I dont get it

[Soul_Patch]

Why are some people so against sharing the wealth? Why are some people so against helping the unfortunate with social programs? Why do some consider "tree hugging" to be a bad thing? What is wrong with taking a look at the rest of the world, and not just the here and now and what it is that I want...

I have lived and traveled in a lot of places with what some of you guys would consider "socialist" or near socialst type of governments, and id have to say, I dont see them being that bad off...What is the argument against it?

I have never understood why it is considered a bad thing to be liberal...i have never understood why some people would be against a government that we already pay for, to provide things for its people, or to involve itself with its people. What happened to make so many American people so selfish and self centered?....If someone told me i could give back a small portion of what i earn, to help the entire nation with a vast array of social programs, i just dont see the bad side in that, even if i dont use these programs (which most likely i wouldnt), you are supporting your country and your countrymen...how is that a bad thing?

Most people in the USA would consider themselves religious i'd imagine, and most religions teach their people to love thy neighbor, or treat thy neighbor how they would like to be treated, yet what you hear from the party most alligned with the largest religious group in our country is "fuck em if they are poor, because my money is my money!!, and no one should tell me what to do with it" It just doesnt really make a whole lot of sense to me.

What is so great about the system we have now? I just dont understand, nor do i think ill ever understand the ideals that conservatives embrace...I dont understand this sink or swim attitude at all.

I have never really liked politics, nor do i pretend to know a whole lot about it, but i feel like i do have a good grasp on what is right or what is wrong, and it just seems like there is a whole lot of wrong, and not very much right in todays government. Do i think Hillary, or Barrack is going to make that better? Absolutely not, i have no faith that anyone will ever change the way things are run, there is too much money being stuffed in pockets on both side for either to really stick to their morals and do what is right. That is sad....but, i do think its time to give the other side a shot, in the hopes that just maybe, this time it will be different... since it sure as hell went to shit with what we have already.



That is my completely uneducated take...shoot it down all you like, but i still probably wont get the argument as to why we should be against liberalism...Until the past few years i guess i have never considered myself to be alligned with any party. I voted for Bush the first time he was up for election, because he resonated with me...I think both parties have some really good things to offer, and both have some bad things to offer...i do think though, that the government should be there to provide for its people, so in that aspect, i suppose that makes me a liberal, and i am ok with that.

[clambake]

their problem is waste. there is a thread about a woman in section 8 housing.

what they don't realize is that the owners of these properties are private, and they are the ones ripping you off, not the people that genuinely need assistance.

[George Gervin's Afro]

5,4,3,2,1..

resident righties to attack..

[j-6]

You wrote my answer yourself.


i have no faith that anyone will ever change the way things are run, there is too much money being stuffed in pockets on both side for either to really stick to their morals and do what is right.

Since this is what I believe, the less money I give to wasteful bullshit, corrupt bottomfeeding politicians, and sorry-ass lazy citizens trying to rip the system off, the better. I can use every dollar I earn for something my household needs, and I'm pretty effing liberal for what that's worth.

Maybe I'm selfish and uncaring toward creating a better society. But as things stand now, there is no incentive for me to change my mindset.

[101A]

First:

Most Conservatives decidely DON"T like the system we have now.

Also, the basic problem with liberalism is IT DOESNt'T work - as good as the motives of the people who propose and implement it's failed strategies might WANT it to work. Programs set up to help the poor tend to create MORE poor, not fewer (you get what you pay for after all). For example - our welfare policies in this country lean heavily toward helping the poor mother feed her children. Therefore, we have many more illegitimate children born in this country than we did before this "great society" program was implemented. Un unintended consequence? If I'm being diplomatic, yes. If I'm being more cynical - No - the consequence is intentional, the people who implemented it KNEW what would happen, and were fine with that because, ultimately, all of those single mothers, and their children, keep those people in power.

Also, because of this inevitible dynamic of creating MORE of what they attempt to solve, Social Programs are EXENSIVE - and grow rapidly. The only way to fund them is through taxation - and if taxation is going to collect any real money to pay for these programs, it must take from the people, primarily, that have the most to pay. The "fortunate" people of society also tend to be the most successful. They provide the fuel to the engine that is the economy; jobs, innovations, etc. So, the net result is, by being successful you are punished by the tax code, and by being irresponsible, and unproductive/uneducated - you are rewarded by it. It's not really a debatable point - it just is that way by design.

Also, don't go ragging on the religious; they give, by far, the most money to charity than any other group in society (both domestically AND abroad) - in both real terms, and as a percentage of income. Usually those people align themselves with the more conservative party because of a perceived common ground on social issues (abortion and homosexual rights); taxation is not their principal concern. You might be interested to know that the big hearted liberals you are so attracted to give the least to charity. They have big ideas that require other people's money to solve.

It's great that you have traveled to other countries and experienced the wonders of socialism up close. What I see is the United States government, which is grossly inefficient - and who can't control the spending of ANY program. Bully for those countries, they don't have OUR government, they have theirs (which, btw, doesn't spend nearly the money on defense that ours does, since we have their back, and they don't have to). Did you know that only four countries in the world have the great big aircraft carriers - the ones planes take of and land from traditionally? U.S., France, Chile and Russia. Russia, obviously because of the cold war tradition, Chile, well who know why, France has one - the U.S? - 13! We are controlling the seas for EVERYBODY - another place our government has gotten worked, and how we subsidize all of those socialist utopias you're so fond of!

What is wrong with liberalism/socialism? It doesn't work. It doesn't deliver on its promises,a dn it punishes achievement. It does, however, make many people feel self-righteous and warm inside when they vote while they wash their hands of the problems of society which will continue as they support ANOTHER program that doesn't really help, so there is that, I guess.

[101A]

their problem is waste. there is a thread about a woman in section 8 housing.

what they don't realize is that the owners of these properties are private, and they are the ones ripping you off, not the people that genuinely need assistance.What you don't get it private abuses govenment when they deal with each other - so my solution is NOT to give the government more to get ripped off from it. The bottom line is govt. program = fail (one way or another).

[mikejones99]

why should you give money to stupid people? most old people would rather gamble it away in Vegas

[clambake]

What you don't get it private abuses govenment when they deal with each other - so my solution is NOT to give the government more to get ripped off from it. The bottom line is govt. program = fail (one way or another).
i'm not arguing that, either. but to punish the abusers means to punish the worthy. are you going to make that call?

[Soul_Patch]

so why not fix the problem rather than just completely do away with it all together.


If these social programs dont work, why not spend some time to find out why, rather than take them away all together?

Im not bagging on religion, im religious myself, but i just feel that it is wierd to me that the "evangelical christians" are so overwhelmingly conservative, when it would seem that based on christianity's teachings, it should be the other way around shouldnt it?

Im enjoying hearing the differing view points, so i hope they keep coming.

[AFBlue]

so why not fix the problem rather than just completely do away with it all together.


If these social programs dont work, why not spend some time to find out why, rather than take them away all together?

Im not bagging on religion, im religious myself, but i just feel that it is wierd to me that the "evangelical christians" are so overwhelmingly conservative, when it would seem that based on christianity's teachings, it should be the other way around shouldnt it?

Im enjoying hearing the differing view points, so i hope they keep coming.

It's a fundamental issue of organizational structure....

The bigger an organization is the more structure it has to keep itself sustained....control all the moving parts that govern it.

All of these programs are inevitably controlled by a macro organization that is inflexible and by its nature, resistant to change.

Basically....even if you wanted to change it, it's a relative impossiblity.

BTW, nice point on evangelical Christians....but in my experience the only time I hear "evangelical Christian" associated with politics it's in regard to their "right to life" preference....a traditionally conservative issue.

Maybe they leave their "evangelical Christian" label at home and become red-blooded American capitalists when voting against social programs (i.e. helping thy neighbor). :lol

[101A]

sbut i just feel that it is wierd to me that the "evangelical christians" are so overwhelmingly conservative, when it would seem that based on christianity's teachings, it should be the other way around shouldnt it?You've bought the "Conservative = Cold Hearted" hook, line and sinker. Evangelical Christians feel compelled, and are commanded, to help the poor, and the disadvantaged. Evangelical Christians give a larger percentage of their income to charities that do that than any other segment of society. Nowhere does the bible command one to waste your money by throwing it at a government program that isn't going to deliver on its promises. In fact, Jesus would have condemned that type of behavior, IMO, as intellectually, and spiritually dishonest.

Modern Liberal = Pharisee.

[Holt's Cat]

Since this is what I believe, the less money I give to wasteful bullshit, corrupt bottomfeeding politicians, and sorry-ass lazy citizens trying to rip the system off, the better. I can use every dollar I earn for something my household needs, and I'm pretty effing liberal for what that's worth.

Maybe I'm selfish and uncaring toward creating a better society. But as things stand now, there is no incentive for me to change my mindset.

:tu

You can't separate personal freedom from economic freedom. If the government taxes your income, let's say, at 30% then you are working for the government 30% of the time. Nevermind that you may have some damn good uses for the $ you earn. You have to send it to the smart people in the government who presumably know how better to spend that $ than you do.

Sure, a lot of social conservatives do take a hypocritical stance in wanting the government out of their economic lives, but not out of our personal lives, IMO. But it's just as hypocritical to want the government out of personal lives yet believe the government should have its hands all over our paychecks.

Neither party really offers that much of a change from the present arrangement. Both are engaged in buying votes with handouts of some sort and make any kind of tax relief out to be some kind of favor they are doing for taxpayers. Of course, the people ultimately deserve the government they get. The gullible exist among us and enough are always willing to believe that they can get something for nothing.

[Holt's Cat]

Plus it doesn't make someone less of a Christian if they believe that the federal government is not a preferable charity.

[clambake]

the sorry-ass lazy citizens making the killing are the property owners. you know, the capitalist that think like conservative greedmongers.

don't misunderstand, i like my money, too, but i'd rather be a bleeding heart than no heart at all.

[Holt's Cat]

So you're showing "heart" by spending other people's money.

[clambake]

you think i get away from this expense? It's the countries problems. eveyone pays. you sound more concerned about those who sit on their ass, and not so concerned about who's getting wealthy on your dime.

[Holt's Cat]

I'm more concerned with the proposition that a mammoth bureaucracy has a greater claim on my earnings than myself, particularly when it comes to providing for myself, my family, and doing charitable works, among other things. Sure, provide a legal system, provide for the national defense, etc...but let the people manage their own lives.

[clambake]

so you would do away with section 8 support?

[Holt's Cat]

Sure.

[clambake]

draw me a verbal picture of what happens after you do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

First:

Most Conservatives decidely DON"T like the system we have now.

Also, the basic problem with liberalism is IT DOESNt'T work - as good as the motives of the people who propose and implement it's failed strategies might WANT it to work. Programs set up to help the poor tend to create MORE poor, not fewer (you get what you pay for after all). For example - our welfare policies in this country lean heavily toward helping the poor mother feed her children. Therefore, we have many more illegitimate children born in this country than we did before this "great society" program was implemented. Un unintended consequence? If I'm being diplomatic, yes. If I'm being more cynical - No - the consequence is intentional, the people who implemented it KNEW what would happen, and were fine with that because, ultimately, all of those single mothers, and their children, keep those people in power.

Also, because of this inevitible dynamic of creating MORE of what they attempt to solve, Social Programs are EXENSIVE - and grow rapidly. The only way to fund them is through taxation - and if taxation is going to collect any real money to pay for these programs, it must take from the people, primarily, that have the most to pay. The "fortunate" people of society also tend to be the most successful. They provide the fuel to the engine that is the economy; jobs, innovations, etc. So, the net result is, by being successful you are punished by the tax code, and by being irresponsible, and unproductive/uneducated - you are rewarded by it. It's not really a debatable point - it just is that way by design.

Also, don't go ragging on the religious; they give, by far, the most money to charity than any other group in society (both domestically AND abroad) - in both real terms, and as a percentage of income. Usually those people align themselves with the more conservative party because of a perceived common ground on social issues (abortion and homosexual rights); taxation is not their principal concern. You might be interested to know that the big hearted liberals you are so attracted to give the least to charity. They have big ideas that require other people's money to solve.

It's great that you have traveled to other countries and experienced the wonders of socialism up close. What I see is the United States government, which is grossly inefficient - and who can't control the spending of ANY program. Bully for those countries, they don't have OUR government, they have theirs (which, btw, doesn't spend nearly the money on defense that ours does, since we have their back, and they don't have to). Did you know that only four countries in the world have the great big aircraft carriers - the ones planes take of and land from traditionally? U.S., France, Chile and Russia. Russia, obviously because of the cold war tradition, Chile, well who know why, France has one - the U.S? - 13! We are controlling the seas for EVERYBODY - another place our government has gotten worked, and how we subsidize all of those socialist utopias you're so fond of!

What is wrong with liberalism/socialism? It doesn't work. It doesn't deliver on its promises,a dn it punishes achievement. It does, however, make many people feel self-righteous and warm inside when they vote while they wash their hands of the problems of society which will continue as they support ANOTHER program that doesn't really help, so there is that, I guess.


So what about the people who benefited from these social programs? The one's who used it temporarily when they were down? Now they are successes because of these programs... I then guess your argument that these programs are failures..is a failure as well.. nice try.. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

their problem is waste. there is a thread about a woman in section 8 housing.

what they don't realize is that the owners of these properties are private, and they are the ones ripping you off, not the people that genuinely need assistance.
Wow... I actually agree with you to a limited point on this one.

What I see it as, is that any home owner wanting to rent out a piece of property has an incentive to rent as section 8. It basically becomes a government guarantee, whereas the owner takes no losses where an individual renting to anyone could take severe property damage and have no resolution is someone if the renter cannot pay for damages. The government makes the home owners whole again!


Why are some people so against sharing the wealth?
Are you joking? I hope so. My wealth comes from my hard work, and I'll be damned if I share it with someone who doesn't try to achieve. I am more than generous with people in need of help who try.


Why are some people so against helping the unfortunate with social programs?
I have no problem with helping. However, I will not help someone who is capable of helping them self, but is too lazy too.


Why do some consider "tree hugging" to be a bad thing?
I love nature, and I am a tree hugger myself. I just don't believe in the extremes that the term implies.


What is wrong with taking a look at the rest of the world, and not just the here and now and what it is that I want...

Any intelligent person looks at the world, and history. They take known situations and try for the best solution. It must be an informed and thought out solution, and not purely from the heart.



I have lived and traveled in a lot of places with what some of you guys would consider "socialist" or near socialst type of governments, and id have to say, I dont see them being that bad off...What is the argument against it?

I lived in Germany for six years. Bad off? No. However, there is no incentive to be an achiever. Still, most of the "middle class" Germans are clueless to how the American middle-class lives. Funny that our poor here in America live better than the working middle-class of Germany!



I have never understood why it is considered a bad thing to be liberal...i have never understood why some people would be against a government that we already pay for, to provide things for its people, or to involve itself with its people.
Help is one thing, but the help is excessive to the point it is expected and relied upon.


What happened to make so many American people so selfish and self centered?....
Selfish? As a nation, we are the most generous in the world. Yes, I know that as a percentage, it is reported our government is far behind other countries, but I'm talking about charity, freely given, by individuals.


If someone told me i could give back a small portion of what i earn, to help the entire nation with a vast array of social programs, i just dont see the bad side in that, even if i dont use these programs (which most likely i wouldnt), you are supporting your country and your countrymen...how is that a bad thing?

Have at it. There is no law saying you cannot give to your choice of charity, or even make a contribution to the government!



Most people in the USA would consider themselves religious i'd imagine, and most religions teach their people to love thy neighbor, or treat thy neighbor how they would like to be treated, yet what you hear from the party most alligned with the largest religious group in our country is "fuck em if they are poor, because my money is my money!!, and no one should tell me what to do with it" It just doesnt really make a whole lot of sense to me.

That's not the message. Most religious people do take charity to heart. However, Jesus said something to the effect "give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life." We are opposed to charity that makes a person beholden to charity.



What is so great about the system we have now? I just dont understand, nor do i think ill ever understand the ideals that conservatives embrace...I dont understand this sink or swim attitude at all.

Conservatism is hard to explain. The basics are to stay with things that are known to work, and make changes slowly, out of well thought out conclusions rather than feelings only.



I have never really liked politics, nor do i pretend to know a whole lot about it, but i feel like i do have a good grasp on what is right or what is wrong, and it just seems like there is a whole lot of wrong, and not very much right in todays government.
Remember that government is a necessary evil. I believe most conservatives believe government should be limited to necessity only.


Do i think Hillary, or Barrack is going to make that better? Absolutely not, i have no faith that anyone will ever change the way things are run, there is too much money being stuffed in pockets on both side for either to really stick to their morals and do what is right. That is sad....but, i do think its time to give the other side a shot, in the hopes that just maybe, this time it will be different... since it sure as hell went to shit with what we have already.

We agree here. John McCain isn't the answer either. Anyway we go, we are fucked for the next four years, and beyond, as enacted policies follow.



That is my completely uneducated take...shoot it down all you like, but i still probably wont get the argument as to why we should be against liberalism...Until the past few years i guess i have never considered myself to be alligned with any party.
I am not in alignment with any party myself. I have always been registered as "not affiliated." I used to vote for any party. As time went by, I found myself voting less and less for democrats. They have become radically opposite to my views as they are nearly all authoritarians. This is the opposite of liberty. Republicans are who I vote for mostly now, as the lesser of evils. I am not happy with most of them either.


I voted for Bush the first time he was up for election, because he resonated with me...I think both parties have some really good things to offer, and both have some bad things to offer...i do think though, that the government should be there to provide for its people, so in that aspect, i suppose that makes me a liberal, and i am ok with that.

In both elections for me, he was the lesser of two evils. I was pleasantly surprised how he took command in the one area a president is suppose to be authoritarian. As Commander in Chief. Many say he did it wrong, but few are ever 100% right. He lost me with immigration and spending. I didn't care for a few other policies. I still thing that history will show president Bush as one of the best presidents we ever had. I would see this as a guaranteed position if he wasn't so wrong on illegal immigration and the pork barrel spending he allowed. He was too late to see it for what it was.

[101A]

So what about the people who benefited from these social programs? The one's who used it temporarily when they were down? Now they are successes because of these programs... I then guess your argument that these programs are failures..is a failure as well.. nice try.. :rolleyes
Go look up the promises of the social programs BEFORE they were enacted; then look at the reality. If they would have been sold based on the reality; the country wouldn't have bought. THEY ARE FAILURES by any objective measure of expected outcome (by delusional liberals) vs. delivered; a couple of case studies notwithstanding. The Great Society programs, despite the TRILLIONS of dollars pumped into them; have not increased AT ALL the propensity of Americans to climb out of poverty. That is not what the country was told.

FAIL!

[sabar]

Let's make it simple why big government fails.
This is obviously overly simplistic.

Small Government
I make $10,000. I give $5,000 to education. Education receives $5,000.

Bureaucracy
I make $10,000. The government takes $5,000. $1,000 pays the salaries of the bureaucrats. $750 pays for statistical and data collection on education. $250 goes to paperwork. $500 is pocketed in secret by corruption. Education receives $2,500. I am free to donate on the side (unless it is socialist in which case it should be split among all schools) to make this up but lose more money. Everyone loses except the bureaucrats.

Everyone knows bureaucracies are inefficient, so why do they exist? Because they have to. Political candidates make big claims about fixing education. But they don't have that power. Their solution? Bam, Department of Education. Another candidate promises to stop terrorism. Instead of leaving it to the Department of Defense, bam, Department of Homeland Security.

These things cost money. Money that would ordinarily go directly to the problems get weighed down. Bureaucracy is like a tax on charity. Each employee inside takes a cut.

The sad part is neither political party is truly for small government. It started out that way with federalists and anti-federalists but the fact is that bigger government is advantageous for election. The only candidate that wanted small government (Ron Paul) was either unknown or too radical for people to swing that way. People are afraid of big change, no matter their affiliation. That is why our tax code is 66,000 odd pages long.

[sabar]

Oh, and socialism fails because it is a market failure. Goods are allocated in an inefficient way and production has no incentive to produce the best quality goods. Socialism can only work in a society where each person truly works pro bono.

[Wild Cobra]

Saber, I agree. Anyone for The Fair tax and limiting government in other ways too?

Established politicians like John McCain are not the answer. We need true contervatives, or libertarians of a conservative stripe.

[Nbadan]

Oh, and socialism fails because it is a market failure. Goods are allocated in an inefficient way and production has no incentive to produce the best quality goods. Socialism can only work in a society where each person truly works pro bono.

Yeah, but there is a new type of socialism that encompasses free-market ideas and a controlled population...i.e. China....I don't have to tell how successful their model has been....

[clambake]

Wow... I actually agree with you to a limited point on this one.

What I see it as, is that any home owner wanting to rent out a piece of property has an incentive to rent as section 8. It basically becomes a government guarantee, whereas the owner takes no losses where an individual renting to anyone could take severe property damage and have no resolution is someone if the renter cannot pay for damages. The government makes the home owners whole again!
I guess it's time for us to have a civil conversation.

Forget the suckers that have a two bedroom piece of shit they can't sell but are able to somehow wrangle HUD into subsidizing their piece of shit for profit.

The money whores are conservative conglomerates or simple individuals that amass large properties amounting to hundreds or thousands of units for the sole purpose of bilking tax payers. There is a beauty to this operation, if you're willing to treat people like cockroaches.

1. Aquire properties for section 8 housing.....nothing more.
2. Be creative....the larger the better. HUD likes that for convenience.
3. Call yourself a "Property Management Company" and have a property not tied to section 8. Claim to be a company that caters to property management for owners too busy for day to day operations. Makes you look legit.
4. Create your own maintenance division and make your own repairs. Hire employees, purchase your own equipment through HUD subsidies, along with parts, pay your employees shit, and bill the govt. three times for every step thats taken.

This is what people with legitimate needs live through everyday........................................ye ah, I get it...........fuck them all.

[sabar]

Thing is, it's political suicide to run for small government nowadays. People want government to solve all their problems, whether it's social programs, education, the economy, or any issue. A candidate that says "I am for slashing gov't programs" speaks to very few. One day this will come to bite the U.S.. Eventually our massive debt that we accumulate from thousands of government programs will have to be paid.

You can't run a balanced budget with what people want. You can't cut taxes with what people want. Everyone wants lower taxes, so bam, taxes are lowered and so are government subsidies to say, homeless shelters. Then people want homeless shelters. Well, you know, the money has to come from somewhere. So we go into debt and run into deficit spending.

Instead of letting things solve themselves at the individual (poverty) or city (education) level, everyone votes in candidates that promise that the federal government will handle everything.

Even the original federalists that helped found the country look like small government supporters compared to anyone we elect nowadays.

You don't have to go far to see that people want everything handled at the federal level -- compare how many people know the president to say, their senators. Their representatives. Their mayor. How many people vote at the national level compared to the local level? How many people know what the Patriot Act is compared to some random city ordinance?

What's going to happen when the foreign governments come to collect their debt? What's going to happen when government programs go bankrupt?
Does any candidate have a solution?
Why do people care more about trivial issues like immigration compared to where we will be in the world in the future?
Why does no one care about the scope of government?
How many people know who Thomas Jefferson was?
His ideals?
Alexander Hamilton?
George Washington?
John Locke?
How many know the roots of each political party?
Who knows off the top of their head what exactly the declaration of independence is even about?
Who knows about the federalists, the anti-federalists and state rights?

Fact is, these percentages are very low. No significant portion of the voters knows what this country is founded upon and why we are as strong as we are today. No significant portion knows why we seem to be in decline. And no significant portion cares.

[clambake]

you're wrong Sabar. america doesn't give a shit about that anymore. "our prize" has nothing to do with righteousness anymore.

[braeden0613]

First:

Most Conservatives decidely DON"T like the system we have now.

Also, the basic problem with liberalism is IT DOESNt'T work - as good as the motives of the people who propose and implement it's failed strategies might WANT it to work. Programs set up to help the poor tend to create MORE poor, not fewer (you get what you pay for after all). For example - our welfare policies in this country lean heavily toward helping the poor mother feed her children. Therefore, we have many more illegitimate children born in this country than we did before this "great society" program was implemented. Un unintended consequence? If I'm being diplomatic, yes. If I'm being more cynical - No - the consequence is intentional, the people who implemented it KNEW what would happen, and were fine with that because, ultimately, all of those single mothers, and their children, keep those people in power.

Also, because of this inevitible dynamic of creating MORE of what they attempt to solve, Social Programs are EXENSIVE - and grow rapidly. The only way to fund them is through taxation - and if taxation is going to collect any real money to pay for these programs, it must take from the people, primarily, that have the most to pay. The "fortunate" people of society also tend to be the most successful. They provide the fuel to the engine that is the economy; jobs, innovations, etc. So, the net result is, by being successful you are punished by the tax code, and by being irresponsible, and unproductive/uneducated - you are rewarded by it. It's not really a debatable point - it just is that way by design.

Also, don't go ragging on the religious; they give, by far, the most money to charity than any other group in society (both domestically AND abroad) - in both real terms, and as a percentage of income. Usually those people align themselves with the more conservative party because of a perceived common ground on social issues (abortion and homosexual rights); taxation is not their principal concern. You might be interested to know that the big hearted liberals you are so attracted to give the least to charity. They have big ideas that require other people's money to solve.

It's great that you have traveled to other countries and experienced the wonders of socialism up close. What I see is the United States government, which is grossly inefficient - and who can't control the spending of ANY program. Bully for those countries, they don't have OUR government, they have theirs (which, btw, doesn't spend nearly the money on defense that ours does, since we have their back, and they don't have to). Did you know that only four countries in the world have the great big aircraft carriers - the ones planes take of and land from traditionally? U.S., France, Chile and Russia. Russia, obviously because of the cold war tradition, Chile, well who know why, France has one - the U.S? - 13! We are controlling the seas for EVERYBODY - another place our government has gotten worked, and how we subsidize all of those socialist utopias you're so fond of!

What is wrong with liberalism/socialism? It doesn't work. It doesn't deliver on its promises,a dn it punishes achievement. It does, however, make many people feel self-righteous and warm inside when they vote while they wash their hands of the problems of society which will continue as they support ANOTHER program that doesn't really help, so there is that, I guess.
:clap

[clambake]

First:

Most Conservatives decidely DON"T like the system we have now.

Also, the basic problem with liberalism is IT DOESNt'T work - as good as the motives of the people who propose and implement it's failed strategies might WANT it to work. Programs set up to help the poor tend to create MORE poor, not fewer (you get what you pay for after all). For example - our welfare policies in this country lean heavily toward helping the poor mother feed her children. Therefore, we have many more illegitimate children born in this country than we did before this "great society" program was implemented. Un unintended consequence? If I'm being diplomatic, yes. If I'm being more cynical - No - the consequence is intentional, the people who implemented it KNEW what would happen, and were fine with that because, ultimately, all of those single mothers, and their children, keep those people in power.

Also, because of this inevitible dynamic of creating MORE of what they attempt to solve, Social Programs are EXENSIVE - and grow rapidly. The only way to fund them is through taxation - and if taxation is going to collect any real money to pay for these programs, it must take from the people, primarily, that have the most to pay. The "fortunate" people of society also tend to be the most successful. They provide the fuel to the engine that is the economy; jobs, innovations, etc. So, the net result is, by being successful you are punished by the tax code, and by being irresponsible, and unproductive/uneducated - you are rewarded by it. It's not really a debatable point - it just is that way by design.

Also, don't go ragging on the religious; they give, by far, the most money to charity than any other group in society (both domestically AND abroad) - in both real terms, and as a percentage of income. Usually those people align themselves with the more conservative party because of a perceived common ground on social issues (abortion and homosexual rights); taxation is not their principal concern. You might be interested to know that the big hearted liberals you are so attracted to give the least to charity. They have big ideas that require other people's money to solve.

It's great that you have traveled to other countries and experienced the wonders of socialism up close. What I see is the United States government, which is grossly inefficient - and who can't control the spending of ANY program. Bully for those countries, they don't have OUR government, they have theirs (which, btw, doesn't spend nearly the money on defense that ours does, since we have their back, and they don't have to). Did you know that only four countries in the world have the great big aircraft carriers - the ones planes take of and land from traditionally? U.S., France, Chile and Russia. Russia, obviously because of the cold war tradition, Chile, well who know why, France has one - the U.S? - 13! We are controlling the seas for EVERYBODY - another place our government has gotten worked, and how we subsidize all of those socialist utopias you're so fond of!

What is wrong with liberalism/socialism? It doesn't work. It doesn't deliver on its promises,a dn it punishes achievement. It does, however, make many people feel self-righteous and warm inside when they vote while they wash their hands of the problems of society which will continue as they support ANOTHER program that doesn't really help, so there is that, I guess.


so, you haven't found a way to prosper using greed to bilk others? nobody has been able to take liberal ideas to make millions like the conservatives. you might consider being more charitable, considering.

[sabar]

Yeah, but there is a new type of socialism that encompasses free-market ideas and a controlled population...i.e. China....I don't have to tell how successful their model has been....China has a mixed economy, they are only socialist/communist by name. Granted, they lean more towards command-and-control than say the U.S., but they are nowhere near the definition of socialism anymore.

Cuba/North Korea are the most socialist countries today and even they couldn't be considered pure command-and-control.

Every working economy in the world is mixed, leaning to free-market or socialist. Example, United States. The government regulates power, water, education, mail. A socialist system. Private ownership covers nearly everything else. Free market. We aren't a free market system, we just lean that way. The only reason things like water and power are publicly owned is because it is inefficient for different companaies to have water lines and electrical lines all over the place. There, competition doesn't lower prices.

[johngateswhiteley]

You wrote my answer yourself.



Since this is what I believe, the less money I give to wasteful bullshit, corrupt bottomfeeding politicians, and sorry-ass lazy citizens trying to rip the system off, the better. I can use every dollar I earn for something my household needs, and I'm pretty effing liberal for what that's worth.

Maybe I'm selfish and uncaring toward creating a better society. But as things stand now, there is no incentive for me to change my mindset.

for me, thats part of it. i'd like to know where my money is going...and people are wasteful. the other half is personal accountability.

...but that doesn't mean i am against all social programs...just most. :)

[dav4463]

Why should you have wealth without working for it?

Why should the environment be more important than human beings? I mean, the environment is important and we shouldn't litter on purpose or cut down trees for no reason, but environmentalists go so far overboard that it becomes just stupid. Humans aren't to blame for everything that goes wrong, but environmentalists want you to feel guilty because you drive a car, drink from a plastic bottle, use your air conditioner, etc, etc. ....

The best example I can think of is when the network turned off the lights during halftime of Monday Night Football and said the energy saved could light up hundreds of homes for a night or whatever......then they cut to a guy at the South Pole talking about how much ice has melted, then cut to a guy in South America talking about the rainforest or something like that. ...

How much energy was used to fly these guys to remote locations for no reason except to try and make us feel guilty?.....STUPIDITY at it's finest!

[101A]

so, you haven't found a way to prosper using greed to bilk others? nobody has been able to take liberal ideas to make millions like the conservatives. you might consider being more charitable, considering.Greed = Bilk?

How about I use my "greed" to develop products and services that other people (hopefully many) voluntarily pay me a nice fee for those. Out of that fee I (in order of cost) hire employees (25 and counting), pay taxes, buy health insurance for them all, pay my rent and bills, buy a bunch of crap, and yes, take a salary for myself (which I also pay tax on).

So, that is what MY greed is doing. At some point, when those taxes become just too much to make the other worthwhile; my greed (and self-preservation) will dictate that I sell my business to a larger corporation that does what I do (albeit with a less personal flair); they will take the cash flow of my company, combine it with theirs, then reduce the overhead of the two by consolidating positions (meaning layoff employees). They won't need to buy as much crap (don't need double copiers, fax machines, servers, water coolers), They won't need as much space, so the real estate market gets stung just a little bit; and, ultimately, the government will collect much less tax - the big corporations are very good about not turning a profit; not to mention my income tax, and the employees taxes who are not out of jobs. Sales taxes, property taxes my company pays: GONE!!!

I guess 13 - 15 people will be looking for work; The School District, The city, The County, the State and the Federal Government will all have less revenue. I'll do fine, thank you very much - I'll probably be able to retire, and never work another day in my life (I could do that right now, btw, but I like what I am doing, and I'm contributing to society, not to mention I genuinely like my employees and would hate for any of them to get hurt).

Why the hell did you call me less than charitable, btw? You have no idea how much I give, or who I give it to.

[Soul_Patch]

Why should the environment be more important than human beings?


Without the environment, there would not be human beings! I dont want my 2 month old to be faced with a doomsday type situation.

[DarkReign]

Without the environment, there would not be human beings! I dont want my 2 month old to be faced with a doomsday type situation.

Then you should have never had children.

The days of yore are long gone. The American dream is on its deathbed. Im sure your child will thank you for the world you left them.

Personally, I dont want that burden. Thus, I have no children.

[101A]

Then you should have never had children.

The days of yore are long gone. The American dream is on its deathbed. Im sure your child will thank you for the world you left them.

Personally, I dont want that burden. Thus, I have no children.Okay, DR; come off the fucking mountain and get busy with the old lady. If the productive among us over think this thing and DON'T have children; just consider the evolutionary aspect of that! The non-productive, lazy types are rabbits, for god's sake (without the brains to use bc)!

Please reconsider.