|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 22, 2011 22:39:47 GMT -5
For years I never understood why Republicans want small government. I always believed in the anarchy that the poor, sick and the week will just get trampled on. Well Here is where America is unique and different than Europe. For the first time in my life I see why the Republicans want government out of their lives. I happened to find out from a friend that got government assistance and it is so sticky and entangling that I found out why Republicans flee from all things government. Sadly my idea of big government was under the assumption a big government is a strong government and one that can defend the sick, weak, poor and the discriminated against. That is certainly what it was like under FDR or JFK. It seems that government has found a way to oppress everyone but help no one. We pay taxes but are NOT represented. Sadly no one is shooting over this. Our Forefathers started the American Revolution when England only took money from them but denied them their rights as British citizens. Today I see no difference when we pay in but if we the little guy needs help the government is not their for you or gets so BIG Brother like that you are sorry you asked. But if I were only a big failed CEO I could get government money No Strings Attached. Boy what a double standard. Of course it is not me in question but someone I know of acquaintance. Still the point is noticed. Because government has abdicated it's first duty I guess the best thing that can happen is the government be forced to abdicate and let the chips fall where they may. America has to start all over from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Mar 23, 2011 14:10:33 GMT -5
A good lesson learned the hard way for your friend. I'm a limited government libertarian m'self, so in that I'm in agreement with Republicans. I don't necessarily agree that we have to start over from scratch, however. Just stop the progression of the destruction for now, and give what we have time to heal. The problem isn't really Democrats vs. Republicans, but rather Progressives vs. freedoms. And there are Progressives in both parties. Do you mind if I borrow this to post more publicly? It'll be in quotes with full credit, of course. In the meantime I'd love to discuss this idea in more detail.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 24, 2011 15:51:38 GMT -5
Adona Mara Thanks for responding. Sure you can post this where you like. I like you am for freedom but I am from the left so I wanted government to defend our freedoms. To me the government betrayed us by becoming oppressive. My idea of governments roll confuses many people because I see government as a parent that is supposed to prevent one citizen from oppressing another. Government is supposed to be a referee to make sure people are not discriminated against. And government is supposed to ensure the safety of all individuals in our boarders. Government is supposed to help the sick, the poor and the needy. We pay into the government coffers to distribute the money fairly and equitably. We pay into the government coffers so that the infrastructure is maintained. We pay into the government coffers so that the weak, sick, the old and the voiceless are cared for and not left to die by the road side. You may disagree with this view of government, which is OK. I am just explaining where I am coming from. In my opinion government betrayed us when they decided to take our TAX dollars but not give any back to the people. Government is just taking kickbacks and is doing the bidding of those who grease their palms. America is running like a banana republic. Sadly America is copying the Mexican model. I wish there was a way to unite the American people to stop the ABUSE of government. It seems no one wants the PROPER use of government as I stated in my first paragraph. I believe we will have to start from scratch because there are far too many CROOKS in high government places. These have to be removed by force. They will not leave on their own because there is much money made by theft. According to many sources, this theft is systemic from the highest official to the lowest mindless pencil pusher. This time I had to RANT because the government really angered me. I hope ANYBODY wins in 2012 against Obama now. I do know the next election will not solve anything because again the problem is far too systemic. Of course if the Mayans are right that this coming cataclysm in 2012, that might shake things up. At least one can wish.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Mar 24, 2011 23:10:59 GMT -5
Well, as for 2012, it remains to be seen. I figure I'll prepare for the worst and hope for the best. ... As for the government itself, I see it as the founders saw it -- a necessary evil. The reason it has become so corrupt is because a) it became too big and powerful and b) political positions became "careers." That's not how it was originally designed to work. I'll grant you that the government has a place, but I disagree in thinking that we are children that need a parent to take care of us. Which explains why I'm a libertarian, and while we'll just agree to disagree about that . I'll be posting this as a note on my facebook page ... I'll be interested in seeing how others respond to it.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 25, 2011 16:51:20 GMT -5
When I said that the government is like a parent I did not mean to belittle or insult. It was just an analogy to give the example that government has responsibilities towards us. It was an example of a reciprocal relationship between us and government. I was attempting to make easy my way of thinking but nothing else, just for clarity.
You have a facebook page? so do I. If you want you could be added to my friends. Are you called Adona Mara there?
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Mar 26, 2011 6:37:01 GMT -5
No. On facebook you can find me as Susan Hollister. At the moment, I'm using "marvin the martian" as my profile pic. And send me the invite
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Mar 27, 2011 21:10:56 GMT -5
Loretta, I'm in complete agreement with you here. What was supposed to be a 'good thing' just keeps taking turns for the worst. If it doesn't stop, we won't have freedom of expression, as things are now going too far in one direction. What has always made America great is that we've had two sides, which left things pretty well middle ground for the common person. No one side should control the government. It's at the point that some sort of revolution is needed to remove our Senates, Congress, Governors and anyone else who has had too much power for too long. 'Professional Politician'? So, what's your real life qualifications? I get into a quandry when it comes to politicians, because I see people like Sarah Palin, who I truly do seem to enjoy as a person, but absolutely can't stand as a politician. I only wish I were the CEO of a billion dollar company. Not because I'd be filthy rich, but because the government would ensure that I never had to suffer not being filthy rich. Imagine the good that you could do if the government wrote you a check for a billion dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 27, 2011 22:26:02 GMT -5
Myrrden You are so right. In the old days both Republicans and Democrats made compromises and the results was the middle road. Today only the far right is making policy. This is making America much like Nazi Germany because in that country only one party was in charge and that was the Nazi party. Hitler made no compromises. They can make your citizenship disappear with the wave of a hand. That to me is chilling. In my day you had to do a Felony to loose any rights and responsibilities. Today they can by decree sweep it away. We do need a revolution. I wish I only knew how to unite the people to have one before we become like what happened in Liberia in 1985. Adona Mara I tried to look up Susan Hollister and found many listings but I could not find a picture with this Martian. So I will try to give you my info. to see if that works. I am Loretta Anakin on Facebook. My picture is me kissing the EpisodeII Anakin. I put myself in place of Padme Amadalla. The link is; www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1284178101 I hope this link to my Profile page helps. I do not understand why my link did not work. I pushed the "copy" then "paste" button. Who ever has moderator status, please make the link function. Also please tell me what I did wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Mar 28, 2011 11:34:42 GMT -5
Sent the invite. But now I have to ask, what do you mean only Republicans set policy? Since 2006, the Democrats have been in charge of "policy." .. And remember, too. It's not about "Republican" vs. "Democrat." This party thing is only a blind to keep the peasants focused while they play their little games behind closed doors. Bush was on the same side as Obama .. just a milder approach because of the different "label" he was working under. Also, don't forget, Nazi's were socialists. They were the "right" of the socialist world, but they're not "right" -- they're still to the left of conservatism and most libertarians.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 28, 2011 14:42:32 GMT -5
Sent the invite. But now I have to ask, what do you mean only Republicans set policy? Since 2006, the Democrats have been in charge of "policy." .. And remember, too. It's not about "Republican" vs. "Democrat." This party thing is only a blind to keep the peasants focused while they play their little games behind closed doors. Bush was on the same side as Obama .. just a milder approach because of the different "label" he was working under. Also, don't forget, Nazi's were socialists. They were the "right" of the socialist world, but they're not "right" -- they're still to the left of conservatism and most libertarians. You are essentially correct. I should not have said Republican but right wing thought because America is far more right wing today than it was under FDR or JFK. As too Nazis I was only using them as an example of a one party system tolerating none other than themselves. Only in this way I was using them. Nazis are a soft form of socialism. I say soft form because small business style capitalism is allowed and highly regulated big national businesses are allowed under National Socialism. The only businesses that are kicked out under the Nazi banner is international businesses. Today big businesses get government subsidies while little people who may need the help are left to their own devices. Of course I hate this capitalist dictatorship. The businesses instead of a king now order us about so a king by any other name is still a king and absolute ruler. I see no difference between Obama and Reagan but color of skin. I pushed the confirm button on Facebook so you are now on my friends list.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Mar 29, 2011 6:18:16 GMT -5
It's a difficult idea for me, sometimes. But if you don't have capitalism, and you don't have socialism, you aren't left with many options except anarchy (the furthest right you can get). Naziism also controlled small businesses. The only difference that I can see between Nazi control and Communist control is that Naziism allows for private ownership of a business (a la Schindler's factories), but controls how the businesses are run, and Communism outright owns the businesses. (Yeah, I know this wasn't part of the original discussion, but it's an interesting one to me, so I pursue it. Feel free to tell me to bug off. .) Anyway, I don't see how what's happening with businesses and government (especially big businesses and big government) have to do with the right wing at all. The closest I've seen these days to a real "right wing" movement is the Tea Parties, and they're all about lower taxes (T.E.A. stands for "taxed enough already") and less government control over everything. They also believe that big businesses and unions essentially run the government these days with their fortunes in "donations" (read "pay offs" ) to politicians. I don't see how this is a "Capitalist Dictatorship" at all. Looks more like a "Capital dictatorship" run by a few elitists in big business and unions. Especially since most big business owners, like Jeffrey Immelt, are left-wingers. From my perspective, you only need toss in radical environmentalists and radical animal rights groups (not simply people who are about conservation and animal welfare -- there's a big difference) and a few "Food Nazis" and you pretty much have a formula for controlling everything every person does, and cutting personal freedom and liberty to the barest minimum. Toss all that with a healthy sprinkling of keeping people arguing about the labels, throw on some media-bias dressing, and you have the makings of a freedom-killing, Dictator salad that, unfortunately, is hard to beat. I think that's pretty much why I'm a limited-government libertarian. The less control over people, the more freedom there is. But I'm not an out-and-out anarchist, because I see a place for a small, well-controlled government, which is what the founders, I believe, intended, and why they originally limited the power of the federal government so much. Alas, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Progressive movement began to take control, and things just haven't been the same since. Gads! this is so much fun! I'm very much looking forward to your response.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 29, 2011 16:11:38 GMT -5
Your response was so good give me a moment to think when dinner is not screaming. Do not worry I will be back and I will not tell you to take a hike because one of America's problems today is both sides are getting so angry at each other and refusing dialog that we are missing the opportunity to figure a way to work with each other together. There has got to be some way both well meaning Americans can go back to enjoying America again.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 29, 2011 21:46:30 GMT -5
It's a difficult idea for me, sometimes. But if you don't have capitalism, and you don't have socialism, you aren't left with many options except anarchy (the furthest right you can get). Naziism also controlled small businesses. The only difference that I can see between Nazi control and Communist control is that Naziism allows for private ownership of a business (a la Schindler's factories), but controls how the businesses are run, and Communism outright owns the businesses. (Yeah, I know this wasn't part of the original discussion, but it's an interesting one to me, so I pursue it. Feel free to tell me to bug off. .) Here is where we completely agree. You said it better than I. And you are correct total anarchy is the farthest right that you can go. Except in anacho-communism but that is another can of worms.Anyway, I don't see how what's happening with businesses and government (especially big businesses and big government) have to do with the right wing at all. The closest I've seen these days to a real "right wing" movement is the Tea Parties, and they're all about lower taxes (T.E.A. stands for "taxed enough already") and less government control over everything. They also believe that big businesses and unions essentially run the government these days with their fortunes in "donations" (read "pay offs" ) to politicians. I don't see how this is a "Capitalist Dictatorship" at all. Looks more like a "Capital dictatorship" run by a few elitists in big business and unions. Especially since most big business owners, like Jeffrey Immelt, are left-wingers. Here again we mostly agree. To me it is a capitalist dictatorship because it is Big Businesses that own and control everything. Big Stock exchange that owns everything and controls and lets not forget international banking and finance cooperations, Remember too big to fail. Union control, that is yesterdays news in the days of Jimmy Hoffer, who is still wearing cement shoes. If a businessman is to the left than he has to prove it by paying his fair share of taxes like the rest of us. If he like the rest of those too high in income bracket are too good to pay taxes than he is NOT from the left, at least by my definition of left. To unfairly dump the tax burden on the middle class is NOT left to me while those who can afford to pay more actually pay less in taxes is not left. I do not care if they have a communist flag in their bedroom if they do not walk the talk than they are NOT left. Left means that the richest pay more so the truly destitute can have all the means of life and the middle class is supposed to have a light tax burden according to their ability to pay. The poor should be the only people paying NO taxes as they do not have it to give. This is just common cents. If our country thought like this we would have 90% of our population fully functional and contributing members of society rather than the measly 1/3 of our population as full participants.From my perspective, you only need toss in radical environmentalists and radical animal rights groups (not simply people who are about conservation and animal welfare -- there's a big difference) and a few "Food Nazis" and you pretty much have a formula for controlling everything every person does, and cutting personal freedom and liberty to the barest minimum. Toss all that with a healthy sprinkling of keeping people arguing about the labels, throw on some media-bias dressing, and you have the makings of a freedom-killing, Dictator salad that, unfortunately, is hard to beat. I will have to double post because the square on the right side is getting too short and I have not completed answering you. I will start with this part. OK. I think that's pretty much why I'm a limited-government libertarian. The less control over people, the more freedom there is. But I'm not an out-and-out anarchist, because I see a place for a small, well-controlled government, which is what the founders, I believe, intended, and why they originally limited the power of the federal government so much. Alas, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Progressive movement began to take control, and things just haven't been the same since. Gads! this is so much fun! I'm very much looking forward to your response. RATS!!! I tried to answer you section by section taking time on each part only to find out for some reason my answers do not stand out. I pushed the B for bold print but it did not work. I do not know why. So you will have to look after each paragraph of yours and my answers are there. That means I have to answer only at the bottom unless a moderator can fix it. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Loretta Anakin Skywalker on Mar 29, 2011 22:20:52 GMT -5
From my perspective, you only need toss in radical environmentalists and radical animal rights groups (not simply people who are about conservation and animal welfare -- there's a big difference) and a few "Food Nazis" and you pretty much have a formula for controlling everything every person does, and cutting personal freedom and liberty to the barest minimum. Toss all that with a healthy sprinkling of keeping people arguing about the labels, throw on some media-bias dressing, and you have the makings of a freedom-killing, Dictator salad that, unfortunately, is hard to beat. Here your argument is hard to beat. I liked the humorous touch to a very intense issue. Your got your point across in a humorous way. Cool I am for conserving the environment and animal welfare and well being. I get really mad at someone who hurts a defenseless animal. And I hate animal cruelty because I Love all animals But I think we are agreed on this issue at least the way I read what you said. Food Nazis, that is a new one to me. I do believe that their should be standards that restaurants should obey because there is nothing worse than to go to a restaurant, pay your hard earned money to get sick because of negligence on the part of the restaurant. To me there is NOTHING more unpleasant than to VOMIT all night because some restaurant did not take a few extra minutes to do it right. Believe me I HAVE VOMITED all night from such places. Needless to say I NEVER go there again!! I think that's pretty much why I'm a limited-government libertarian. The less control over people, the more freedom there is. But I'm not an out-and-out anarchist, because I see a place for a small, well-controlled government, which is what the founders, I believe, intended, and why they originally limited the power of the federal government so much. Alas, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Progressive movement began to take control, and things just haven't been the same since. Thank you for explaining your position on the issue of small government. Here is where we most disagree, but that is ok in a free debate. I at least understand where you are coming from. In the late 19th century we had total anarchy because we had what is called "Laissez Faire" capitalism. That means capitalism with no rules. The 1890's were one of the darkest times in US history because children died as young as six years of age chained to their work benches, no child labor laws. There was sawdust in your hot dogs, no FDA. Business could do literally ANYTHING! To me the 20th century brought the bright sun of true liberalism or left into being. People like FDR and later JFK defended the poor, the sick, the weak and the old. People no longer had to die by the road side while their heartless people walked by and talked like Ebeneezer Scrooge. Americans were taught to care for their fellow American. When I hear WWII vets talk about the good things done by FDR I almost cry because I wish that I lived then rather than now to watch cruel men like Newt Gingrich talk of the 74 million Americans that he wishes to kill. Gingrich is surely the American Heinrich Himmler. Boy what I would give to go back to being a FIRST world country rather than the THIRD world Banana Republic that we are today. Gads! this is so much fun! I'm very much looking forward to your response. I am so glad that you are enjoying our friendly debate. ;D Well here is my response. I hope it met up with your expectations. I this time tried another approach to make the B Bold print thing work. I hope that it does. If not then look at your paragraph and underneath yours is mine between each of yours. I answered each section at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Mar 30, 2011 4:52:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I think we're in agreement on Animal Welfare -- I believe that animals should all be treated humanely; pets, 'working animals,' and wildlife alike. There's no reason to be cruel and inhumane to an animal, even if it's one we're going to eat. It should still be able to have some sort of decent life while it has life. (E.g., cage free and free range chickens should REALLY be cage free and free range .. not just minimally so in order to meet some arbitrary standard.) I also agree with you about the excesses of the late 19th century and early 20th centuries. It was then that we started moving away from the principals set forth by the founding fathers. Part of it was the moving away from the agrarian society we started with. (I have a bit of a bias against "mega cities" .) FDR did some good things -- he also did some bad things. But, that's par for the course. No one in the White House has been all good or all bad. But good or bad, FDR couldn't have done much without a supportive congress. And JFK wasn't bad, but he was a lot more conservative than most Democrats are today. At least he understood the principle that lower tax rates provide more revenue for the government. What I find interesting is that both FDR and JFK came from families who gained their fortunes as the "Robber Barons" you descry earlier. The excesses of big business are still what supports the government, however. For example, Jeffrey Immelt, whose corporation paid no taxes whatsoever this year, is a good buddy and advisor of our current president. In this I don't see him as liberal or conservative, but rather just another greedy opportunist, like all the other business people floating around the Capital and the White House. Looks like Obama won't be redistributing any of Jeff's wealth. The only thing I'm a little confused about is your Newt reference. Who are these "74 million Americans" he wishes to kill? I've certainly not heard him say anything to that effect, nor read it. Can you clarify? Taking care of the poor, sick, and disabled is a fundamental responsibility of each person, and that should be reflected in the government. However, most of the tax money that goes into those programs goes to support the bloated bureaucracy, rather than to the people who need it. Reduction in the size of government would reduce some of that bureaucracy, and would free up more funds for those in need. As it stands right now, I would rather find a poor family and buy them $100 worth of groceries every week on my own, than give $100 to the government, have them spend $70 of it on their bureaucracy, and give $30 of it to a family in need. While I'll grant that some bureaucracy is necessary to achieve the ends, there's no need for so much of it that it sucks that large a percentage of tax dollars. By the way, your first approach to making your responses bold seems to have worked, while your second didn't. Too weird.
|
|