Author Topic: The Conservative/Liberal Debate (Read 1176 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #45 on:** September 19, 2002, 10:50:18 AM »

Typical Conservative:

Curval · « **Reply #46 on:** September 19, 2002, 12:04:36 PM »

What is Hans Solo then? He was way cooler than Luke...and he got the girl.

funkedup · « **Reply #47 on:** September 19, 2002, 04:05:02 PM »

Han Solo is a Libertarian.

funkedup · « **Reply #48 on:** September 19, 2002, 04:09:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by popeye
Liberals want to control your public life. Conservatives want to control your private life.

Take your choice.

That's not really true. Both parties would stop me from growing certain herbs in my backyard. The Democrats want to restrict what kind of toys (e.g. firearms) that I own. Hell Al Gore's wife is one of the biggest proponents of music censorship. The Democratic thought police would have me punished worse for committing crimes against someone I hate than someone I didn't hate. I'd call all of those things regulation of my private life. Don't kid yourself, the Democrats are after total control of your thoughts, finances, and behavior. They need you to be totally dependent on the nanny state. Then you have no choice but to participate in their ponzi schemes per Mietla's explanation above.

Curval · « **Reply #49 on:** September 19, 2002, 04:40:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tumor
conservatives feel that man is good (for one thing)

The idea that conservatives view the inherant nature of man as "bad" is not my theory, and it is not a judgement on the character of any conservatives per se.

It is merely an extension of philospohical and political "thought" that began with the Greek philosophers and thrived more recently during the "enlightenment" period which lasted from approximately from 1750 until the Rennaissance.

Toad (or perhaps Elfenwolf) could probably elaborate more on the specific architechs of this theory. Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Hume, Hobbes, Kant etc, etc, etc....I read it all in University so the details are a bit fuzzy;)

Fact is that it is a well known and accepted precept of politics today.

But, hey...if someone wants to challenge me I'll dig out my old school notes and I'll gladly use it as an excuse to refamiliarise.

Curval · « **Reply #50 on:** September 19, 2002, 04:46:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Han Solo is a Libertarian.

What is that? A cross between a liberal and a librarian?

10Bears · « **Reply #51 on:** September 19, 2002, 04:57:42 PM »

Democrats are sometimes accused of arguing Republicans would like to end Social Security. Using Mietla’s post and many like it, a case could be made that Republicans in fact would end it if they could. Seniors vote in large numbers so that is a viable campaign strategy for Democrats to use.

Social Security is not a welfare program. People pay into it all their working life. Bill Gates will receive a Social Security check the same as a dock worker. But by denigrating Social Security as some kind of welfare, it makes it easier to end it.

Consider the alternative. Lets say a person worked all their life but it wasn’t a top end job. and didn’t have enough of a paycheck to save. Or maybe they did have a top end job or business and was able to get a 401k.. Now for illustration purposes, lets say they have a major recession and that person looses the value of the 401k... What happens then?.. What does the compassionate conservative say to the 65 year old who can’t really work anymore?.. Gosh old fella we’d like to help you but... we just can’t.. you have to go live in the homeless shelter or on the street.

Be advised privatization of Social Security is the method the Republicans will use to end all Social Security which is their true agenda as Mietla admitted too.

ra · « **Reply #52 on:** September 19, 2002, 08:39:11 PM »

Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt, the baby boom generation will kill it once they have all retired. Finding a replacement is unavoidable. 'Ending' it or 'Saving' it is just terminology. It is a ponzi scheme, pure and simple. The sooner we get people off it and onto something solvent, the better.

I wish more people knew how much they really pay into Social Security.

ra

whgates3 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 20, 2002, 03:15:10 AM »

most people reading this will probably never collect (social security unless it is reorganized [age requirement raised or benefit amount cut]). the broke geezer w/ no job could be taken care of financially by a charity or his/her family, except the gov't takes half of most people's $$$ and spends it on the people who bribe congresspeople & presidents. this explains why real economic growth roughly matches population growth (per capita growth being nonexistent). they'll let you have just enough to survive & pay taxes

http://www.geocities.com/thornton_46/jlaws.html

DamnedBuzzard · « **Reply #54 on:** September 20, 2002, 09:19:35 AM »

"It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory. Many liberals are "pro-choice" only about killing unborn babies. Not about owning guns, driving large cars, wearing fur, smoking cigarettes, privately investing a portion of their Social Security taxes, saying the unedited (by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on and on. "

George Will

And that pretty much sums it up.

Toad · « **Reply #55 on:** September 20, 2002, 09:25:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra
I wish more people knew how much they really pay into Social Security.

ra

They tell you up front how much they're taking; most people just don't want to know.

Your Social Security Tax Dollars

"Almost all American workers pay Social Security taxes. If you take a look at your pay stub--the part that shows how much is taken out for various taxes and benefits each pay period--you'll see deductions for Social Security and Medicare. On some pay stubs it's called FICA, which stands for "Federal Insurance Contributions Act," the law that authorized payroll deductions for Social Security.

The tax rate of 7.65 percent covers both Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security part of the tax is 6.20 percent of gross wages, up to $80,400 in the year 2001. The Medicare tax is 1.45 percent of all earnings.

Employers match a worker's Social Security tax payment. Self-employed people pay Social Security taxes equal to the combined employee/employer tax, although half of their tax is deductible as a business cost.

So we're looking at 7.65% of 80,400 or $6150 a year from the Employeee AND, of course, another 7.65% of 80,400 or $6150 a year from the Employer.

$12,300. This year. Until they raise the tax rates.

It may be a Ponzi scheme but if so it's a Ponzi with roots in the basic "redistribution of wealth" gameplan you see so often.

midnight Target · « **Reply #56 on:** September 20, 2002, 10:53:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DamnedBuzzard
"It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory. Many liberals are "pro-choice" only about killing unborn babies. Not about owning guns, driving large cars, wearing fur, smoking cigarettes, privately investing a portion of their Social Security taxes, saying the unedited (by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on and on. "

George Will

And that pretty much sums it up.

I'll forgo using someone elses quote on this one:

Conservatives want to limit your ability to control your body, limit your ability to save your environement, limit your freedom of and FROM religion, limit your freedom of speech and assembly especially if you are not "one of us".

arrrg, there's more but I have to go.

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #57 on:** September 20, 2002, 11:01:22 AM »

Social Security should never have been made compulsory. Period. The American worker ought to have the option of investing this money in private retirement programs or IRA's instead of having it stuck in a government program of largesse that is used by Democrats as a carrot to control the vote of the elderly.

And please, don't tell me that the Democrat's do not use it in that fasion. Every time a Republican proposes a bill to reform Social Security Democratic leaders rub their hands together gleefully and start estimating how many new seats in Congress they can pick up in the next election after they "warn" the elderly.

My Social Security taxes would buy me more "security" if I were allowed to put it into my teacher retirement program. Much more.

Regards, Shuckins

Kieran · « **Reply #58 on:** September 20, 2002, 11:19:56 AM »

Quote

Be advised privatization of Social Security is the method the Republicans will use to end all Social Security which is their true agenda as Mietla admitted too.

It isn't enough you misquote people from professional articles; now you have to misquote people from the BBS.

Mietla called Social Security what he believed it to be (and arguably is)- welfare. He explained why it was flawed. He hinted at why it might fail. HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS A CONSERVATIVE GOAL TO END SOCIAL SECURITY. You once again have inserted words in someone's mouth to fit your agenda.

Trouble is, I can't tell why you do it for sure- lack of intelligence, single-minded pursuit of an agenda, or downright dishonesty.

Curval · « **Reply #59 on:** September 20, 2002, 11:50:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
It may be a Ponzi scheme but if so it's a Ponzi with roots in the basic "redistribution of wealth" gameplan you see so often.

I really don't know a whole lot about social security so I can't comment on that...

But I love the term "redistribution of wealth"...

Also known as "Take from those who do...and give it to those who won't".