Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Dude, you seem like you're normally a pretty level-headed guy, so is this a fishing trip? Setting environmental regulations for the greater good of the environment is completely different than favortism to those with the means to make more money. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what's taking place here. If it is a threat to public safety, such as a toxic water supply, then yes, that's maybe where the government should be sticking their noses; If they want to create tax credits for those who reduce their emmissions, I don't have a huge issue with that either (other than economic implications and stupid ways they've done it such as "cash for clunkers"); But this is 100% different to give customer priority to someone for something that has nothing to do with their customer base. So why would they do this if it's so clearly discriminatory to the little guy? That's where I have to believe it's a sheisty back-door deal, which again falls into the government overstepping their bounds in favor of big business. Not a fishing trip. I'm trying to establish two things: A definition of "big government" The fact that one man's big government is another man's sensible policy I wanted to expand the discussion somewhat. Take the new health care law, commonly associated with "government overreach" or "big government". Is that true of Medicare? Medicaid? The VA? Are these "big government" in the pejorative sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Not a fishing trip. I'm trying to establish two things: A definition of "big government" The fact that one man's big government is another man's sensible policy I wanted to expand the discussion somewhat. Take the new health care law, commonly associated with "government overreach" or "big government". Is that true of Medicare? Medicaid? The VA? Are these "big government" in the pejorative sense? Is BP gonna call you out for "Perching" this thread. as he like to call it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Not a fishing trip. I'm trying to establish two things: A definition of "big government" The fact that one man's big government is another man's sensible policy I wanted to expand the discussion somewhat. Take the new health care law, commonly associated with "government overreach" or "big government". Is that true of Medicare? Medicaid? The VA? Are these "big government" in the pejorative sense? I think medicare and medicaid are both overreaches. I'm ok with medicaid for children, but that is about as far as I'm willing to go. The VA, I'm ok with to an extent. I think anyone that has fought and has been injured serving our country should receive VA benefits. I'd like to see the VA changed to where it only treats those that have been injured and disabled in the service of our country. If you have an injury or illness not related to your service, then I do not think the VA should be available. Just my thoughts, I'm sure you and many others will disagree. Edited February 7, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I think medicare and medicaid are both overreaches. I'm ok with medicaid for children, but that is about as far as I'm willing to go. The VA, I'm ok with to an extent. I think anyone that has fought and has been injured serving our country should receive VA benefits. I'd like to see the VA changed to where it only treats those that have been injured and disabled in the service of our country. If you have an injury or illness not related to your service, then I do not think the VA should be available. Just my thoughts, I'm sure you and many others will disagree. And that right there is the entire point, really. How far is far enough? I think you'd reach 100% of people believing it was too far if the government was going to enact "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" but treatment for soldiers? Treatment for the poor? The elderly? Overreach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 What are you talking about? Ursula never reacts to a post with nothing but emotion and without clearly thinking about his response. Never. Whooa there big fella', I think you just attempted a sarcastic double negative and you definitely did not stick the landing. I think you need a bit more practice before you break that one out again. Meanwhile I am getting a pretty big kick out of watching the NAACP being perfectly aligned with conservative values here, and yet still seeing outrage all around. The NAACP is going up against government engineering. How can you be on the right and be against that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Is BP gonna call you out for "Perching" this thread. as he like to call it? Perch can handle wild tangents blaming everything back to evil gubmnet all on his lonesome. And every Taxi driver we utilized to drive us around town and backa nd forth to Fort Worth were 1.) all from Africa. Not African American, I mean from Africa. Sudan, Ghana, Zimbabawe and the last was from Mali (two others I forget as we had a few drinks). Why does Texas not hire Americans for these jobs? Why do they hate Americans? 2.) Not one fo them knew where the hell they were going. We got in, they handed us a GPS and told us to enter where we wanted to go becasue they had no flippin clue where to go. Other than that the cabs were delightful, and we never had a problem getting one when we needed one. And Forth Worth was a lot more entertaining than Dallas . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 And that right there is the entire point, really. How far is far enough? I think you'd reach 100% of people believing it was too far if the government was going to enact "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" but treatment for soldiers? Treatment for the poor? The elderly? Overreach? Ursa you just do not get it and you probably never will. We cannot sit here on the huddle forum and hash out specifics. You asked me what was too "big". My simple answer is anything that takes away choice and INDIVIDUAL freedom. Do conservatives think we need to take care of the poor and our men and women in the armed forces.....of course we do and any left acting like we do not is just trying to deflect from the true point of conservatism. They do so on purpose. I would prefer the VA, Medicaid, and especially medicare to be in the private sector with government subsidies, but subsidies that do not restrict any one of these patients abilities to chose. This will also allow market forces to take over. You can use my two criteria and measure the rest of the government if you will. Ursa, I recommend you read the book Reinventing the Bazaar. It will help you understand why we need corporations and the government out of providing health insurance and many other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 This will also allow market forces to take over. What were market forces doing to address pre-existing conditions and the uninsured? Why were Medicare and Medicaid enacted in the first place? Was it because the market saw no profit and didn't want any part of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 What were market forces doing to address pre-existing conditions and the uninsured? Why were Medicare and Medicaid enacted in the first place? Was it because the market saw no profit and didn't want any part of it? I have never said nor do conservatives(most) say government does NOT have a role. Please read the book, I promise you will not consider it a waste of time. Well unless market talk bores you then it might be painstaking. I love finance and markets(the abstract). So it is a perfect read for me. In fact my example above had government involvement. I want governments to work smart and on the perimeter not as the whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I have never said nor do conservatives(most) say government does NOT have a role. Please read the book, I promise you will not consider it a waste of time. Well unless market talk bores you then it might be painstaking. I love finance and markets(the abstract). So it is a perfect read for me. In fact my example above had government involvement. I want governments to work smart and on the perimeter not as the whole. no thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.