Let's impeach the president.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Is providing "free" public schooling socialism?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Well, I would argue there has never been a truly succesful libertarian state in history. The world's most succesful societies have managed to balance market based capitalism within a government sponsored socialistic framework - this country is no exception. I know people from Sweden and they are not poor, not apathetical, and not subject to totalitarianism.

I would say that pretty much all of northern Europe belies your final point as well.