WATCH VIDEO: Friday's Iowa presidential candidate forum. Appearing are Beto O'Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
313
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

313 Views
Message 21 of 153

I am fortunate and thankful to be able to put bread on the table.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
313
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
312
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

312 Views
Message 22 of 153

@mandm84 wrote:

Spot on rk9152 , nothing is free and many have benefited more than most from the Gov't whether you admit it or not. You worked for the Gov't ( job well done ) and they have rewarded you greatly. So, yes nothing is free and you are a fortunate retired worker , Congrats !!!



Yes, nothing is free and fortunate has nothing to do with it.  But working over a period of years, sometimes for less pay than in corporate work and even in some cases contributing towards it is a factor.  But then, some made the right decisions as to career choices has a hand in it.

 

Someone here said they was in law enforcement, isn't that type of work mostly for the government?


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
312
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
322
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

322 Views
Message 23 of 153

Spot on rk9152 , nothing is free and many have benefited more than most from the Gov't whether you admit it or not. You worked for the Gov't ( job well done ) and they have rewarded you greatly. So, yes nothing is free and you are a fortunate retired worker , Congrats !!!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
322
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
317
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

317 Views
Message 24 of 153

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


I am simply stating my view that there is really no such a thing as "free" from the Government. I do not restrict my posting to those of any particular ideology - my wisdom is available to all.


Fair enough, then I will offer my centrist view. If I consider that everyone is paying taxes into the system somewhere, whether federal or state income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. then it might stand to reason that nothing is "free." However, if I consider that these are separate buckets where monies are distributed for specific purposes, and everyone has not contributed to all of the buckets, yet draw out a benefit, then maybe that would be considered "free". But I don't see what that has to do with Marxism or Socialism, etc.

 

Not everyone makes enough money to pay income tax. Not everyone has the means to own property and pay taxes. Poverty exists. Just because a portion of tax dollars is used to subsidize their food, shelter, or health care, doesn't make us Socialists or Marxists, or any other "-ist." It simply says that we respect their human dignity, and that we are willing to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I really don't view it through a political lens.


The distinction I draw is "means tested". When someone advocates for raising the taxes only on the rich so as to fund means tested programs, to me that is along the lines of "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs".

 

The sort of thing we are discussing must be seen through a political lens since it is about government spending policies and the associated taxing policies.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
317
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
311
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

311 Views
Message 25 of 153

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:
Another dodge. I am simply stating that there is no such a thing as "free" from the government. Can we deal with that and then move on to the guns we give soldiers?

A dodge would be not explaining your terms. 

  • If I get a federal crop subsidy, does that meet your definition of free?
  • If the city fixes the broken water main in front of my house, does that meet your definition of free?
  • If I collect a salary as dog catcher, is that free?
  • Are you talking about the SNAP program?
  • If I am indigent, get hurt, go to the hospital which is required to provide emergency care to all, is that free?

Again you are unnecessarily complicating things with "this government spending vs that government spending". I am just trying to establish a simple, valid baseline - there is no such a thing as "free" from the government".

 

Now, if we can agree on that, then we can move on to the program comparisons you want to get into.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
311
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
317
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

317 Views
Message 26 of 153

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


I am simply stating my view that there is really no such a thing as "free" from the Government. I do not restrict my posting to those of any particular ideology - my wisdom is available to all.


Fair enough, then I will offer my centrist view. If I consider that everyone is paying taxes into the system somewhere, whether federal or state income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. then it might stand to reason that nothing is "free." However, if I consider that these are separate buckets where monies are distributed for specific purposes, and everyone has not contributed to all of the buckets, yet draw out a benefit, then maybe that would be considered "free". But I don't see what that has to do with Marxism or Socialism, etc.

 

Not everyone makes enough money to pay income tax. Not everyone has the means to own property and pay taxes. Poverty exists. Just because a portion of tax dollars is used to subsidize their food, shelter, or health care, doesn't make us Socialists or Marxists, or any other "-ist." It simply says that we respect their human dignity, and that we are willing to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I really don't view it through a political lens.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
317
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
314
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

314 Views
Message 27 of 153

@rk9152 wrote:
Another dodge. I am simply stating that there is no such a thing as "free" from the government. Can we deal with that and then move on to the guns we give soldiers?

A dodge would be not explaining your terms. 

  • If I get a federal crop subsidy, does that meet your definition of free?
  • If the city fixes the broken water main in front of my house, does that meet your definition of free?
  • If I collect a salary as dog catcher, is that free?
  • Are you talking about the SNAP program?
  • If I am indigent, get hurt, go to the hospital which is required to provide emergency care to all, is that free?
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
314
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
323
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

323 Views
Message 28 of 153

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 


This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.


Then I suppose you will have to ask someone on the left. As I mentioned earlier, I am a centrist or moderate, and in agreement with the topic posted.

 

But do allow me to offer a little help. Why not ask the Democratic Socialists? There's a whole whopping 25,000 card-carrying, dues-paying DSA members out there. They aren't a political party, but a PAC working to influence the D-party. Their stated goal is to abolish capitalism, but they pull up short of forming a communist government. Now don't ask me how that's supposed to work, but it sure flies in face of the Marxist philosophy, don't you think?

 

It should also be noted that while Bernie Sanders has described himself as a democratic socialist, he is NOT a member of this movement, though the group did support him. Bernie describes himself as a "New Deal" democrat in the vein of FDR and LBJ, not Marx.

 

You will find in the article that there is overlap of some issues with DSA and liberal D's, but the DSA takes a much harder line than the liberal D's who just want capitalism to work better for everyone. LBJ always said that you have to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism, not letting the pendulum go too far either direction. 

 

9 Questions about the Democratic Socialists of America you were too embarrassed to ask, by Jeff Stein, VOX, 5 Aug 2017

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national


I am simply stating my view that there is really no such a thing as "free" from the Government. I do not restrict my posting to those of any particular ideology - my wisdom is available to all.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
323
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
316
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

316 Views
Message 29 of 153

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.


Oddly, the only person on this board posting any sort of defense of Marx or Marxism seems to be you. I cannot find anyone else asking to have his theories rebuked. The Progressives here discard them as a matter of course. 

 

"Free Government Stuff"? Is that like farm subsidies? Abstinence education programs? Adoption assistance? Crime victim assistance? Or any of the other government funded subsidies?  How about the guns we give our soldiers? 


Another dodge. I am simply stating that there is no such a thing as "free" from the government. Can we deal with that and then move on to the guns we give soldiers?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
316
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
344
Views

Re: FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

344 Views
Message 30 of 153

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 

Not entirely factually accurate, and not supported by links to proved facts - but hey, it's a rationalization...


How can you prove that one's opinion is factual?  It's exactly that, opinion.

 

And can you deny that Clinton didn't engage in what I've mentioned?  Proven facts says that a good part is; enough to surmise that there has much that is not public.

 

Of course Bill and Hillary didn't divorce, because one could also come to the conclusion that theirs has been a political marriage, or at least turned into one.  How many women would 'stand by their man' with all that has come out in public.  Not many. 

 

And how much of the denial here is based on politics? 


So we're supposed to accept rhetorical questions with no proved factual answers and no supporting proof to be vaild and factual?    In place of proved facts?

 

Not in the real world.

 

An absence of links containing proved facts offering support of assertions/allegations is permitted to be used to prove that "liberal" thinking is wrong but proof-free conservative thought is correct?

 

Not in the real world.

 

Rhetoric devoid of cited supporting facts remains unprovable rhetoric.

 

It's no different than trying to turn on a lamp that's not hooked up to power (facts) or trying to operate an automobile with no fuel (facts) in the tank.

 

Not going to accept any of that rhetorical fact-free stuff as valid proof.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
344
Views