Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2008, 07:30 PM
 
Location: At my computador
2,057 posts, read 3,404,108 times
Reputation: 510

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid View Post
Economically, obvious people that are wealthy. Remember, I'm talking about what is in one's best interest economically speaking.
Ohhh... So, you're suggesting that we sell our liberty because it's in our financial interest?

Quote:
Anyhow, they ways they'd benefit are obvious. Taxes would be cut for lower income families and raised on higher income families. It only takes a modest raise in the taxes of the wealthy to support decent sized tax cuts on lower income families. So call "trickle down economics" is just a fantasy, it never works. Democrats are also more likely to make health care available to lower income families. They are also more likely to support programs that help lower income families.
That sounds nice and, honestly, I wish it would work that way. However, it doesn't and I'll tell you why.

Suppose the government has 12 programs implemented. (The number is arbitrary, I just need something for an example.) Suppose 6 of those programs are related to the nation (defense, environment, etc.), 3 effect your state and 3 effect your Congressional district.

After ten years, your area begins to rely on the 6 programs that effect your area. Your Representative (you have one of those in Congress; in the House) and your Senators (you have two of those in Congress; in the Senate) are then forced to to sell their voting power to get support for your areas 6 programs. Rather than vote their conscience, or vote up or down on a national bill according to the best interest of the nation, your Congresspeople have to vote in a way that will get them support for your 6 programs.

That's the practical problem with socialist legislation. It corruptive.

Quote:
Supporting your idea of "American freedom" is not my responsibility.
Depends in if you believe in classic American ideals or not. If not, then no, you're not responsible. However, the problem for you, then, is that you help create a society that supports an ideology that says the government should tell you how to live. (You may not see it that way, but when you're not willing to stand up for the freedom of others, you suddenly become very alone when someone attacks your freedom.)

Quote:
European countries typically have more personal liberty not less.
Dick Morris made an interesting point today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Morris
The core difference between the American working class and its European equivalents is that Europeans are inclined to vote based on their current condition while Americans base their decisions more on their goals and objectives for the future. Americans assume upward mobility while Europeans do not. Each nation's workers are correct in their assessments.
Now, I don't know what liberties Eurotrash has that we don't, but I'm certain it's a silly bastardization of the word "liberty" that relies on differentiating between positive and negative.

Quote:
Firstly, an individual can't deflate the dollar.
Actually, it was meant proverbially. What happens when the masses tend to group together to legislate socialism, for instance, is that the rich-- and hope to be rich some day-- get together to oppose it.

Quote:
Secondly, a US citizen is going to pay the same personal income tax whether they out-source their operations or not. Thirdly, we should end tax loop holes that favor out-sourcing. This is something the Republican party is largely against as it harms one of their major supporters (corporate interest).
I don't understand the relevance.

Quote:
I don't think communism is a dirty world, its an interesting political philosophy.
You don't seem to value freedom. That doesn't surprise me.

Quote:
But I'm not a communist.
You sound like a socialist to me... I don't differentiate between the two.

Quote:
Of course they use to black list and arrest people for supporting communist ideas. So much for American liberty......
Too bad they weren't executed, eh?

Quote:
So, I should be allowed to drink under the influence, because I don't "owe" anybody anything. So what if I kill them, I don't owe them anything. People should be able to be as reckless as possible, because they don't "owe" each other anything. Yeah....great line of reasoning.
That's a different subject. The subject is why do I owe you entry into the relationship between me and my child when there is already plenty of natural motivation for me to do the best for my child that I see fit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2008, 03:59 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,155 posts, read 26,075,885 times
Reputation: 27887
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Oh yes! Social programs are bad! See this list? It's a list of countries ranked by Standard of Living. The UN puts it out.

2007) Change compared to 2004 data (published in 2006)
1 ▲ (1) Iceland ▲ 0.968
2 ▼ (1) Norway ▲ 0.968
3 ▬ (0) Australia ▲ 0.962
4 ▲ (2) Canada ▲ 0.961
5 ▼ (1) Ireland ▲ 0.959
6 ▼ (1) Sweden ▲ 0.956
7 ▲ (2) Switzerland ▲ 0.955
8 ▼ (1) Japan ▲ 0.953
9 ▲ (1) Netherlands ▲ 0.953
10 ▲ (6) France ▲ 0.952
11 ▬ (0) Finland ▲ 0.952
12. USA

List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. All these countries ahead of us have universal healthcare and gobs of social programs. Remember that when some poor white GOPer is rambling on about how social programs just make things worse....LOL

Nixon, and scores of right wingers after him have taken gullible GOP middle class voters for a ride.
Uh....you do know what just happened to Iceland,don't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 04:32 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 4,136,931 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
Suppose the government has 12 programs implemented. (The number is arbitrary, I just need something for an example.) Suppose 6 of those programs are related to the nation (defense, environment, etc.), 3 effect your state and 3 effect your Congressional district.
Any state and/or district level programs will be supported by the state, in fact most social programs are state based. If a social program is federal then all areas will use it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
You sound like a socialist to me... I don't differentiate between the two.
If you don't differentiate between the two then you simply don't know about either of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand View Post
Too bad they weren't executed, eh?
Funny, that you go off about liberties yet suggest people should be executed for simply thinking particular things. Here is your problem. People are only free to think and do what they want so long as you agree with it. That isn't freedom that is fascisms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 04:52 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,385,238 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
If you don't differentiate between the two then you simply don't know about either of them.
Explain the differences?
There are no compelling ones from a freedom point of view.

Quote:
Funny, that you go off about liberties yet suggest people should be executed for simply thinking particular things. Here is your problem. People are only free to think and do what they want so long as you agree with it. That isn't freedom that is fascisms.
Its not fascism if what he agrees with are liberty & individual rights & freedom. The problem is YOUR socialist ideology IS being implimented & WILL be moreso implimented if Obama wins.

My best interest is a small Gov't that tends to affairs of the nation & lets people prosper or fail acording to individual merrits. If anything the Federal govt should work to ensure that we are not abused at the state level by funding too many social programs.
My city funds a homeless shelter. I help & support it. Thats more than enough. If people want apartments, cars & shopping money they should work for it. If you are an addict its not my problem, if you have 8 kids with no way of supporting them its not my problem, if you percieve yourself unemployable because of imaginary racial discrimination its not my problem either. Lifes not fair other than everybody has oportunity in the US, if you fail in useing that oportunity thats not my problem.

The bottom line is I & my family are my problem & my responsibility, if I didn't need to bear the burden of others problems my responsibilities would be much easier to care for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 05:38 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 4,136,931 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Explain the differences?
There are no compelling ones from a freedom point of view.
Socialism (and communism) aren't political systems they are ways of dealing with your economy. As a result they don't directly related to freedoms. Most examples of communist states are also dictatorships so people confuse communism (an economic system) with dictatorship (a political system).

From a "freedom point of view" there is no compelling difference between Capitalism, Socialism and communism because these aren't political systems.

Also, just to note socialism is the middle ground between capitalism and communism. Equating socialism with communism is just is the same as equating socialism with capitalism. Its no more communist as it is capitalist.

If you are truly interested in the differences though read up on it. I'm not here to teach economics (and government) 101.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Its not fascism if what he agrees with are liberty & individual rights & freedom. The problem is YOUR socialist ideology IS being implimented & WILL be moreso implimented if Obama wins.
Obama is not socialist. Frankly anybody that makes this claim clearly doesn't know about socialism.

Also, I don't have a socialist ideology. I'm not a socialist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
If you are an addict its not my problem, if you have 8 kids with no way of supporting them its not my problem
I have no interest in supporting people that keep having babies despite not having the money to support them among other things. But here is the problem...if you do nothing it will become your problem. Crime will skyrocket if you ignore these issues. At the end of the day, some social programs are cheaper than the alternative which is increased law enforcement.

Also, kids are innocent. Its not the kids fault that they have idiots for parents. The idea that we should ignore them and let them die...is inhumane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 08:46 AM
 
4,604 posts, read 8,205,458 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid View Post
If the current republican party had to rely on the people that actually benefited from its policies they would never get elected. I think its rather interesting from a strategic point of view that they have gotten so many people to vote against their economic best interest by creating side issues that really don't matter to focus on instead.

The strategy has worked brilliantly, but its a bit surprising that it has worked so well. Why are so many people willing to vote against their best interest?
I understood long ago that this country allows me the opportunity to pursue the best life possible, should I choose to do so.

I also understood, and do so today, that my life has nothing to do with the Constitution, aside from its protection. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as allowed by law. The government owes me nothing else.

I find as appalling those who expect government to do things for them.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,655,442 times
Reputation: 36642
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillysB View Post
I understood long ago that this country allows me the opportunity to pursue the best life possible, should I choose to do so.

I also understood, and do so today, that my life has nothing to do with the Constitution, aside from its protection. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as allowed by law. The government owes me nothing else.

:

Let's read the Preamble to the Constitution together and see what it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It looks like a list of five objectives which would collectively benefit and at the same time be responsibilities of We The People, which is you and I and the rest of us. I don't see where it says anything about any citizens right to grab anything and run and hide, without concern about the rest of the people.

The Preamble IS the Constitution. The rest of is is just explanatory details about how the objectives of the Preamble are implemented in practice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 10:12 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,809,727 times
Reputation: 2519
Could you cite where the preamble IS the Constitution?

Or is this simply your opinion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Foothills of Colorado
290 posts, read 523,040 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Let's read the Preamble to the Constitution together and see what it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It looks like a list of five objectives which would collectively benefit and at the same time be responsibilities of We The People, which is you and I and the rest of us. I don't see where it says anything about any citizens right to grab anything and run and hide, without concern about the rest of the people.

The Preamble IS the Constitution. The rest of is is just explanatory details about how the objectives of the Preamble are implemented in practice.
The framers were very good with words. Can you tell me why they didn't use the word PROVIDE instead of PROMOTE, or are you just stuck on general welfare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Foothills of Colorado
290 posts, read 523,040 times
Reputation: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Let's read the Preamble to the Constitution together and see what it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It looks like a list of five objectives which would collectively benefit and at the same time be responsibilities of We The People, which is you and I and the rest of us. I don't see where it says anything about any citizens right to grab anything and run and hide, without concern about the rest of the people.

The Preamble IS the Constitution. The rest of is is just explanatory details about how the objectives of the Preamble are implemented in practice.
The preamble describes the agreed upon objectives and the rest provides the legal fame work to obtain those objectives. It is the same for the second amendment too.

a very important part is "secure the blessings of liberty" and that might be construed as "run and hide" if that is what you want to do if it doesn't interfere with the other aspects. I would take the words "to our posterity" to mean that the inheritance tax is unconstitutional. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top