PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Restricting citizens from being able to get married seems quite "big government" to me.
Restricting citizens from being able to get married seems quite "big government" to me.
Restricting citizens from being able to get married seems quite "big government" to me.
So "big government" drove the Mormons west from New York to what eventually would become the state of Utah?
Good luck Sean, we've been waiting years for that answer from INDY...
And I've been waiting for years for serious conservative to enter the fray here.
Maybe I should talk my buddy Grant into joining Interference. . .
Here in America: Making Politics Polite
Same here...
Very enjoyable read.
So, to stay on point, what is your point about the appropriate role of government?
Ok, just for you I'll put on my "serious conservative" face.
As neither an anarchist nor libertarian but as a serious conservative I recognize the role of government. Both constitutionally and as a matter of practicality. Though I do have a natural distrust of government I believe it plays a vital role in a civil society. I want, and have no problem paying for through taxes, governments that will efficiently manage or administer; law enforcement, public safety, highways and other large public works, the regulation of food and drugs, the enactment of zoning laws, reasonable conservation of our land, waterways and wildlife, the setting up of licensing boards, public education, etc.
As a serious conservative I believe the less people dependant on government the better while the statist (modern liberal) believes the opposite. That our compassion is measured by the largess of our entitlement programs.
As a serious conservative I feel compelled to provide at least one Ronald Reagan quote.
"There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
Finally, as a serious conservative... I need to eat some dinner.
Thank you for the detailed response.Ok, just for you I'll put on my "serious conservative" face.
As neither an anarchist nor libertarian but as a serious conservative I recognize the role of government. Both constitutionally and as a matter of practicality. Though I do have a natural distrust of government I believe it plays a vital role in a civil society. I want, and have no problem paying for through taxes, governments that will efficiently manage or administer; law enforcement, public safety, highways and other large public works, the regulation of food and drugs, the enactment of zoning laws, reasonable conservation of our land, waterways and wildlife, the setting up of licensing boards, public education, etc.
As a serious conservative I believe the less people dependant on government the better while the statist (modern liberal) believes the opposite. That our compassion is measured by the largess of our entitlement programs.
As a serious conservative I feel compelled to provide at least one Ronald Reagan quote.
"There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
Finally, as a serious conservative... I need to eat some dinner.
Thank you for the detailed response.
What do you think of Mitt Romney's assertion that it is immoral for the government to provide for those suffering after a natural disaster?
You ARE NOT a serious conservative if you believe this statement is true. You are nothing but a Fox News/Hannity type of conservative, one that has been manipulated by perversions of information.As a serious conservative I believe the less people dependant on government the better while the statist (modern liberal) believes the opposite. That our compassion is measured by the largess of our entitlement programs.
You ARE NOT a serious conservative if you believe this statement is true. You are nothing but a Fox News/Hannity type of conservative, one that has been manipulated by perversions of information.
I do agree with you that the second part of the statement is not serious--that liberals believe the opposite.
You ARE NOT a serious conservative if you believe this statement is true. You are nothing but a Fox News/Hannity type of conservative, one that has been manipulated by perversions of information.
I do agree with you that the second part of the statement is not serious--that liberals believe the opposite.
I think the goal should be efficient and effective government that enables people to live the lives they choose and keeps the people safe. This is not necessarily "big"or "small" government.
And I won't even bring up the "throw granny over the cliff" rhetoric that Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals have met.
There most certainly are serious liberals who feel it is the governments duty to provide retirement, healthcare, housing, transportation, education and food for more and more citizens. In fact, they label them as "rights" and "moral obligations."
As a serious conservative I believe the less people dependant on government the better while the statist (modern liberal) believes the opposite. That our compassion is measured by the largess of our entitlement programs.
I think the goal should be efficient and effective government that enables people to live the lives they choose and keeps the people safe. This is not necessarily "big"or "small" government.
There most certainly are serious liberals who feel it is the governments duty to provide retirement, healthcare, housing, transportation, education and food for more and more citizens. In fact, they label them as "rights" and "moral obligations." And become very, very anti-pro-choice when alternatives are suggested.
i can't think of a single one of these things that most civilized nations don't consider to be a right/obligation.
i assume you enjoy your weekends, INDY, you realize those were something that serious liberals fought for and won for you. i assume you'll collect your social security when you're at retirement age? i assume you'll ride the Metro or the Subway in DC or NYC? i assume that even if you drive you really appreciate the fact that there is public transportation because what if all those people who use it were forced to buy cars and drive everywhere making your commute impossible? i assume you enjoy the food that was grown for you in places like Indiana thanks to government grants to farms that were then transported to you more cheaply thanks to the government keeping oil artificially cheap and then inspecting that food for you so you don't die of e-coli?
it amazes me the contempt that right wingers have for their fellow human beings.
Ive heard it since 1981 and we'll hear it again with the debt ceiling debate. Any cuts to these programs will be called "mean-spirited and extreme" by serious liberals.The opposite of less people dependent on government is more people dependent on government the better which is not quite the same as "our compassion is measured by the largesse of our entitlement programs" or more to the point in reference to the complaints of the Democrats in congress the largesse of our entitlement programs to those that NEED them.
Well, you have to go alone with the stereotype of conservatives as mean and heartless. We aren't against safety nets, we just believe many times other entities can provide that net with more compassion, less cost and with greater long term outcomes than can the far off federal government. We also, as the bumper sticker went, know the difference between providing a safety net and providing a hammock.Irvine did a good job I think of articulating the liberal vision of what efficient and effective government is. My issue is when conservatives distort or intentionally misrepresent the intentions of liberals rather than making the more honest case that liberals simply have different ideas about what efficient and effective government means. For them protecting life and liberty means having that social safety net in place.
Let me go with you for a moment on this point. Let's agree that the government is currently providing too much largesse to people who don't need it. Wouldn't it make sense then for those of us that don't need the handouts to start demanding that the government stop giving them to us? Certainly this is much less self-serving then complaining about the poor on welfare? What about a conservative movement to allow middle class folks like ourselves to opt out of social security if we like--to keep that money in our paychecks and receive no social security payment when retire, no eligibiltiy for medicare.
What are some other ways that those of us who don't need government help could start weaning themselves from the bureaucratic teat?
What are conservatives proposing that would improve inner-city schools? I'm honestly curious, as I live in a state where conservatives are trying hard to cut education funding.Really? I would never accuse left-wingers of contempt for their fellow human beings despite the atrocious, dangerous, teacher union controlled, public schools that fail so many of our young people in Democratic run big cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C.
Despite, as Walter Williams famously said, "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
Despite the record high unemployment of inner city youths because of nonsensical minimum wage laws.
Or despite the spiritual and moral decay of wasted young lives strung along by government dependency.
What are conservatives proposing that would improve inner-city schools? I'm honestly curious, as I live in a state where conservatives are trying hard to cut education funding.
Ive heard it since 1981 and we'll hear it again with the debt ceiling debate. Any cuts to these programs will be called "mean-spirited and extreme" by serious liberals.
"Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." You can guess who said that and I can tell you who would never say that.
Well, you have to go alone with the stereotype of conservatives as mean and heartless. We aren't against safety nets, we just believe many times other entities can provide that net with more compassion, less cost and with greater long term outcomes than can the far off federal government.
See, we could work together on so many things. I absolutely agree about corporate welfare, the coziness of big government and big business (crony capitalism) and subsidies. These however, along with burdensome regulations, are a direct result of concentrating more and more power in Washington D.C. It's a tragedy that so many companies--instead of working on innovations, expanding and marketing--are concentrating more and more resources on tax lawyers and government lobbyists. The famous example being Microsoft that had no federal lobbyists until they found themselves slapped with an antitrust suit. Now they spend a bundle on Washington lobbyists.
Exempt from the effects of this recession are lobbying firms and realty agents in Washington D.C.
he thought it was a good idea arguing as you do that "civilized nations" have a duty to do so. But of course these are services, not rights, and to guarantee them to one citizen requires involuntary servitude of other citizens.
Do you feel any one individual has a right to demand the wages, time or resources of another party?
Strawman. I said in an earlier post I don't mind efficient, accountable government and specifically mentioned food regulations and large public works.
Really? I would never accuse left-wingers of contempt for their fellow human beings despite the atrocious, dangerous, teacher union controlled, public schools that fail so many of our young people in Democratic run big cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C.
Despite, as Walter Williams famously said, "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
Or despite the spiritual and moral decay of wasted young lives strung along by government dependency.
i can agree with the distinction between rights vs. services, but "involuntary servitude"? is that what you call taxes? you realize that without said involuntary servitude in some form you'd have no services at all.
I recognize the constitutional power of governments to levy taxes. But for traditional, constitutional roles. Not income redistribution for example.Yes, the government does in order to provide the services necessary for civilization to it's citizens. human beings need ways to collectively organize, as we have done for thousands of years.
it actually is what Jesus would have wanted.
And which political party has been in charge of most urban governments for decades? See below answer.inner city schools have bigger problems than teacher's unions. much, much bigger problems.
No. The stats showing the number of black children living in a two adult family for the years prior to 1960 and the number today certainly makes for a strong argument.so one quote makes it true?