Conservatives fear that if liberals win there will be disaster

[BoberFett]

I'd love it we had a liberal government. Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans are liberal. They both want to enslave the general populace with taxes to enforce their own world vision.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'd love it we had a liberal government. Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans are liberal. They both want to enslave the general populace with taxes to enforce their own world vision.

Would you rather be my slave or Butterbean's?

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
A continued private market. I am very conservative, the less government involvement, the better.

Sorry, bu you should not be rewarded for being poor and having babies. It is harsh, yes, but I'm sick of government handouts for deadbeats.

There are some people who really need it, but it will never be reformed so that just those people get it.

And also, there is a lot of modern medicine and medical services that are limited as we don't have enough doctors or equipment so that everyone can have it. These people should be able to make good money for their services.

As sad as it is, if Bill Gates needed a life saving surgury and I needed the same one but only one of us could get it. He has more money and should be able to get it over me. I think that workes better than a coin flip.

And if we go to universal healthcare, do you honestly believe that these US Congressmen will use the same healthcare as you and I? Somehow they will end up with better care, yet we will be stuck with long lines and poor service.

EDIT: to clarify a little more. Not everyone deserves everything in life. it is a sad reality, but just because you want more money so you can eat out and have a little alchohol or cigarettes, you don't deserve it. You have to be dumb as dirt to not be able to get at least a minimum wage job.

The government already gives anyone who wants it a free education through high school, if you choose not to finish, I have no simpathy for you and where you end up in life. And don't say it is not for everyone, my dog could probably get through 10th grade in some bad schools. it is just a midset among certain groups that school doesn't matter.

Suppose you enrolled in a new DNA testing protocol at LSU and you found out that you would have MS by the time you are 25. Suppose further that your parents don't have any money, and you are unable to work. What would you do? What is society's obligation to you? Is it better for your neighbor to drive a new Cadillac Escalante while you go without healthcare or food or housing?

This is a bit like foxhole religion. You get it when you are getting shot at, but not before. Sort of like the smoker who gets lung cancer then wished they'd quit one of the 10,000 times they'd tried.

It's amazing what a little 'religion' can do for one's point of view.

We are nothing but solitary, weak, blobs of protoplasm. When you realize that, you will join the rest of America...I hope.

Meanwhile, good luck with your faux sense of independence and invulnerability.

-Robert

So my tax rate should double so a 300 pound chain smoker can run up millions in medical bills? Why should I trust this government with my healthcare when it has failed on both of its health care programs?

 

[Jhhnn]

We are the only first world nation lacking universal healthcare, but we spend more on healthcare than any other country, ~13% of GDP. The French, for example, get better overall results while spending only ~10% of GDP on the endeavor. the per capita spending pattern is similar. Other countries have worse UHC because they spend poorly- the UK spends <7% of GDP on healthcare, and their miserliness shows...

As for the laughable notion that the problems left behind by Bush and his congressional cronies can be solved quickly and easily- malarkey. The national debt will have doubled under their guidance, and its enormity will cripple efforts to fund SS down the road. The whole rightwing song and dance wrt SS is truly craven- they hate SS, and have from the start- the only thing threatening SS is the monstrous debt they've put in place.

And it's much the same wrt banking- serial deregulation and a belief in the infallibility of the sacred market has led to a collapse that will likely rival the great depression before it's over. And it's not like they didn't have some warning- the collapse of Japanese housing prices, the Swedish banking crisis and the LTCM imbroglio were all ignored in ways that only willful ideological blindness can possibly explain...

And that doesn't even address the disasters of neocon foreign policy...

Yeh, having Dems win would be a real disaster... as compared to what- the last 8 years? Could they possibly achieve more of a cockup than we already have?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
A continued private market. I am very conservative, the less government involvement, the better.

Sorry, bu you should not be rewarded for being poor and having babies. It is harsh, yes, but I'm sick of government handouts for deadbeats.

There are some people who really need it, but it will never be reformed so that just those people get it.

And also, there is a lot of modern medicine and medical services that are limited as we don't have enough doctors or equipment so that everyone can have it. These people should be able to make good money for their services.

As sad as it is, if Bill Gates needed a life saving surgury and I needed the same one but only one of us could get it. He has more money and should be able to get it over me. I think that workes better than a coin flip.

And if we go to universal healthcare, do you honestly believe that these US Congressmen will use the same healthcare as you and I? Somehow they will end up with better care, yet we will be stuck with long lines and poor service.

EDIT: to clarify a little more. Not everyone deserves everything in life. it is a sad reality, but just because you want more money so you can eat out and have a little alchohol or cigarettes, you don't deserve it. You have to be dumb as dirt to not be able to get at least a minimum wage job.

The government already gives anyone who wants it a free education through high school, if you choose not to finish, I have no simpathy for you and where you end up in life. And don't say it is not for everyone, my dog could probably get through 10th grade in some bad schools. it is just a midset among certain groups that school doesn't matter.

Suppose you enrolled in a new DNA testing protocol at LSU and you found out that you would have MS by the time you are 25. Suppose further that your parents don't have any money, and you are unable to work. What would you do? What is society's obligation to you? Is it better for your neighbor to drive a new Cadillac Escalante while you go without healthcare or food or housing?

This is a bit like foxhole religion. You get it when you are getting shot at, but not before. Sort of like the smoker who gets lung cancer then wished they'd quit one of the 10,000 times they'd tried.

It's amazing what a little 'religion' can do for one's point of view.

We are nothing but solitary, weak, blobs of protoplasm. When you realize that, you will join the rest of America...I hope.

Meanwhile, good luck with your faux sense of independence and invulnerability.

-Robert

So my tax rate should double so a 300 pound chain smoker can run up millions in medical bills? Why should I trust this government with my healthcare when it has failed on both of its health care programs?

Are you working to make cigarettes illegal? They should be in my view and for the very reason you offer, plus all the pain and suffering they cause. (I have lost a sister in law, a cousin, and a grandmother to lung cancer from smoking.)

But, even if we don't make smoking illegal, what about YOUR driving? You drive too fast, I'm told. Car accidents maim more people every year than have been maimed in Iraq in 5 years. Shall we outlaw cars? Or, just not admit injured drivers to hospitals if they aren't insured?

What about slippery floors, old age (a dangerous condition!), loose dogs, horses, many paints, donuts, ad nauseam.

Once you start complaining about lifestyle choices you are looking at some very difficult choices. Shall we euthanize one man's fat wife? His fat kids?

England is actually having this debate now because they are having to make hard choices about their already crummy healthcare system, which is in shambles. They've stopped pulmonary rehab for a lot of COPD smokers because they did it to themselves.

-Robert

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
my biggest worry with Obama in office is he can cause longterm problems with our country.

Yes Bush has been bad, I will admit it, he has been terrible, but his problems can be fixed relitivly quickly.

If Obama gets his way, we will have things like universal healthcare and such. These programs, like welfare, and Social Security are disasters that will never go away.

Once you start giving things/money away, you can't stop. SS will fail, there is no doubt, yet we are not even coming close to fixing the problem. If we start a universal healthcare, there is no getting rid of it, and I think that is a terrible decision.

Please satisfy my curiosity.

Health care costs are dramatically rising all the time, and because of the neocon-led Bush policies, there are a lot more people now than before who cannot afford proper health care.

If you feel that universal health care, SS, welfare and such is not the answer, then, what is?

So now you blame peoples poor lifestyle choices on Bush? The reason the cost of health care keeps climbing is because people eat like shit and are not physically active. UHC will bankrupt this country in record time. This government screws up every single program it touches. When the government can fix medicare and medicaid I will consider letting them be in charge of my healthcare. Once you go UHC you can't go back so we will all be stuck with 3rd rate health care except the super rich who can go to private doctors.

Although you apparently want to read that into my post so you can conveniently beat me over the head with, I cannot see how you could surmize that from the comments I made or the question I asked. Maybe you ought to rephrase that bolded comment of yours.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
We are the only first world nation lacking universal healthcare, but we spend more on healthcare than any other country, ~13% of GDP. The French, for example, get better overall results while spending only ~10% of GDP on the endeavor. the per capita spending pattern is similar. Other countries have worse UHC because they spend poorly- the UK spends <7% of GDP on healthcare, and their miserliness shows...

As for the laughable notion that the problems left behind by Bush and his congressional cronies can be solved quickly and easily- malarkey. The national debt will have doubled under their guidance, and its enormity will cripple efforts to fund SS down the road. The whole rightwing song and dance wrt SS is truly craven- they hate SS, and have from the start- the only thing threatening SS is the monstrous debt they've put in place.

And it's much the same wrt banking- serial deregulation and a belief in the infallibility of the sacred market has led to a collapse that will likely rival the great depression before it's over. And it's not like they didn't have some warning- the collapse of Japanese housing prices, the Swedish banking crisis and the LTCM imbroglio were all ignored in ways that only willful ideological blindness can possibly explain...

And that doesn't even address the disasters of neocon foreign policy...

Yeh, having Dems win would be a real disaster... as compared to what- the last 8 years? Could they possibly achieve more of a cockup than we already have?

Those other countries don't have such unhealthy populations who make piss poor life style choices. Go to a any public place it is filled with 300+ pound people. Until the popluation as a whole gets its weight under control no UHC can work with out bankrupting the country. It is not to hard to see why health care costs so much in this country. A bunch of 300 pound people who are on 10 meds to take care disease caused by Obesity. I was one of those people I know how hard it is to lose weight the old fasion way. Saying that it can be done just need to eat better and get some excersize.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

So my tax rate should double so a 300 pound chain smoker can run up millions in medical bills? Why should I trust this government with my healthcare when it has failed on both of its health care programs?

I'm not sure if you don't understand this, but you already pay for that 300 pound chain smoker in your health care premiums now. America already has "universal health care" in the sense that people can't be denied care due to the inability to pay. We just have the worst system of "universal health care" imaginable, because people can't get simple, cheap preventative measures, they are only guaranteed ultra expensive emergency ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not likely, Tweaker2. That's a technique perfected by Hannity, even if half the people who use it actually believe what they said is true... leaping to conclusions over words they put in your mouth often passes for rationality on the Rightwing... They've heard it so many times that they think it makes sense...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'd love it we had a liberal government. Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans are liberal. They both want to enslave the general populace with taxes to enforce their own world vision.

Would you rather be my slave or Butterbean's?

You're both equally horrible, I couldn't choose. Besides, the 2nd Amendment protects my right to be neither.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'd love it we had a liberal government. Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans are liberal. They both want to enslave the general populace with taxes to enforce their own world vision.

Would you rather be my slave or Butterbean's?

You're both equally horrible, I couldn't choose. Besides, the 2nd Amendment protects my right to be neither.

Then you have nothing to fear from Democrats and Republicans because the 2nd Amendment protects you from either.

 

[AnnonUSA]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Current liberalism represents three things

1) Spending within your budget (I'm going to get flamed for saying this, the dittoheads around here would claim that Bush ran a surplus if they could get away with it)
2) Spending that money on domestic projects, like healthcare and infrastructure (as opposed to war abroad and redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich)
3) Don't waste time trying to regulate peoples' personal lives (let the gays get married, allow abortion, etc.)

You are delusional dude.

1. Spending within your budget?? If that was true then Obama would be talking about balancing the budget first. But he never speaks about a balanced budget. Instead he speaks about increase spending first in the belief that all this new spending will lead to a balanced budget down the road. However, there is NO track record at all that suggests such a thing is possible.

2. I will give you this point. Democrats do favor domestic spending. Although the idea of 'redistribution' from the poor to the wealthy is total BS. 40% of Americans pay NO income tax at all. Therefore their tax dollars are not going to the rich. And since 'redistribution' can only take place when the government takes from one group and gives to another it is impossible to redistribute from the poor to the rich.

3. Both sides try to regulate the personal lives of people. They just go about it in different ways. And both sides do it based on their moral beliefs. Republicans do it via gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, creationism etc. Democrats do it via gun control and environmental legislation.

Add this point to #1. - Obama is very specifically talking about continuing the WAR! He wants to end the War in Iraq and move all our troops (and Money) to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Keep in mind that the War with Afghanistan is what contributed to the bankrupcy and breaking down of the Soviet Union.

And if no one noticed, during the VP Debate, When asked how or what the current financial crisis would do to programs that Obama wanted to put in action, Biden very specifically said that the financial crisis would likely delay the doubling of Foreign Aid to Afghanistan.

You can flip a coin again and again, the view may change but it's the same coin. There is no real change being offered by the candidates.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.

1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.

2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.


Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.

history will repeat itself in 2 years. it is our human destiny.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.

1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.

2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.


Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.

history will repeat itself in 2 years. it is our human destiny.

I dont think so... The difference this time is that Bush and his 6 straight years of rep controlled congreess totally screwed our country, economy, and international standing up. The past 2 years of Dem control, has mostly been Vetoed by Bush. People wont forget that in 2 years, becasue whoever wins, we will still be in this mess 2 years from now, and it will still be Bush and the reps fault.

 

[Genx87]

Nobody knows what is going to happen when democrats control two branches of gov. They may actually successfully fix many of our problems today. Or they get power hungry and stuff legislation down our throats and get the boot for another 30 years.

We wont know until 2010 at the earliest.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.

1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.

2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.


Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.

history will repeat itself in 2 years. it is our human destiny.

Yes, I agree with is. Its is our human destiny.. it is like ying and yang. Things regulated to the dustbin of history, like an old pair of bell bottom pants come back in style. The question is how to "insulate yourself" if it does get bad.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.

1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.

2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.


Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.

history will repeat itself in 2 years. it is our human destiny.

I dont think so... The difference this time is that Bush and his 6 straight years of rep controlled congreess totally screwed our country, economy, and international standing up. The past 2 years of Dem control, has mostly been Vetoed by Bush. People wont forget that in 2 years, becasue whoever wins, we will still be in this mess 2 years from now, and it will still be Bush and the reps fault.

No...assuming he's elected...it'll then be Obama's and the Dems fault if they fail to fix. They've made promises...and now its time to put up and take ownership. The 'party of change' better deliver or else they'll deserve the boot if they don't. Don't start making excuses for them blaming Bush after he's been out of office 2 years with the Dems having control of Congress for 4 years. That's epic loser mentality.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.

1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.

2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.


Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.

history will repeat itself in 2 years. it is our human destiny.

I dont think so... The difference this time is that Bush and his 6 straight years of rep controlled congress totally screwed our country, economy, and international standing up. The past 2 years of Dem control, has mostly been Vetoed by Bush. People wont forget that in 2 years, becasue whoever wins, we will still be in this mess 2 years from now, and it will still be Bush and the reps fault.

No...assuming he's elected...it'll then be Obama's and the Dems fault if they fail to fix. They've made promises...and now its time to put up and take ownership. The 'party of change' better deliver or else they'll deserve the boot if they don't. Don't start making excuses for them blaming Bush after he's been out of office 2 years with the Dems having control of Congress for 4 years. That's epic loser mentality.

Dont get me wrong... I expect great progress in 2 years time, or I agree, they should be booted. But the economy is really hosed, and it may take more than two years before its good again. We should be well on the road to recovery by then though. The budget deficit will take longer. Too large a deficit and with the recession coming, tax revenue will be down.

Another point is that now, with 8 years of Bush and the first 6 with reps controlling the house and the mess we are in Republicans have ZERO clout to talk about the economy. Reps have been pushing their economic agenda on us for 30 years. With that 6 years of rubber stamping to enact those policies we have the worst economy in my lifetime. And it didnt go from bad to worse... It went from great to worst.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The last two times Democrats controlled government were total disasters.

1. Jimmy Carter was a disaster by just about every measure possible.

2. The first two years of Clinton's Presidency. Which were so bad that the Democrats lost 54!! seats in the 1994 election. 34 incumbent Democrats lost their seats in that election. That is a huge number when you realize that in 2006 only 31 seats changed sides.


Now based on the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has been a total disaster (10% approval) and that Obama has NEVER stood up to his own party I think it is possible that we will see a repeat of the above.

history will repeat itself in 2 years. it is our human destiny.

I dont think so... The difference this time is that Bush and his 6 straight years of rep controlled congress totally screwed our country, economy, and international standing up. The past 2 years of Dem control, has mostly been Vetoed by Bush. People wont forget that in 2 years, becasue whoever wins, we will still be in this mess 2 years from now, and it will still be Bush and the reps fault.

No...assuming he's elected...it'll then be Obama's and the Dems fault if they fail to fix. They've made promises...and now its time to put up and take ownership. The 'party of change' better deliver or else they'll deserve the boot if they don't. Don't start making excuses for them blaming Bush after he's been out of office 2 years with the Dems having control of Congress for 4 years. That's epic loser mentality.

Dont get me wrong... I expect great progress in 2 years time, or I agree, they should be booted. But the economy is really hosed, and it may take more than two years before its good again. We should be well on the road to recovery by then though. The budget deficit will take longer. Too large a deficit and with the recession coming, tax revenue will be down.

Another point is that now, with 8 years of Bush and the first 6 with reps controlling the house and the mess we are in Republicans have ZERO clout to talk about the economy. Reps have been pushing their economic agenda on us for 30 years. With that 6 years of rubber stamping to enact those policies we have the worst economy in my lifetime. And it didnt go from bad to worse... It went from great to worst.

Don't fool yourself...do a little homework and you'll find that Dems were just as much to blame as the Reps regarding our current economic problems. Here's a concept...why don't they both work together for the good of the country? Is that asking too much? Yeah...I'm a dreamer...I know.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Don't fool yourself...do a little homework and you'll find that Dems were just as much to blame as the Reps regarding our current economic problems. Here's a concept...why don't they both work together for the good of the country? Is that asking too much? Yeah...I'm a dreamer...I know.

Dems and Reps are equally responsible for the credit problems, I agree... but the economic issues started before that, the out of control spending, and general fiscal irresponsibility was all Bush.

Agreed, they all need to work together, but its not likely to happen. LOL

If Obama bows down to Pelosi and Reed, and approves the extreme end of the crap they are likely to try and put through, I will be very disappointed.

 

[seemingly random]

If pain is required for the demise of the republican party, I'll gladly participate.

They do seem to be doing a pretty good job on their own though.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
If pain is required for the demise of the republican party, I'll gladly participate.

They do seem to be doing a pretty good job on their own though.

What you propose is a one party system? That has worked well for populations when you look at history.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: seemingly random
If pain is required for the demise of the republican party, I'll gladly participate.

They do seem to be doing a pretty good job on their own though.

What you propose is a one party system? That has worked well for populations when you look at history.

You're right, a one party system is wrong in many ways. Others will emerge though. The only question I have is whether there should be more than two.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Don't fool yourself...do a little homework and you'll find that Dems were just as much to blame as the Reps regarding our current economic problems. Here's a concept...why don't they both work together for the good of the country? Is that asking too much? Yeah...I'm a dreamer...I know.

Dems and Reps are equally responsible for the credit problems, I agree... but the economic issues started before that, the out of control spending, and general fiscal irresponsibility was all Bush.

Dem controlled Congress approved spending over the past two years...no? Look...Bush sucks on many different levels...but it's time to stop this 'who's shit stinks worse' crap and move forward. Dems are probably going to win big time next month and we need exceptional performance. They need to show that they can intelligently deliver and I expect nothing less...NO EXCUSES. My biggest fear is that they'll fail. IMO Pelosi and Frank got to go...nothing good can come from these two.

 

[seemingly random]

I've always detested being expected to fit into one of the two (main) parties - or ideologies - liberal or conservative.

I keep hearing again and again from individuals that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Which party supports this?

The problem with many parties is that we could end of up like italy - constantly dismantling and recreating govt's.

Haven't really thought all of this out in detail. The only thing I know for sure is that something needs to change and I see the republican party as impeding this change or encouraging change in a repressive direction.