Can’t find a less biased source than a Koch brother’s mouthpiece? I’m interested in reading more, but I prefer my reading to require less effort to actually find the truth.
What facts? If you cite your sources, they would be facts (or at least closer). Otherwise maybe they are made up. Unless you polled the Catholics yourself?
It’s not “only Democrats”. It’s “most people who are not Republicans”. This has nothing to do with the Democrats, and everything to do with the obvious viciousness, fanaticism and incompetence of the Republicans.
I cannot speak for Sam Stone but I have seen such questions asked of conservatives in the past and the answer is almost universally that while they may disagree with a given government benefit they’d be stupid to not take advantage of it.
They’d be happy to see it end (supposedly) but till that day they will use it if they can.
Most of the reasons you listed are based on fear. Just to pick a couple of examples:
Seriously? Trampling on rights? Committees of elites? Destructive to the character of the people? Can you honestly say that you don’t consider these expressions of fear? Because they certainly sound like it.
Then be it smart or stupid by his own definition he’s trampling on my rights.
Seems a bit contradictory to me. If there is no such thing as an “economic right”, how can there be a financial freedom to be threatened by the government?
Rich people are smart and beautiful and lead a charmed life. They’re in control and they’re the
True Americans ™.
Poor people are lazy and shady, they’re often brown or black and they’re LOOSERS…social programs
will go to help these low lifes. They are not True Americans™.
The republicans spin this message very well.
You do realize that I don’t have a choice, right? That’s why it’s called “single payer”.
Kidnapping and torture? I support those? Also, Locke had no problem with the concept of war and the rules of warfare.
No one decides. The direction is the aggregate of all the microeconomic decisions make by people in the economy. There’s no controller. The economy is an example of emergent order.
I didn’t say I was a Republican, or that I supported Republicans. I think both parties are imperfect, and I could see myself supporting Democrats over Republicans. For example, if this Republican Congress were up against the Democratic Congress of the Clinton era, I could see myself supporting Democrats.
I do by and large believe that Democrats have a more expansive view of government and have less reticence about interfering in the lives of others - especially when it comes to economics, but they also readily believe in regulating behavior and freedom of choice. Republicans are more often than not the lesser of the two evils in my opinion, but they’re not great.
That’s not quite right. It’s more like, I’d love to do something else, but the government has taken that choice from me by taxing me and using the money to do it their way.
For example, I’d love for my kid to go to a private school, but I can’t afford to send her to private school and to also pay for the public school with my tax money. And because public schools are free, private schools are crowded out of the market except for niche areas.
As for health care itself: as I said in the last message, I don’t have the option to seek out private health care, because doctors are not allowed to open a private practice other than in a few select areas.
As if eliminating public schools would save money. What do you think would happen with millions of people running around unemployable due to a total lack of education? You’d be paying more money into law enforcement, more for welfare, or both; and you’d be doing that in a weaker economy. And you assume that a private school would be interested in taking your daughter when they aren’t now, or that one that would do so would be worthwhile. Instead of taking your money and spending the least amount of it as possible educating the kids; you know, thanks to that profit motive you think is so wonderful.
Sounds like what I said but rephrased.
FWIW I am ok with that.
As an analogy liken it to baseball.
National League does not have a designated hitter rule (DH). Many people hate the DH and think it should not be allowed.
However, if I am the manager of a National League team I’d be foolish to put my pitcher (it is almost always the pitcher) in the batting rotation when I play in an American League park. No matter how much I hate the DH rule I’ll put a better batter in when I play in their park.
No one would criticize the manager for being inconsistent in that case. Indeed they’d crucify him if he ignored the DH on the basis of not liking the DH rule.
So how have generic “right wing” parties served these goals better? American Republicans have not shrunk their government. Canadian Conservatives have not shrunk ours. You can list off your ideals 'til the cows come home, but I see at least half of them (the half relating to smaller government) have never been fulfilled, so are you living in a perpetual state of frustration, or something?
Democrats believe in regulating behaviour and freedom of choice? Well, I guess mileage varies wildly, since I had the impression Republicans defended the rights of rugged individualists as long as you were the right kind of rugged individualist - hetero, white, Christian, male…
I realize no such thing.
[Quote=Sam Stone]
Kidnapping and torture? I support those?
[/Quote]
Yes, this is implicit in your strident support of Bush and his administration’s policies.
Did he support the invasion of Iraq, which was not necessary and was undertaken under false pretenses? You did, despite your claims to believe in the freedoms of others.
All those aggregate decisions led to the system we have. To force it to conform to your ideological preferences would be . . . controlling it.
But so are they all. We made them up, “rights” are the unsupported dogma of our democratic creed. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is Tommy Jefferson’s educated way of saying “We’re making shit up, fuck no we can’t prove it, ain’t gonna try. Take it or leave it.”
There is no right to health care, and there is no right to private property. Which is to say, the right of a collective need to impinge itself on your private property is precisely the same as your right to keep it. Zilch, zero, zip, nada damn thing.
Now, if you care to, you can express your secular dogma as such, as your bald assertion having no more weight than mine or anyone else’s. Just so long as you don’t try to pretend otherwise.
And your “small government” riff is another, it presupposes an essence, an essential characteristic of all government: tribal government, monarcy, plutocracy, anarchic syndicalism, socialism, they are all the same in one vital essence. And all that is needed to refute this claim is a simple, no, they are not the same, they do not share a common quality save for the fact that they are commonly called “government”. Birds are birds, yes, but birds are not all the same.
Which brings us round to us. A democratic republic is not more efficient, it is not more holy, it is simply more just, that power is shared as equally as possible. That we are not governed by a small elite of morons, but a vast sea of morons. It is better ony becauase it is more just, and that’s all I need to convince me.
And that government, simpy by that alone, is wholly different from any other, wholly unlike monarchy, autocracy, or military dictatorship. You can say that both are “government”, just as you can say a condor and a penquin are both birds.
Now, just as I said, you are welcome to insist otherwise. Ain’t so, but you’re welcome to it.
Sam, why do people vote Democratic. Part of it is because they are far more fiscally responsible. They lower the debt and try and get the economy under control. The Repubs are cut taxes and spend people. They run up horrible deficits and then drop the mess in the laps of the Dems, who actually deal with them.
The Repubs love pollution and want our children to eat dirt. They will gut any agency , like the EPA that tries to save our air and water.
The repbs want to destroy public education. They do not need it since they use private schools and can afford it. Therefore we should have taxes go to private schools ,like vouchers. They want us to pay for their use of private schools.
Many people are unemployed due to offshoring and the bankers, rich Republicans, blowing up the world economy. The DEms do not believe they should be thrown in the streets.
The DEms think something should be done to slow down home foreclosures. The Repubs blew the home market apart too. Now they want the homes. seems fair ,doesn’t it. The rich deserve to have them.
Paying for public school is wholly unrelated to the choice of where your kid goes. People with no kids, or grown kids, are paying as much for public school as you are. The point of taxpayer-funded public schools is not to provide education for your kids; it’s to ensure that they grow up into a society with a certain minimal level of education.
I find it hard to believe you know how to read at all.
The link provided has absolutely nothing to do with the Koch brothers. It’s from a book entitled Democrats and Republicans- Rhetoric and Reality, and the requisite information is taken from the Tax Foundation, the CBO and GSS data.
But you know what? People refusing to acknowledge those things which don’t benefit them is par for the course for this board. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so damn sad. Apparently when faced with stuff that doesn’t conform to your worldview, the best course of action is to stick your finger in your ear, scream “la la la!” at the top of your lungs and claim that the information you’ve been given is biased.
If we’re going to be frank, your post didn’t address the one I made. In fact, your post was a borderline strawman. I said nothing about Federal programs, which would include crap like “Cash for Clunkers”. Something, mind you, which was adamantly opposed to by Republicans. Rather, I said social programs, which are most commonly understood to be things such as welfare or other such programs. You know, things which do benefit the poor and Blacks (minority’s in general, actually). Furthermore, to reiterate what I initially said:
That’s a simple, immutable fact, to which you provided no response except to say you flatly disagree. But you disagreeing doesn’t really matter. Someone who receives benefit from some social program, especially if that program is run at no cost to themselves, is typically going to want that program to continue. Someone who is neither helped nor harmed by said program and does not shoulder the burden of funding said program is typically going to be indifferent to whether or not that program continues. If, however, that program is run at a cost to someone else and they receive no benefit from it, an indidividual is typically not going to want to pay for it. Of those three people, it’s a good bet that the first will be a registered Democrat, the second will be either a registered Democrat or a Democratic leaning independent, and the latter will be a Republican or a Republican leaning independent.
Federal program =/= social program. If you’re going to bother responding to my posts, at least respond to the things I’m typing out and not your interpretation of them.
It’s part of the larger quote.
Edit: And gozomax’s post is full of half-truths, distortions and outright lies.
Yes it is if you ignore the facts and rely on Fox News. In the real world, those are truths. I am not going to go through the trouble of showing charts that depict the deficits when Dems are in as opposed to when the Repubs are. If you are not aware of that, you are running on empty.