Mike Irwin
Staff
summed up in one three-panel comic strip...
The Democratic Party mentality...
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
- Status
targetshootr
New member
Dilbert is the best. Not sure how it applies but I guess Dems are diminished by Repubs success? Not sure why anyone would think they've been successful though. Unless their goal was the ruination of the country, sure, check it off the list.
Mike Irwin
Staff
No.
The Democratic ethos is to make everyone "equal."
If someone makes more money that someone else, the answer is to tax the living hell out of the successful individual and "redistribute the wealth" to the individual who doesn't make as much money.
If one individual is more successful than another, then by Democractic definition the less successful person is diminished by the first person's success.
And that's just wrong, wrong wrong for one individual to do that to another.
The Democratic ethos is to make everyone "equal."
If someone makes more money that someone else, the answer is to tax the living hell out of the successful individual and "redistribute the wealth" to the individual who doesn't make as much money.
If one individual is more successful than another, then by Democractic definition the less successful person is diminished by the first person's success.
And that's just wrong, wrong wrong for one individual to do that to another.
targetshootr
New member
I can't speak for Dems but I think their goal is to level the field. When it's lopsided and there's no one around like Teddy R to kick some rear ends, nothing good is going to result. Hey, Dems have their share of millionaires too.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yeah, God knows every successful society has been built on a politically enforced level playing field. 
Thinking of a book... thinking of a book...
Animal Farm.
Thinking of a book... thinking of a book...
Animal Farm.
targetshootr
New member
Animal Farm rings a bell but can't place it. Orwell maybe. They say the best places to live nowdays are places like Sweden and Denmark. Every time you flip the channel or open a paper, we're trailing those kinds of places in the categories that matter most. Somehow they figured out how to do the simple stuff that we wouldn't do if our hair was on fire.
Marko Kloos
New member
The category that matters most to me is personal freedom, and I can tell you from experience that the United States is far ahead of any European nation in that respect.
To others, "free" health care and a cradle-to-grave nanny state matters most, and those people would probably be happier in Europe, indeed. If you value such categories, and you're willing to accept prohibitively high taxation and constant government interference in all areas of life in exchange, then a place like Sweden beats the United States hands down.
Personally, I'd rather pay for my own healthcare and have the freedom to tell the government to go piss up a rope, but that's just me.
To others, "free" health care and a cradle-to-grave nanny state matters most, and those people would probably be happier in Europe, indeed. If you value such categories, and you're willing to accept prohibitively high taxation and constant government interference in all areas of life in exchange, then a place like Sweden beats the United States hands down.
Personally, I'd rather pay for my own healthcare and have the freedom to tell the government to go piss up a rope, but that's just me.
targetshootr
New member
That's exactly what I was referring to, this whole idea that if we do anything remotely similiar to some socialist country, we'll lose our 'freedoms'. If it's simple and works doesn't even matter because it's 'European', or 'nanny-state', or anything that sounds catchy and rolls off the tongue. So it's better to live our lives in fear that one illness will ruin everything we worked for, just to placate the hand-wringers. And let's dont even try to do anything about infant mortality rates that are shameful.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
targetshootr, please explain to me how the above is acheived without the loss of individual liberties?
targetshootr, please explain to me how the above is acheived without the loss of individual liberties?
targetshootr
New member
One thing that puzzles me is why people think we have some great degree of freedom compared to everywhere else. How many things are there that we can do that people in say, Europe can't. I'll stipulate guns but what else. They can protest in the streets, they have a free press, they can marry who they want, work where they want, drive where they want, live where they want, say what they want. What is it we have to some great degree that we'll surely lose if we decide to do anything smart? And when did we decide we can't be smart? We used to be the smart guys. Now we can only do something if it's incredibly stupid. Why is that?
Marko Kloos
New member
So it's better to have a 50% income tax rate and a 19% VAT, and a 250% gasoline "energy" tax, and a 10% sales tax, just to provide "free health care" to those not willing, able, or educated enough to get a job with a health care plan?
I grew up in a country with all those wonderful things for which you are yearning. I'm here to tell you that it's not all puppy dogs and rainbows. Now I have to pay for my own health care instead of getting "free" health care, but I greatly prefer it that way. That's why I live here. If I wanted the nanny state back, I'd move back to Germany. If I preferred a blend of European-style Socialism Lite and American individualism, I'd probably emigrate to Canada. Things being the way they are, I'd rather pay my own way and make my own decisions.
Antipitas
First, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. In other words, if some foreign country, whose economic policies we might view as "socialist", has a good idea that uses the Government to do something, we shouldn't reject that idea out of hand, merely because the country that's doing it has other policies we wouldn't choose here.
Second, we would all do well to remember that the European countries we're describing (with some justification) as "socialist" are, in fact, representative democracies. They are, politically at least, free societies. You can assume that if the people who live there were unhappy with the policies of their governments, they'd change them. Just because we might make different choices doesn't make their choices wrong for them. They've made different choices, but these are by no means totalitarian states.
Just considering the last century, it's really no surprise that Europe would be in a different social and political place than us. We haven't had our entire country destroyed twice in the last hundred years. If we had, the society that we built afterward would likely be quite different than what we've got now.
And really, considering the alternative, is a pacifist and democratically socialist Germany a bad thing?
--Shannon
First, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. In other words, if some foreign country, whose economic policies we might view as "socialist", has a good idea that uses the Government to do something, we shouldn't reject that idea out of hand, merely because the country that's doing it has other policies we wouldn't choose here.
Second, we would all do well to remember that the European countries we're describing (with some justification) as "socialist" are, in fact, representative democracies. They are, politically at least, free societies. You can assume that if the people who live there were unhappy with the policies of their governments, they'd change them. Just because we might make different choices doesn't make their choices wrong for them. They've made different choices, but these are by no means totalitarian states.
Just considering the last century, it's really no surprise that Europe would be in a different social and political place than us. We haven't had our entire country destroyed twice in the last hundred years. If we had, the society that we built afterward would likely be quite different than what we've got now.
And really, considering the alternative, is a pacifist and democratically socialist Germany a bad thing?
--Shannon
WeedWacker
New member
Socialism will not work on a large government run scale. The hippies had the correct notion in their communes where all was shared equally willingly. In a Marxist socialist government the people are forced upon socialism and anyone who has ever owned anything should be eliminated since they will reject the thought of giving their hard earned money to someone who doesn't work as hard or as much. If the people willingly start a socialist group and live like the hippie communes it will work because it is what they all want.
The big problem with communism is trust. It would work IF you could trust the guy who is going to be using your lawnmower today to return it undamaged or even to return it at all. The argument would be that it's not really yours because it belongs to everybody so it's ok if he keeps it or just takes your bike or car because he needs to get somewhere. Without trust and without honorable people, socialism as a whole will crumble and end in chaos.
The big problem with communism is trust. It would work IF you could trust the guy who is going to be using your lawnmower today to return it undamaged or even to return it at all. The argument would be that it's not really yours because it belongs to everybody so it's ok if he keeps it or just takes your bike or car because he needs to get somewhere. Without trust and without honorable people, socialism as a whole will crumble and end in chaos.
Indeed. In small groups socialism works wonderfully and in hunter-gatherer societies it's almost cruicial to long-term survival. However that inherently stifles innovation and creates a brick wall to more advanced technologies. People can live very happily in small, socialist communes but they'll never put a man on the moon.
good read
Once upon a time the foundations of Republicanism were
1. Smaller Government
2. Stronger Military
3. Moral (family) values
4. Personal Responsibility and Individual Rights.
5. Lower taxes
Now we have the "Global War on Terrorism", loss of Individual Rights, Smaller Military transformed by Donald "We dont need any more Soldiers" Rumsfeld, Bigger Government and we talk about moral values but dont walk the walk anymore.
So Are the Republicans any worse or better than the Democrats? Each side has pluses and minuses but in the end we get the same tired old dogs with the same old tired messages.
1. Smaller Government
2. Stronger Military
3. Moral (family) values
4. Personal Responsibility and Individual Rights.
5. Lower taxes
Now we have the "Global War on Terrorism", loss of Individual Rights, Smaller Military transformed by Donald "We dont need any more Soldiers" Rumsfeld, Bigger Government and we talk about moral values but dont walk the walk anymore.
So Are the Republicans any worse or better than the Democrats? Each side has pluses and minuses but in the end we get the same tired old dogs with the same old tired messages.
applesanity
New member
A soviet once said, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."
wait for it, wait for it...
Cradle to grave in sweden is crippling. It's crippling them. And in countries like Germany or France when you factor in low birth rate/ high immigration, you have problems. You have a bunch of unemployed, disenfranchised youth torching cars in Paris. The reality of the nanny state sucks.
wait for it, wait for it...
Cradle to grave in sweden is crippling. It's crippling them. And in countries like Germany or France when you factor in low birth rate/ high immigration, you have problems. You have a bunch of unemployed, disenfranchised youth torching cars in Paris. The reality of the nanny state sucks.
That's the only thing that really bugs me about it. Usually that's just a code word for religious values but even when it isn't it still assumes that only nuclear, traditional families are worthy of being considered moral and that's absolute crap. I have more people in my life that I consider family than those I actually share blood with. My values are equally as important and moral as the values of any WASP family unless one is relying on the "good book" to define values in which case my very existence is an "abomination".
Travismaine
New member
Democrats believe in big government and people are to stupid to care for themselves so it becomes the governments job. This of course does not apply to democratic politicians or the democratic elite.
Let it Bleed
New member
Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party.
The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge.
The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.
I will concede that the Democratic party has lost its way, but I do not find the Republican party any preferable. I like to call myself a democrat, but more often than not I hold my nose and vote for the other :barf:. Now if a political party could be created by resurrecting and uniting Southern Democrats and Goldwater Republicans, then I might have a party to call home.
The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge.
The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.
I will concede that the Democratic party has lost its way, but I do not find the Republican party any preferable. I like to call myself a democrat, but more often than not I hold my nose and vote for the other :barf:. Now if a political party could be created by resurrecting and uniting Southern Democrats and Goldwater Republicans, then I might have a party to call home.
- Status