I dont get it

[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 they can't sell but are able to somehow wrangle HUD into subsidizing their piece of for profit.

The money s 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 roaches.

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 , 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........... 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 ac ulate 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 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 sexual 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.

[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 sexual 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, compe ion doesn't lower prices.

[johngateswhiteley]

You wrote my answer yourself.



Since this is what I believe, the less money I give to wasteful bull , 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 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 ing 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.