Oh those poor, innocent government politicians and bureaucrats. If only those nasty evil corporations didn’t offer them money, they wouldn’t have to be so corrupt and give them what they want.
Is dripping sarcasm really how you plan to deal in this debate?
They are forced to serve those special interests? You realize how funny that sounds?
Which is probably why you made it up, since clearly I never said they were "forced" to do anything. I said the profit motive would be taken away if lobbying were banned, which would mean politicians wouldn't be bribed, which would mean they would no longer be acting on the behalf of special interests, which means they can afford to worry about serving the needs and desires of the people who put them in office.
the fact is that it only takes a couple hundred leaders, some well placed bureaucrats, and thousands of pages of legislation that no one knows or even reads to create, manage, and administer the nightmare we have today in government.
And who do you think writes most of the legislation proposed today? Corporate lobbyists, that's who.
As a side note, as you mentioned above, you DON’T think politicians sit around tables discussing strategy and power, but you DO believe the richest 1% of our country proactively find ways to take advantage of the poor and go out of their way to widen the income gap?
Yes of course, although they don't frame it in those terms, their agenda cannot be met without screwing the poor and middle classes. The richest 1% are less interested in working and more interested in finding ways how to manipulate government policies so they can get a free lunch. Financing a massive propaganda campaign was a huge step in making sure the richest 1% get even richer.
Rather than using their time to spend their money and invest their assets, they are driven by the haunting notion that somewhere out there, a poor man just got a raise. NOOOOOO!
Again, you don't seem to be taking this seriously. Corporations are interested in only one thing: profit. Not just any kind of profit, but an ever increasing profit. There is never such thing as enough profit, as the Corporate structure is designed in such a way that it will never be satisfied. The job of the CEO is to make sure the next quarterly statement is an improvement on the previous. That is all he cares about, and by law, the CEO has to make decisions that are in the financial interests of its shareholders. Corproations will gladly break rules and regulations if it means doing so will be more profitable than complying with those rules. We see this all the time in the news when corporations gladly pay fines for failing to meet safety standards set by government regulators. They'll pay millions in fines because it would cost even more for them to make sure their workers are working in a safe environment. A classic example is the coal mining incident that happened last year. The CEO of the company refused to abide by the safety regulations and the company paid millions in fines for failing to do so. The costs? A dozen lives. Does the corporation care? Of course not. All it cares about is the bottom line.
I can see what you are saying, and I definitely think there is room for reforms. But on the flip side, lobbying does serve some genuine purposes. Not all lobbyists work for corporations. I support the 2nd Amendment and believe people have the right to have firearms.
Are you really unaware of the fact that roughly three quarters of the NRA's funding
comes from coporate sponsors, typically from the gun/ammo industry? Don't be so naïve as to think that just because you hopped on this silly bandwagon, that it is strictly a grass roots effort. The NRA is bankrolled by corporations to a degree that makes your contributions superfluous.
I think that without the NRA, that right would have been gone a long time ago, overruled by LIBERAL justices.
This is a typical scare tactic they employ to get folks riled up behind them. But thanks to the NRA, states are having a tough time passing laws that prohibit semi-automatic weapons that serve no purpose whatsoever.
Thanks to the NRA, the nut who shot Senator Giffords in the head was able to quickly shoot down six other people, including a nine year old girl, before anyone could prevent him from causing further harm. Are you proud of what your contribution dollars to the NRA helped accomplish? The NRA made this possible because the rapid firing pistol had a high-capacity clip, which politicians have never been able to outlaw thanks to the lobbying pressures from the NRA. You want to be an advocate for the NRA and pretend to be logical? Go ahead and make your case as to why US citizens should be able to own automatic weapons. I've never owned a gun in my life nor have I needed to. The original purpose for owning guns was so the people could be in a position to rebel against a totalitarian government. Hunting for food was also a reason, but in neither instance does the existence of automatic weapons apply today. In an age of laser guided bombs and nuclear weapons, it is idiotic to think a million rifle carrying citizens could overthrow its own government. It is also idiotic to think it necessary to kill a deer with a gun firing ten bullets every 5 seconds. Automatic weapons with high capacity clips serve one purpose only: to kill as many
people as possible in a given amount of time. So why the hell are Americans allowed to own these but not pipe bombs?
BOO! Fox News! Did you jump? You seem obsessed with Fox News with the number of times you mentioned in throughout your post.
You joke, but there is nothing funny about the level of ignorance that permeates this country, due to a massive and well-funded propaganda machine. And yeah, sure, you don't watch FOX at all, nor do you listen to any of the numerous Right Wing talk radio hosts. This was just a massive epiphany among the populace, about "conservatism" being the answer. I'll buy that.
I have several friends who are liberal in their political views to one degree or another, some very deep and some only slightly. But all of them, just like you, have one thing in common. You all see the answer in more and more government.
More government... meaning? Since you pretend to know my stance so well, explain what you think I mean by more government. I don't want "more" government as much as I want a very different government. Our government today is nothing more than an arm of Corporate America.
If we just let the government do more here and spend more money there, we would all be better off.
Yeah, I said that... right? Because you would never have the audacity to say let's have a civil discussion while making up something I never said.
My comments are largely from my own experience and what I believe is true. Should Fox News choose to use my ideas, I can’t stop them! The truth is true no matter who says it!
ROFL! Sure it is. Those Right Wing talking points just come naturally to anyone who works hard and believes in freedom. Right? The rest of us are a bunch of lazy communists.
I’m not beholden to the Republican party at all. I’m not sure why you think I will defend them when they don’t deserve it. I’m first and foremost a conservative.
Which means what, exactly... besides having an unwarranted paranoia about "big" government?
I didn’t even vote for Bush, so you can’t blame him on me.
I didn't vote for Obama either, but you keep throwing out the "Conservatism is the answer" canard, but you refuse to provide any precedent in history where it proved to be the answer.
I would sooner vote for a fiscally conservative Democrat than vote for someone I didn’t trust on the Republican side. I can see good in some on both sides. I’m not as die hard anti-Democrat as you are anti-Republican. Guess what, both their SH#T stinks most of the time. I have no problem admitting that.
I am not totally anti-Republican. I voted for McCain mainly because of his stance of campaign finance reform. But his is a lone voice in the wilderness. Most politicians don't want to mess with their golden goose. You didn't address the fact that the Conservatives were the ones driving the Supreme Court decision to hand over all elections to corporations. There is a reason why I have come to despise the Right. Whenever there is a political issue that affects the poor and the rich, the Right is always on the side of the rich. Every friggin time. No matter what the issue.
Universal healthcare? They oppose it. Who benefits from this opposition? The Rich. Who continues to get screwed? The poor.
Labor unions. They oppose them. Who benefits from the destruction of unions? The rich. Who get's screwed? The lower class workers.
Education? The Right wants government out of it. Who benefits from this? The rich. Who will get screwed? The poor.
Wars? The Republicans love them. The Rich benefit because they can play the market accordingly, especially with the rising prices of oil.
Defining rich? The Right will say $300k doesn't make anyone rich and act like it is such a low figure for all the things they have to buy, but at the same time they'll demonize Union workers for making $70 per hour (which is a popular Right Wing lie). Apparently, the free market should decide wages only when people get Rich from it.
Housing crisis. The right blames the poorer folks for being irresponsible and trying to live beyond their means. Even though all the studies prove this is not what caused the crisis, the Right runs with it because they have to forever defend the wealthy, who are really to balme here. I heard Sean Hannity say those people who were duped into signing 500 page real estate contracts without fully understanding what they were getting into, are the ones to blame. Never mind the fact that it was the predatory lenders who lie, cheat and deceive in order to make an extra buck. We should blame the folks who had the audacity to think they deserved the opportunity to buy a home without being hoodwinked by a lender.
The list goes on and on, and in virtually every single instance, the Left is on the side of the working class while the Right is pandering to corporate interests. I'm not saying the Democrats are completely innocent, because they're not. Whenever corporate bribe money is at work, there will be takers from all sides. But by and large, the Left's philosophy is to look after the people who cannot look after themselves. The Right's philosophy is to about individualistic concerns - those who get left out and suffer, then so be it. In their minds, it is better to suffer and die on the streets so long as you do it with honor; meaning at least you're not expecting the government to use collective tax dollars to help support you and your children.
Okay, I’ll take a Koch brother and raise you a George Soros
Not much of a raise since they are far more wealthier than Soros, and are far more active in the propaganda business. Soros supports paying higher tax rates, so how does that make him in it for the money? Let's see if you can tell us something about the evil Soros that is actually true. Because FOX News cannot. The fact that you'd even bring up Soros proves you're relying more on the Right Wing propaganda machine than you're leading on.
The rich have front men on both sides. Gates and Buffet are democrats. They all push their agendas. So do rich on the right. That is the way it is. Yet you pretend the left is above all of this.
I pretend no such thing. I simply find the Right far more guilty.
I find that funny. All your talk about me using talking points, yet you repeat and parrot many of the views and criticisms made by the left.
Wrong again. Unlike some people on these political threads, I don't derive my education via remote control.
Sorry for your illness, yet your answer to my criticism boils down to “Oh yeah, but you guys don’t care either.”
That isn't what I said. Yes, the Right doesn't give a damn about the poor, but that isn't to say the Democrats don't either. The only way you can explain their philosophical involvement in looking after the poor, is their desire to "take power." Which makes no damn sense whatsoever. You come up with this nonsense as a way to dismiss the truth of the matter.
They lead their party and determine its voice, strategy and direction. They would have you believe they care about the plight of the poor. I don’t believe it for a second.
Because....? For someone claiming to listen to nothing from the Right Wing propaganda machine, you sure don't provide any evidence of further education on the subject. You merely assert stuff, without explaining why, or providing evidence for believing what you do.
Furthermore, I believe the welfare state as its organized now does very little for people other than keep them dependent on government and settle for mediocrity
This is the problem I have with folks who say this stuff. You pretend to know exactly how the country would be if the government was "less powerful". If there were no government services for the poorer classes. If government got out of the social program business. Is the system perfect as is? No. But this is because of the Capitalistic framework in which our government is forced to operate. The government is left having to look after the poor because the poor exist. The poor exist because they reside within a Capitalistic nation. If you don't think taking care of the poor is in the best interests of our nation, then you're truly deluded. I suggest you try traveling to other countries once in a while. I can assure you that 50% poverty and 20% unemployment is not what you want to see in a country where (thanks to some people) there are more guns than Bibles.
Contrary to Conservative myth, people are not generally poor because of Government handouts. That is an idiotic argument without a shred of evidence. Can some people take advantage of the system? Sure. But these are exceptions, not the general rule. Exceptions and extremes exist in any system. People are poor because there aren't enough jobs, and most jobs that are available do not provide a living wage. Americans are caught up in a system that requires them to work multiple low paying jobs, just to make ends meet. It is impossible under a Capitalistic system for equality to exist.
Do you really want to know how the country would be with a weaker Federal Government and stronger State governments? This is what Conservatives today are calling for. This, in spite of the fact that our country's sad history tells us all we need to know about the dangers of strong State governments and a weak Federal government. You guys like to brag about how Capitalism gave us the most prosperous country the world has known, but the hilarious thing about all of this is that the principles you think made it prosperous are actually the things that nearly led to its sudden demise. The Right Wing philosophy of more power to the states and less power to the federal government is exactly the thing that led to the Civil war, when the battle of the States nearly resulted in a country tearing itself apart from the inside out. It is also what enabled America's racism to persist as long as it did. It was the Federal government that had to intervene when Alabama governor George Wallace stood at the steps of the admissions office at the University of Alabama, forbidding the first black student to register for classes. The Federal government had to send in the National Guard to allow her to register. Things could have worked out quite differently during the Civil War too. The South had more wealth, more weapons, more industry, more infantry, etc. There was every reason to believe they would win the war. The same was true of Nazi Germany during WWII. But the outcome relied on a bit of luck in both instances (had an overambitious Hitler not marched the bulk of his army into freezing Russia, there is little reason to believe they would have lost the war), as superior generals were fortunately on the right side of the battle. But had the Confederacy won the war between the states, we'd be living in a nation where the states exist essentially as countries within a country. Slavery would still exist, and the Constitution would still be the banner by which proud Americans raise their hand in allegiance. So yes, I say thank God for the Federal government.
And what's even funnier is that the United States of America has a history of enacting programs and policies that would by today's definition, be considered socialistic. It goes all the way back to the founding of the nation, and yet you guys pretend to be able to tell us what the country would be like without those socialistic programs. The fact is you cannot divorce America's greatness and all of its achievements from the "socialistic" things you despise, because modern-day America is in many ways a product of those programs. You have no basis to say we'd be a better country without them. As if we'd be better off without social security, Medicare, government housing, government funded education, etc. On what basis do you presume to know this?
Your argument boils down to pointing out that the system isn't perfect. But pointing out the problems doesn't in any way justify your proposed solution, which seems to be an very simplistic and sophomoric "less government" solution. This is precisely what the corporations want because the government is the only thing standing between them and a complete overtaking of the country.
Does the Republican Party care about the poor? I’m not sure they care anymore than Democrats. But it certainly does not benefit their politics to keep people poor. But ultimately, I think most politicians care only for themselves.
You can generally tell who cares more by what laws they propose, and in the face of lobbyist opposition. Just an example, name me a Republican who favors gun control. There may be a few, but by and large the opposition comes from the left, despite the fact that the NRA is constantly trying to buy their vote. Another example would be health care. There is little financial reason for politicians to propose a public option, but those on the left have done so despite the fact that they'd be missing out on the millions offered to them by Big PHARMA and the Insurance companies. And they backed away from it only when those bribes became so bloated, the temptations were just too much to overcome.
Republicans oppose a public option, not only because they care nothing for the poor, but because there is big money to be had by opposing it. The Insurance/Drug companies want their monopoly, and it is generally the Right Wing that helps them keep it. Such as George Bush's prescription medication bill that prevented the government from negotiating on prices. Now these companies can charge whatever the hell they want, thanks to the Right Wing efforts that were spearheaded by politicians who voted for it, and who later retired to earn millions as executives in the Drug industry.
News flash Kevin - You can support and help the poor and disadvantaged without supporting the modern day welfare state as we practice it.
Don't patronize me. This is a silly yet typical response from the Right which supposes the general populace will start supporting the poor once government aid is removed from the picture. Are you trying to see how hard you can make me laugh? It is precisely because charities do not cover the costs of taking care of the poor, that government programs are necessary.
Personally I think people ought to help one another, and have a duty to do so. But I also think it is wrong for the government to force people to do it through taxation.
Why, when it is clearly more efficient? Is there waste? Obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that welfare programs are a necessary means by which the truly poor can be taken care of in our capitalistic system. That doesn't mean everyone receiving help from the government will go on to become doctors and astronauts. Some might, and some have, but what it means is that they'll at least have hope for a better future. This is something all Americans have a right to, not just those lucky enough to be born with certain advantages.
Something is lost when your charity consists of government ripping it from you under penalty of a crime and giving it to the beneficiary.
The fact that you think in these terms is telling. You owe taxes to the government, so stop pretending that is YOUR money. You only made that money because you live in a society that provides you with advantages others do not have. It is your responsibility as a product of this society, to give back. Don't tell me you worked for it all and earned it on your own, because that is the great myth created by the Right Wing. It is the epitome of individualistic egotism. You did nothing on your own.
The biggest reason why you achieved what you have achieved is because you were lucky enough to be born in a society such as this. There is no way around that fact and your only expression of gratitude is to say you're not going to give back what society says you should give back? Don't tell me the country was founded on liberty from government to that extent, because it wasn't. A progressive tax system has always been in place. The government decides how much you pay and you pay according to how much you benefited from the society it governs.
Serving in a soup kitchen, helping build a house for habitat for humanity, or even ringing the bell for the Salvation Army all benefit the giver and receiver and are far more valuable for the soul.
I've done all those things, so I don't need you to lecture me on the ways of charity. But you essentially proved my point when you say it is more valuable for the soul. This underlines the fundamental divergence in our view. You think that charity is for the purpose of the giver, not the receiver. If charity is for the purpose of helping people, then clearly the form of charity that helps the most people is the most efficient. Government programs prove to be the most effective means, because the general public is not going to run to a soup kitchen or ring a bell for Salvation Army. If we were to drop all government programs today, the streets would be flooded with the poor whose last resort is a life of crime. Trust me, you don't want to be in this country when that happens. The Right Wingers refuse to imagine this, but that is essentially what will happen. If you think you can circumvent that tragedy by donating your time in a soup kitchen, then you're more naïve than I thought. Those people who are charity minded are those who perform charity already, and the fact is their numbers are few - hardly enough to accommodate the needs of America's poor.
I’m by no means wealthy, and I have been given nothing during my life. But I still find ways to help others and give charitably, on top of my taxes.
So? It obviously isn't enough.
So I resent any implication that by rejecting the welfare state it makes me or anyone else anti-poor. I’ve earned the right to criticize the government.
Uh, you still haven't explained how we could drop all government programs and the country would be better off. I'm still waiting for your solution. Seriously, your solution cannot be to rely on the relatively few citizens who are willing to donate time in a soup kitchen!
I believe it is a flawed program, that is administered poorly and inefficiently and generally does not tend to improve over people’s economic status and opportunities.
Based on what evidence? There is a ton of evidence to the contrary. People benefit from government aid all the friggin time. JSM once discussed how he and his mother lived in government housing, and without it he never would have been able to achieve as he has - he attends UCLA right now. The problem you have is you probably envision the extreme exceptions. You hear about them all the time on Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity. Those folks on foodstamps who then sell their food stamps so they can buy drugs. The people who have more children because they get more money from the government when they do. That really boils your blood doesn't it?
You have an amazingly skewed and warped sense of people. What is your population of known Right Wingers?
I live in Right Wing hell. Everyone I knew in the Atlanta area about a decade ago, was either moderate or indifferent to politics. After six years in Brazil I return to find out everyone has converted to a new religion formulated by the priests on the Right Wing. My step-father no longer reads the Atlanta-Journal and Constitution because he says it is too liberal. He had read it religiously for 30 years before FOX News got hold of him. My own mother deleted me from her Facebook friend's list because I tend to post news articles that support progressive agendas. Our real estate agent just yesterday started rambling on about how Obama is to blame for the fact that the IRS is making him pay back $50k in unpaid taxes. I guess the fact that he tried to cheat the government on his tax returns, had no part in that. Blame Obama and the government of course. Virtually everyone I know listens to the Atlanta-based radio talk show host, Neal Boortz. Family members will regularly start spouting off political rants about how the Government has to be stopped, and then reference something they heard from FOX News. Indeed, it is quite creepy how these people DVR the O'Reilley Factor while they go out to dinner, and then knock themselves over trying to get the sofa when they arrive. They'll sit there for hours eating pop corn, watching FOX News. My father talks about Sheppard Smith like he is one of his best friends. Whenever my Mom asks him, "how do you know that", he'll usually say with pride, "Sean told me." When I had Brazilians visiting us in November, one Brazilian asked about Hillary Clinton as a prospective candidate. He asked because Brazil just elected their first female President. My mother went off on a political rant, in my own home, knowing perfectly well of my political views. When she was asked what the difference was between Republican and Democrats, she said, and I'm not kidding, "Republicans work for a living and want to keep what they earn, and Democrats want to live off our tax dollars." Believe it or not, I absolutely refuse to discuss politics in person because my tolerance for ignorance is very low. It took every ounce of self-control I had not to tear into my parents for starting their political BS in my house. So I quickly changed the subject.
There you go. You can take your “Stupidest Thing Said” trophy back.
You do not understand Capitalism then. Which is expected, since you appear to be a fanatical supporter of it.
How do you know what a worker is worth?
I just told you. If a worker produces goods worth an X amount of dollars, then that is what he is worth. But when employed in a capitalistic system, he cannot receive X because the employer has to profit too. So under Capitalism, no one is actually paid what they are worth, as someone above you is always taking a larger piece - those who do less or no work. The Right is quick to point out that without the employer, the employee wouldn't be making any money at all, but the same is true of the employer. They both need each other in order to make a profit. The Right's job in Congress is to pander to the employers and make sure they can get a larger chunk of the profits while the left is usually responsible for pushing for worker’s rights. Again, labor unions are overwhelmingly supported by left wing politicians, whereas some on the Right are actually trying to get rid of the minimum wage (also a Liberal idea).
How do you know they are being taken advantage of?
They are taken advantage of all the time. If you cannot see this, then you have little familiarity with corporate America. When companies like Family Dollar start giving their employees the "manager" title, even though they make minimum wage, they do so because that provides them with a loophole of not having to pay them overtime wages. As "managers" they are expected to be on call 24/7. Corporations hire people who sit around thinking of ways to increase production without having to hire more people. It is all about more product per man hour. And that trend never ends. If a company pays 100 people to produce 10 gizmos per hour, it will hire a manager who will get a bonus is he can get them to produce 12 per man hour. And then the next goal will be 15, and then 20, and then 30, and cutting overtime hours is also a primary goal of any manager. So this is all about getting more from the employee while not having to actually pay them more. And it never ends. Logic dictates that there is a limit to which the human worker can produce efficiently, but the Corporation care nothing about that. The productivity bar is raised from month or month or year to year, and the pay generally stays the same. If you don't think every corporation in America is designed this way, then you don't know much about corporate management.
I worked for DISH Network in the IT dept and they completely dismantled their entire calling center which consisted of dozens of operators at each location, whose jobs consisted mainly of calling customers to confirm appointments. That job was then placed on the shoulders of the technicians who went out to do installations. While the corporation saves millions by firing an entire dept, the technicians were expected to do all the extra work. As a result, they were not paid more. They were taken advantage of. Even worse, their productivity numbers were expected to increase regularly despite the fact that they were spending more time in the van calling up customers. Does the corporation care? No. If you cannot do it, they say they'll find someone else who can. The turnover ratio was absolutely ridiculous, because no one could really live up to the standards expected by the corporation. So the training dept was constantly working overtime, hiring and firing within months.
You need to get out into the normal, everyday business world and see how it works and experience it.
I am a business owner, so try again.
All labor is at will.
It is more than that. It is a necessity, and the employers understand that in this economy, the workers need them more than they need the workers.
It’s a contract between the employer and the employee, and they AGREE together the value of the employee’s time.
Yes, but then they quickly change the rules upon hiring, and if you don't like it, they'll be glad to replace you.
I agree that the issues with education are largely demographic. So why does the government spend billions and billions on education on promises that do not improve anything?
You're not listening. The problem is poverty not the quality of education. The Dept of Education isn't supposed to get rid of poverty. And the billions poured into the system is also poured into numerous top notch public schools that produce doctors, astronauts, lawyers, etc. My best friend and I attended a public school. He is a doctor in Huntsville Alabama, and he only has this job because the government provided him with a High School education, and then gave him a couple hundred thousand in loans to attend Med school.
The left promises that if we just spend enough, and pay teachers more, and implement program XYZ, it will get better
Nonsense. You're not doing much to add credence to your claim of ignorance with respect to Right Wing talking points.
But we know it won’t. So it is just more politics at taxpayer expense. It is about power and control.
Power and control! How the hell is wanting Americans to have an education, seeking "power and control!" You say more funding won't make things better, but you speak in ignorance. All you do is keep pointing out the problems that naturally exist, not because the government is involved, but because the government is stuck having to educate those who cannot afford private education. You refuse to explain how your solution is going to do anything to benefit anyone. To remove government from education means tens of millions of children will be left with no opportunity for education because they can't pay for it. If you want to see what that looks like, go visit Brazil. The kids are riding around in the streets in RIo with machine guns.
I can agree that most politicians are greedy. Gone are the days of selfless public service
And why are they gone? Because we have conditioned ourselves according to Capitalistic expectations. People are judged according to what they own.
But I’ve spent my whole career in the financial world, as an auditor/CPA at two big Four accounting firms, a controller and a CFO in the private sector. I’ve seen tons of businesses from the inside out, privy to how they do business, from large public corporations to small mom and pops. And I’ve yet to see expanse of evil you claim is out there.
You have no insights in the way coporations manage their employees, whereas I do. You deal with finances. I've actually managed several businesses.
Sure, you here about the sleezy CEO that gets thrown in jail on TV, and the left leaning media does its best to demonize everyone else.
The Right leaning media makes excuses for the CEO, or calls him a "bad apple" and pretends it was just a fluke. It was no fluke. He just got caught is all.
At anytime, the politician can put a halt to it. Anytime. I lay more blame on them
You're still not paying attention. The Right is guiltier, but I never said they were the only ones guilty. You say the politicians could stop it, but you seem to be ignorant of gridlock. If every Democrat pushed for campaign finance reform, what makes you think they could get it passed? How do you address the fact that corporations now have unprecedented license to donate as much money as they want to buy politicians/elections, and this effort was made possible by conservatives? How do you explain the fact that democrats, including Obama, detested the decision and the only Supreme Court Justices who supported it were the "conservatives"?
Oh there is plenty of support and historical precedence for conservative values. Go look up the Conservative Manifesto of 1937.
You're not paying attention. I am saying there is no historical reason to believe your "conservatism" solution would work. That "less government" solution would work. None. You assume it would work because you've been spending so much time bitching about problems with our capitalistic system, trying to blame the government for everything. I'm saying there is no reason to believe this. It is all just a popular talking point with no substance behind it.
Ultimately, I believe freedom and the free market system of exchange has the best chance of improving the most people’s lives.
Freedom and free markets have always existed and it hasn't changed any of this. Try again.
I think our country’s success has proven that it can work.
But it has never succeeded with a weaker federal government, which is your solution!
It rewards effort. It rewards work. It provides untold economic advantages and opportunities for those willing to participate
Our society provides those opportunities, and these opportunities were made possible because of the government we have.
The private sector has been behind virtually all of our advances in technology, providing innumerable benefits to life and living for everyone here.
It has also been the main cause of our mass unemployment. More technology means fewer jobs available, period. So while fewer people have jobs, fewer people can actually take advantage of the technological advances since they can't afford them.
It is not without its problems, but all systems have their issues
Funny, that is essentially what Chris said about government efficiency.
I think the system works best when government intervention is minimal.
Based on no evidence.
No bailouts.
Why not? The government made an investment in these banks, it didn't just give them money for free. It is actually
turning a profit.
No stimulus.
Why not if it works? The majority of economists agreed with it and Obama followed their advice. How is that irresponsible? Bush took us to the brink of a depression, and the stimulus did what it was expected to do, more or less. It wasn’t expected to turn the economy around overnight. It was expected to level off a crashing airplane, and so it did. And even after all this, you guys on the Right are bitching because we’re only flying at 3,300 ft instead of 33,000.
In essence, let the true market compete against itself without interference
And what makes you think this would cure all our problems?
I agree that there is a role for government in regulation, safety, and the environment. But it’s the government’s corrupt practices and attempts to control the market need to stop.
You're not being precise. What "corrupt practices" are you referring to? The government has not tried to control the market. Regulation is not control. It only seems that way when corporations trying to establish their monopoly realize the government is in the way. All you're really talking about is the government trying to clean up the mess caused by deregulated markets. You essentially want to cure our problems by injecting it with the same disease we're trying to get rid of.
Many of the same issues we are having today. To the extent a political leader doesn’t follow what I consider conservative values regarding the size and reach of the federal government, then I don’t support them in that action. Very simple
Too simple, with no support. You can't even point to a single leader that you could call conservative, who succeeded in doing all the things you want done. But you think it'll work anyway.... why?
First of all, you don’t get to define or decide who is a true conservative.
Uh, I let them define it. They are the ones who called themselves “true” conservatives.
