Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Definition of Fascism

33 posts in this topic

Posted

Quoting website blogs as credible sources of unbiased information is like calling the Rug Doctor a highly respected physician.

Since when are Social Security and Medicare "benefits" when they were paid into by the recipient to begin with?

And I'm also thinking you believe my military retirement pension is also a "benefit," correct?

What I find particularly discouraging is you seem to be fairly intelligent and yet as gullible as a marathon is long. Start thinking for yourself and stop listening to what I'm sure you know are pure fabrications and falsehoods.

Every post by every person here is generally because of news stories. We do not sit around and just talk philosophically without something to get the ball rolling. Now, I understand that the media on both sides tries to fashion public opinion with their stories.

I will also tell you that I believe that if the government can get more and more citizens relying on them for their daily existence, we will be in a heck of a mess. They can pull your strings like puppeteers just because they control the purse strings.

I respect anyone who has been in the military, but I will say this. I think most government programs pay out too much and let you retire too early. I know guys that retired from the military, got another job and retired from it also.

All government pensions in my opinion need to be looked at. The only one I would be in favor of being early would be the military. The rest are at no great risk and therefore should not have extraordinary benefits when it is the peoples money.

And by the way, what are your "approved" news sources? I did not say that I took the ones listed as gospel, but was just commenting on them, one from the left and one from the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually, the vast majority of military people I served with would prefer a privatized retirement plan along the lines of a 401k. I don't know what the mindset is now, some 19 years after my retirement. Military people retiring now with the same length of service I had are getting 10% less.

Think of how much could be saved if the military retirement system was privatized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That can't be true.

I think the trick is in how they define "some government benefits"

You really expect me to believe that nearly 10% of all households of people with a doctorate are on welfare?

More likely they recieved a tax credit for installing an energy efficient HVAC system, thusly qualifying them for the "some government benefits" category.

That said, you are 100% correct.

The government will seek to use any tools availabe to them to control the populace, and if you can pull someones home and food away from them... there is no better tool.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/slow-path-to-progress-for-us-immigrants/

The old saying was "people vote their pocketbooks". This was true when folks had jobs and needed jobs to support their families. Now that goverment makes it easier and easier to get assistance--80 different welfare programs--the same holds true, but not because of jobs.

I guarantee you that elections will now be swinging on who might "cut off" my assistance. No wonder the left wants to make it easier to sign up for welfare, disability, etc.

Remember this quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

so let me get this straight...

you think over half the population is receiving government benefits... and you think that people will be voting based on who will keep or cut their benefits. if that was the case, how is this not some crazy landslide victory in Obama's favor? There are plenty of people not on government benefits that actually will be voting for him, so that would put him well over 50%.

either people aren't voting on who will keep or cut their benefits (which I think is partly the case), or more than half the population isn't benefiting from government assistance (kind of the case - depending on how you define assistance), or many people actually on government assistance are on a type of assistance that they don't feel would be impacted by a Romney presidency, which they may be right about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How do you think these folks will vote?

Especially if the GOP starts talking government cuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

err... the GOP hasn't been talking government cuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How do you think these folks will vote?

Especially if the GOP starts talking government cuts?

GOP Presidential candidates have promised to reduce the size of government for at least the last 40 years.

Every GOP President in that time has increased the size of government to a greater extent than their Democratic counterparts.

If history is any indicator, a Romney Presidency would likely re-prioritize spending and provide further tax cuts for some Americans, but the Federal Government would continue to expand and the deficit would continue to grow.

It is not politically expedient for either party to implement meaningful reforms when they are both deeply beholden to powerful special interests that fund their political futures.

Most voters are just as short sighted as the politicians. They'll vote their pocket books as you said, having little concern for the long term implications to our national debt.

The majority of our politicians would have to agree to put the future of our nation ahead of their own careers to take the actions needed to avoid the next financial crisis. When in our history has that ever happened?

Even in the unlikely event that politicians put our country first, they would be ousted at the next election and those that replaced them would immediately reinstate the corporate and human welfare programs favored by their power bases.

The only way I see out of this mess is if the economy catches on fire for a sustained period of time, thus providing additional tax revenue to pay down the national debt as it did in the late 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am afraid the debt will keep the economy from catching fire, nothing more than a flicker I am afraid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am afraid the debt will keep the economy from catching fire, nothing more than a flicker I am afraid

I tend to agree. As David Stockman said in your post, we have painted ourselves into a corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

GOP Presidential candidates have promised to reduce the size of government for at least the last 40 years.

Every GOP President in that time has increased the size of government to a greater extent than their Democratic counterparts.

If history is any indicator, a Romney Presidency would likely re-prioritize spending and provide further tax cuts for some Americans, but the Federal Government would continue to expand and the deficit would continue to grow.

It is not politically expedient for either party to implement meaningful reforms when they are both deeply beholden to powerful special interests that fund their political futures.

Most voters are just as short sighted as the politicians. They'll vote their pocket books as you said, having little concern for the long term implications to our national debt.

The majority of our politicians would have to agree to put the future of our nation ahead of their own careers to take the actions needed to avoid the next financial crisis. When in our history has that ever happened?

Even in the unlikely event that politicians put our country first, they would be ousted at the next election and those that replaced them would immediately reinstate the corporate and human welfare programs favored by their power bases.

The only way I see out of this mess is if the economy catches on fire for a sustained period of time, thus providing additional tax revenue to pay down the national debt as it did in the late 90s.

Sadly, I agree with most of your assessment. Reagan had a good first year, but after that, it seem to creep back up as far as spending.

The worst part is the fact that I think we are headed toward austerity measures.

With that, it will no longer be about getting money for your vote, but not losing money.

Politicians will cut and not cut based on their support. We either turn it around now, or we are screwed as far as freedoms and liberty. What will the government ask or demand from you so as not to be part of DEEP cuts? What if a Repub is in office? Who would they cut? Who will Dems cut? Who cares though, we are through once it gets to that point. Hind sight will worth squat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sadly, I agree with most of your assessment. Reagan had a good first year, but after that, it seem to creep back up as far as spending.

The worst part is the fact that I think we are headed toward austerity measures.

With that, it will no longer be about getting money for your vote, but not losing money.

Politicians will cut and not cut based on their support. We either turn it around now, or we are screwed as far as freedoms and liberty. What will the government ask or demand from you so as not to be part of DEEP cuts? What if a Repub is in office? Who would they cut? Who will Dems cut? Who cares though, we are through once it gets to that point. Hind sight will worth squat

This pretty much says it all...

Interviewer: What would be the first thing you would do as President?

David Stockman: Quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ever wonder why Elizabeth Warren and Dems are now having voter registration forms sent out with all welfare checks in Mass.?

Hint: Not for democracy's sake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites