The fraud of "limited government"

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: shira
My question to you is: Why would you want to advocate a system where a tiny percentage of the population does well and the rest do badly? Why would you want to live in a place where, in all likelihood, most of your relatives and friends and acquaintances would have to struggle for a decent life?

Turn it around, dumbass. Why would we want to advocate a system where laziness is rewarded? Where there is no incentive to better yourself? Who's going to be the sucker doing all the work that needs to be done if the government guarantees all basic needs?

On paper the communist economic model is perfect. In reality it's a disaster.


Whatever, your definition of "decent life" has got to be so f'ing warped this thread should not even exist. Nothing in life worth having comes easy. It takes hard work to achieve greatness, no matter which letter is beside the name of the President. I will say that currently "the poor" have a pretty damn decent life here in the U.S. compared to other places in the world. Hell, "the poor" in the U.S. have a far better life today than most of the working class of other countries.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

First of all, this thread is worthless until right-wing (Republicans) and conservatives are defined separately. True American conservatives are libertarian-esque; something Republican try their darnedest not to be.

Republicans parade around saying they are conservative, but I can't find a damn thing in their platform or their policy that says so.

Just because you say you're conservative doesn't make you one. In fact, if these self-proclaimed conservatives that vote Republican could actually honestly define what it is to be an American conservative, they'd likely find conservatism abhorrent.

Of course, this creates fuel for the other side who feeds off this disconnection and the result is intellectual dishonest threads like this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

Take off your blinders. The premise holds up just fine. You can nit-pick the semantics of the word "want" to duhvert discussion, but the net effect of the policies advocated by today's right is accelerating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few elite. This is exactly what those powerful elite want. I'll agree this may not be what rank-and-file conservatives "want" (since they're going to be on the losing end of the deal too), but it's what most of them have been duped into supporting.

wrong. The premise he puts out is that what us "limited government" types "really want" is his liberal load of crap. He doesn't support that at all and it's truly just faulty on it's face. You can say some interests may "really want" what he claims but it's just plain BS for him to put that on "limited government" types.

As long as Republicans elect people like Bush and McCain, you're going to be confronted with those kinds of assessments. Basically, the Republican constituency is showing he's correct, even though he's mostly wrong.

I understand that, and one of the main reasons I've been hard on the R party as a whole. But it's intellectually lazy for him and others to try to claim "real" intent like that.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
First of all, this thread is worthless until right-wing (Republicans) and conservatives are defined separately. True American conservatives are libertarian-esque; something Republican try their darnedest not to be.

Republicans parade around saying they are conservative, but I can't find a damn thing in their platform or their policy that says so.

Just because you say you're conservative doesn't make you one. In fact, if these self-proclaimed conservatives that vote Republican could actually honestly define what it is to be an American conservative, they'd likely find conservatism abhorrent.

Of course, this creates fuel for the other side who feeds off this disconnection and the result is intellectual dishonest threads like this.

The OP didnt say anything about Repiblicans. Let me remind you the first line of the OP:

I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope (sic), "limited government."

he certainly didnt equate GOP with conservatism.

Cool story though bro.

 

[cubby1223]

The original post all comes down to that same thing that everyone got so tired of hearing during last year's elections.

Obama made himself out to be Abraham Lincoln during the election, so to quote Lincoln, "You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor" You cannot make the weak strong by making the strong weak.

 

[Elias824]

Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you. That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole. I suppose the problem is that people are stupid and wont save for their retirement if we left it up to them but well they are stupid and i hate to provide govt policies saying its ok to be and idiot well take care of you.
The republicans have always had this spit in their party, the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives seem to always be in a feud, but if they made different parties the democrats would control everything. Personally im more of a libertarian, though I try not to be to insane and tell everyone to disband the govt.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Elias824
Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you.

That's one of those theories that falls apart when applied to real people. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to do that. Take a sample in any workplace and you'll see that most -- whether professors, medical receptionists, or truck drivers -- are not equipped for that type of long-term management. And professional managers turn out to be a big disappointment too; which is why the value of the average 401K has dropped by about a third over the past 18 months.

That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole.

The availability of capital for investment is a completely different issue. In fact, there is a inverse relationship between the rise of IRAs and the amount of self-financed growth. In the olden days (i.e. pre-80s), people saved more though old-fashioned instruments and growth was financed by US depositors, nowadays its foreign.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Elias824
Well yes someone did miss my point on social security, if you were intelligent with you money and put it in IRA's or mutual funds or whatver, you would live alot better then what social seurity could provide you.

That's one of those theories that falls apart when applied to real people. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to do that. Take a sample in any workplace and you'll see that most -- whether professors, medical receptionists, or truck drivers -- are not equipped for that type of long-term management. And professional managers turn out to be a big disappointment too; which is why the value of the average 401K has dropped by about a third over the past 18 months.

That and it would also give companies alot more money to invest and produce things with as well and really benefit our society as a whole.

The availability of capital for investment is a completely different issue. In fact, there is a inverse relationship between the rise of IRAs and the amount of self-financed growth. In the olden days (i.e. pre-80s), people saved more though old-fashioned instruments and growth was financed by US depositors, nowadays its foreign.

So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

 

[JSt0rm]

well actually the less we make the harder we work. If this isn't true then why are wages down and worker productivity up? People will work to make more.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
First of all, this thread is worthless until right-wing (Republicans) and conservatives are defined separately. True American conservatives are libertarian-esque; something Republican try their darnedest not to be.

Republicans parade around saying they are conservative, but I can't find a damn thing in their platform or their policy that says so.

Just because you say you're conservative doesn't make you one. In fact, if these self-proclaimed conservatives that vote Republican could actually honestly define what it is to be an American conservative, they'd likely find conservatism abhorrent.

Of course, this creates fuel for the other side who feeds off this disconnection and the result is intellectual dishonest threads like this.

The OP didnt say anything about Repiblicans.

Judging by the OP's past, you know what party they identify with. Democrats. Who Democats do battle with?

Since about 5% of the country and even less on ATPN are actually conservative, I highly doubt this thread was pointed at conservatives but rather Republicans that masquerade themselves as conservatives. Thus, this gives true conservatives a bad name.

Let me remind you the first line of the OP:

I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope (sic), "limited government."

he certainly didnt equate GOP with conservatism.

Name the party Robert F. McDonnell?

Cool story though bro.

:roll: This actually proves my point.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
First of all, this thread is worthless until right-wing (Republicans) and conservatives are defined separately. True American conservatives are libertarian-esque; something Republican try their darnedest not to be.

Republicans parade around saying they are conservative, but I can't find a damn thing in their platform or their policy that says so.

Just because you say you're conservative doesn't make you one. In fact, if these self-proclaimed conservatives that vote Republican could actually honestly define what it is to be an American conservative, they'd likely find conservatism abhorrent.

Of course, this creates fuel for the other side who feeds off this disconnection and the result is intellectual dishonest threads like this.

The OP didnt say anything about Repiblicans.

Judging by the OP's past, you know what party they identify with. Democrats. Who Democats do battle with?

Since about 5% of the country and even less on ATPN are actually conservative, I highly doubt this thread was pointed at conservatives but rather Republicans that masquerade themselves as conservatives. Thus, this gives true conservatives a bad name.

Let me remind you the first line of the OP:

I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope (sic), "limited government."

he certainly didnt equate GOP with conservatism.

Name the party Robert F. McDonnell?

Cool story though bro.

:roll: This actually proves my point.

Again, the thread isnt about Republicans. Youre interpratation is not the OP's. Unless he/she chimes in to say thats what he/she meant, its not. Its as he/she stated.

Cool story though

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
First of all, this thread is worthless until right-wing (Republicans) and conservatives are defined separately. True American conservatives are libertarian-esque; something Republican try their darnedest not to be.

Republicans parade around saying they are conservative, but I can't find a damn thing in their platform or their policy that says so.

Just because you say you're conservative doesn't make you one. In fact, if these self-proclaimed conservatives that vote Republican could actually honestly define what it is to be an American conservative, they'd likely find conservatism abhorrent.

Of course, this creates fuel for the other side who feeds off this disconnection and the result is intellectual dishonest threads like this.

The OP didnt say anything about Repiblicans.

Judging by the OP's past, you know what party they identify with. Democrats. Who Democats do battle with?

Since about 5% of the country and even less on ATPN are actually conservative, I highly doubt this thread was pointed at conservatives but rather Republicans that masquerade themselves as conservatives. Thus, this gives true conservatives a bad name.

Let me remind you the first line of the OP:

I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope (sic), "limited government."

he certainly didnt equate GOP with conservatism.

Name the party Robert F. McDonnell?

Cool story though bro.

:roll: This actually proves my point.

Again, the thread isnt about Republicans. Youre interpratation is not the OP's. Unless he/she chimes in to say thats what he/she meant, its not. Its as he/she stated.

Cool story though

Like I said:

Republicans that masquerade themselves as conservatives

He/she even names a Republican as an example. Doh! /facepalm

But I guess we'll go ahead play the semantics game if you want.

 

[RedChief]

Going back to the OP. Why should the state run liquor stores? Here in CA, liquor stores are private enterprises but very heavily regulated (liquor license is hard to get, unlike beer/wine) but the state makes money on taxes, fees, etc.

Or think of it this way. Liberals like the OP are for legalization of pot (assumption here for the OP). Yet once legalized, who would sell the pot? Not state run stores but private businesses. If a state said they would legalize pot but only sell it from state run stores, could you imagine the protests from the liberals with the big brother claims. Now the government is watching how much pot they smoke. Yet its perfectly acceptable for the state to run liquor stores.

Remember, the whole idea of state run stores is along the same lines as dry counties. Essentially do-gooders with conservative moral values wanting to impose there values on others. But for liberals in Virginia, this is ok because the Washington Post (who without, Craig Deeds would be 20% behind in the polls rather then 8-10) says its ok.

 

[alchemize]

I love how "having government taking less of MY hard earned money and giving it to people who didn't earn it" is considered soaking the poor nowadays.

 

[SirStev0]

To be honest, I have noticed that every Repug plan boils down to a pretty simple formula:

1.) Oppose everything a Demo says.
2.) Gain Control Back.
3.) ????
4.) Profit!


I keep hearing a lot of opposition, but never solutions.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Elias824
How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

Yes, money spent on social security has vastly decreased poverty among the elderly.

Take the money the elderly has put into SS over x number of years, and conservatively invest that same money using x number years returns and see which egg is bigger. think you missed his point by the way.

Back on topic. There are many things our federal gov't is funding and involved in that, IMHO, has no right to be. Education is one. HUD et al is another.

Yeah, cause the average person makes TONNNNNNNNNS of money on the stock market....

Oh and they never ever get scammed by Conservative dickwads like Madoff.....

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Elias824
How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

Yes, money spent on social security has vastly decreased poverty among the elderly.

Take the money the elderly has put into SS over x number of years, and conservatively invest that same money using x number years returns and see which egg is bigger. think you missed his point by the way.

Back on topic. There are many things our federal gov't is funding and involved in that, IMHO, has no right to be. Education is one. HUD et al is another.

Yeah, cause the average person makes TONNNNNNNNNS of money on the stock market....

Oh and they never ever get scammed by Conservative dickwads like Madoff.....

Conservative Madoff? Not where most of his campaign contributions went

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
To be honest, I have noticed that every Repug plan boils down to a pretty simple formula:

1.) Oppose everything a Demo says.
2.) Gain Control Back.
3.) ????
4.) Profit!


I keep hearing a lot of opposition, but never solutions.

What's wrong with making money? Do you have a job? Do you have any investments? Do you make a ....Gasp! profit! ewww ewww ewww

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I love how "having government taking less of MY hard earned money and giving it to people who didn't earn it" is considered soaking the poor nowadays.

I don't get it either. Yet somehow they have the lower middle class convinced of it.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: SirStev0
To be honest, I have noticed that every Repug plan boils down to a pretty simple formula:

1.) Oppose everything a Demo says.
2.) Gain Control Back.
3.) ????
4.) Profit!


I keep hearing a lot of opposition, but never solutions.

What's wrong with making money? Do you have a job? Do you have any investments? Do you make a ....Gasp! profit! ewww ewww ewww

Sigh. You missed the popular culture reference. I didn't mean profit in the sense of money return, but more in the "success" sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe6kGJDGctU

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Elias824
How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

Yes, money spent on social security has vastly decreased poverty among the elderly.

Take the money the elderly has put into SS over x number of years, and conservatively invest that same money using x number years returns and see which egg is bigger. think you missed his point by the way.

Back on topic. There are many things our federal gov't is funding and involved in that, IMHO, has no right to be. Education is one. HUD et al is another.

Yeah, cause the average person makes TONNNNNNNNNS of money on the stock market....

Oh and they never ever get scammed by Conservative dickwads like Madoff.....

Conservative Madoff? Not where most of his campaign contributions went

Interesting. I did not know that. With that said, it was deregulation that certainly allowed he doors wide open to him, and it might just be my partisan brainwashing but I blame conservatives and the do nothings in general in congress for that one.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

Take off your blinders. The premise holds up just fine. You can nit-pick the semantics of the word "want" to duhvert discussion, but the net effect of the policies advocated by today's right is accelerating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few elite. This is exactly what those powerful elite want. I'll agree this may not be what rank-and-file conservatives "want" (since they're going to be on the losing end of the deal too), but it's what most of them have been duped into supporting.

Pssst.. The left does the exact same thing. Matter of fact, Obama has been extremely profitable for those few elite. Like I keep saying, both parties are owned by the same masters.

I will give the Dems a bit of credit though, at least they try to make it seem like they are throwing the little guy a bone while they are enriching their buddies.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Elias824
So because some people are stupid and cannot manage their own finances the rest of us should just get pooled together with them? I dont really care that the value of 401k have dropped by 1/3 over 18 months, were talking about much bigger lengths of time here. thing like 40 years. Obviously its probably not a good idea to retire during a major recession social security or not.
The other thing is if you usually remove the consequences from peoples actions and say its ok to be stupid, they will do just that.

It's not "some" people, it's the overwhelming majority of people. And SS was never meant to constitute one's entire old age income, it's supplementary. Yet, there are many, many people who are living on nothing but Social Security. Think about what kind of country we would have if we those folks had no income at all. What kind of life would I have if I were surrounded by a higher level of poverty than I see now? Who wants to live in a country like that?

 

[Craig234]

'Limited government' is a marketing'/propaganda term to fool people to support bad policy.

*Everyone* is for limited government.

The term is used by a group to get people agreeing, and then they have their 'real agenda' that's empowered behind it. It's a manipulative, misleading term as used by marketers.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: shira
Title: The fraud of "limited government"

Perhaps you're stuck in semantics.

Let's try a government without the centralized planning. This is basically what I refer to as "limited government" where the feds don't have their business in everyone else's business. Let's try it with 50 individual states where almost all federal programs have to be voluntary instead of forced.

Washington DC has its role to play with national defense, settling feuds between states, trade and diplomacy with other nations, enforcing the Bill of Rights, etc, but let's not have them micromanage the entire nation from a single distant and unrepresentative location full of rich and corrupt sobs. Washington is corrupt and to distill the murky waters we have to drain the pond. We have to take away their power over everything instead of feeding them more of everything.

The first step of limited government and restoring power to the people is to abolish taxation on the people. Leave it to the states to tax their people and then collect federal money from the state. This single act would go a long ways toward enabling a check and balance against corruption.