Oh, yes, of course. In your worldview the government is your friend, something to be loved and cherished. Fortunately the founders of this nation knew better. They knew that government was a necessary evil and that to preserve liberty its power and scope had to be limited.So, why don't we just slash our defense budget?
Okay with me. I've never liked the idea of the US being the world's policeman.
I suppose that means you have completely missed the existence of CERN, and the large hadron collider that just proved the existence of the Higgs Boson?
Oh wow! One discovery in a hundred years. In the nineteenth century discoveries in science, medicine and physics were made every day in Europe. Beside, the Higgs Boson was not really a discovery. Physicists have known about it for decades. All that remained was to find it.
Perhaps you also missed that America is completely reliant upon Russia to get our astronauts into space.
This is what happens when government prioritizes incorrectly.
Sure, America remains at the forefront of a lot of tech and science innovation, but I highly doubt that has anything to do with the fact that our ratio of capitalism to socialism leans slightly more in favor of capitalism than that of European countries. Any actual evidence for that conservative propaganda?
Oh really? Then what has it to do with. Failure to tax the rich sufficiently?
The federal government has been involved in public education since 1785. As for roads, how do you know this? Also, is it okay for local governments to be socialistic but not our federal government? Why? What's the difference?
The federal government until recently has not been involved in public education to the extent that it is today. The difference between federal and local government is that local government has much more leeway and freedom of action than does the federal government. The founders, in their wisdom, placed severe limitations on what the federal government is allowed to do via the US Constitution. This was necessary to protect our liberties from being trampled upon by the government. In case you didn't know it, it is in the nature of things as time passes for government power to increase and individual liberty to decrease. At least Jefferson thought so.
Medicare and welfare do need to be reformed, but that's a whole nother can of worms. The point is that they exist, and we as Americans do feel them to be necessary & useful institutions.
Interestingly, none of the health care problems we have today existed prior to the creation of Medicare in 1965. Some analysts believe that the best way to solve our health care problems would be to get the government out of the health care business. Hmmm......not a bad idea.
More frequent than republican presidencies? It seems to be split rather evenly to me. Both Bushes had wars/military involvements, as did Reagan.
They were just minor skirmishes compared to World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
Dismal numbers? You mean, the numbers that keep going up from the rock bottom of 2008, early 2009? What do you expect, a magician? If you start with no cookies, and decide to change bakers, is it reasonable to expect the new baker to create 500,000 cookies instantaneously even though the oven's still broke and you're low on sugar? What if the baker manages to make 3,000 cookies? Sure it's not as many cookies as you want, but it's a heck of a lot more than 0, and certainly took some ingenuity seeing as the entire world's economy is still in meltdown mode.
I mean in 2009 Obama promised us that with his $800 billion in stimulus money, the unemploymnet rate woul not go above 8%. We know how that turned out. In fact the unemployment has not gone below 8% the whole time he's been in office! If that's not a record of failure, I don't know what is. Oh, wait, I know......it's all George Bush's fault.....That and the fact that taxes are too low......of course.
Do you deny that that is precisely what the Republicans have been doing? The numbers support that this Republican congress has been more obstructionist than any previous, and they have admitted that their goal is to make Obama a 1 term president. Sorry, I wish I were making this stuff up.
No, I don't deny it, and I'm glad of it. I have no desire to see this country turned into a European style social democracy which is where this president wants to take us. I have no desire to see this country become bankrupt like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Good God, man, this president has increased the national debt more in three and a half years than all the other presidents added together over 200 plus years!! And what have we got to show for it? Thank God for those in Congress who are trying to stop people like Obama who have a maniacal compulsion to spend money whether the money exists or not.
Nope, wrong again. Obama wants to combine tax raises (on the rich) with budget cuts and tax decreases (for the middle class). A bit more nuanced, balanced approach. Also, a bit more reasonable than the frothing-at-the-mouth knee jerk response that states that taxes can't be raised ever, but then whines that we have a deficit.
We have a deficit not because taxes are too low, but because spending is too high. And with a bad economy like this raising taxes on anyone will only make it worse. And while on the subjest what do you and Obama think would be a fair tax rate on rich folks? 30%?...50%?....75%?....90%? At what point do you think it becomes unfair to steal what doesn't belong to you??
Our taxes are at the lowest rate in decades. So, according to your philosophy, shouldn't business be booming? In contrast, the economy was booming under Clinton, and yet taxes were higher. Perhaps, just maybe, raising taxes don't have as much of an impact as the Republicans would have us believe?
Wrong again. Just ask any ecnomics major. Raising taxes tends to slow economic activity. Even Democrats know this. Some of them, anyway. The reason the economy boomed during the Clinton years was the rapidly growing dotcom bubble. It was an unsustainable fool's paradise. Once that bubble burst the good times and the budget surplus went away.
I would think all those workers who built the Hoover Dam would disagree. I also think every military contractor would also beg to differ.
And where did the money come from to pay all those workers? It came from hard working tax payers in the private sector trying to better themselves. The government didn't create it.
Sorry, quotes don't do much for me: Show me numbers. Did the higher tax rates of America past destroy our industriousness? Hardly.
Which higher tax rates is that? When you add together federal taxes, state taxes, municipal taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on this, taxes on that, the fact is a greater percentage of a person's income goes to pay taxes today than ever before. As for quotes, well, that's understandable. You wouldn't want to accidentally learn something from someone more knowledgeable than yourself.
Slippery slope fear mongering, with a dash of strawman to taste.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which presidential candidate are you voting for in the 2012 election and why?
- Thread starter Mr. Skittles
- Start date
Oh, yes, of course. In your worldview the government is your friend, something to be loved and cherished. Fortunately the founders of this nation knew better. They knew that government was a necessary evil and that to preserve liberty its power and scope had to be limited.
I will be voting FOR Paul Ryan -- Mitt Romney will benefit from that.
For one, helping to overthrow a legitimate government and therefor helping to make way for a dictator under whos rules 3000 people "disappeared" (Chile, the 11:th september 1973).
Our current and less-socialistic government has not exactly been a saving grace.
The founding fathers also thought that slavery was a good thing. The point being, of course, that the founding fathers were neither always right, nor did they have the ability to perfectly predict the future needs of a future world. Heck, they didn't even think they got it all perfect the first time, otherwise, they wouldn't have enabled us to amend the constitution.
Which brings us to the next problem with your pithy retort: Were the founding fathers truly against socialism? After all, Section 8 of Article 1 in our constitution empowered congress to establish the Post Office and to post roads. This article was rather interesting. There is no clear evidence that the Founding Fathers were against social services, and some of the things that they wrote into the Constitution to give Congress the power to do seems to fly in the face of the claim that they were.
Of course, slavery was not OK with some. It was hotly debated.
Socialism is about government owning the means of production, not providing infrastructure. A better argument for you would be the micro-economic
regulation which existed here & there in the colonies for centuries leading up to the revolution. It was worse & more widespread than was commonly known.
(Ref Industrial Evolution of the United States by CD Wright, 1895) But as the Constitution was written, socialism would appear to have no legal mechanism to
implement it. The 16th Amendment & specious interpretation of other amendments laid the groundwork for our march towards socialism though.
Last edited:
I will also, but I'm not sure about the benefit. I had hoped for some time that Romney would pick Paul Ryan but now that it's a fact, I'm having second thoughts. (I should be careful what I wish for, since I might get it). For one thing, we can expect Mr. Ryan to be savagely and brutally attacked by the media ala Sarah Palin four years ago. By the time Mr. Obama's lackeys in the media get through with him, people will think that Mr. Ryan has fangs, horns and a pointed tail. I just hope the two gentlemen are aware that this is coming and have a plan to counteract it. Obviously Mr. Romney picked Ryan to insure that conservatives who had doubts about him (Romney) would get on board. This he has now accompished but what about the center? Would he have been better off with a running mate with more appeal to the center and independents? I don't know. I hope it all works out.
Great! But that still doesn't mean they were all right all of the time. And it only helps my point in that it destroys this concept of a monolithic entity that was firmly united in upholding modern conservative values (or so our Republican friends would have us picture the founding fathers.)
The term "socialism" commonly encompasses any social service provided by the government, hence roads, mail, firefighters, education, libraries, etc, are considered socialistic. Perhaps the term has been mutated, or perhaps these "infrastructure" sorts of projects somehow fall under government controlled production. I don't know enuf to say for sure. I do know that it's not just us lefties that call that stuff socialism; the conservatives deem it as such as well, though of course, with less of an appreciative tone.
Interesting about the micro-regulation. Will look it up.
As for "no legal mechanism", I'm not quite sure what you mean. Section 8 of Article 1 seems to clearly give that power to Congress. Perhaps the problem was implementation, not legaility?
Never said they were right at all.
Nah...that's a rather twisted definition. Although some services lean a little towards socialism.
How would gov't acquire the means of production?
There is no income tax to raise funds to buy businesses, & the 5th Amendment prohibits taking them.
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Not really, you see, I was out doing the watering tonight mulling the apology over and it all clicked and I burst out laughing. Hillary showed great weakness and was rewarded for it. Then again, she is almost a big a disaster on the world stage as her boss. No doubt the Pakistani's expected that.
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) ------------ 5 ---14.29%
Barack Obama (Democrat) -------------13 --37.14%
Ron Paul (Republican) -------------------1 -----2.86%
Mitt Romney (Republican) --------------8 ----22.86%
I don't Know/I wont reveal my choice -1----- 2.86%
Not Voting --------------------------------7---- 20.00%
Judging by these numbers and given the demographics on RF, if I was BHO, I'd be very worried.
Oh, and the 7 of you who are not voting, what's with that?
Is it some kind of infantile protest thingy?
Last edited:
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
I would if I could...
And this is why I vote democrat. You would prefer to waste another billion dollars and jeopardize the supply lines to our troops rather than having the courage to own responsibility for hurting other people. That just ain't right, mate.
Why? He's winning by 15% over the next closest contender. Feel free to calculate the average percentage points a president wins by from HERE. But a brief overview seems to suggest ~8% is about average. He's got a pretty nice cushion, especially considering you only need one more than the other guy.
Well that's one thing we agree on. I never understood the protest by abstaining to vote. How does that solve anything?
We are so odd here that I don't think much meaning can be read into our numbers.
Here is McKayla Maroney's being unimpressed with our numbers........or is her scorn for Obama?
I have heard people claim that they were protesting the lack of good candidates, or the whole electoral process, and other such claims by refusing to vote in elections. That's all I was referring to.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Actually, I'd much rather "our" troops get out of that hell hole altogether. I would also happily cut off all foreign aid to both Pakistan and Afghanistan (and a host of other countries).
That aside, you must be chuckling. I know I am. You have the worst Financial Illiterate-In-Chief, the world has ever seen and you are happy voting for the man... absolutely hilarious... if it wasn't so terribly disturbing...
Oh take a pill. It was a minor observation concerning the overwhelming demographics on RF. I had expected Obama's lead to be FAR greater.
Beats me. To my thinking, it is like pinning a sign to ones back saying, "I'm Stupid."
Never said that you said they were right. You responded to a comment directed at JohnLeo regarding his appeal to authority as to the wisdom of the founding fathers. I responded to your response in that context.
Hm, might be a good basis for a thread. Do you think that government involvement, in healthcare for instance, constitutes socialism? If so, what's the difference between that and education and roads and policemen?
The original constitution does give congress the power to levy taxes. Same Article 1, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
The income tax came later, sure, but it's not like the federal government had no money coming in before that or was without the means to levy a tax if they decided they needed more.
I never said that you said that I said that you said that.......where was I?
It's a broad continuum between socialism & a fully privatized world. I don't think a line can be as easily drawn as a direction of change.
Healthcare is more socialistic in Canada, since it appears that the gov really owns the 'means of production', but in the US it's heading
in that direction because of the increasing extent of gov control. But the US is doing a really bad job of it.
But without an income tax, this would generate enuf money to buy out industry.
The income tax is what allows gov to take over more & more. Since it wasn't in the original founders plan, that's why I'd say they didn't allow socialism.
Moreover, I don't think they ever envisioned socialism's existence at all.
Last edited:
I would too. But that has nothing, however, to do with the fact that our troops are currently there, and they need supplies now; supplies which are now much more easily and cheaply supplied because Clinton had the balls to say "I'm sorry."
Really? The worst ever? In the entire history of the world?
Perhaps you missed the fact that the entire world is in an economic meltdown. Perhaps you also missed the fact that the economy hit rock bottom in 2008, early 2009, and has been slowly moving up since then.
Sure, you can argue that perhaps the economy should be getting better faster, but it's hard to deny that it is getting better. Hardly the criteria for "worst ever" financial stewardship.
Two other sticky little points for you. One: the president has power, but not that much power. Congress, the accumulated domestic economic issues of the past decade plus, and the inertia of a world wide economy play a much larger roll. Two: historically, the economy, from GDP to debt to unemployment, has done better under democratic stewardship than republican. Why is that? Is it just luck of the draw? If that is the case, then by golly, I'm voting for the luckier of the two parties.
I'm perplexed as to why I need to take a pill. I simply replied to your minor observation with a minor observation of my own.