fear-mongering and subsequent persecution of a politically irrelevant group of people solely for the purpose of advancing his own political ambitions is most deserving of being reviled.
And the Founding Fathers were absolutely, unequivocally political liberals of their time. The very concept, that a people could rule themselves, was beyond liberal for the times. The Tea Party is not advancing new or revolutionary ideas, the Tea Party is advancing reactionary ideas. And rebellion from a Monarchy in the mid to late 18th idea was decidedly a liberal notion.
I expected more of a well thought out reply, but then again I do not know you as a poster well enough to have given you the benefit of the doubt.
First I was speaking of how communists were perceived in the 50's and prefaced my comment by saying it was up for debate as to whether they deserved to be treated like "criminals/evil" (your terms). Regardless that has nothing to do with the overall point.
The word liberal has different meaning to different people in different eras. To say the FF's were liberals as we understand the term in modern times, would be akin to thinking Irish Republicans were conservatives.
Of course they do.
But the more pragmatic ones align more closely with liberal (D's) than (R's), and will vote (D) as well. They are clearly not shunned by the (D's) as they are by the (R's).
I expected more of a well thought out reply, but then again I do not know you as a poster well enough to have given you the benefit of the doubt.
First I was speaking of how communists were perceived in the 50's and prefaced my comment by saying it was up for debate as to whether they deserved to be treated like "criminals/evil" (your terms). Regardless that has nothing to do with the overall point.
The word liberal has different meaning to different people in different eras. To say the FF's were liberals as we understand the term in modern times, would be akin to thinking Irish Republicans were conservatives.
Believing in communism is not illegal nor should it be. One of the founding principles of this nation is freedom of speech and thought, which ironically you ignore.
Wrong! The Republicans don't want to eliminate those programs they want to stop the abuse and scam of them. They aren't opposed to helping the truly needy.
Would you like videos of Republicans stating they want to dismantle the various programs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I am all for eliminating wasteful military spending and all other wasteful spending. Interesting you only mention military spending but not other wasteful spendings that I mentioned above.
A picture is worth a a thousand words... Obviously we need to cut science funding.
How wasteful is it of the liberal left to advocate for wasteful spending on illegal alien's social needs? Don't want to talk about that one either, right? Do you actually think that illegal aliens don't contribute to our national deficit?
They don't in any meaningful way. Illegals depress wages, but they aren't causing our deficits or significantly contributing to our deficits.
Last edited by CaseyB; 10-11-2013 at 11:02 AM..
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.
