Question for liberals...

[Danny]

Ok IA, a little question for ya.

Thread Rules:

1. All stats, facts, accusations, etc must be accompanied by a link to a reputable source unless it is general knowledge.

2. keep you answers short and sweet (1 paragraph is possible).


THE QUESTION:

Why do you support more government when our current government is failing on every single level, and has zero accountability their failures? In other words, why do you believe adding more government that is fundamentally flawed will help solve the many problems we are currently plagued with?

If for some reason you believe our current government is in fact less flawed than I depict it, please feel free to express why.


Disclaimer
**In no way, shape or form is this a doom and gloom, "I am moving to Europe if Obama gets elected" type thread. I simply believe that we have some fundamental flaws that cannot simply be fixed by adding more of the same stuff, as the liberals propose.**

[joecoolfreak]

The real question is why is this directed at liberals. Besides being some term you heard on Fox news, do you know what liberalism is or what it stands for? Documentation you ask...not always the most factual or unimpeachable source, but a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Danny]

The real question is why is this directed at liberals. Besides being some term you heard on Fox news, do you know what liberalism is or what it stands for? Documentation you ask...not always the most factual or unimpeachable source, but a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

as with dozens and dozens of English language terminology, there are several meanings. Some based on historical past, some on geographical location. In todays age the term liberal, in America has been designated to wanting a liberal amount of government. If the generally accepted and understood term: "liberal" has its roots based in a factually, historically, and geographically correct ideals is neither the point of this thread, nor is it a justifiable tangent of the original goal of the thread. Bottom line is in todays American society it is generally accepted that liberals support more government (democrat) and conservatives support less government (republicans).

Oh and I do realize your burning desire to bash American news companies, I have it too, but I am an equal opportunity American news Company basher, there is not one channel/company I believe gives "the whole truth".

[joecoolfreak]

I agree with your points on news, but disagree completely with your modern "interpretation" on liberals(dems) and conservatives (repubs). I don't think that liberals support more government, I think they just support different things than republicans. Republicans like to think that they support less government, but the harsh reality is that they like big military, they like large confusing tax code policies, they are all for public policy for personal values(abortion laws to give just one example). Republicans don't support smaller governments at all. Conservatives CLAIM that they are for less government, but I can think of very few republican politicians that actually support that with action. Now if you were referring to libertarians, then I agree, they definitely support smaller government.

[Danny]

I agree with your points on news, but disagree completely with your modern "interpretation" on liberals(dems) and conservatives (repubs). I don't think that liberals support more government, I think they just support different things than republicans. Republicans like to think that they support less government, but the harsh reality is that they like big military, they like large confusing tax code policies, they are all for public policy for personal values(abortion laws to give just one example). Republicans don't support smaller governments at all. Conservatives CLAIM that they are for less government, but I can think of very few republican politicians that actually support that with action. Now if you were referring to libertarians, then I agree, they definitely support smaller government.

with this we are getting into IMO a fairly new problem. Each party has grown extremely close to one another. Especially with this election. But on average I would say democrats support larger government and on average republicans support smaller government.

I think this 'on average' approach is apparent when considering some of the many major topics: gun control, health care, taxes/ economic equality, oil price/ restriction, etc. These are all HUGE issues, and extremely obvious to who supports large government and who supports smaller government.

Military should not be viewed as "big government", this is because only once in a blue moon does the military effect the free will of an American Civilian.

[Verik]

I beg to disagree joecool. The republican party is less supportive of big government than the democratic party is. Democrats support a government that has the power to make choices for you (i.e. universal healthcare) and decide that they are more capable of deciding how to spend 45-55% of your income for you. Government programs are abused and taken advantage of on an out of control basis. What makes you think that if we don't address the internal control issues that plague our government now, that adding more programs which involve more citizens and larger amounts of money, is going to change anything. It will simply make the issues worse. And since when has public policy based on personal values been a wrong thing? Last I checked, rampant immorality is what led to the internal failure of the roman empire.

[joecoolfreak]

I didn't anywhere in this discussion say that I supported a bigger government. Danny seems to be closer to my perspective here. I don't truly see much of a difference between the two parties. Where I make my stand is that republicans and democrats say things that are much different from where their actions actually stand. The reverse is also true...republicans claim that the democrats say and do differently than reality would suggest and the democrats claim the same about republicans.

To respond directly to Danny for a moment...I don't think it's nearly as obvious where big and small government lie in those particular examples. Let's take taxes/economic equality for a minute. I sincerely fail to see where the republicans find themselves on a smaller government platform on this issue. I can't ever remember a single republican downsizing the tax code. I don't see any of them streamlining or decreasing the IRS's role. To be fair, I don't see the democrats doing it either. I truly don't see how "trickle down economic" polices have anything to do with smaller government. That all being said, military is the best example of "big government" First of all, more money has been spent in the last 5 years as a direct result of military actions just for Iraq and Afghanistan is close to 800 billion right now. That doesn't include other defense and military spending that is more static. If you look at the total amount of money the government spends elsewhere, the percentage is staggering. There is nothing politically that can make a larger government than the military. "Big Government" is not a catch phrase for effecting the free will of the people. Big government by your original argument is a larger, more expensive, less effective bureaucracy, which the military is the epitome of.

To address Verik...I think your view on republicans and democrats alike is incredibly simplistic and unrealistic. I agree that government programs are abused, but the ones getting abused aren't just democratic or republican. They both share their fair amount of corruption, ineptitude and general failure. The republicans aren't going to tax you as the average person any less. They are just going to spend the money on the military instead of the health care system. Both are wasting the same amount of money. Personally if I had to choose between an imperialistic army with unlimited funds or a corrupt heath care system for all, I think I know where I would choose to spend that money. Public policy based on personal values is wrong when it simply decides that a large (sometimes even the majority) of a population no longer has the right to decide what is moral for themselves. We all agree that murder is bad. We don't all agree that abortion is murder. Why should a small group of the population decide for all when the country itself is still incredibly indecisive as a majority? (source: http://www.texasinsider.org/modules....ticle&sid=2448) All empires fail and they do so for many reasons. I don't think our own demise will be because of rampant immorality, but rather economic failures. I think it is also much more likely to happen sooner rather than later.

[Danny]

To respond directly to Danny for a moment...I don't think it's nearly as obvious where big and small government lie in those particular examples. Let's take taxes/economic equality for a minute. I sincerely fail to see where the republicans find themselves on a smaller government platform on this issue. I can't ever remember a single republican downsizing the tax code. I don't see any of them streamlining or decreasing the IRS's role. To be fair, I don't see the democrats doing it either. I truly don't see how "trickle down economic" polices have anything to do with smaller government.

Well in this case and many others you have to choose the lesser of the two evils. Just because I say democrats are for large government, doesnt mean republicans are dieing at the cross for a smaller government. Our party's are not setup to these extremes and we both know that. With that in mind: democrats in generally want the government to pick and choose who is wealthy, who is poor. They want everyone to be equal (being simplistic of course). You cannot deny the fact that the dems want large government in this regard, I heard Obamas victory speech where he mentioned taking profitable oil companies and forcing them to give their profits elsewhere. Not once have a heard a republican get up in front of the nation and say: "you company X have made too much money, we are going to force you to give you profits away". Yes this tax/ economic equality is very broad and not completely intertwined in all cases.

As far as the physical size of the tax code, dont even try to start to point your finger as to whos fault it is. Both party's are equally responsible. And not once have a seen a dem say they are willing do away with the IRS, not once. So once again, choose the lesser of the two evils. To me, republicans are the only ones I have seen that are open to the idea of doing away with the IRS and the billion pages of garbage tax code.

Big government by your original argument is a larger, more expensive, less effective bureaucracy, which the military is the epitome of.

Your right, in this context. But the definition of big government not only means physically large and inefficient, but also effecting the free will of people and the open markets. And clearly, the dems support a larger govt when you consider that the definition includes effecting free will of people and markets.


And all the examples where i mentioned that its clear as to who supports large govt are in fact clear. Again, pick the less of the 2 evils

[Lucky DAWG]

The real question is why is this directed at liberals. Besides being some term you heard on Fox news, do you know what liberalism is or what it stands for? Documentation you ask...not always the most factual or unimpeachable source, but a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

does it matter what it means in the dictionary or the reality of it?



i pick the latter.


i like the OP though, nice question.
I'm voting McCain because its the lesser of evils


I would really love to see Ron Paul in action, but sadly me voting for him only guarantees Obama another vote, i know a lot of other people like Ron Paul too but feel the same way as well.


Party Politics for you

[redrumracer]

does it matter what it means in the dictionary or the reality of it?



i pick the latter.


i like the OP though, nice question.
I'm voting McCain because its the lesser of evils


I would really love to see Ron Paul in action, but sadly me voting for him only guarantees Obama another vote, i know a lot of other people like Ron Paul too but feel the same way as well.


Party Politics for you

x2 as sad as it is.

[tony]

I beg to disagree joecool. The republican party is less supportive of big government than the democratic party is. .

The hell? Government grew big time while the republicans had control of the legislative and executive branch of government this decade. It is a misnomer that republicans are for smaller government.

I'm not a liberal so I cant answer the question, I'm all for government regulation to create a fair open market but not government control.

[Danny]

The hell? Government grew big time while the republicans had control of the legislative and executive branch of government this decade. It is a misnomer that republicans are for smaller government.

Wrong, SMALLER is in fact true, the word smaller is relative to the democrats point of view.

[tony]

Wrong, SMALLER is in fact true, the word smaller is relative to the democrats point of view.

Hmm..



Facts and figures as you asked.

Maybe I should ask.. why do "Republicans" lie about smaller government but knowing government programs do not work well continue to increase government spending?

[Spektrewing386]

All i know is that there is only 2 options: Big Evil Government or Big Evil Corporation and many politicians dont see gray.

America turning into Global America Inc.
or
America turning into No Freedom America


But as you look closer you see its becoming No Freedom America to support the Global America Inc.


Why cant we have a good centralist government, a little control here and a little do what you want there.


In modern times, you need a government permit to take a ****, yet our lives are controled by big corporation who takes ****s on you.

Government requires you get car insurance, yet the insurance companies make you pay more than what your car is worth.

A hundred years ago there wasn't really anything such as "credit" and you were in control of your life.
Now, "credit", complex financial institutions, and rules control your life.

Giving the freedom to allow the demons take over

I pledge alliegance to the flag of Exxon and Halliburton
And to the corruption for which it stands
One nation(empire), under fear, tight rules, and control
With liberty and justice for some

[ash7]

I pledge alliegance to the flag of Exxon and Halliburton
And to the corruption for which it stands
One nation(empire), under fear, tight rules, and control
With liberty and justice for some

While I agree with your points on government being too big and controlling, since when is it a crime for a corporation to be profitable? (Exxon Mobil, Halliburton) That's the beauty of capitalism, when the consumer has had enough of an overpowering company, he is free in America to solve the issue by competition. A good example of this is UPS and FedEx and their package tracking system - since when has the USPS been as efficient as either of those companies?

-jonathan

[Spektrewing386]

i know what you mean.

but just do a little research on Halliburton and you will see the way they profit makes Satan look like a cute little kitten.

[tony]

While I agree with your points on government being too big and controlling, since when is it a crime for a corporation to be profitable? (Exxon Mobil, Halliburton) That's the beauty of capitalism, when the consumer has had enough of an overpowering company, he is free in America to solve the issue by competition. A good example of this is UPS and FedEx and their package tracking system - since when has the USPS been as efficient as either of those companies?

-jonathan

It is hardly an open market when OPEC has a monopoly on the Oil industry and the oil producing countries act as cartel. That is not free enterprise, that is having the American people at your mercy.

Real competition would be alternative energy sources, I'm sure the oil industry would get its act together then. FedEx and UPS compete not collude, Oil companies collude to fix prices. Don't believe me, google Cartel and OPEC.

[BB6dohcvtec]

Hmm..



Facts and figures as you asked.

Maybe I should ask.. why do "Republicans" lie about smaller government but knowing government programs do not work well continue to increase government spending?

tony back at it again....facts don't lie

[Danny]

Hmm..

Facts and figures as you asked.

Maybe I should ask.. why do "Republicans" lie about smaller government but knowing government programs do not work well continue to increase government spending?

I cant argue that either party knows the first thing about budgeting. But as I said earlier big govt does not mean solely mean "big spending" and you acting as if this is the case is foolish. Being unable to to budget is only one part of big govt, but more importantly its effecting the free will the citizens, and the dems have this covered with every major issue (as mentioned earlier).

So i see your point about spending, but thats only a small part of it. Fact is that the libs/dems want to do away with the second amendment even though they are hypocritical during the progress, tax the wealthy to death, socialize health care, and how many other things can I go on Obamas site that scream large govt? I am sorry Tony, but IF you think the dems want smaller govt then the republicans, you are a fool.

[Danny]

It is hardly an open market when OPEC has a monopoly on the Oil industry and the oil producing countries act as cartel. That is not free enterprise, that is having the American people at your mercy.

Real competition would be alternative energy sources, I'm sure the oil industry would get its act together then. FedEx and UPS compete not collude, Oil companies collude to fix prices. Don't believe me, google Cartel and OPEC.

Agreed somewhat. I'm not convinced alternative energy will be the needed competition. As much as I would like to see the energy sector go to a free market, I just dont see it happening with out some major changes. Its kind of like asking the US airline market to be open, they will just chuckle and say "what do you mean, it is open".

I think there is one thing we can all agree on, we are getting raped in the ass by everyone and everything (not litterally).

[tony]

Agreed somewhat. I'm not convinced alternative energy will be the needed competition. As much as I would like to see the energy sector go to a free market, I just dont see it happening with out some major changes. Its kind of like asking the US airline market to be open, they will just chuckle and say "what do you mean, it is open".

I think there is one thing we can all agree on, we are getting raped in the ass by everyone and everything (not litterally).

I absolutely do not think Democrats want smaller government, I argue hard with my friends that are democrats about the windfall profit tax on oil companies.. my #1 question is what is it about taxation that will make a corporation want to LOWER prices? Its like they want to use taxation as a punishment and that is not why we have the tax system we do.

I will admit I support Barack but when he starts talking about all these government programs I'm thinking.. okay c'mon now lets not go overboard. The kind of government spending I agree with says that oil companies buying up corn futures or the companies that are colluding are the same ones producing Ethanol is a conflict of interest.

The way the oil industry is set up HAS to be a violation of Antitrust laws here in America. I do not think the oil companies need to be punished directly but I do think the government needs to take a look at how everything is structured. Section 1 of the Sherman Act states:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."

OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is a group of 12 countries who controls 35% of the worlds oil and those countries come together.. agree on a set amount of production therefor fixing gas prices, a complete violation.

I am for a government that steps in and says speculation on the price of oil is not in the best interest of the people and has become out of control. The government is there to step in to an unfair market and set things straight without too much of a strong arm. The government could not put a cap on gas prices, that would be disastrous but putting forth the infrastructure for Biodiesel (40mpg and produced from waste) Cellulosic Ethanol (does not use corn) Hydrogen.. whatever, viable competition can be made.

[Danny]

I absolutely do not think Democrats want smaller government, I argue hard with my friends that are democrats about the windfall profit tax on oil companies.. my #1 question is what is it about taxation that will make a corporation want to LOWER prices? Its like they want to use taxation as a punishment and that is not why we have the tax system we do.

I will admit I support Barack but when he starts talking about all these government programs I'm thinking.. okay c'mon now lets not go overboard. The kind of government spending I agree with says that oil companies buying up corn futures or the companies that are colluding are the same ones producing Ethanol is a conflict of interest.

The way the oil industry is set up HAS to be a violation of Antitrust laws here in America. I do not think the oil companies need to be punished directly but I do think the government needs to take a look at how everything is structured. Section 1 of the Sherman Act states:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."

OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is a group of 12 countries who controls 35% of the worlds oil and those countries come together.. agree on a set amount of production therefor fixing gas prices, a complete violation.

I am for a government that steps in and says speculation on the price of oil is not in the best interest of the people and has become out of control. The government is there to step in to an unfair market and set things straight without too much of a strong arm. The government could not put a cap on gas prices, that would be disastrous but putting forth the infrastructure for Biodiesel (40mpg and produced from waste) Cellulosic Ethanol (does not use corn) Hydrogen.. whatever, viable competition can be made.

Thats how the market works, it sucks for us somtimes, but thats just how the game is played. So you want to socialize the oil/energy market to get rid of what you call "speculation". Why not just socialize every market, because I hate to break it to you speculation is NOT a fraction of the price of any given commodity, it is 100% of the price. Futures are traded (and every other single market on the planet) on speculation. Your life and capital runs on speculation. So yea, there are lots of people that buy into the "there is a 50% speculation surcharge on oil right now" garbage spilling out of some politicians /news channels mouths; but that does not make it the least bit true. The next time you talk to a futures/stock/ any type of finical person that is worth a cent will tell you that speculation is 100% of the market price.

But this doesnt change the fact that Obama wants the government to effect life on a daily basis more than Mccain does, and this is a common interest with thier associated parties.

There are a few key things about the Dems/ Obama that are enough to vote for McCain as the 'lesser evil' option. I should also mention that this doesnt neccesarily mean McCain is complete oppisite on every single one of the issues, but he is the better choice.


-2nd Amendment, Obama is ready to erase this as if its not even written in our constitution. Legislating from the bench like this is enough to make my blood boil. This alone looses my vote and is an example of big govt.

-Taxation as punishment, be it large corps or successful people, dems use it as a form of economic equality

-Pulling troops out of Iraq, hell the troops dont even want this.. why would I?
::edit- rephrase to: the troops dont want to QUIT::

-Socialized Med - the current govt took how many days to get water to NO? how long is it going to take to get treatment for cancer? What a joke.

- Socialized retirement - dems are against privatization of SS, its a great feeling know Obama is gonna keep that chunk of cash from my paycheck every week, knowing I will never see it again.

-Sure i could come up with some more, but these are the biggest and most important to me off the top of my head.




Just these couple basic issues are enough for him to loose my vote, and every last one of them SCREAM bigger govt especially when compare to the republican view.

[Spektrewing386]

-Pulling troops out of Iraq, hell the troops dont even want this.. why would I?

what are your sources for saying that troops in iraq want to stay in iraq?
most of them are tired of their year+ tours of duty and most have a hard time finding a reason to be there.

[tony]

Thats how the market works, it sucks for us somtimes, but thats just how the game is played. So you want to socialize the oil/energy market to get rid of what you call "speculation". Why not just socialize every market, because I hate to break it to you speculation is NOT a fraction of the price of any given commodity, it is 100% of the price. Futures are traded (and every other single market on the planet) on speculation. Your life and capital runs on speculation. So yea, there are lots of people that buy into the "there is a 50% speculation surcharge on oil right now" garbage spilling out of some politicians /news channels mouths; but that does not make it the least bit true. The next time you talk to a futures/stock/ any type of finical person that is worth a cent will tell you that speculation is 100% of the market price.

But this doesnt change the fact that Obama wants the government to effect life on a daily basis more than Mccain does, and this is a common interest with thier associated parties.

There are a few key things about the Dems/ Obama that are enough to vote for McCain as the 'lesser evil' option. I should also mention that this doesnt neccesarily mean McCain is complete oppisite on every single one of the issues, but he is the better choice.


-2nd Amendment, Obama is ready to erase this as if its not even written in our constitution. Legislating from the bench like this is enough to make my blood boil. This alone looses my vote and is an example of big govt.

-Taxation as punishment, be it large corps or successful people, dems use it as a form of economic equality

-Pulling troops out of Iraq, hell the troops dont even want this.. why would I?

-Socialized Med - the current govt took how many days to get water to NO? how long is it going to take to get treatment for cancer? What a joke.

- Socialized retirement - dems are against privatization of SS, its a great feeling know Obama is gonna keep that chunk of cash from my paycheck every week, knowing I will never see it again.

-Sure i could come up with some more, but these are the biggest and most important to me off the top of my head.




Just these couple basic issues are enough for him to loose my vote, and every last one of them SCREAM bigger govt especially when compare to the republican view.

I don't think the immediate response should be "Thats how the game is played," that is called acquiescence and completely unacceptable.

Speculation in the energy sector is much different than say.. the soda industry or computer sales.. this effects the every day decisions that the average person makes so yes I do think the government needs to do what is in the best interest of the people or this economy will continue to crumble. People can function every day without Soda but right now gas is a necessity, therefor it requires a different approach.

Nobody gets it absolutely perfect in politics, otherwise there would not be a need for separate parties. I'll give a little on Gun laws if a woman retains the right to choose an abortion or not.. a couple more government programs are fine with me as long as someone in office is willing to sit down and talk things out rather than continue a war with no objective in the middle east. It's all about what is most important to each and every individual then holding those elected officials accountable.

And for those who think Barack will do everything for blacks.. the social security system as it is now that he supports (I don't) is completely biased against blacks in policy since the life expectancy of a black male is lower than the minimum age to receive social security benefits.

[Danny]

what are your sources for saying that troops in iraq want to stay in iraq?
most of them are tired of their year+ tours of duty and most have a hard time finding a reason to be there.

Good point, I thought about this after I posted it but didnt have time to edit.

i should say they dont want to quit, like the dems want to do. Of course they all want to come home, but they dont want to quit.

[Danny]

I don't think the immediate response should be "Thats how the game is played," that is called acquiescence and completely unacceptable.

Speculation in the energy sector is much different than say.. the soda industry or computer sales.. this effects the every day decisions that the average person makes so yes I do think the government needs to do what is in the best interest of the people or this economy will continue to crumble. People can function every day without Soda but right now gas is a necessity, therefor it requires a different approach.

Nobody gets it absolutely perfect in politics, otherwise there would not be a need for separate parties. I'll give a little on Gun laws if a woman retains the right to choose an abortion or not.. a couple more government programs are fine with me as long as someone in office is willing to sit down and talk things out rather than continue a war with no objective in the middle east. It's all about what is most important to each and every individual then holding those elected officials accountable.

And for those who think Barack will do everything for blacks.. the social security system as it is now that he supports (I don't) is completely biased against blacks in policy since the life expectancy of a black male is lower than the minimum age to receive social security benefits.

I see your points and personally cant decide what I would like to see. It all sounds good on paper but in reality once you let the govt social one market, it gives them a door in to socialize another. What i wouldnt mind seeing is our govt grow some balls and get in there and start pump some of the trillions of barrels of reserve. Why not let the govt become competition for American oil companys, maybe giving them some incentive to produce on land already permitted to pump oil. Just a thought, but I wonder if that would work and we could stay away from the govt regulating the market.

And the economy is stubliing on more than just oil prices: over spending, fubared taxing, and speculation all play a huge part. Both parties can be held accountable in this case.

And about the gun laws, you really believe in the BS the dems pump out about the 2nd amendment?

Abortion, thats personal and many things effect that. My personal views and view that govt should stay the heck out of my personal life contradict on these subject. Thus I try not to broadcast my opinion on this.

ps. sorry for slaughtering the English language in this post, my brain is spent.