Politics
Out of context: Reply #5633
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- designbot0
Hey TBD, too busy yesterday to respond...so here it goes.
Your comment:
"And you know, maybe "insuring domestic tranquility" is accomplished by making sure that wealth and it's attending ability to distort the power of the government isn't concentrated into too few hands."The problem with this is that it is purely subjective. At it's root this really sounds like wealth distribution to me, though you will probably deny it and say it's only being taken from the "evil" or "corrupt" people with high government influence.
You say we are not headed towards socialism, yet as we speak the banks are pretty much already nationalized, health care nationalization is just around the corner....and the government is now bailing out private entities and taking at least partial ownership (socialism at it's finest). You might argue this point as well, but it has become pretty obvious when government is now using it's muscle to dictate how the bailed out entities should spend the money and run their business.
Also look what Obama is doing with helping people on their mortgages....why should I have to pay for someone elses screw up? It's true some of these people were taken advantage of through adjustable rate mortgages, but I shouldn't be paying for it. Isn't this also wealth distribution? Seems to me, most of the people that will get help on their mortgages are the ones who simply can't afford the home to begin with. So you are taking money mostly from the upper and middle class who pay the most taxes, and using it to bail out these "unfortunate" (to use Obama's word) folks.
"Now if you think that by sacrificing a bit of my money to ensure my fellow citizen can be healthy and strong is a slippery slope to tyranny, well, you have the right to think that. But I would say you're wrong."
You are missing an important point here, not many people would argue against such a statement (myself included), but that sounds like the work of charity....not the government. Which is my main point here, forget about the term socialism, the government is simply getting involved in things they shouldn't be touching with 100 foot pole. Why would you or anyone want to be forced to give money to the most inefficient charity in the world (the US government) and expect it to do any good? The government does not know what's best for us.
- I agree with every word of this. No surprise I'm sure. All this gov intervention is way more than I feel comfortable with.tommyo
- RED SCARE!DrBombay
- If the bottom drops out of our economy, you won't have to worry about money, you will need a wheelbarrel full of it to go to McD'sDrBombay
- go to Taco Bell.DrBombay