It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are you a liberal?

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: smithjustinb

Where precisely do you come up with "thats money going straight into the government's pocket?" One of my bigger problems with the ACA is that the public option was killed so that the insurance lobby would let it pass. So instead of tax dollars going toward a publicly owned health insurance program, for those who couldn't afford private insurance premiums, we're subsidizing insurance premiums which is in fact, subsidizing the insurance companies. That's a bad thing but it's not "going into the government's pocket."


It's called the MLR, or Medical Loss Ratio. It is part of the ACA that requires that only 80% of insurance premiums be spent on medical care. The other 20% is profit. If you're using a government ran insurance exchange, those profits are the government's.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

I am not sure. I think I am a liberal. I won't vote for military or war hawks. I won't vote for candidates that will repeal ACA or abortion.

On the personal side, I worked for over 40 years, been married for 34, my kids are all from the same father. Sometimes, when I say I am a liberal and mother of 3, conservatives assume I am a single welfare mom.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: smithjustinb

THIS IS WHY I DO NOT LISTEN TO REPUBLICANS....THEY FLAT OUT LIE



Who do you listen to?



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator
I`m a liberal socialist because...



Stop right there. Socialism is a great, well meaning idea. I wish it worked. But, in reality, it does not work. You can't distribute the wealth evenly and hope to "progress". The competitive nature of capitalism is what drives progression. If you distribute the wealth evenly, you effectively make competition unnecessary. No one will ever try to be better because no matter what they become, they'll be making the same amount of money. Might as well do as little as possible. As an economic system, socialism is a death sentence. There's no reward for excellence. So there's no point in trying to be excellent. It would be great if everyone would not be in it for the reward and just be happy that they were doing the country a service, but they simply do not think this way.

The competitive nature of capitalism is what drives economic progression. Competition is what is going to make you go the extra mile to make something of yourself and to do great things for your country. In capitalism, you are allowed to determine your own wealth. So, there is a reward for excellence.

Socialism just does not work as an economic system. Sorry.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Then why did it fail and the taxpayers had to bail out Wall Street? Recessions, depressions, high unemployment, sounds like a failed system. Or just unfair.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
the progressive nature of capitalism?? you are referring to the ideology that came up with planned obsolescence, no? In a society where disposable is their idea of profitable? where cars, washers/dryers, fridges are made to break after a certain amount of time to encourage repeat customers? Where despite the fact that productivity skyrockets, prices continue to climb? (as ease of production increases prices are supposed to decrease, just in case you didn't know). The corporate system (strongly supported by the right) is not sustainable. Its set up in such a way that profits are legally mandated to increase....which means that the people who actually produce the items must eventually get paid less and less, and the quality of the items must decrease....this is not rational. They have no problems destroying the environment of the world for future generations, so long as they have profit today. Each persons life has a dollar value, and there are acceptable levels of casualty taken into account against corporate profits.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
What liberalism is defined as might not necessarily be how it is represented. Im not talking about the definition of liberal. I'm talking about when you go to vote and vote for a liberal, what you're voting for. The outcome of voting liberal is going to be oppression.

I don't care what you want to call me. I'm voting for those who represent freedom. It turns out, those are the conservative candidates, and not the liberals.


I think your opinion is based upon nothing of merit. I think many conservatives identify as being conservative much like people identify with football teams. I also think this is also a cultural thing too, at that same time I think conservatives do not really examine the what it means to be conservative. The last three GOP presidents, did NOTHING to reduce the size of government, they all increased it, they all spent like drunken sailors. They did not practice free market policies, they practiced corporate heavy policies that had a pro corporate bias which has decimated smaller operations.

At some point OP, you have to question people who point their fingers but do exactly what they criticize liberals over. Over and over and over and over - these guys talk about "Conservatism" but break their own tenets likes its going out style.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
the progressive nature of capitalism??


I said, "the competitive nature of capitalism"


you are referring to the ideology that came up with planned obsolescence, no? In a society where disposable is their idea of profitable? where cars, washers/dryers, fridges are made to break after a certain amount of time to encourage repeat customers?


This doesn't happen. This goes against the widely regarded philosophy known as "the total quality approach to doing business". Businesses want to make products and services better, not worse.


Where despite the fact that productivity skyrockets, prices continue to climb? (as ease of production increases prices are supposed to decrease, just in case you didn't know).


In case you didn't know, the increase of prices are due to inflation. Inflation can be attributed to such things as the increase in minimum wage. The increase in prices is an illusion.


The corporate system (strongly supported by the right) is not sustainable. Its set up in such a way that profits are legally mandated to increase....which means that the people who actually produce the items must eventually get paid less and less, and the quality of the items must decrease....this is not rational.


None of what you just said is based on any kind of real understanding of economics. You're simply wrong.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: smithjustinb
What liberalism is defined as might not necessarily be how it is represented. Im not talking about the definition of liberal. I'm talking about when you go to vote and vote for a liberal, what you're voting for. The outcome of voting liberal is going to be oppression.

I don't care what you want to call me. I'm voting for those who represent freedom. It turns out, those are the conservative candidates, and not the liberals.


I think your opinion is based upon nothing of merit.


You're not explaining how what I said about liberals is "nothing of merit" by telling me what you think about the other side as below.


I think many conservatives identify as being conservative much like people identify with football teams. I also think this is also a cultural thing too, at that same time I think conservatives do not really examine the what it means to be conservative. The last three GOP presidents, did NOTHING to reduce the size of government, they all increased it, they all spent like drunken sailors. They did not practice free market policies, they practiced corporate heavy policies that had a pro corporate bias which has decimated smaller operations.

At some point OP, you have to question people who point their fingers but do exactly what they criticize liberals over. Over and over and over and over - these guys talk about "Conservatism" but break their own tenets likes its going out style.





posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb


Stop right there. Socialism is a great, well meaning idea. I wish it worked. But, in reality, it does not work.

Socialism just does not work as an economic system. Sorry.


Now your ideology is getting in the way of your common sense!!!

Socialism works just fine in many European countries. In fact they enjoy a higher standard of living than most Americans.

emsnews.wordpress.com...

www.dailypaul.com...

China is Socialist and how much money does the US owe China?

www.bloomberg.com...

Sorry, you have no credibility, if you don't even know how contemporary economic policies work...........fail!!

edit on 23-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Except for the fact that they are banker-debted and busted out.

The central banks and energy cartels have them strapped to the death star.

It's all an illusion.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: olaru12

Except for the fact that they are banker-debted and busted out.

The central banks and energy cartels have them strapped to the death star.

It's all an illusion.



Kinda like the US with Capitalism. Pot kettle amigo....

topics.bloomberg.com...

edit on 23-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

Socialism works just fine in many European countries.


It didn't work in Soviet Russia.


China is Socialist


Are they?


The socialist market economy is the economic model employed by the People's Republic of China. It is based on the dominance of the state-owned sector and an open-market economy, and has its origins in the Chinese economic reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping. The ideological rationale is that China is in the primary stage of socialism, an early stage within the socialist mode of production, and therefore has to adapt capitalist techniques to thrive. Despite this, the system has widely been cited as a form of State Capitalism



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Sorry, you have no credibility, if you don't even know how contemporary economic policies work...........fail!!


No. Not a fail. You aren't demonstrating beyond your empty accusation how "I don't even know how economic policies work". I know well how they work. If you can't understand how socialism impedes progress and capitalism promotes it, you don't understand how they work.
edit on 23-5-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

In the spirit of denying ignorance, I'll fill you in.

He is referring to the oft-used premise of forcing your opponent to disprove a negative. For example, if I ask you "When did you stop beating your wife?" you are forced to disprove a negative assertion, which is rhetorically impossible. This puts you on the defensive, and taints everything you say in reply to my question with a tacit admission of guilt.

Your post begins with the question: "Why do liberals..." is followed by a plea to civility, and then lists the various shortcomings of a particular straw-man that you yourself have constructed through opinion, hearsay and conjecture.

I was tempted to answer you sincerely and civilly, but I couldn't find myself in your descriptionary. While it's true that I support certain liberal ideas, I find your description of liberalism suspect at best. I work 63+ hours a week, in a traditional blue collar job and believe taxes are onerous, but proudly support gay marriage. I think gun control is a silly, childish notion, but put little faith in religion, celebrity or phony patriotism. I believe in working hard, paying my own way AND leaving as little environmental damage as possible for my children to clean up later.

Am I a liberal or conservative?

Now - if you are talking about people who consistently vote liberal (or conservative), are driven by a single issue (guns, gays, carbon-credits) campaigns, I don't know what to tell you. In my opinion, the most American thing you can do in our current climate is to never legitimize the red versus blue puppet show by paying it attention or votes. People who argue that one puppet is always better than the others because of X just look like talking monkeys to me.
edit on 24-5-2014 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb




No. That's called, "personal irresponsibility". Obviously.


What's more irresponsible? - Bringing a child into this world without the funds the offer it a proper life, or aborting in an early term?

I know what your response will be... "You should have used protection."

Great. Now let's assume I did. What happens if it fails? Should I then be forced to have this child that I cannot afford simply because it upsets your "morality"?

Or, lets say I'm a 15-16 year old girl with wild hormones. I am curious about sex but I'm afraid to talk to my parents about it. I'm afraid to purchase protection at the store because I don't want anyone to see me, or maybe I don't have the funds. If only there were some organization that could help me...oh wait. There is! Planned Parenthood! But wait, the conservative party wants to take away Planned Parenthood. That's not helpful...

So what does a hormone fueled, uninformed youth do in that situation? They think like an adult of course and choose abstinence!..... Wrong. They have sex and now I'm a 16 year old with a baby that I can't support because I don't even have a high school diploma.




Obamacare is not the way to go about health care reform. We can do better. Education and infrastructure are pale in comparison to how much we spend on health care in taxes. Its ridiculous.


I didn't mention Obamacare. If it were up to me, however, we'd have socialized medicine. I'm sure you'd be a bigger fan of that.




And I would love to be able to choose whether or not to pay for health insurance. I'd love to be able to defend myself from a totalitarian regime with a well regulated militia. I'd love to not have to pay 18% to people who are abusing the welfare system. That includes adam and steve. Id love to not have to bend at the knee to everyone who might be offended by my beliefs.


And back to what this all boils down to - Your freedoms are more important than mine. Your freedom to own a gun is more important than my reproductive freedom. Your freedom to choose a healthplan is more important than my freedom to marry who I want.

I'd love to not have to bend at the knee of everyone that might be offended by my beliefs too. Unfortunately, if I'm not a conservative Christian in this country, I'm pretty much going to be offending the majority of those that make up the conservative party.

And just a side note, welfare fraud "figures" are really hard to actually pin down, but typically they're not as inflated as Fox News would have you believe.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Liberals and the democratic party have become what they so despised and rallied against back in the 60s. Now there's a head-scratcher.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: smithjustinb

Then why did it fail and the taxpayers had to bail out Wall Street? Recessions, depressions, high unemployment, sounds like a failed system. Or just unfair.


None of that was capitalism. It was oligarchy. In capitalism, all of those companies would have gone out of business. They were bailed out by the government, using the fiat money mechanism. The fiat money system prints money that has no value except that the government says so. That phony money causes all of the booms and busts and bailouts and debt.

And all of the inflation.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
the progressive nature of capitalism?? you are referring to the ideology that came up with planned obsolescence, no? In a society where disposable is their idea of profitable? where cars, washers/dryers, fridges are made to break after a certain amount of time to encourage repeat customers? Where despite the fact that productivity skyrockets, prices continue to climb? (as ease of production increases prices are supposed to decrease, just in case you didn't know). The corporate system (strongly supported by the right) is not sustainable. Its set up in such a way that profits are legally mandated to increase....which means that the people who actually produce the items must eventually get paid less and less, and the quality of the items must decrease....this is not rational. They have no problems destroying the environment of the world for future generations, so long as they have profit today. Each persons life has a dollar value, and there are acceptable levels of casualty taken into account against corporate profits.


That is not capitalism. Capitalism made the computer and the software, the cars and cable tv, the air conditioners, space heaters, electric ovens and lights. Cartelism, which can only be maintained by government regulation, caused planned obsolescence. New companies would produce demanded products if not for fixed costs and complications of governmental intrusion.

In not sure about planned obsolescence anyway. Its possible, but its just as likely that they are focused on making some thing stylishly new. Henry Ford made a $250 car that people stopped buying because it was only one style and was always black.

In capitalism, the consumer decides what will be made. Because the consumer only does what he wants the most.
edit on 24-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: jacktorrance
a reply to: smithjustinb




No. That's called, "personal irresponsibility". Obviously.


What's more irresponsible? - Bringing a child into this world without the funds the offer it a proper life, or aborting in an early term?


I'm not going to argue with you about the flaws in your way of thinking. There's another thread going on right now about that argument. I tried arguing with them and almost had a heart attack from the shock of what I was hearing you people say. Idk if I can go through that any more.





Obamacare is not the way to go about health care reform. We can do better. Education and infrastructure are pale in comparison to how much we spend on health care in taxes. Its ridiculous.


I didn't mention Obamacare. If it were up to me, however, we'd have socialized medicine. I'm sure you'd be a bigger fan of that.


Obamacare IS socialized medicine! I'd be okay with that? Are you kidding me? Obamacare is required. The rich have to pay more and the poor have to pay less. Talk about trying to equalize the wealth in America. That reeks of socialism. A foul odor.





And I would love to be able to choose whether or not to pay for health insurance. I'd love to be able to defend myself from a totalitarian regime with a well regulated militia. I'd love to not have to pay 18% to people who are abusing the welfare system. That includes adam and steve. Id love to not have to bend at the knee to everyone who might be offended by my beliefs.


And back to what this all boils down to - Your freedoms are more important than mine. Your freedom to own a gun is more important than my reproductive freedom. Your freedom to choose a healthplan is more important than my freedom to marry who I want.


I don't think its a valid argument to compare the importance of one freedom over another. But, no, I don't think our government should enforce or support stupidity.


And just a side note, welfare fraud "figures" are really hard to actually pin down, but typically they're not as inflated as Fox News would have you believe.


Uhh. how would you know that if you can't pin the figures down??????

edit on 24-5-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join