Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

"And let us not forget, the underlying premise of any government program, from the left or right, is that YOU are unable to take care of yourself. That you need the government to provide for you. That you need the government to tell you what is best for you."

No. The underlying premise is that some things are better done by individuals and other things are better done by some higher level of organization. Take roads for example. I dont know any conservative who doesnt use them even while claiming that there is NOTHING the government does that is good. Even while they are enjoying the benefits of government run and funded vaccination programs, even while all of this is protected by government run military services and while the capitalist system that they rightly like is based on contract law enforced by government run courts.

You guys like to TALK about how "government cant do anything" but the reality is you just draw the line in a different place. It isnt a qualitatively different outlook at all - it is just placing the public/private line a bit more toward the private sector.

If you ever got what you say is your wish the whole capitalist system would fall apart because it NEEDS roads and courts and police and the armed services. We NEED a center for disease control among other health related organizations - dont think the private sector will be able to deal with epidemics or other disease related problems. And all those parents whose kids are eating lead paint off of toys imported from China sure wish there had been some inspectors hired by the government to prevent THEIR kids from being used as the guinea pigs.

You guys talk a good game but you really ought to hope you dont get what you say you want.

And once again, if you defund a program you dont get to complain that it isnt doing all that it is supposed to.

[sck5]

Just a reminder

It is now 1,766 days since Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Please remind me why you think this man's judgment on such issues is so wonderful?

[sck5]

"Bush though, treated 9/11 as what it was, a terrorist action and his resultant policies have taken the "action" to their backyard,..."

Yep, that was the war in Afghanistan, still overwhelmingly supported by both left and right since that is where Osama was.

Unfortunately he ALSO took the war to somebody else's backyard entirely, where even the Administration as well as the military has admitted there was no Al Qaeda before we got there. Regardless of what you think we should do now that we have gone in and created the mess in Iraq, remind me why we should trust the judgment of people who thought this was such a great idea?

I mean, taking the battle to the terrorists is fine, but you ought to pick places WHERE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE TERRORISTS YOU ARE AFTER.

Because if you dont you are just creating a new problem, not solving an old one.

[sck5]

"The nerve of some people, claiming credit for the establishment of the American Red Cross simply because it was established by kind hearted people! You liberals are beginning to believe your own propaganda that conservatives are mean people."

Maybe I understood wrong, but I was pointing at programs that do things the private sector cant do as well or at all. It matters little to me which party created them - but as we have seen in this very thread neither the Reps nor the Dems are the same today as they used to be then. Just remember the Progressive Era when Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) invented the anti-trust movement, government regulation of the workplace, and established our national park system. I think those government run programs are pretty good, and I dont care if a republican gets the credit - he deserves it and proudly called himself a progressive!!! See? Even Republicans can have progressive thoughts!! Good ones!!

So, is it only good when Republicans do it, or is it not good even though Republicans did it?

[PBzeer]

I guess you didn't read down this far did you?

"There are certain, and enumerated functions within the Constitution, that the Federal government is supposed, even obligated, to perform. Social programs are not one of those functions."

But then, why bother with anything that doesn't support the fantasy?

You might need a nanny, but that doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[sck5]

The nanny is YOUR straw man, not mine. Nothing in what I said has anything to do with telling you how to live your life. In fact, the things I am talking about make it POSSIBLE for capitalism to exist and for us to live our lives.

Social programs may not be obligatory but they can make us better off. You are benefitting from them even while complaining about them.

Dont you like having navigational aids? DOnt you like it that everyone is vaccinated against diseases that can kill you? Neither of those things is in the constitution. Dont you like it that there is a system of contract law invented and developed by the government? And no, it isnt in the Constitution, it is in the US Code. So it wasnt obligatory but it sure is a good thing for capitalism that we have it.

And as for nannies, the conservatives seem a lot more obsessed than the Dems with telling us who we can have sex with and how, not to mention who we can marry - And that next rape victim the Repubs want to force to carry her rapists' child? Tell HER your theories about a nanny government. It aint us Dems trying to control people's private lives like THAT.

You can call it morality. I call it control issues run amuck.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

No. The underlying premise is that some things are better done by individuals and other things are better done by some higher level of organization. Take roads for example. I dont know any conservative who doesnt use them even while claiming that there is NOTHING the government does that is good. Even while they are enjoying the benefits of government run and funded vaccination programs, even while all of this is protected by government run military services and while the capitalist system that they rightly like is based on contract law enforced by government run courts.

You have just said in one paragraph why rural people are not, for the most part, Democrats.

[PBzeer]

An admirable screech, but that's about all it is. I don't know if you just don't understand the meaning of words, or are oblivious to them. Bringing up roads, navigational aids and contract law though, have nothing to do with social programs. Which, is the point I raised.

Will I take Social Security when I'm of age (provided it's still extant)? Of course I will, I paid in to it, I'll take out of it. Though I had no choice but to pay in, they are not required to pay out. But I guess that's fair.

Can government make life easier? In some respects yes, but, the question is, is it worth the cost? Not just in dollars and cents, but in dignity and self-respect. There are no free lunches, someone, somewhere, somehow, pays for everything you "recieve" from the government. And with each new program, they need more and more from everybody else, to give away to others. Every dollar they take from you in taxes, is one less dollar that you have to take care of yourself with. Now you may think they know better how to take care of you than you do, but I don't.

As I said before, there are certain things that the government is supposed to do. I have no problem paying my fair share towards those things, but I certainly have a problem with them taking my money, to do things they have no Constitutional obligation to be doing.

[sailaway21]

Some people realize that there are more levels of government than the federal level. Roads for instance are quite capbly built by state and local governments.

None of the things you cite make it possible for capitalism to exist. I'm beginning to wonder about either your reading ability or your cognitive skills. All those programs and government itself as we know it exist because capatalism is as near to a force of nature as one can get without actually being part of nature. That's usually covered at the entry level of economics education.

Just because something sounds good, or is in fact good, does not make it the proper function of government.

A "higher level of organization" is necessary for the accomplishment of some societal goals. the most effective higher levels of organization involve the lowest level, most involved, groups of people. and to the extent that their goals can be accomplished without the recourse to government aid they are the most effective.

One of the best maintained roads in the US is the Indiana toll road. it just got turned over to a private company. The private company will be able to maintain it at the same level for less money.

Think of government run things that are labelled "public". Public roads, public schools, public lands, public-housing, public rest-rooms, public parks, etc... and then name me one that is better done and maintained than a similar property with the name "private" in front of it. the bottom line is that people take care of their own things far better than does any government agency assigned to do the same thing.

And for the vast majority of those things that government does, with the exception of the military, government doesn't do a damn thing! They just write a check. Private industry designs and builds those roads. Private industry creates and administers those vaccinations.

You can't name one thing, one job, that the federal government does, top to bottom, better than the private sector. With the exception of the military, and even the military has privatized some sectors. Name one thing that the government does, with no private sector help, that cannot or could not be better done by the private sector alone.

[sailaway21]

And GW Bush did not declare mission accomplished. Any eighth-grader with the sound turned on would tell you that the banner was put up by the crew of USS Abraham Lincoln signifying that they had accomplished their mission, which they had.

I had thought, some time back, that you woul;d be an interesting person to converse with and that you would be able to engage in that conversation on a level deeper than mere superficialities and sloganeering. I was apparently mistaken in those thoughts. Good day to you, sir.