Screw it, I don't care anymore: Government is good.

[Phys251]

This anti-government position that the Right is basing much of their platform on, sucks. It retarded in every sense of the word. A society needs to invest money if it intends to survive, let alone prosper.

If it wants educated citizens, it needs to invest in education.
If it wants citizens to be able to move freely, it needs to invest in roads, railways, and airports.
If it wants healthy citizens, it needs to invest in health care in all its facets.
If it wants safe citizens, it needs to hire enough firefighters and police officers.
If it wants to keep its banks honest, it needs to keep an eye on what they do.
If it wants clean drinking water, it needs to pass laws that insure that water is water.
If it wants clean air to breathe, it needs to pass laws that insure that our air won't poison us.
If it wants to ensure that businesses are selling what they claim to sell, it needs to pass regulations.
If it wants to ensure that its elections are being financed fairly, it needs to pass open disclosure laws.

What do conservatives have to say about public support of these pillars of society? They oppose it for every single cause. In a complete abandonment of sensible judgment, they choose to not connect the dots from their positions to what acting on those positions would do. They do not recognize that taken to their logical conclusion, and left unchecked, those extremist positions would turn our society into Lord of the Flies, every man for himself (screw the women, often times literally).

Are there regulations that need trimming down? Of course. If a bureaucratic procedure can be reasonably simplified, then let's simplify it. If a rule can be safely taken out, then let's do so. But not at the expense of our economy, our children, and our future. A Lord of the Flies scenario is nothing to covet and everything to avoid like the plague. And can services include the possibility of public-private partnerships? Sure, why not. If they help deliver fair service at reasonable costs, then we can look into that, as long as they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

A democracy's defining advantage over corporate rule is that if we don't like the people running the show, we can vote them out. In a corporation, those on the bottom have zero say over those on the top. There may be reasons for that, but few would doubt that that is no way to run a country. In a true democracy, every adult citizen has a say in its government. Everyone gets a vote. People are not to be favored simply because of status, position, or income. And we need our government to keep it that way. The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy should concern everyone who can count to ten. They've come out swinging in full-force opposition to the very fabric that's held us together so long. They have no desire to fix it; they have every desire to dismantle it, replacing it with God-knows-what. Come on, conservatives and libertarians, think! Take off the blinders and look at what you're really asking for. You really want to take us back to a day when factories could spew whatever crap out of their smokestacks they wanted, when they could sell poisoned food, when states could pass and enforce Jim Crow laws, and when diseases that we consider routine or nonexistent were life-threatening? No. Screw that. That kind of platform couldn't turn me off more if it tried. And that's part of why I'm voting for Obama this November. Because whatever beef I have with his positions and comments, it absolutely pales in comparison to what I have with yours.

 

[specklebang]

I think you'll get what you wish for. Still, I feel like I should restate an old adage.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it

 

[Romulus]

If it want to curse our children with a debt crises, it rubs the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again! :twisted:

Very few people on the right argue from an anarchist position. This is a classic straw man argument you are ranting about here.

 

[Bronson]

This anti-government position that the Right is basing much of their platform on, sucks. It retarded in every sense of the word. A society needs to invest money if it intends to survive, let alone prosper.

If it wants educated citizens, it needs to invest in education.
If it wants citizens to be able to move freely, it needs to invest in roads, railways, and airports.
If it wants healthy citizens, it needs to invest in health care in all its facets.
If it wants safe citizens, it needs to hire enough firefighters and police officers.
If it wants to keep its banks honest, it needs to keep an eye on what they do.
If it wants clean drinking water, it needs to pass laws that insure that water is water.
If it wants clean air to breathe, it needs to pass laws that insure that our air won't poison us.
If it wants to ensure that businesses are selling what they claim to sell, it needs to pass regulations.
If it wants to ensure that its elections are being financed fairly, it needs to pass open disclosure laws.

What do conservatives have to say about public support of these pillars of society? They oppose it for every single cause. In a complete abandonment of sensible judgment, they choose to not connect the dots from their positions to what acting on those positions would do. They do not recognize that taken to their logical conclusion, and left unchecked, those extremist positions would turn our society into Lord of the Flies, every man for himself (screw the women, often times literally).

Are there regulations that need trimming down? Of course. If a bureaucratic procedure can be reasonably simplified, then let's simplify it. If a rule can be safely taken out, then let's do so. But not at the expense of our economy, our children, and our future. A Lord of the Flies scenario is nothing to covet and everything to avoid like the plague. And can services include the possibility of public-private partnerships? Sure, why not. If they help deliver fair service at reasonable costs, then we can look into that, as long as they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

A democracy's defining advantage over corporate rule is that if we don't like the people running the show, we can vote them out. In a corporation, those on the bottom have zero say over those on the top. There may be reasons for that, but few would doubt that that is no way to run a country. In a true democracy, every adult citizen has a say in its government. Everyone gets a vote. People are not to be favored simply because of status, position, or income. And we need our government to keep it that way. The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy should concern everyone who can count to ten. They've come out swinging in full-force opposition to the very fabric that's held us together so long. They have no desire to fix it; they have every desire to dismantle it, replacing it with God-knows-what. Come on, conservatives and libertarians, think! Take off the blinders and look at what you're really asking for. You really want to take us back to a day when factories could spew whatever crap out of their smokestacks they wanted, when they could sell poisoned food, when states could pass and enforce Jim Crow laws, and when diseases that we consider routine or nonexistent were life-threatening? No. Screw that. That kind of platform couldn't turn me off more if it tried. And that's part of why I'm voting for Obama this November. Because whatever beef I have with his positions and comments, it absolutely pales in comparison to what I have with yours.

U.S. Debt Now Exceeds $16 Trillion - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[Romulus]

U.S. Debt Now Exceeds $16 Trillion - Washington Wire - WSJ

That happened today? During their convention?

Ha!

 

[Aberration]

U.S. Debt Now Exceeds $16 Trillion - Washington Wire - WSJ

You don't understand. Government is about giving you things. Its not about affording it.

Affording things does not buy votes.

 

[Phys251]

U.S. Debt Now Exceeds $16 Trillion - Washington Wire - WSJ

If we thought like that during World War II, we would have surrendered to Japan.

 

[Bronson]

You don't understand. Government is about giving you things. Its not about affording it.

Affording things does not buy votes.

 

[Phys251]

Yeah, you guys are really doing a great job of addressing the OP with all these strawmen. Not.

 

[Romulus]

If we thought like that during World War II, we would have surrendered to Japan.

If WWII happened today, we wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm not being facetious, the Joint Chiefs have stated the national debt is our worst strategic threat.

 

[Phys251]

If WWII happened today, we wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm not being facetious, the Joint Chiefs have stated the national debt is our worst strategic threat.

But we couldn't afford it, so that's why we financed the war! /Republican "logic"

 

[Mycroft]

This anti-government position that the Right is basing much of their platform on, sucks. It retarded in every sense of the word. A society needs to invest money if it intends to survive, let alone prosper.

If it wants educated citizens, it needs to invest in education.
If it wants citizens to be able to move freely, it needs to invest in roads, railways, and airports.
If it wants healthy citizens, it needs to invest in health care in all its facets.
If it wants safe citizens, it needs to hire enough firefighters and police officers.
If it wants to keep its banks honest, it needs to keep an eye on what they do.
If it wants clean drinking water, it needs to pass laws that insure that water is water.
If it wants clean air to breathe, it needs to pass laws that insure that our air won't poison us.
If it wants to ensure that businesses are selling what they claim to sell, it needs to pass regulations.
If it wants to ensure that its elections are being financed fairly, it needs to pass open disclosure laws.

What do conservatives have to say about public support of these pillars of society? They oppose it for every single cause. In a complete abandonment of sensible judgment, they choose to not connect the dots from their positions to what acting on those positions would do. They do not recognize that taken to their logical conclusion, and left unchecked, those extremist positions would turn our society into Lord of the Flies, every man for himself (screw the women, often times literally).

Are there regulations that need trimming down? Of course. If a bureaucratic procedure can be reasonably simplified, then let's simplify it. If a rule can be safely taken out, then let's do so. But not at the expense of our economy, our children, and our future. A Lord of the Flies scenario is nothing to covet and everything to avoid like the plague. And can services include the possibility of public-private partnerships? Sure, why not. If they help deliver fair service at reasonable costs, then we can look into that, as long as they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

A democracy's defining advantage over corporate rule is that if we don't like the people running the show, we can vote them out. In a corporation, those on the bottom have zero say over those on the top. There may be reasons for that, but few would doubt that that is no way to run a country. In a true democracy, every adult citizen has a say in its government. Everyone gets a vote. People are not to be favored simply because of status, position, or income. And we need our government to keep it that way. The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy should concern everyone who can count to ten. They've come out swinging in full-force opposition to the very fabric that's held us together so long. They have no desire to fix it; they have every desire to dismantle it, replacing it with God-knows-what. Come on, conservatives and libertarians, think! Take off the blinders and look at what you're really asking for. You really want to take us back to a day when factories could spew whatever crap out of their smokestacks they wanted, when they could sell poisoned food, when states could pass and enforce Jim Crow laws, and when diseases that we consider routine or nonexistent were life-threatening? No. Screw that. That kind of platform couldn't turn me off more if it tried. And that's part of why I'm voting for Obama this November. Because whatever beef I have with his positions and comments, it absolutely pales in comparison to what I have with yours.

This ranks right up at the top of the stupid liberal posts in this forum.

While all the things listed are nice to have, by no means are they the responsibility of the federal government. Six out of the first eight can more effectively be handled by individuals or the States. The ninth item is nice...I agree with open disclosure, but most liberals don't want that...they want control of who can spend and how much.

You flatly claim that conservatives oppose all the the items you listed. I contend you couldn't be more wrong and that you are making blanket statements with no basis in fact.

One thing about corporations you may not realize is that they survive by making money. Where do you think their money comes from? It comes from the people who work for the corporation and the people who pay for their products and services. THAT is who has a say over those at the top of the corporation.

You throw out some BS about "The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy...". Do you think that if you say stupid stuff like that...that makes it true? That is idiocy at its finest.

And then...to top it all off...you trot out your best strawman about how conservatives want to take us back to all those nasty things you mention. I got just one thing to say to that: Prove it.

And finally, you justify your vote for Obama based on all the BS you just gave us. Frankly, you are the perfect Obama supporter: The one who doesn't have a brain.

 

[Romulus]

But we couldn't afford it, so that's why we financed the war! /Republican "logic"

We had a low debt to GDP ratio prior to WWII, so we could afford the war. Financing debt is a cost, as Admiral Mullen has been warning us--the costs of financing the debt will exceed defense spending by 2019.

 

[Mycroft]

This anti-government position that the Right is basing much of their platform on, sucks. It retarded in every sense of the word. A society needs to invest money if it intends to survive, let alone prosper.

If it wants educated citizens, it needs to invest in education.
If it wants citizens to be able to move freely, it needs to invest in roads, railways, and airports.
If it wants healthy citizens, it needs to invest in health care in all its facets.
If it wants safe citizens, it needs to hire enough firefighters and police officers.
If it wants to keep its banks honest, it needs to keep an eye on what they do.
If it wants clean drinking water, it needs to pass laws that insure that water is water.
If it wants clean air to breathe, it needs to pass laws that insure that our air won't poison us.
If it wants to ensure that businesses are selling what they claim to sell, it needs to pass regulations.
If it wants to ensure that its elections are being financed fairly, it needs to pass open disclosure laws.

What do conservatives have to say about public support of these pillars of society? They oppose it for every single cause. In a complete abandonment of sensible judgment, they choose to not connect the dots from their positions to what acting on those positions would do. They do not recognize that taken to their logical conclusion, and left unchecked, those extremist positions would turn our society into Lord of the Flies, every man for himself (screw the women, often times literally).

Are there regulations that need trimming down? Of course. If a bureaucratic procedure can be reasonably simplified, then let's simplify it. If a rule can be safely taken out, then let's do so. But not at the expense of our economy, our children, and our future. A Lord of the Flies scenario is nothing to covet and everything to avoid like the plague. And can services include the possibility of public-private partnerships? Sure, why not. If they help deliver fair service at reasonable costs, then we can look into that, as long as they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

A democracy's defining advantage over corporate rule is that if we don't like the people running the show, we can vote them out. In a corporation, those on the bottom have zero say over those on the top. There may be reasons for that, but few would doubt that that is no way to run a country. In a true democracy, every adult citizen has a say in its government. Everyone gets a vote. People are not to be favored simply because of status, position, or income. And we need our government to keep it that way. The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy should concern everyone who can count to ten. They've come out swinging in full-force opposition to the very fabric that's held us together so long. They have no desire to fix it; they have every desire to dismantle it, replacing it with God-knows-what. Come on, conservatives and libertarians, think! Take off the blinders and look at what you're really asking for. You really want to take us back to a day when factories could spew whatever crap out of their smokestacks they wanted, when they could sell poisoned food, when states could pass and enforce Jim Crow laws, and when diseases that we consider routine or nonexistent were life-threatening? No. Screw that. That kind of platform couldn't turn me off more if it tried. And that's part of why I'm voting for Obama this November. Because whatever beef I have with his positions and comments, it absolutely pales in comparison to what I have with yours.

This ranks right up at the top of the stupid liberal posts in this forum.

While all the things listed are nice to have, by no means are they the responsibility of the federal government. Six out of the first eight can more effectively be handled by individuals or the States. The ninth item is nice...I agree with open disclosure, but most liberals don't want that...they want control of who can spend and how much.

You flatly claim that conservatives oppose all the the items you listed. I contend you couldn't be more wrong and that you are making blanket statements with no basis in fact.

One thing about corporations you may not realize is that they survive by making money. Where do you think their money comes from? It comes from the people who work for the corporation and the people who pay for their products and services. THAT is who has a say over those at the top of the corporation. Of course, that can get all screwed up when the government butts its nose...and its money...into other's business. Oh, and where does that government money come from? From us. Now, I'm sure you think the government knows better what to do with your money than you do...but I don't agree.

You throw out some BS about "The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy...". Do you think that if you say stupid stuff like that...that makes it true? That is idiocy at its finest.

And then...to top it all off...you trot out your best strawman about how conservatives want to take us back to all those nasty things you mention. I got just one thing to say to that: Prove it.

And finally, you justify your vote for Obama based on all the BS you just gave us. Frankly, you are the perfect Obama supporter: The one who doesn't have a brain.

 

[poweRob]

I think you'll get what you wish for. Still, I feel like I should restate an old adage.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it

A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.
- Steve Martin

 

[Phys251]

This ranks right up at the top of the stupid liberal posts in this forum.

While all the things listed are nice to have, by no means are they the responsibility of the federal government. Six out of the first eight can more effectively be handled by individuals or the States. The ninth item is nice...I agree with open disclosure, but most liberals don't want that...they want control of who can spend and how much.

You flatly claim that conservatives oppose all the the items you listed. I contend you couldn't be more wrong and that you are making blanket statements with no basis in fact.

One thing about corporations you may not realize is that they survive by making money. Where do you think their money comes from? It comes from the people who work for the corporation and the people who pay for their products and services. THAT is who has a say over those at the top of the corporation. Of course, that can get all screwed up when the government butts its nose...and its money...into other's business. Oh, and where does that government money come from? From us. Now, I'm sure you think the government knows better what to do with your money than you do...but I don't agree.

You throw out some BS about "The rise in the Right's desire for aristocracy...". Do you think that if you say stupid stuff like that...that makes it true? That is idiocy at its finest.

And then...to top it all off...you trot out your best strawman about how conservatives want to take us back to all those nasty things you mention. I got just one thing to say to that: Prove it.

And finally, you justify your vote for Obama based on all the BS you just gave us. Frankly, you are the perfect Obama supporter: The one who doesn't have a brain.

Sorry if the truth was too much to handle.

 

[MaggieD]

Yeah, you guys are really doing a great job of addressing the OP with all these strawmen. Not.

I don't know how you expect posters to address this list of things we're already investing in, Phys251. Do you pay Federal income tax? (Not FICA, but ordinary income tax?) Do you pay real estate taxes? I do. And I just can't afford any more taxes.

I own a 3-bedroom (3, 10x12 BR's) 2-tiny-bath 1-car garage 1-story home. No family room. I live in "an average Chicago suburb" with fine elementary schools and a crappy high school filled with gangs from an adjacent town. My real estate taxes at $4,800 a year.

I simply can't afford to pay any more real estate taxes. I can't afford any more police and firefighters. Not only their salaries, but their pensions, are breaking our backs in this community. Same with school teacher pensions. Fortunately, our elementary schools are well-staffed. So are our police and fire departments.

We support families in our community with a lovely library, even though there's one two miles away in an adjacent town that's just as nice. Both are under-used. Our Park District offers discounted daycare services all summer. We have a beautiful fitness center. Free to those who care to use it. Paid for by taxpayers, of course. We have a beautiful expansive water park...even though every community surrounding ours has one just like it. Probably five or more in ten square miles.

My point is this: we have a'plenty. All of us. Could we use more? Maybe. But we can't afford anymore right now. What is so difficult to understand? Those 53% who do​ pay Federal income taxes are tapped out.

 

[poweRob]

If WWII happened today, we wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm not being facetious, the Joint Chiefs have stated the national debt is our worst strategic threat.

Maybe if we went to TWO wars THEN cut taxes. How about that? Think that'd work?

 

[Phys251]

I don't know how you expect posters to address this list of things we're already investing in, Phys251. Do you pay Federal income tax? (Not FICA, but ordinary income tax?) Do you pay real estate taxes? I do. And I just can't afford any more taxes.

I own a 3-bedroom (3, 10x12 BR's) 2-tiny-bath 1-car garage 1-story home. No family room. I live in "an average Chicago suburb" with fine elementary schools and a crappy high school filled with gangs from an adjacent town. My real estate taxes at $4,800 a year.

I simply can't afford to pay any more real estate taxes. I can't afford any more police and firefighters. Not only their salaries, but their pensions, are breaking our backs in this community. Same with school teacher pensions. Fortunately, our elementary schools are well-staffed. So are our police and fire departments.

We support families in our community with a lovely library, even though there's one two miles away in an adjacent town that's just as nice. Both are under-used. Our Park District offers discounted daycare services all summer. We have a beautiful fitness center. Free to those who care to use it. Paid for by taxpayers, of course. We have a beautiful expansive water park...even though every community surrounding ours has one just like it. Probably five or more in ten square miles.

My point is this: we have a'plenty. All of us. Could we use more? Maybe. But we can't afford anymore right now. What is so difficult to understand? Those 53% who do​ pay Federal income taxes are tapped out.

And under a Romney presidency, there's a good chance that your taxes will go up and almost a guarantee that your benefits will go down.

 

[MaggieD]

And under a Romney presidency, there's a good chance that your taxes will go up and almost a guarantee that your benefits will go down.

I don't make $250,000 a year. There is absolutely no indication that Romney intends to raise my taxes. What benefits? Do you have a job? Do you pay Federal income tax? Do you pay real estate taxes?

 

[Phys251]

I don't make $250,000 a year. There is absolutely no indication that Romney intends to raise my taxes. What benefits? Do you have a job? Do you pay Federal income tax? Do you pay real estate taxes?

Uh, yeah there is, Maggie. I hate to be the one to break it to you. And yes, yes, and no to your questions. Obama has not raised my taxes by one dime, ever. He actually lowered them for awhile!

 

[Phys251]

Well, the responses went just about as well as I thought they would.

I'm going to call it a night and requote part of the OP...

If it wants educated citizens, it needs to invest in education.
If it wants citizens to be able to move freely, it needs to invest in roads, railways, and airports.
If it wants healthy citizens, it needs to invest in health care in all its facets.
If it wants safe citizens, it needs to hire enough firefighters and police officers.
If it wants to keep its banks honest, it needs to keep an eye on what they do.
If it wants clean drinking water, it needs to pass laws that insure that water is water.
If it wants clean air to breathe, it needs to pass laws that insure that our air won't poison us.
If it wants to ensure that businesses are selling what they claim to sell, it needs to pass regulations.
If it wants to ensure that its elections are being financed fairly, it needs to pass open disclosure laws.

...and leave you all with this question: Which SPECIFIC item above are you opposed to publicly financing?

 

[Hairytic]

If it want to curse our children with a debt crises, it rubs the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again! :twisted:

Very few people on the right argue from an anarchist position. This is a classic straw man argument you are ranting about here.

We went from a high debt to a surplus under the Clinton Administration. Investing in our country's future will not raise the debt to the point that we can not bring it under control. We are currently in high debt because during the Bush administration we waged two wars and handed out too many tax cuts with no plan to pay for them. The economy had an historic melt down, and that will cause a high debt. Investing in our future didn't and won't cause a higher debt we can't pay for. Once the economy bounces back, the debt can be fixed again. When a major artery is cut, you have to stop the bleeding first. We bled out jobs like crazy, and now the bleeding is stopped and recovery is underway. Once people are back to work and paying more taxes, the debt can be fixed.

 

[MaggieD]

Uh, yeah there is, Maggie. I hate to be the one to break it to you. And yes, yes, and no to your questions. Obama has not raised my taxes by one dime, ever. He actually lowered them for awhile!

But don't you get it, Phys251?? He's spending your children's money. Their children's money. He's on track to raise our deficit by almost twice that of the Bush years. Your taxes haven't raised because our government (not just Obama, btw) is completely and utterly fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Hairytic]

If WWII happened today, we wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm not being facetious, the Joint Chiefs have stated the national debt is our worst strategic threat.

If you knew anything about history, we couldn't afford to get involved in WWII when we did. We got involved during the great depression.