Previous 11 - 20 Next
A good law, would be one that eliminates government welfare, in all its forms, including corporate and personal welfare. Government's job is to protect our lives, our property, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness. It's job is not to protect us from the challenges of life: it's to protect us from others who'd harm us, by prosecuting those who do harm us. Those who'd take our money via a majority vote for their own purposes and desires, are simply thieves. And that includes those who suppport Social Security, Medicare and other redistribution schemes of government. And people would be far better off if instead, they got to keep their money and invest it in retirement and health care savings. At least the responsible people. Those who want to live off others would suffer until they take responsibility for themselves. And that's the way it should be.
"It [health care reform] needs to be done correctly, though, and in a way that does not create different levels of access and treatment." It's this kind of statement from Dr. Carson that bothers me and is a good reason to not support him. If we aren't free to offer and buy different levels of access and treatment, then the alternative is government control and one size fits all. Which is exactly Carson's objection to Obamacare. So what is he proposing? It sounds like universal care, controlled by government, but he has put out an idea: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Health_Care.htm Instead, he's proposed a savings account (which you can contribute to pre-tax) which can be used for healthcare, and passed on as part of an estate. This is just as technocratic as Obamacare. And a means by which billionaires can pass on practically all of their earnings tax free to their heirs. He also supports government providing catastrophic coverage, which begs the question, "What's considered catastrophic?" And something we can be sure statists will continually be redefining until it includes the common cold. What's wrong with people being responsible for their own health care, so others are not FORCED to support others? There is nothing wrong with voluntary charity dealing with those who've been unable to provide for themselves? Seems like many have so much faith in government, they believe it can outlaw dying of old age.
In response to:

Control Freaks

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 2:51 PM
Right. Another way of looking at it, is that that we'll have freedom, once people in the US quit asking government to take from others so government can take care of them. You can't have freedom unless you are willing to give it to others, and asking government to take from others isn't giving them freedom - it's taking their freedom.
In response to:

Control Freaks

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 2:00 PM
"Since I take care of you, and provide for all your needs, you are morally obliged to do as I say, not because you are a slave to me in the eyes of government" said the master to his slave. "And if you don't work and produce for me, I'll punish you until you do or just kill you as you're no longer of any value."
In response to:

Obama vs. Us

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 12:46 PM
The answer being, that most of our GOP reps are all for more governmnt and more spending (see the results of the Bush administration when all branches were controlled by Republicans). Williams' comments about "courage" refer to the courage to do the right thing and reduce the size and scope of government by following the Constitution and undoing unconstitutional laws. I don't believe they are up to it (see the results of the Bush administration). And Williams explicity refers to the Power of the Purse, and Congress's ability to not provide funds for Obama's desires. That means allowing Obama to shut down the government. But what are RINOs saying - they won't shut down the government. As Williams says "... we've reached the post-Constitution stage of our history. Washington politicians are not to blame. It's the American people who've lost their love and respect for our Constitution." I'd say that applies to anyone who supports Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government welfare and anything but free markets. Which is exactly what we've voted for (and I'm happy to say I voted for none of them).
In response to:

Obama vs. Us

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 12:34 PM
As liberals would put it, Obama lied to you for your own good.
In response to:

Obama vs. Us

MoreFreedom Wrote: Nov 19, 2014 12:33 PM
Obama is advocating taking more from working people, to redistribute to others. Our founders never intended government to have such power because it's simply using government to steal, with the politicians taking a cut. Anyone who advocates taking money from others for their own purposes, is either greedy and has no conscience, or hates them. Perhaps you are right, Obama doesn't hate the middle class - he's just a greedy politician without a conscience and puts his personal interests first: he doesn't care about the middle class except to deceive them into getting his policies passed. But like Williams says, he's not a fool, even though you seem to call him one: "Let's stop the crazy talk and ... vote the fools out."
Funny, I see Carlos7's post as accurate. Ryan is all for government redistribution of income to the poor and protecting Medicare. Then Nationaljester seems to think that Carlos7 is a big Obama supporter because of it. And he insults Carlos7 rather than addressing Ryan's positions. I suppose, it just goes to show how much some people are wed to a political party. Rather than think/debate issues, they resort to personal attacks. And usually I'm calling out liberals for such behavior.
Right - Ryan's budgets don't come across as "draconian or mean-spirited" because they INCREASE government spending. His proposed budget (which was called draconian and mean-spirited by Democrats) INCREASED government spending each year by 3.1% in the first decade and didn't balance until 2040 (meaning never). That's growing governmnt faster than the private sector. In reality, Ryan's budgets are mean-spirited towards those who'd like to keep the fruits of their labor. The feds used to run the government (from 1790 thru about 1900) consuming less than 3% of GDP. Today they consume over 22% of what we produce not counting the burden of complying with regulations. Taking more from workers isn't conservative. It's legalized theft, for a government that takes from many for the benefit of the politically connected.
"When will we actually support someone that will represent the US citizen instead of bending over backwards to support the citizens of every other country except for ours? " When voters quit voting for statist politicians like Ryan, Bush, Obama, Clinton and the others. That's when. If you vote for the lesser of the two evils, you are endorsing evil and that's what you get. Be sure to vote in the primaries.
I agree. The GOP has shown where they stand on spending during the Bush administration: they want to spend more and more of our money, and grow government faster than the private sector. It's how they get campaign cash and how they get rich.
Previous 11 - 20 Next