Armstrong moderated Presidential campaign forum

[Leafer]

I guess my only question to the conservatives on this board is, was the country better off under Bill Clinton and a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, or under George Bush and a Republican-controlled House and Senate?

I know which one most of the country would choose.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I guess my only question to the conservatives on this board is, was the country better off under Bill Clinton and a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, or under George Bush and a Republican-controlled House and Senate?

I know which one most of the country would choose.

Congress was Republican controlled from 1994-2006 I believe, six out of the eight years of Bill's tenure. But the point is an interesting one for conservatives to answer. I know which one the stock market celebrated the most. Another irony.

 

[Leafer]

But I guess that’s the liberal way. I hope you are young because as they say….if you’re not a liberal in your twenties you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative in your forties you have no brain.

As evidenced by their support for the war in Iraq (not to mention voting for George Bush as their President - twice), the American conservative clearly doesn't have a heart or a brain.

 

[thoughtforfood]

The companies money never belonged to the government, so allowing them to keep it isn't welfare.

I think you meant "company's"....no wait, you eschew education as the most vile of propaganda devices wielded by the left.

 

[thoughtforfood]

LOL. Actually, every study that has ever been done on the subject shows that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Liberals love to be charitable with other peoples money and then pat themselves on the back for their humanitarianism.

LOL. Actually, per percentage of income, it is the middle class who give the most. It has little to do with political affiliation in the real world.

 

[thoughtforfood]

Expecting people to act like adults and take responsibility for their decision is not a lack of compassion. The lack of compassion lies in those who would rather keep people in an eternally dependent state so that they can count on their votes every election cycle. Let's face the truth here, the left absolutely must have their victims, because if they don't have them, they will loose both their votes and their own reason for being. The poverty level is an arbitrary number that is constantly moved up by the government - mostly the left. But the truth is that most Americans in the poverty category live better than the vast majority of people on the planet. And they certainly live better than almost everyone living in a communist state. So we come full circle. The government can impoverish the 85% of the country that is doing well in the name of "equality of distribution", or they can accept a large disparity where the poorest are still better off than in a state that has absolute equalitiy of distribution.

Actually, it is the paternalistic bent of the left that is the most objectionable. When a person assumes that the poor are incapable of understanding what is best for them, and then makes policy to take care of them, then that person has assumed a position of a parent That is as prejudiced as being a racist.

I however believe that it is out of our sense morality that those of us who have, provide for those who do not. I don't believe this because I am a good person, or they are good people, or because they do not know what is good for themselves. I tend towards making moral decisions because it is the right thing to do. I am a selfish, self-centered human being who is incapable of ever making truly altruistic decisions. I try to do what is right because it is right, not because I am.

So again, I say that my desire to see socialized medicine is because the power held by groups such as the AMA, attorneys, the Pharm industry, and many others make the continued inflation of healthcare costs almost certain. Unfortunately, it is the blunt instrument that seems to be the only political reality our government is capable of producing. I also, call me crazy, doubt the benevolence of profit driven industry.(and take any "you think corporations are evil" argument and shove it. The pursuit of profit is apolitical, and amoral{not immoral}), which is why I believe the government should impose morality upon it, just as with many issues. There has been no perceptible movement from those in the healthcare industry to really do anything about the problem. If healthcare costs had risen at even a similar rate to commodities, then I would not believe such a drastic solution necessary. That is not the world in which we live.

We live in a world in which profit driven healthcare has priced many out of the ability to afford even basic care. You may find that completely inconsequential, and just plain "tough ****" for those who are affected. I do not.

 

[Crankyfeet]

IMHO nice post TFF. I see that you may have used a word processor to avoid the classic spelling error just after you've mocked someone for their spelling .

The current healthcare (HC) system is obviously a market without a mechanism for restraining prices, as evidenced by the 17% per annum inflation in HC costs over the last 20 odd years. Is there some way of reigning this problem in without going to the extreme of another government agency, that once created, IMO can be another problem that is nigh impossible to correct?

IMO the reason why a person in the middle class does not have coverage is because it is prohibitively expensive. I think this has less to do with insurance companies taking a profit than it has to do with a lack of competition on health service pricing. The user and the payer are too disconnected and providers, medical suppliers and everybody (except the one paying the premiums) are benefiting.

Basically, health service is a poor insurance-covered service (especially corporate plans which don't encourage restraint) because you can spend unlimited amounts in the quest for good health. It's not like you're broke and you go fix yourself. Its like everybody is broken somewhere, and there is no limit to how pedantic you want to get on every little sniffle you or your kids have or every disease you want to test for. Just my 3c (inflation).

Now if only we could export this industry to China or India....

Actually, it is the paternalistic bent of the left that is the most objectionable. When a person assumes that the poor are incapable of understanding what is best for them, and then makes policy to take care of them, then that person has assumed a position of a parent That is as prejudiced as being a racist.

I however believe that it is out of our sense morality that those of us who have, provide for those who do not. I don't believe this because I am a good person, or they are good people, or because they do not know what is good for themselves. I tend towards making moral decisions because it is the right thing to do. I am a selfish, self-centered human being who is incapable of ever making truly altruistic decisions. I try to do what is right because it is right, not because I am.

So again, I say that my desire to see socialized medicine is because the power held by groups such as the AMA, attorneys, the Pharm industry, and many others make the continued inflation of healthcare costs almost certain. Unfortunately, it is the blunt instrument that seems to be the only political reality our government is capable of producing. I also, call me crazy, doubt the benevolence of profit driven industry.(and take any "you think corporations are evil" argument and shove it. The pursuit of profit is apolitical, and amoral{not immoral}), which is why I believe the government should impose morality upon it, just as with many issues. There has been no perceptible movement from those in the healthcare industry to really do anything about the problem. If healthcare costs had risen at even a similar rate to commodities, then I would not believe such a drastic solution necessary. That is not the world in which we live.

We live in a world in which profit driven healthcare has priced many out of the ability to afford even basic care. You may find that completely inconsequential, and just plain "tough ****" for those who are affected. I do not.

 

[wolfix]

I guess my only question to the conservatives on this board is, was the country better off under Bill Clinton and a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, or under George Bush and a Republican-controlled House and Senate?

I know which one most of the country would choose.

Do you remember the the battles that took place under Clinton with fiscal policy?
Look at the policies that were passed under Clinton and they have Republican written all over them.

Since the Republicans controlled the house during Bill's tenure and most of the fiscal policies during that time was Republican, just how much credit can we give Clinton?
You have to ask yourself if the house controls the country, or does the President?

My personal belief is that the country is always better off when the two parties share power. That does not allow either party to gain too much power. The majority of the people in this country are middle of the road, and our governement should be run that way.

 

[thoughtforfood]

IMHO nice post TFF. I see that you may have used a word processor to avoid the classic spelling error just after you've mocked someone for their spelling .

Let that be our little secret.....

Actually I was mocking someone not knowing what is posessive and what is not, but yes I spell checked to CMA. However, it wouldn't be too hard to find a post in which I was not so careful. That is why I also mocked the classic Republican (not conservative) jab at education. Just wanted to cover all the bases.

You point out the major market flaw inherent in our current healthcare system, that being lack of competition. That is why I feel it is a special case.

Not that this has anything to do with that, but if I haven't mentioned it, I really like Ron Paul. Not sure I could vote for him, and I know my socialized medicine dream would go up in smoke, but I really do like the guy.

I am not going to spell check his one.

 

[thoughtforfood]

My personal belief is that the country is always better off when the two parties share power. That does not allow either party to gain too much power. The majority of the people in this country are middle of the road, and our governement should be run that way.

Yep, to paraphrase de Tocqueville, it is one of our greatest flaws, and greatest strengths.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

LOL. Actually, every study that has ever been done on the subject shows that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Liberals love to be charitable with other peoples money and then pat themselves on the back for their humanitarianism.

In any case, this is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who are able to take care of themselves but make no attempt to do so either out of irresponsibility or the believe that it is the goverments job to take care of them. But of course the government has no resources of their own. Every act of charity by the government is an act of theft by that same government. For every dollar that they give away, they must take that dollar from someone else by force. And since the goverment itself is so inefficient, huge and bureaucratic, it's probably more like for every 70 cents they give away they have to steal a dollar from someone else.

So if someone chooses to live in New Orleans; chooses to live below sea level; in a known hurricane center, then they should at least carry enough insurance to cover the possibilities. It is not the job of people who choose less risk to pay for those who choose more.

You are right. I was wrong to charecterize all conservatives as not compassionate. There are some compassionate conservatives and some mean spirited liberals.

I am not sure that conservatives donate more on a per capita basis. The gross amount may be greater for conservatives because conservatives tend to make more money.

I just have two questions? First, how many people from the Ninth Ward do you think choose to live in the Ninth Ward? Second, do you think we should be paying to rebuild dunes along the beaches every year to protect million dollar beach houses?

Why are you not complaining about protecting the millionaires?

 

[thoughtforfood]

And it should be obvious to anyone that the term "corporate welfare" is an attempt to use the stigma of welfare to paint the corporations that are the backbone of this country as villians.

One last thing, it is the PEOPLE of this country that are her backbone. These corporations you so worship owe allegiance to no country and no person. Many are American in ownership only. As I said earlier, profit is amoral, apolitical, and apatriotic. Want proof, call tech support, or buy some yarn, or steel, or the great majority of goods consumed in our culture. I understand the need to create greater markets, but don't dare tout the "Americanism" of corporations to me. I know better. I might also suggest you attempt thinking for yourself once or twice because as I said, you provide insight I can find in the headlines of the Wall Street Journal. The difference is that they go on to actually write an article. You just pass of the headlines as original thought.

 

[wolfix]

I just have two questions? First, how many people from the Ninth Ward do you think choose to live in the Ninth Ward? Second, do you think we should be paying to rebuild dunes along the beaches every year to protect million dollar beach houses?

Why are you not complaining about protecting the millionaires?

Conservatives are not behind that program either. [If the dunehouses are the ones I'm thinking about.] That program would be interesting to look at to see who behind the BS that is going on down there with that.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

Conservatives are not behind that program either. [If the dunehouses are the ones I'm thinking about.] That program would be interesting to look at to see who behind the BS that is going on down there with that.

I think the problem is that both the conservative and liberal politicians are behind this. I am sure that the farmer in Nebraska and the coal miner in West Virginia would not be too happy with what we spend on erosion control on barrier islands. The political party of ordinary people has nothing to do with these issues. We would almost all be against spending our money on this nonsense. Yet, we let the politicians get away with this ****. Shame on us.

 

[stevebaby]

Hand woven carpets, fine furniture, the Pyramids, the Library of Alexandria, the Cradle of Civilization, the Red Crescent, some of the most beautiful women you've laid eyes on...

You should go visit the place before we completely destroy it.

Beer was first brewed in ancient Mesopotamia. What sort of Philistines would bomb the birthplace of beer? It's a crime against all humanity!

 

[JohnO]

I disagree. Profit is why we enjoy what we do today. In the last 300 years, the human standard of living has increased by an order of magnitude, driven largely by inventions and innovations. Practically all of this has come from a few capitalist societies. Inventors tend to gravitate to capitalist governments, because they can see their idea become reality, and they can also realize the greatest personal profit from their idea. In Holland, they refined commercial seaborne transportation into a practical venture, largely because they could profit from it. From the UK came steam power, which led to modern industrial production methods. And, modern banking and insurance, creating a financial structure that stands today. The US has produced the bulk of major innovations in the last 100 years. The airplane, the automobile, electric power, electronics, the semiconductor, the computer, the personal computer, the internet... in many cases, the ideas came from immigrants, who all came here because their idea had the greatest opportunity of succeeding, and the greatest potential for personal profit.

It's the primary reason that socialism looks good in theory, but has trouble in practice. In the absence of personal profit, people just aren't motivated. That's not a political agenda, it's just basic human nature. While one can extol socialist societies for maintaining a standard of living for all, they don't tend to improve it much. One would be hard pressed to point to innovations that improved the human condition, that originated and were made practical in a socialist country. A few, but they pale in comparison to what the profit driven societies have produced. Just compare East Germany to West Germany, North Korea to South Korea, to see good examples of which society has provided a better standard of living for it's people.

Granted, the personal profit driven society has flaws. However, it has yielded the highest general standard of living for the greatest number of people.

One last thing, it is the PEOPLE of this country that are her backbone. These corporations you so worship owe allegiance to no country and no person. Many are American in ownership only. As I said earlier, profit is amoral, apolitical, and apatriotic. Want proof, call tech support, or buy some yarn, or steel, or the great majority of goods consumed in our culture. I understand the need to create greater markets, but don't dare tout the "Americanism" of corporations to me. I know better. I might also suggest you attempt thinking for yourself once or twice because as I said, you provide insight I can find in the headlines of the Wall Street Journal. The difference is that they go on to actually write an article. You just pass of the headlines as original thought.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I think you guys are actually close to the same page. Pursuit of profit is the best way to play the game of progress IMHO. However, just as football is best played competitively, it does require a referee/umpire. That should be the role of the government in a profit-driven capitalist society - to be the umpire. Because as TFF stated, the pursuit of profit is somewhat in conflict with the notion of following rules and thinking of the whole (greater community) as being of any importance compared to the individual player (the corporation).

I disagree. Profit is why we enjoy what we do today. In the last 300 years, the human standard of living has increased by an order of magnitude, driven largely by inventions and innovations. Practically all of this has come from a few capitalist societies. Inventors tend to gravitate to capitalist governments, because they can see their idea become reality, and they can also realize the greatest personal profit from their idea. In Holland, they refined commercial seaborne transportation into a practical venture, largely because they could profit from it. From the UK came steam power, which led to modern industrial production methods. And, modern banking and insurance, creating a financial structure that stands today. The US has produced the bulk of major innovations in the last 100 years. The airplane, the automobile, electric power, electronics, the semiconductor, the computer, the personal computer, the internet... in many cases, the ideas came from immigrants, who all came here because their idea had the greatest opportunity of succeeding, and the greatest potential for personal profit.

It's the primary reason that socialism looks good in theory, but has trouble in practice. In the absence of personal profit, people just aren't motivated. That's not a political agenda, it's just basic human nature. While one can extol socialist societies for maintaining a standard of living for all, they don't tend to improve it much. One would be hard pressed to point to innovations that improved the human condition, that originated and were made practical in a socialist country. A few, but they pale in comparison to what the profit driven societies have produced. Just compare East Germany to West Germany, North Korea to South Korea, to see good examples of which society has provided a better standard of living for it's people.

Granted, the personal profit driven society has flaws. However, it has yielded the highest general standard of living for the greatest number of people.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Bump.


Aww...Sh%t. Why the fark did I bump this?

 

[Flyer]

ttreww