Are Conservatives and Republicans holding back the U.S?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by muse7
46% unemployment doesn’t sound very appealing, does it? Yet somehow they are happier?? Sounds like a legit study!

When you take the monetary incentives away and simply work together towards a common good (food, housing, medical care) it makes for a pretty satisfactory standard of living.

Money is your guage of success and thus, happiness. The rest of the world feels differently.

How do you expect to pay for everyone's healthcare? Some of us are being taxed to death as it is to pay for others that we now can barely afford our own insurance. Once we loose that, we will be feeding off the system instead of paying into it. When the country is paying more for everyone's healthcare than it can bring in through taxes, it will collapse. We can't borrow money forever. Sooner or later everyone needs to just look at it with common sense. Money doesn't grow on trees. It has to come from someone. The more people who stand in line for free money, the less people that will be left to fund it. This is why the middle class is shrinking.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by muse7

 

After reading this post of yours I can see you still have a lot of growing and learning to you.
Likely very young and idealistic, the more time you spend thinking about it the more your opinion will change.
I promise wherever your thinking stops now, there is another layer and when it hits you, you will go "A-HA!"

Good luck.

There is a saying...

"If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart and if you are not conservative at thirty, you have no brain."

reply to post by links234

When you take the monetary incentives away and simply work together towards a common good (food, housing, medical care) it makes for a pretty satisfactory standard of living.

Money is your guage of success and thus, happiness. The rest of the world feels differently.

Well, as a father of two, I must admit that earning a good living is definitely high on my priority list. I could teach my family to live off the land, hunt for food, build a fire from scratch, build improvised shelters, purify water, bury trash, etc. but that’s really not the type of life I’d like to provide my family.

If that’s your idea of 'happiness' than more power to you, but please don’t impose your broke existence on my family by dragging the country down.

Thanks!

reply to post by TDawgRex


I can see that. I was the same way (though I am now 26 and made my change to libertarian in the last two years), but it was a gradual change.

I was full on liberal, but around 23 I read about the incident at Luby's Diner and that turned me to pro gun rights. The first issue I disagreed with most liberals on. I still have heart though, but letting your heart and logic guide you will take you further than your heart and deceptive emotion.

My uncle told me this year when I was talking about libertarian views (he's republican, the only in my family, and not a libertarian, as I am. The rest are Dems.), he said you're 26 now huh? you might be about smart enough to vote now.

I thought about it and he was right, it takes to about the mid 20's for kids to get out of that liberal brainwashing mode. It's a very real thing too. They make you feel like if you are liberal about one thing you have to be liberal on all topics or you aren't hip or progressive and it's bull#. I am still liberal about some things, but they are things that are common sense and really have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, they are just common sense. Those being that there has to be marriage equality for gays, it just has to happen, and it will happen so stop wasting time and money fighting it. I have a gay friend and he deserves to be as happy as me or anyone else. Next abortion, I am pro choice. I think it shouldn't even be looked down on is cases of rape and incest. In cases where a girl just "isn't ready" I will call it like it is, it's selfish. It's a selfish act, but I am not a woman so It's not my place to say no and it is their body. Finally there has to be a public healthcare option. There can be a concurrent free market alternative for people afraid of public healthcare, but everyone would use it (even those against it) and there wouldn't even be a tax increase if done correctly.

After that I am conservative. Pro gun rights, no fiat currency, no intervention, no war, lower taxes, etc.

So wait.

Wanting everyone to have access to health care, have food available when people are out of work is "brainwashing"?

Really?

We would support the health care system with higher taxes which would also go to support the better and improved social welfare safety nets that would be established.

This is not about an agenda and trying to turn America into a "socialist state", this is about everyone having access to good health care and not having to worry about feeding their family if they happen to go unemployed or under employed.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I consider myself a conservative with a heart AND brain, but many have pointed out to me that they think I am a Libertarian.

Maybe I am...but I hate others labeling me.

When people ask me my religion, I respond with...

"I'm a proud IslamoJudiaist Christian." I love the look on their faces.

It's really sad how conservatives and Republicans have their priorities mixed up

Owning guns should not come before everyone having access to health care and food

reply to post by muse7


What are you even talking about?
They two things aren't related. They never made it a priority. You aren't making any sense whatsoever.
Really man, I am trying to help you. Think.
Think about your argument. You are making yourself look bad.

Healthcare and our right to own arms don't interfere with each other in the least.

Please name me a time when the the question of weapons some how postponed or interfered with healthcare or feeding the hungry. Your comment was pretty much liberal psychobabble.

reply to post by muse7


With a population of over 300 million, maybe close to 330 or 40 million, you can't and won't have realistic UHC. It isn't feasible. If you understood the cost involved with just setting up such a system, you'd get why it won't happen. You are already pretty heavily taxed and you want to add a further burden to the tax payer, mostly the middle class, by implementing this? You would bankrupt the country.

Originally posted by eleven44
People who think there is still a difference between the establishment Left and establishment Right are the ones holding, not only this country, but our world back.

That and economic illiteracy, which the OP seems to possess to a high degree.

There are plenty of indigneous tribes out there you're more than welcome to join if you want to impose tribalistic economic systems on everyone.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by seabag

 

Just like you and the right, always seem to make the word "Socialist" synonymous with "evil"

The unemployment percentages would have to do with other policies all together. With the right mix of business friendly policies/ good social safety nets this country would be back at the top.

I'd say it's people like you and the right who rely on nothing but fear mongering and always demonizing socialist policies that are holding this country back.

There's a good reason for demonizing socialism. The govt is printing money to pay for entitlements at an incredible pace, and that causes inflation because printing money devalues the dollar. As the price of commodities like milk and bread goes up, so does the need for higher pay to pay for necessities. It is the wage/rpice spiral in action then. Then the labor unions come in demanding higher pay and businesses have to struggle to keep their product profitable as they have to control costs of production.
There is no free lunch. Someone has to pay for it. That someone is whoever pays taxes. And we all pay for it in the rising cost of living. It is not a sustainable system.

That is just one reason to condemn it.

Originally posted by spav5
When the choice is $8 an hour of hard labor and no insurance for your family..or a free check that comes with insurance and no hard labor...that is why people choose welfare. The quality of living of barely suffers plus you don't have to bust your ass and still barely make it. (Make it ...only implies still being alive)

Ask any child what they wish to be when they grow up..I doubt that you will get the answer of "I want to be on welfare and living in housing projects".

People gripe about the unions trying to get the workers a wage that allows them to survive..and also gripe about having to help people that can't earn a decent wage to survive and have to rely on assistance.

Scream lazy all you want..but give any of those welfare recipients a job paying $60,000 a year and see if they still choose welfare.

I have been on both sides of the tracks..I have heard all of the arguments..so I will not debate with you on this..just adding my 2 cents..add yours if you wish.

Peace


Edit: any party that legislates to put all the money/power into the hands of a few are holding back progress.

edit on 11-3-2012 by spav5 because: (no reason given)

Great post. It's too bad it was lost in everyone trying to argue.
You summed up everything, so basically I'm just bumping this, cuz everyone should read it and think about it for a while.

Originally posted by muse7
I didn't say to make gun ownership illegal, I simply proposed to make gun ownership a privilege and not a right.

It wouldn't mean that you would not be able to own one, but you would have to go through more background checks, file more paperwork etc.

Reducing the number of people who own guns, reduces the number of guns that go "lost" and end up in the wrong hands.

'

Understandably gun ownership is a touchy subject for a few, but how do you propose that Man (Men, Women and children) protect themselves? Via words? Via a phone call? Hope that the 9-11 call was made in time?

Self Preservation is a natural Right and one that is the root of all Rights. The Right to protect oneself is instrumental to the concept of self-governance.

Overall there is a problem with your question -- it is highly loaded. There are a great number of mixture of political philosophy among the general populace of American society to just narrow it down between Conservative and Progressive.

There are many that believe we should be fiscally conservative while progressing society as a whole forward; while others say we should be social conservative while pressing forward with progressive policies. You see, we can have a number of combinations regarding this. Labeling and painting one group one way only furthers the divide and continues to keep the People separated as long as possible.

Your question is valid, but the equal and opposite question must be asked along side it: Are Progressives and Democrats pushing the US too far? You see, the question becomes relevant and clear when we address both sides of the equation. For no one can answer y, definitively, if 2 + x = y. There are a number of answers to such an equation. The same goes for political philosophy.

The question should be expanded in my opinion. Not just if Conservatives are holding the Country back, but are Progressives pushing the Country too far? Such an objective analysis would require something that is rare on ATS...

reply to post by muse7


Now tell me exactly how this will improve the healthcare system? All Obamacare has done is to impose new regulations and restrictions and subsidize health insurance for a segment of people. The cost is staggering, no matter what bs the Democrats have suggested in convincing the American public we can afford it. As to actually improving the quality of care, doctors are already choosing not to practice, and the cost of care is going up and will go up more as inflation rises, Insurance premiums already went up, and many corporations are trying to get out of having to pay for ins. policies. Corporations will opt out of it knowing the govt will provide an alternate policy, and private insurers will drop out too.

Originally posted by muse7
I didn't say to make gun ownership illegal, I simply proposed to make gun ownership a privilege and not a right.

It wouldn't mean that you would not be able to own one, but you would have to go through more background checks, file more paperwork etc.

Reducing the number of people who own guns, reduces the number of guns that go "lost" and end up in the wrong hands.

Ever file for a pistol permit in NY? You can't undergo a more thorough background check or file more paperwork.

Gun rights is a second amendment right bestowed on us by our Founding Fathers who knew the value of an armed populace and the tyranny of governments and kingdoms. It has nothing to do with healthcare either. THe liberals have had a mission to get rid of guns because they somehow believe that if you eliminate all the guns you will eliminate violence and crime. What would actually happen is the crooks and bad guys will find the guns and the rest of the people will be victimized by them, and moreso because the crooks will know that most people would be unarmed. Just look at the problems on the southern border with drugs and gun running with our govt in the middle of it. The bad guys are dealing in arms and our govt is helping them.
Also it is a mark of a Totalitarian police state to remove the guns from the people. It was done in Germany too when Hitler came to power.

t would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people.

I am writing a book on Nazi policies and practices which sought to repress civilian gun ownership and to eradicate gun owners in Germany and in occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms necessarily is a social good.

The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims

www.stephenhalbrook.com...

Revisionist historians in the Progressive party have sought to eliminate all udnerstanding of why we fought in the American Revolution and the relevance of owning guns.


You will not eliminate crime by eliminating guns either.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Gun rights is a second amendment right bestowed on us by our Founding Fathers who knew the value of an armed populace and the tyranny of governments and kingdoms.

I only reply because I take exception to this. The Founding Fathers did not bestow upon us anything. They inhibited the Government to encroach upon our Natural Right of self defense. And not just our Founding Fathers...the States as a whole -- otherwise you would not find similar language in all 50 states...

reply to post by GAOTU789


There are actually some key items to fix the health care system-but the insurance lobby is very powerful and got the laws placed to begin with...

1: remove the requirement that medical services be forced to charge the same thing to those without insurance as they do the insurance companies.

2: Require insurance companies to pay the complete bill-currently they required doctors and hospitals to accept a percentage of the payment.

3: remove required tertiary testing.

These three items are linked in the following: The insurance companies made rates cheap to get everyone used to paying for them (like a drug dealer tactic). Then required doctors to tack on tests-such as requiring an x-ray for an obviously broken bone that a simple splint or cast would resolve. The insurance companies require the tests to force people into insurance policies. Since they can pay a lower percentage (40% of the bill is a dream deal for a doctors office) and since it is illegal for a doctor to charge less to someone without insurance it makes a simple visit into a 10,000 dollar bill-between required imaging etc..

Now why does the Dr. have to comply with tests even when not on a panel? Malpractice insurance, if a doctor is ever accused of negligence or malpractice they will be asked "Did you do all the proceedures that other Dr.s in your area would have done?" If the answer is no-they automatically are found guilty.

So to recap-I break my leg, simple compound fracture. I go in to get it set. The Dr. has to order an x-ray to say "yup, its broke", and then because of bruising in the leg-policy says they have to run additional tests even though no symptoms are presant (bruises on the front of the thigh have potential to kill).

If I had insurance-I pay a couple hundred dollars in co-pay, the insurance pays-lets says 40%. In order for the medical center to make money-they have to crank the costs up. That x-ray which costs about 30 dollars in material and time of a technician cost of around 50 bucks, plus upkeep and misc-lets say economic cost of a center to run an x-ray is 100 dollars total. But-they need some mark up to cover costs-since Insurance only pays 40 percent-they have to charge-in order to make 100 dollars plus some return-say another 100 for a total of 200 dollars. They have to charge 500 JUST for the xray, and a hefty chunk more for the other tests.

Arbitrary numbers for example: 500 xray, 100 blood test, 500 ER visit, 80 for pain killer shots + 60 for a pain pill script and another 50 for some antibiotics (skin broke on the fracture), testing for the bruise issue-600.

Bill cost: ~1900 dollars.
Insurance pays a total of 40% on that, but can chose to outright not pay certain things. Lets say they paid it all-the office makes 760 dollars from insurance.

Without insurance I pay the full 1900.

This is the real problem with UHC in America. And part of why there is so much right wing push back on Obamacare-they require that 80% or so of the premiums paid go directly to health costs, and not bonuses and overhead. The insurance lobby has been creating a monopoly for years with the help of republican leaders who demonize words like "Socialism" which means "Laws that favor society" and trumping up Capitalism which means "Laws in favor of those who own capital".

Why do Americans not see that this system makes a defacto nobility-feudal structure? There is NOTHING wrong with socialism. In fact it is around in many aspects of like: Fire services, Police Services etc. etc.