GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Did Top Gun just admit that Social Security and Medicare are Socialist programs? Did Top Gun just admit that he's one of the 30% who prefer Socialism?
I guess we can mark him down as a Collectivist.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?
- Thread starter GenSeneca
- Start date
I guess we can mark him down as a Collectivist.
Werbung:
It does us good that you are so wanting to do away with Social Security & Medicare. That helps Democrats probably more than anything else you could ever possibly do.
We sincerely appreciate that.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
It's because you just make crap up.
You are welcome to point to any fact I have posted and I can support it.
IMO, Conservatives are not indifferent and selfish no matter how much you think so. Their policies are actually more compassionate because they actually work. Liberal policies have done more to harm the people they are intended to hurt than anything else.
Clean air and water are important. Which is whey the EPA was created by a Republican.
But Global warming is a bunch of huey and policies to stop it will harm people while carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not harmful.
That is a great example that congress #@%$ it up.
Politicians following regulated Capitalism (which is what our constitution set up indirectly) would not have exempted some corporations from anti trust laws. Monopolies violate rights and need to be stopped. Libertarians would oppose monopolies but liberals have set up numerous monopolies.
Agreed.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Your socialist programs will eventually collapse the whole nation under the weight of the debt they created.
That is not a recipe for freedom and prosperity but one of despotism and tyranny. While you hide behind the concept of having compassion for those who live in need, you condemn future generations to a life of servitude to current generations and that is not compassion, it is vicious. Those future generations are not yet born, you don't offer them a choice, they won't get to vote on the laws which will enslave them, they are born into this world wearing the chains of bondage you have prepared for them and you call this immorality compassion.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I disagree with this statement but I'm curious as to your reason for believing it to be true.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
There are a number of checks and balances built into our system to protect rights. Competition is one of them. When there is a monopoly only one company can sell a particular industries output; there is no competition and we have lost one major protection. Technically it is not the monopoly that violates the rights but the loss of a protection that virtually mandates that a right will be violated. This is true in theory and in practice.
What happens when too many protections or checks have been lost? And why are there so many protections to start with?
If all politicians act the same regardless of party affiliation?
If competition is reduced?
If the right to bear arms is gone?
If the three branches of government cooperate more than they balance each other?
If the voters are ignorant sheep?
If he press is biased and/or regulated?
If the states are powerless compared to the fed?
If the people are powerless compared to the state?
If the church cannot speak on matters of politics?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I again disagree with your conclusion that monopolies inevitably lead to the violation of rights. I'll even go one step further by saying the government busting up a monopoly is an act of violating the rights of those who own the company. I realize that is likely an unpopular position for me to take (as if that's ever stopped me) but hopefully my explanation will appeal to the rational faculties of those willing to listen.
1. You admit, although you qualify it with the word "technically", that the existence of a monopoly doesn't violate anyones rights. Then, "technically", government has no cause to bust up the monopoly.
2. You refer to a loss of "protection", so I'm inferring that you consider competition to be a level of protection and you're not actually suggesting that laws cease to apply to monopolies. Is that a correct understanding of your statement?
3. Since laws do not cease to apply to companies simply because they are a monopoly, the rights of individuals (consumers, employees etc.) are still protected by law. If the company does, in any capacity, violate the rights of individuals, the law would apply and the victims would have legal recourse.
4. Its a violation of the owners rights to have their monopoly busted up by government for nothing more than the "crime" of existing. Violating the rights of an individual (or company) based on what he might do sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the rights of all individuals.
5. Government Sponsored Entities (GSE's) are more dangerous than any private sector monopoly. Enron was committing fraud by cooking the books, Fanny and Freddie were doing the same thing, but it was the private company that was put out of business and had their executives put on trial while Fanny and Freddie execs faced no legal challenges and their companies were bailed out at the taxpayers expense.
If you have the time (50 mins), I invite you to watch the following presentation given by Alex Epstein about monopolies:
The Monopoly Myth: The Case of Standard Oil
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Interesting points and whether or not I see the vid I will consider them.
You have a lot of spin and opinions. Often the spin is simply off base.
The point is I can frame a question the same one sided way as you.
As for your compassion that's another wrong opinion. I'll just pull the first thing that comes to mind, Social Security. I bet the like & need Social Security percentage among people actually on it is almost 100%... high 90's.
Well the last guy you fellows put in there... well he gutted it.
Well I'm going with the vast majority of the scientific community and saying it is a problem. It's a type of pollution that needs to be addressed.
That's a great example of a business interest to much in the pockets of some polititians. We need to break that up whenever we can.
Eventually this country will come around to the fact that we have to cut back on the vast military industrial complex and all that entails that President Eisenhower warned us about. Stop any thought of future Nation Building. Stop giving away our tax dollars by the billions to other countries. On the latter I'm fine with food, clothing and medical aid but this throwing cash at them... not a fan.
And I'm for cutting government programs that don't work or are repetitious. But I also believe there a basic things like our elderly or healthcare that are too important not to fund.
Hell I'd be in hog heaven if President Obama could have walked into office with the Clinton surplus and not The Bush Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But you have to play the cards dealt ya.
It will work out. Never count America out. We were down with the Great Depression and the dust bowl and 2 World Wars. America always adapts.
Why? The military budget is not to an unsustainable point, and the economic (and other) benefits that we derive from having our current standing in the world community (which is in large part due to our military power) far outweighs the cost.
That is the current strategy the current administration has for Afghanistan.
Well... everything you say you are fine with involves giving billions of tax dollars to other countries. Also, if there are not strings attached to the money, it will simply disappear, which I am sure you would not support.
Well.. a government program that doesn't work could be Medicare and Social Security. Both are rapidly going bankrupt. Hell, even the Post Office does not really work, it lost billions last year.
No one wants people to die on the streets, however the best "fix" for these problems will come about in the private sector.
We would all be in hog heaven if 9/11 never happened, and if outrageous ideas such as "everyone is entitled to own a house" did not take hold in society.
America does not make it through because it is America, it makes it through because private citizenry pulls itself up and figures out a way to overcome the problem.
It is not "adapting" to attempt to forcibly reshape the economic environment by government mandate.
It's crushingly high. Just in 2009... one year alone... let's look.
Budget for 2009
For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $518.3 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending, supplemental spending, and stimulus spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion. Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $274 billion and $493 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $925 billion and $1.14 trillion in 2009.
Emergency and supplemental spending
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[4] In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures.
By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.
I know and it's INSANE!
But Bush left us with a slew of quagmires. Those were the cards on the table coming in. Because of 9-11 invade Afghanistan only... kill and go home was what should have been done. Three years tops. In and out should have been our strategy.
It would be millions in products. I think we have to help out in ways around the world. But not in cash. Whatever we are giving now if you took out the cash payments I bet it would cut the total amount by way over half.
I would be fine with that.
That's crap.
Not working means it's unnecessary. There isn't much of anything more important Social Security & Medicare. That's like saying that a soup kitchen doesn't work because the food is donated. And the post office always struggles not because it's poorly ran... it's ran extremely well. It's because they don't like raising prices.
We actually had that plan before... it was called not having Social Security and other social safety net programs. That's exactly why these programs were started. People were suffering and even dieing.
Hog heaven if Obama had Clinton's surplus and not Bush's Recession. And more crap.
Only 12% of bad loans were subprime. That means 88% were much higher end people with good credit just being greedy and buying more house than they could afford if anything at all unexpected happened. The American people find a way. They elect new leaders and select a new course. It's called CHANGE!
We spent multiple trillions on bank bailouts and stimulus and no one seemed to bat an eye... and you are going to now point to the military budget (which brings in far greater a return than is being spent) as being to high? As a percent of GDP, military spending is currently pretty low.
Supplemental funding requests give us a much better picture of what the war will actually cost... The Obama Administration has found that out.
I know and it's INSANE!
Because of 9-11 invade Afghanistan only... kill and go home was what should have been done. Three years tops. In and out should have been our strategy.
Kill and go home does not solve the problem that brought about 9/11.
The foreign aid budget (in all its forms) is well into the billions. Often times, cash is the best thing we can offer, or debt relief.
That's crap.
Well the soup kitchen won't work when it runs out of donated food...much like Medicare and Social Security won't work when they go bankrupt, which is coming up quickly.
You mean government manipulation of pricing does not work? Isn't that what we are trying to do to "fix" healthcare?
Social Security offers a return of less than 1% on your investment, assuming you even live long enough to recoup it all. I can put money in an FDIC insured CD and get an easy 3%, even with the recession we are facing. Why on Earth would I want to invest in something that gives me a 1% return? That does not even cover inflation.
Hog heaven if Obama had Clinton's surplus and not Bush's Recession. And more crap.
Well, I have seen the number 20%, I have not seen 12%. Putting that aside however, all those loans were then packaged and derivitized and resold and created banks to be leveraged at insane amounts. Of course that does not matter when the Federal Government will bail you out I suppose.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Even if we permanently disbanded our entire military, never spent another dime on defense, and stopped giving money to other countries - and we did all this tomorrow, that would only SLOW the collapse of the welfare state giving it another 25-50 years, it would not prevent the inevitable collapse.
The people that built the Titanic were so convinced it was unsinkable, they didn't bother putting enough lifeboats on board for all the passengers.
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
OR whenever you see some truth that does not conform to your liberal thinking you see spin.
And you do.
What are you trying to say? And how does it relate to compassion?
Do you have any examples of real regulations that have been discontinued rather than liberal spin? I am in favor of real regulations that protect people. If you can show me one I will not vote for Bush.
Man made Global warming is a sham as is the idea that the majority of scientific opinion says it is a problem. We have all seen how they coerce each other into jumping on board.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
That's a great example of a business interest to much in the pockets of some polititians. We need to break that up whenever we can. [/QUOTE]
Yes when business is in the pockets of politicians we need to break that up. But the business is exercising their free speech rights when they make donations to a political campaign. The congressmen is being bribed when he changes his views based on who gave.
The business should give based on views that the politician already has and the politician should not change his views based on how it effects his re-election. We can't control who gives without violating civil liberties but we could easily outlaw passing laws based on income and throw the bums out.
