- Time
- Post link
I think Ferris and the other Conservatives here are against the New Deal as well.
I wouldn't call Obama a Communist, but I'm not so sure I'd call him a moderate anymore.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
My S'lution to Gov't H'care — Page 4
- Time
- Post link
ferris209 said:
Octorox said:
vote_for_palpatine said:
ferris209 said:
Warbler said:
ferris209 said:
Warbler said:
why cardiograms and Ekg's be covered and not stress tests?
You're right, none of them should be covered.
I don't get it, first you say Echo cardiograms and EKG's should be covered but not stress tests. When I ask you why, you change your mind and say none should be covered. Please explain.
Nah. Nevermind. Leave it to Dear Leader Obama to decide.
Like giving free breathalyzers to kids. Available in all 57 states.
He clearly meant 47 -_-....And I like how you guys are comparing this unabashed moderate to a communist.
You honestly think Obama is a moderate? That is insane.
Yes, at least in practice. He has a way of turning everything he sets out to do into a compromise and then saying that its "okay" and still "a success". He's not forceful enough in supporting the policies that people voted him in for, he wants to make everyone happy. I mean the healthcare bill doesn't even have a public option (I mean, Canada has a single payer system and they don't seem to have turned into a totalitarian state yet) and he turns it around into a resounding success, even though I'm sure most of his supporters would have wanted at least a public option.
I was listening to a speaker who pointed out something interesting, which I think makes a lot of sense. The left in this country are too sympathetic to Obama and his overall wishy-washyness. We focused all our support onto getting him in office rather than advocating particular issues and policies. Now, whenever he falls short of an expectation, we want to "give the guy a break" and make excuses. The problem is that, even though he's in office, he's just one guy, and (rightfully so) is not responsible for every decision this country's government makes. The cult of personality around Obama was too high imo, and it's kind of why he's not meeting the left's expectations.
- Time
- Post link
I don't support Social Security either. I know this makes me an evil, selfish, rich person (In reality I am none of those things), but programs like Social Security and Medicare is more "for you, from you" narcotic designed to get you to love the state.
Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
I think Ferris and the other Conservatives here are against the New Deal as well.
I wouldn't call Obama a Communist, but I'm not so sure I'd call him a moderate anymore.
Probably not on our scale, but on a global scale I'd say so. (although I don't want to make assumptions here, I'm still in very much a learning stage when it comes to politics and dont want to seem like a know-it-all)
I always thought this site had a neat way of looking at political spectrums, but I can't say as to it's accuracy, just throwing it out there
- Time
- Post link
Octorox said:
vote_for_palpatine said:
The only reason I compare Obama to a communist is this: he believes in the redistribution of wealth. I admit I'm out of line here. I mean, what could be less communist than the redistribution of wealth?
So then was FDR also comparable to a communist? Was I mean how is Social Security not redistribution of wealth? Then again, I'm sure his New Deal met similar resistance in it's time.
Yes, we are extremely against the New Deal!!! It has led us to where we are today and has not been helpful at all. I recommend you read New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Destroyed America by Dr. Burton Folsom Jr., it details how the New Deal has contributed to our current economic situation and this sense of entitlement our people now harbor. It is not unfairly critical of FDR and does expound on the few good things he did, so take a look at it.
- Time
- Post link
vote_for_palpatine said:
I don't support Social Security either. I know this makes me an evil, selfish, rich person (In reality I am none of those things), but programs like Social Security and Medicare is more "for you, from you" narcotic designed to get you to love the state.
Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.
I think the left is generally too soft on the government (and Obama) too, but not quite for the reasons you believe they are.
- Time
- Post link
ferris209 said:
Octorox said:
vote_for_palpatine said:
The only reason I compare Obama to a communist is this: he believes in the redistribution of wealth. I admit I'm out of line here. I mean, what could be less communist than the redistribution of wealth?
So then was FDR also comparable to a communist? Was I mean how is Social Security not redistribution of wealth? Then again, I'm sure his New Deal met similar resistance in it's time.
Yes, we are extremely against the New Deal!!! It has led us to where we are today and has not been helpful at all. I recommend you read New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Destroyed America by Dr. Burton Folsom Jr., it details how the New Deal has contributed to our current economic situation and this sense of entitlement our people now harbor. It is not unfairly critical of FDR and does expound on the few good things he did, so take a look at it.
Book for Book? I recommend The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein (granted, even I find it very biased but I have a huge respect for the author and I think it brings up a good point). However, I know that neither one of us will take each other up on our offers, so let's just agree to disagree ;).
- Time
- Post link
vote_for_palpatine said:
Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.
its also funny how the opposite happen with the Republicans once the keys were taken away from them. ;)
- Time
- Post link
so let's just agree to disagree ;).
I'll go a step farther - I am one conservative who believes 100% pure capitalism isn't a good thing. Some - I have to emphasize some - regulation is necessary to keep abuses of the system at bay.
I'll also say that the New Deal did have one sliver of merit to it: it emphasized the idea that people need to keep working. The LBJ model of big government dis-incentivizes work, and that is a bad thing.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
vote_for_palpatine said:
Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.
its also funny how the opposite happen with the Republicans once the keys were taken away from them. ;)
Makes sense to me. Of course people are going to support the government when it pushes through policies they advocate (or at least promises too) and they'll be against when it doesn't.
I DO wish the focus was more on policies and less on people, but I guess that's a byproduct of the representative democracy.
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
vote_for_palpatine said:
Leftists in the US used to love to rail against the government. Funny how that rhetoric changed once they got the keys.
its also funny how the opposite happen with the Republicans once the keys were taken away from them. ;)
True. And I'm glad you made the distinction between "Republicans" and "conservatives" there. I don't care who's in charge as long as the reach of the government shrinks. GOP loyalists don't mind big government as long as it's theirs.
I trust the GOP more than the Dems, but not by a whole lot.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
vote_for_palpatine said:
so let's just agree to disagree ;).
I'll go a step farther - I am one conservative who believes 100% pure capitalism isn't a good thing. Some - I have to emphasize some - regulation is necessary to keep abuses of the system at bay.
I'll also say that the New Deal did have one sliver of merit to it: it emphasized the idea that people need to keep working. The LBJ model of big government dis-incentivizes work, and that is a bad thing.
I guess we're in similar boats then, we only disagree on what that percentage of regulation is. Personally, I'd prefer things like defense and healthcare in government hands as opposed to corporate ones. I don't believe either should be looked at as an opportunity for profit
- Time
- Post link
instead having a large government or a small government, what about a medium sized government?
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
instead having a large government or a small government, what about a medium sized government?
I think efficiency, openness, and honesty are more important than size tbh.
- Time
- Post link
tbh?
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
tbh?
to be honest. Sorry, ill try not to use so many abbreviations.
- Time
- Post link
Holy crap, what did I do here?
- Time
- Post link
instead having a large government or a small government, what about a medium sized government?
A fine idea, but what is the medium? If you put Shaq into a size medium shirt, it would either rip to shreds or kill him. Put that same shirt on Kristen Chenowith and you won't find her for days.
Also, tbh=to be honest.
I think efficiency, openness, and honesty are more important than size
The problem is, we are always promised these things in the run-up to elections, and we never get them. So we end up getting behind the rhetoric we like, and the only thing that changes is that government encroachment expands no matter who's in office.
Personally, I'd prefer things like defense and healthcare in government hands as opposed to corporate ones. I don't believe either should be looked at as an opportunity for profit
The vast majority of life-saving drugs and advanced weaponry were developed here because of the profit motive. Talented people, the people who develop these things, deserve to be compensated for their talents because there is a big demand for these things. What happens when we reduce/remove the incentive to develop the next wonder drug? The next smart bomb? They'll take their talents to someone who will pay the going rate for their labors. Maybe - hopefully - that someone will be friendly to the United States. I'd rather see us continue to produce these things and sell them to the world rather than buy them.
The reality is that we are all motivated by profit. I think a better economic system is one which integrates that dynamic rather than rejects it. The Soviet Union didn't exactly dazzle the world with its exports back when it was one of the world's two biggest superpowers.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
- Time
- Post link
To be fair to the Soviets (like they deserved fairness) they didn't need to export anything or import much either.
If they had spent their resources on their people rather than trying to build, expand and maintain an empire they could have been self sufficient and might even have been poster boys for global Marxism (personally I think global anything is a bad idea but if that was their goal they certainly screwed up that experiment).
- Time
- Post link
“The Free Market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones. With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time. The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.” - Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin
- Time
- Post link
Octorox said:
Warbler said:
tbh?
to be honest. Sorry, ill try not to use so many abbreviations.
oh that's ok. I was just having brain freeze.
- Time
- Post link
vote_for_palpatine said:
instead having a large government or a small government, what about a medium sized government?
A fine idea, but what is the medium?
larger than what you Conservatives want, but smaller than what all the extreme liberals want. Somewhere in the middle between total Capitalism and total socialism.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
vote_for_palpatine said:
instead having a large government or a small government, what about a medium sized government?
A fine idea, but what is the medium?
larger than what you Conservatives want, but smaller than what all the extreme liberals want. Somewhere in the middle between total Capitalism and total socialism.
Isn't that more or less what we have already?
- Time
- Post link
ferris209 said:
“The Free Market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones. With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time. The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.” - Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin
You posted an opinion from a manifesto. I could do the same if I wanted to. The market can be a great catalyst for innovation of its excesses are trimmed. But honestly, it seems the best way to make money today is exploitation of economics and making money off of money and not true innovation and advancement. The market can be a drive for innovation but it can also be a drive to cheat the system.
The government is there to serve the people. Corporations are there to serve their shareholders. I think I know who I trust with the security of my well-being and of the nation's