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.

 

Conservative Ideas cannot sustain a Poor majority.

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





Unlimited greed also has nothing to do with conservatism. Unlimited greed is more an individual thing. Look at Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry. Look at the top 10 richest liberals in congress...at least 6 of them are liberals.


I agree with this point.




Please explain how our current system of hand-outs with little or no incentive to better oneself is productive, in the least?


I dont agree with our system of handouts. This system is a response to our government closing in on our freedoms, the consolidation of wealth and power and a result of running a debt based society.

Until we create the conditions for success and begin scaling back government then how can we stop the handouts? I dont want 15 million hungry people in america that will create chaos.

But, BUT, maybe we need chaos?




posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

onequestion
I dont agree with our system of handouts.


I hope you're including Corporate Welfare and Bailouts in that 'system of handouts'.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

CryHavoc

bbracken677
I find your response to be facile and argumentative. I do not know of anyone (except anarchists) who would advocate doing away with police and fire dept. I might also add that your federal taxes do not pay for police, fire dept etc.

If I can read what you are saying as Anarchy, and that's not what you meant, then you are saying it wrong. And you wonder why people aren't listening. Some local jurisdictions get subsidies from the Federal government, by the way.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)


An anarchist would certainly advocate the dissolution of the police dept, no? Or is there a New Anarchy that I am not aware of whose platform includes govt mandated order?

an·ar·chist noun \ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-\
: a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary

If laws are not necessary, then neither are the police. Who would run the police if not a govt? Without that legitimacy you would have .... what? Local Warlords?
Without govt you will not have such things as the fire dept. You would, possibly, have all volunteer fire depts...true enough.

Subsidies are not the same thing as basic funding. Who is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the police, for example? Local gov'ts.
In the case of Detroit...well...it's Detroit. They cant staple 2 pieces of paper together effectively and correctly without some kind of graft being involved. (ok...I am going a bit overboard there...but you get the gist, I am sure)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


Corporate welfare and bailouts are not capitalism and the free market they are government intervention.

The banks and corporations should be accountable to their decisions and investments.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by bbracken677
 





Unlimited greed also has nothing to do with conservatism. Unlimited greed is more an individual thing. Look at Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry. Look at the top 10 richest liberals in congress...at least 6 of them are liberals.


I agree with this point.




Please explain how our current system of hand-outs with little or no incentive to better oneself is productive, in the least?


I dont agree with our system of handouts. This system is a response to our government closing in on our freedoms, the consolidation of wealth and power and a result of running a debt based society.

Until we create the conditions for success and begin scaling back government then how can we stop the handouts? I dont want 15 million hungry people in america that will create chaos.

But, BUT, maybe we need chaos?


I totally agree...we need, must create the conditions (and incentives) for success. We must! scale back govt and get the every increasing reach of the federal govt slapped down.

Maybe we do need some chaos. The tree of liberty must, occasionally, be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.
(Jefferson)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

CryHavoc

bbracken677
I find your response to be facile and argumentative. I do not know of anyone (except anarchists) who would advocate doing away with police and fire dept. I might also add that your federal taxes do not pay for police, fire dept etc.

If I can read what you are saying as Anarchy, and that's not what you meant, then you are saying it wrong. And you wonder why people aren't listening.

Some local jurisdictions get subsidies from the Federal government, by the way.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)


But here's the problem, or the flaw, you are creating a false dichotomy. You are saying that if we are against what you are for than we are for wholesale anarchy as if there is no position in between. It either must be all big government with heavy taxation and all inclusive, cradle to grave, social safety, or nothing at all, not even police or fire. That's ridiculous and disingenuous.

The current situation we have is one where the feds tax so heavily that there is precious little left over for the states and municipalities. So they wind up with their hats in hand begging to Uncle Sugar just like the rest of us. There's something wrong in the system when a state or municipality can't just decide on a project they need done and implement a system of taxes or bonds to raise the money themselves because Uncle Sam has already grabbed 7/8 of the pie at the outset. They are effectively begging for their own money back from the Feds. It makes them dependents just as much as it makes individual citizens dependent, and it erodes their power and autonomy keeping them from effectively standing up when the Fed gets too powerful and tramples on our rights. The Fed just says, "Oh, yeah? Well nice fund you have there. Be a shame if no one puts money in it ..."

So, yes, the Feds need to tax a lot less.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Mods, this thread is based entirely on the OP's personal opinion.

As much as I agree, there is absolutely no basis for any of his claims. Can we move to a different section please?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

CryHavoc

onequestion
I dont agree with our system of handouts.


I hope you're including Corporate Welfare and Bailouts in that 'system of handouts'.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)


Absolutely!!

The govt has no business sticking their head (and hand) into the private sector in such ways. They are enabled, by the constitution, to regulate interstate and international trade...I, somehow, failed to read the part that tells them they have the right to interfere.

If a business cannot stand on it's own, then it deserves to fail and should.

In the long run we will have a healthier economy.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


What?

Who the hell are you?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

bbracken677
an·ar·chist noun ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-
: a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary


This is what people sound like when they advocate 'limited government'. How limited? Be more specific and people might pay more attention. Otherwise it just makes them sound like a bunch of Anarchists.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


That's what they sound like to you.

At what point did "limited" and "no" become synonyms?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


They are not designed to. They are designed to sustain an obscenely rich minority at the expense of everyone else.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


That's what they sound like to you.

At what point did "limited" and "no" become synonyms?


When it wasn't defined 'how limited'. It's obvious that you believe that some government and laws are not necessary. Go look at the definition of Anarchy again.

But another point you are missing is that it's not just me that's seeing this.

If you want to communicate effectively, you have to say it the right way. 'Limited government' is a phrase that will make you look like an Anarchist. Choose another. If you don't care if people are seeing you that way, then why are you bothering to try to communicate?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


Limited government is not an anarchist philosophy what are you even going on about? Limited government is a constitutionally backed ideaology that this country was built on.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

CryHavoc

ketsuko
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


That's what they sound like to you.

At what point did "limited" and "no" become synonyms?


When it wasn't defined 'how limited'. It's obvious that you believe that some government and laws are not necessary. Go look at the definition of Anarchy again.

But another point you are missing is that it's not just me that's seeing this.

If you want to communicate effectively, you have to say it the right way. 'Limited government' is a phrase that will make you look like an Anarchist. Choose another. If you don't care if people are seeing you that way, then why are you bothering to try to communicate?


Try this. Read the Constitution and then read the Federalist Papers. Those are an excellent place to start to get a good idea of where we're coming from as a base for limited government. Those are the basic principles at work. I don't think you'll find anywhere in there the idea that government isn't necessary.

And don't make the mistake of assuming they are the end, but they are the beginning of the process.
edit on 28-1-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

CryHavoc

bbracken677
an·ar·chist noun ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-
: a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary


This is what people sound like when they advocate 'limited government'. How limited? Be more specific and people might pay more attention. Otherwise it just makes them sound like a bunch of Anarchists.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)


In my case, I have made it clear, or so I thought, that I believe the federal govt should be limited to the role as described in the constitution. Period.

It's kinda like separation of church and state. There should be an amendment rather than a definition based on gooey stuff, salt, opinion and ginger. But that is a discussion for another thread....



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

ketsuko
Try this. Read the Constitution and then read the Federalist Papers. Those are an excellent place to start to get a good idea of where we're coming from as a base for limited government. Those are the basic principles at work. I don't think you'll find anywhere in there the idea that government isn't necessary.


Try this. How about you tell me what part of the government you want limited? You want it limited to what the Constitution says? Great! Be aware that the Constitution says that Congress can make all kinds of laws that increase the size of the government and what the government can and can't do.

You being vague and telling me to go look somewhere else for an explanation of what you want is ruining your credibility. It makes you look as if you really don't know about the subject yourself.
edit on 28-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join