[bLacKjAck.]

Why the guys here that are "Democrats" feel good about being one. I just can't fathom supporting even more taxing and bigger government.

Why the hell would you support that? Anyone who votes for Hillary or Obama is doing just that. What's the rationale?

I don't want to hear an excuse of how they aren't for bigger gov. and raising taxes, bc you know damn well they are.

Just wondering....

[skunkman]

I think that the ideology behind liberalism has derived itself from the delusional thought of a "perfect" world. In theory the ideas are good.

Free Health Care
Free Food
Free Housing

Next they will be demanding that it is their "right" to own a car. There is no end to the madness.

The idea that we as a country will reach a state that allows one not to worry about life's mishaps and trials is very appealing. Many young people do not know it but the goal of the liberals is to eliminate money. They just follow along and it spreads.

The problem with this mind f*ck of an idea (liberalism) is that humans cannot achieve a coexistence were money is not an issue. Corruption and greed will take over.

So yeah I would like to here why Democrats support what they do. (in there own words, not mine. lol)

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by bLacKjAck.

Why the guys here that are "Democrats" feel good about being one. I just can't fathom supporting even more taxing and bigger government.

Why the hell would you support that? Anyone who votes for Hillary or Obama is doing just that. What's the rationale?

I don't want to hear an excuse of how they aren't for bigger gov. and raising taxes, bc you know damn well they are.

Just wondering....

Adams

[AM07]

I don't think all Democrats are liberal in the sense of the word as we know it today. I think many Democrats do hold liberal values as well as conservative values. To tell you the truth, I believe the majority of people in this country are towards the middle with no extremes. It's only the extremists that get the attention though.

The reason young people follow the ideology of today's liberalism (polar opposite of classic liberalism pre-1970) is because it's indoctrinated in their heads from all of the leftist universities in this country. When you have professors that spend the majority of their life in a laboratory and/or classroom working with theories and never real-world experience, of course they're going to be searching for the most ideal path to goodness in our society.

I would love free healthcare, free education, etc., but at the expense of higher taxes, bigger government, and more worthless government bureaucracies? Of course not. We make do with what we've got, and it seems every year, the government just keeps expanding it's reach and control over all of us.

It's unfortunate we don't have a really good candidate running for President this year, because our country really needs one right now. Mitt Romney should have been the Republican nominee, but the dumbasses in this country couldn't see past his religion.

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by AM07

I don't think all Democrats are liberal in the sense of the word as we know it today. I think many Democrats do hold liberal values as well as conservative values. To tell you the truth, I believe the majority of people in this country are towards the middle with no extremes. It's only the extremists that get the attention though.

The reason young people follow the ideology of today's liberalism (polar opposite of classic liberalism pre-1970) is because it's indoctrinated in their heads from all of the leftist universities in this country. When you have professors that spend the majority of their life in a laboratory and/or classroom working with theories and never real-world experience, of course they're going to be searching for the most ideal path to goodness in our society.

I would love free healthcare, free education, etc., but at the expense of higher taxes, bigger government, and more worthless government bureaucracies? Of course not. We make do with what we've got, and it seems every year, the government just keeps expanding it's reach and control over all of us.

It's unfortunate we don't have a really good candidate running for President this year, because our country really needs one right now. Mitt Romney should have been the Republican nominee, but the dumbasses in this country couldn't see past his religion.

See, I personally didn't see how in the world anyone looked past Ron Paul. He bar none should have been our next commander in chief. He had no extreme to the right or left, though he claimed republican. We was the best candidate for our economy. Though there are things I didnt agree with on him, such as in the war, but overall his ideals were rock solid.

Adams

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by AM07

I would love free healthcare, free education, etc., but at the expense of higher taxes, bigger government, and more worthless government bureaucracies? Of course not. We make do with what we've got, and it seems every year, the government just keeps expanding it's reach and control over all of us.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

That's a misguided concept; as an American citizen, you are already paying double (approximately) what I am as a Canadian citizen for Health Care. This figure is both public and private spending, and your country spends more than mine does in GDP percentage points. You're already paying more than you think - much more. I think what you want is a more effective system, not less taxes.

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf

That's a misguided concept; as an American citizen, you are already paying double (approximately) what I am as a Canadian citizen for Health Care. This figure is both public and private spending, and your country spends more than mine does in GDP percentage points. You're already paying more than you think - much more. I think what you want is a more effective system, not less taxes.

Yes, we pay more for health care. The reason being is Health Care is a business in the US, and the most prominent doctors on this globe come here for just that. Not to be paid an almost worthless salary in comparison to thier skills. So personally I dont want health care standardized, because of this exact reason.

I do agree with you on the more effective system. Which is why I did bring up Ron Paul. His views were all about improving the economic system of the US. He would have instituted the Fair Tax Act. Something I am strongly for. Being double taxed blows.

Adams

[AM07]

DAdams, what do you mean by "double taxed"?

As for Ron Paul, he definitely would have had my vote. While his view on the current Iraq war may not be too good for us in the long run, the rest of his ideas made a lot of sense. And even if he were to immediately pull all troops out of Iraq, his other ideas were so good that I would have voted for him.

It's unfortunate that he didn't have a chance though. And even if he was President, most of what he wanted to do would have never been passed, BUT it would have shown the U.S. that someone who holds his ideals is what America needs.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by DAdams91982

Yes, we pay more for health care. The reason being is Health Care is a business in the US, and the most prominent doctors on this globe come here for just that. Not to be paid an almost worthless salary in comparison to thier skills. So personally I dont want health care standardized, because of this exact reason.

This is another unfortunate misconception. In comparative studies between the United States and Canada, Canada's Health Care system was deemed to be superior to that of the US's. The comparison was not resoundingly favourable to Canada, but nevertheless, the average citizen receives a higher quality of care here, vs., there.

The highest tier of specialized practitioners (surgeons, oncologists, etc.) are highly concentrated in the United States, that is correct. However, do you personally have access to them? I do not think you do. Essentially your system is being standardized, but in a manner reverse to mine. Health Care is standardized in the light of equal access in Canada, whereas the highest quality Health Care in the U.S., is being standardized out of the reach of the average citizen.

Doesn't make much sense, IMO.

[AM07]

Maybe if we didn't have so many irresponsible obese pieces of **** in America, health care wouldn't be so damn high.

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by AM07

DAdams, what do you mean by "double taxed"?

As for Ron Paul, he definitely would have had my vote. While his view on the current Iraq war may not be too good for us in the long run, the rest of his ideas made a lot of sense. And even if he were to immediately pull all troops out of Iraq, his other ideas were so good that I would have voted for him.

It's unfortunate that he didn't have a chance though. And even if he was President, most of what he wanted to do would have never been passed, BUT it would have shown the U.S. that someone who holds his ideals is what America needs.

By being double taxed I mean that everything we do with our money right now gets taxed, AFTER it has already been taxed when you earn it, hence being double taxed. I want to be taxed only when I purchase goods or services. In the end being a material driven culture our national debt would actually stabalize pretty quick, and maybe, just maybe all those IOUs (Bonds) out there would actually be paid back to the public, maybe even see a gold bar or two returned to a most likely empty fort knox.

I disagree with you on him getting things to pass, Ron Paul was a very realistic person, and could easily show someone why his program would work. He actually brought research and logic to the table. But if you dont identify strongly with one side or the other, its a nail in your coffin.

Adams

[Mulletsoldier]

I liked Ron Paul, at least on a humanistic level. He made sense, at times. That's a rare quality in politics.

[DAdams91982]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

This is another unfortunate misconception. In comparative studies between the United States and Canada, Canada's Health Care system was deemed to be superior to that of the US's. The comparison was not resoundingly favourable to Canada, but nevertheless, the average citizen receives a higher quality of care here, vs., there.

The highest tier of specialized practitioners (surgeons, oncologists, etc.) are highly concentrated in the United States, that is correct. However, do you personally have access to them? I do not think you do. Essentially your system is being standardized, but in a manner reverse to mine. Health Care is standardized in the light of equal access in Canada, whereas the highest quality Health Care in the U.S., is being standardized out of the reach of the average citizen.

Doesn't make much sense, IMO.

I can see the average person recieving better health care in Canada, that wasn't really the point I was making. As you said most of the strongest specialized skill is in this country. I do not use them, well because I do not need them, I am healthy at the moment, and always have been. BUT, I like the idea of having access to them, and not being a number in the health system. If I was dying of cancer, you bet your a$$ I would make it into JOHNS HOPKINS, no matter what it took, and is very doable here.

I am what you call a Enterpriser Republican, bottom line is you are in control of your own destiny, and if you want the great healthcare, you better have worked for it.

Adams