"chick": my take is about the illogic of socialism and big government
conspicuouschick: my take is about the illogic of socialism and big government and it certainly has nothing to do with my selective memory?
adornoe has selective memory
Actually, ?chick?, my memory works quite well, whether needing to be selective or inclusive.
But, the problem you are having with my previous post has nothing to do at all with my ?selective? memory. Your problem is more with my suggestion that big government is very damaging to the constitution and America in general.
Modern-day Republican governments are just as big as anything the latter-day Democrats have thrown out there.
You are making too many assumptions. And you know what is said about people who ?ass-u-me?, don?t you?
I meant what I said in my previous post and I still do now. Big government is damaging to the interests and freedoms of the people. It doesn?t matter who created big government programs, whether republicans or democrats. However, when it comes to loving ?big government? the democrats reign supreme.
I am consistent about disliking big government. When Bush went for bigger government with his ?no child left behind? policy/bill, I and most good republicans were adamantly against it. When Bush went for even bigger government with his ?medicare drug program? I and most conservatives were true to our beliefs and complained loudly against it. Bush was not a good conservative and many of his policies grew the government. To us conservatives, he was a traitor to good conservative principles. But, with good 20/20 hindsight, we can now determine that Bush was not a conservative and was actually more of a liberal when it came to social issues. In the least, Bush was what we conservatives refer to as RINOs (Republican In Name Only). Most RINOs don?t believe in small government and they are actually liberal-light. So was Bush 41, the father. They both were liberal-light when it came to domestic social issues.
So, I?m not using any kind of ?selective memory? in recalling how much I disliked what Bush was doing with his ?liberal? side. Bush did get those liberal programs passed with the help of a lot of democrats and a lot of RINOs in both the senates and in the house. In all cases, I was consistent in my argument against those programs. Selective memory had nothing to do with how I felt about what Bush was doing.
They simply spend America's tax money on different things.
I?m not going to lie. I voted for Bush both times. But, I certainly wasn?t going to vote for the people whose whole lives were consistently dedicated to growing the government, and I?m talking about Gore and Kerry.
If I had known ahead of time that Bush was a big government proponent when it came to social issues, I still would?ve voted for him over the others, mostly because when it came to national security, the republican was/is always stronger in matters of defense and foreign policy.
To call social programs a violation of the Constitution apparently forgets one very large Republican legislative mess know as The Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was legally drawn and enacted by all the branches of the government. And, when in times of war, the presidency is always granted special powers to carry out whatever is needed to conduct wars, sometimes even at the risk of taking away some of the ?freedoms? of the people. The Patriot Act, even with all its problems was a necessary piece of legislation which helped keep the country safe after the disastrous attacks of 9/11. And even now, all of the pieces of the Patriot Act have been kept intact by the Obama administration; so, in that case, who is being the ?selective? one? The democrats have had control of the congress for about 3 years and they?ve made no attempt to repeal the Patriot Act. In fact, they don?t even want to mention it and Obama has indicated that the law is going to remain intact with no new changes. So, in the final analysis, what the democrats were all about when it came to the Patriot Act was in using it to demonize Bush for purely partisan political gains. Now that they have the control, they don?t even want to talk about that law. Such hypocrites!
In the years since not a single member of Congress read the bill and passed it (talk about fearmongering, to use your word),
The act has been read and taken apart and examined by just about anybody that wanted to ?demonize? the Bush administration. Every single line of the act has been examined by friend and foe of the legislation. And, the fear-mongering that you talk about was not as much present when the bill was being debated and passed. The fear-mongering occurred later when the democrats realized that by demonizing the act that they could possibly gain political advantage for the next election cycle. But, even they, when it came to voting, voted for the act when it was put up for passage.
American's rights have been trampled repeatedly.
Unless you are one of those targeted by the Patriot Act, your rights didn?t get affected at all. If you were part of the terrorist network working to harm America, or if you were connected at all with them, then you would have been affected. As of yet, nobody, not even you, can point to anyone that lost any of his or her rights through the Patriot Act.
Many facets of the bill have already been declared unconstitutional and many more are on their way. George W. Bush spied on American citizens, a clearly illegal act that Congress retroactively approved to cover his butt.
?Retroactively?? What nonsense!
The act was passed shortly after 9/11 and in response to a ?war? that was needed. It was a war powers act and most of the congress voted for it. In the areas where it was thought to intrude on anybody?s rights, it was corrected; but even now, nobody can point to anyone, other than those connected to terrorism, who was harmed or had his ?rights? trampled upon. If you can actually name any, then do so for the enlightenment of the people here.
Yet somehow trying better this healthcare mess we're in is far worse? (notice I didn't say that I necessary support or approve of any of the current proposals).
It?s not just ?somehow?; it?s a ?reality? that big government programs always grow the size of government. And it doesn?t matter how much anyone wants to justify or rationalize any new government program.
Furthermore, it doesn?t matter that you didn?t come straight out for its defense and say that the health care program was a good and necessary thing. Your whole posturing and direction says that you are indeed a supporter of health care.
Health insurance tied to employment is not a choice (Crappy health insurance or no insurance? Hmm...)
Health insurance should be a personal choice and a person has a ?right? to it if he/she wants it, whether from an employer or directly from his pocket. It should not be denied to any person that wants it; but the person should have the means of affordability. It should not be a government mandated ?option?. When government intervenes, there is no ?freedom? in the choice.
Being self-insured or eating regularly is not a valid choice.
You are presenting a false argument. Anybody that wants health insurance and can afford it can get it. The 47 million of ?uninsured? that the democrats use to try to ?scare? the people into action is a made up number. The real number, according to better studies done by analysts is closer to between 5 and 10 million. As such, there is no crisis. And, if there is a need to cover those 5-10 million, that doesn?t necessitate the government take over the whole health care system to do so. The only reason that the democrats want nationalized health care is to gain more control over the people and of their votes.
Filing bankruptcy because of a catastrophic illness WHILE insured - IS NOT A CHOICE.
Again, you?re presenting the worst case scenario as justification for taking control of 1/6th of the U.S. economy. That argument won?t fly and the majority of the people, according to the polls, are not buying your argument.
Approximately how many people in the U.S., on a yearly basis, have to file for bankruptcy because they can?t afford to pay their medical bills? And, of those that do file for bankruptcy, how many of them could?ve purchased health insurance but decided not to do so?
If the problems is with ?catastrophic? health care or with very high medical bills, then perhaps the only need is for ?catastrophic? coverage in a health care at additional cost, but still not with government control of the system.
And you might want to consider this - all those govt programs that stifle people's freedoms include: roads, water and sewer, public education (without which you wouldn't even be literate enough to hold such flawed ideas), police and fire departments.
Bogus and flawed arguments!
First off, those programs on your list are of the local variety, even education. Inasmuch as those are clearly local issues, the federal or national government is not involved or should not be involved. The main issue with ?big government? is at the federal level where most of the big government that?s being talked about and most of big government that exists now, are clearly unconstitutional. We are talking, again, about the federal level of government and about the constitution of the U.S., not the state levels of government and state constitutions. With national level mandates, the people are left with no state choices.
Sure, there are things that government has to be involved in, but that doesn?t mean that they need to run the programs. Each one of those programs that you listed are being run by ?civilians?. The government is there just to collect and distribute the funding of those programs. So, who is to say that without government intervention that those programs and projects would not get done more efficiently and at lesser costs? In fact, education is a program which has been demonstrated as being able to get run better and with less money. There are many private education institutions that have consistently done a better job in educating our kids than the government. In fact, the voucher programs at state and local levels were intended to take ?government? funding for private schools to do the ?teaching?. And in fact, many of those schools that took the vouchers were able to do a better job of teaching and at much less expense than the public school system from which those students came. But, noticing the success of such schools, the democrats have decided to pull the voucher programs because they didn?t want the competition when the competition was proving to be doing much better job of teaching the kids. If more of those programs proved to be more successful than the state or federally controlled systems, then a lot more people would end up taking their kids out of the public school system, but no, the democrats need to make sure that the government is in control of education and with that they would get the education union votes. The NEA is a very powerful lobby in Washington which can win the democrats many elections, and so, the children?s quality of education is sacrificed for partisan political reasons and for votes.
Now, when there are shared resources, such as water lines and sewers, the only need is for a common collection system. That doesn?t mean a government tax system. We have common shared resources with the electric grid and with the telephone companies. But, it seems that the government doesn?t need to be involved in those systems. And those systems offer competition whereas with a government system, there would be just one provider, and as we?ve witnessed over the decades, the government services are crappy and expensive and in many cases, going broke.
Who do you think paid for the original infrastructure for phone and cable, and consequently the spread of the internet? ... Guess we should rescind those child-labor laws too, huh?
Who invented the automobile? Who invented the telephone? Who invented the television? Who invented the airplane? It wasn?t the government.
The only area where the government is needed is in the provision of the environment where the free market can take their products and services and make them work for the people and for economic growth. The government may take federal or local funding to assist in the growth of a particular economic or industrial sector, but that still does not mean that the government should take control and run whatever the system or sector or industry.
The government can be there for oversight and for rules and regulations and for the laws which apply to businesses, but other than that, it should butt out of the everyday running of businesses. The private sector has always proved to be better at running any business or any industry. The government has always proved to be very inefficient and very wasteful and higher priced than the free-market system.
So, can you name any government run program that is run efficiently and is not wasteful of the people?s taxes and that is self-sustainable?
What happens to a country?s economic system when most of the important businesses or industries are run and controlled by government? What happens to initiatives and incentivized production? Once the people don?t have an incentive to be creative and to invent and grow an economy, what happens to wealth creation? What happens to job creation? With less and less wealth as time goes on, the government itself will be seeing decreasing tax revenue and eventually the whole system collapses. The problem with people like you is that you?re very short-sighted and can?t extrapolate or see into the future, even to the immediate future where the immediate effect of government control means job losses which the government won?t be able to bring back. The private sector and the capitalist system is where the most jobs and businesses are created. No government has ever been better at producing economic growth than the private sector, especially in America. Socialism and communism have always failed everywhere where they?ve been tried, even if it sometimes takes 50 or 70 years for the people and the government to realize their mistakes.
Wake up before it?s too late for yourself and your children and the American people.