Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "We don't need a babysitter government, we need to stand up and be self-sufficient people." So if your house were to catch on fire would you put it out yourself or would you call the fire department? What about public transportation? Would you prefer that everyone paid the full fare without the Feds subsidizing it? Can't you see that socialism is already practiced in this country. This is why it's perplexing to me when Americans get their panties in a bunch whenever the word is brought up.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Here's an example. It's a hoot..." Wow, that was an amazing tap dance performance. I honestly don't get why the conservative leaders don't denounce people like Limbaugh. He's adding nothing to the discussion. Frankly he and Coulter are nothing more than distractions like clowns at circus.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <So if your house were to catch on fire would you put it out yourself or would you call the fire department? What about public transportation? Would you prefer that everyone paid the full fare without the Feds subsidizing it? Can't you see that socialism is already practiced in this country. This is why it's perplexing to me when Americans get their panties in a bunch whenever the word is brought up.> A government is necessary to provide basic things. It's the line that's moving to far that I don't like. I'll gladly be taxed to have roads, armies,and fire departments. I don't consider it socialism. I consider those basic necessities for a successful and safe country. But when more and more things are being provided by the government, the more freedom we lose. Can't you get that?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But when more and more things are being provided by the government, the more freedom we lose. Can't you get that?<< I know us liberals are kind of thick, but I don't get that. I still say there's a big leap from "government providing more services" to "back in the USSR." But again, I can get all bipartisan about making some serious cuts in anticipation of continuing economic problems. One of the problems we have now is being unwilling to do anything that's going to cause inconvenience to anybody. Like a 3 trillion dollar deficit isn't inconvenient enough. Cutting taxes, though? Now? YGBK!
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I still say there's a big leap from "government providing more services" to "back in the USSR."> Agreed. But government providing more services = government more in control. I'm not saying that the government is providing and controlling as much as the USSR did, far from that. But it's the direction we are moving, and I'd rather not.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But government providing more services = government more in control. << Still don't see it. In control of what?
Originally Posted By utahjosh When you are dependent on someone else for something you need, they are in control.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>When you are dependent on someone else for something you need, they are in control.<< True dat ... but if you don't have something you need (health care, a safe food supply, a DTV converter box), isn't it better to get it from the government than to not get it at all? (Yes, I'm joking about the converter box.)
Originally Posted By gadzuux You are dependent on 'someone else' for your healthcare. You are also dependent on your insurance company to make healthcare possible. You are also dependent on your employer to provide insurance at an affordable rate - not to mention the salary to pay for it and everything else. So what about people who don't have an employer? Or insurance? They don't get healthcare? No - they turn to the government. The government then insists that they essentially bankrupt themselves and liquidate all assets in order to qualify. This is a system that's rigged for the benefit of the insurance companies - not the individual and not the employer. It can be improved, and quality healthcare extended to more people. Who's opposed to that?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <<When you are dependent on someone else for something you need, they are in control.>> <True dat ... but if you don't have something you need (health care, a safe food supply, a DTV converter box), isn't it better to get it from the government than to not get it at all?> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But it seems to me that the government is evolving to provide more and more and more. I'd rather see more limits, and me dependent on a neighbor or business than a government.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <This is a system that's rigged for the benefit of the insurance companies - not the individual and not the employer. It can be improved, and quality health care extended to more people. Who's opposed to that? > Then make some adjustments. Making health care a job of the govt is not the best answer in my opinion. I don't have the right answer. If I did I'd be a millionaire.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A good example is the medical system in Canada. Of course it has its problems, but EVERYONE in that country has access to medical care and yet no one thinks of that nation as socialist.> Canada is more socialist than us, and not better for it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I honestly don't get why the conservative leaders don't denounce people like Limbaugh.> I honestly don't get why liberal leaders don't denounce Olberman, Stewart, or Franken. Or how about Carville or Begalia? They're nothing more than distractions like clowns at circus.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I still say there's a big leap from "government providing more services" to "back in the USSR."> I don't think it's a leap at all - more of a slippery slope - hard to get back up once you start down, so better not to start down.
Originally Posted By queenbee Martin Feldstein, Reagan's chief economist recently did an interview with NPR's OnPoint program. He disagrees with both Doug and Josh. Of course, he is not 100% in agreement with the specifics of Obama's plan but definately agrees with the principle. Transcipts can be found at www.onpoint.org
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I honestly don't get why the conservative leaders don't denounce people like Limbaugh. He's adding nothing to the discussion.*** Because, as you can find at the original link, as soon as any of them say anything bad about Limbaugh their phones ring off the hook due to pissed off rednecks, er, constituents incensed over the slight towards the imperious leader of their Evangelical, er, Conservative party.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Rush just can't seem to stay out of the news these days ... From today's SFGate - <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=35226" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...id=35226</a> New radio ads ask GOP: Are you with Rush or Obama? Liberals are targeting Rush Limbaugh as their new bogeyman. On Friday, they're intensifying that effort with radio ads targeting GOP senators in three states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada -- with a pointed question: Are you with Rush or with Obama? On Friday, Politico is reporting that the liberal outfit Americans United for Change will launch radio ads aimed at more moderate senators that they figure might be easier to peel off to support the stimulus package. The background: No GOP House members supported the stimulus package. "Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh's advice," the narrator says. Rush thinks of the stimulus bill as "porkulus." "Every Republican voted with Limbaugh - and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama's Jobs program to fail - but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That's another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator" — (insert name of senator here, like "Arlen Specter") side with Rush Limbaugh too?" The Politico asked Rush what he thought. Said El Rushbo: "Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me," he wrote in an email. "It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a 'brand' and identity." This isn't about me, it's about you? Sounds like something Obama would say. <<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Martin Feldstein, Reagan's chief economist recently did an interview with NPR's OnPoint program. He disagrees with both Doug and Josh.> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012802938.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...938.html</a> Based on what he says there, I think I'd have a lot less problems with his plan that Nancy Pelosi's Big Debt bill
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rush just can't seem to stay out of the news these days ...> And that's because - "Liberals are targeting Rush Limbaugh as their new bogeyman."
Originally Posted By avromark Actually we think of ourselves as Socialist country (and 2 of our parties run on it, although 1 is actually the most conservative, pro free enterprise, pro let`s give corporations all the cash they want). Our healthcare system has the good and bad. But in Ontario, our Liberal governnment is ruining it. Our banking act is too controlling, it basically gives a half dozen entities the right to screw everyone else (Ie. hold cheques for 20 business days, charge a fortune in fees, etc). Liberty great, but Free Enterprise has taught us it becomes to top heavy when left to their own devices. Also what sounds great to board rooms doesn`t translate to good for the country. Not everyone shares your companies corporate culture. And no Outsourcing doesn`t save money in the long run. All I can think of is Henry was right, pay them a good wage and your employees become your best customer. Also who really needs 7 homes? private Jet? a 330,000 car when a 45,000 one will do? What I see there is a dozen "backbone of the country" families can have a car for the price of one Ferra-royce.
