Is A Free Society The Goal of Most Politicans Today?

[Freedomfan1776]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summs up my sentiments in her "Free Society" speech in 1975. If you would like to see it here is the link to the video: http://http://obamacarefail.com/?p=393

 

[Wry Catcher]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summs up my sentiments in her "Free Society" speech in 1975. If you would like to see it here is the link to the video: http://http://obamacarefail.com/?p=393

Of course not, the goal of all politicans is election or reelection; everything else is secondary.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I would say Power/Control is a Major Priority

Personally I could never live in Washington among so much Crud for 30 or 40 years like some Politicians do.

But, I guess I am not memorized by Power, Fame and Glory.

.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summs up my sentiments in her "Free Society" speech in 1975. If you would like to see it here is the link to the video: http://http://obamacarefail.com/?p=393

I agree that the government has been ever increasingly infringing on our civil and constitutional liberties since the 70's. It really accellerated under bush and has taken off like a rocketship under obama.

The goal of most politicians howerver is to get re-elected and gain more power.

 

[Freedomfan1776]

Of course not, the goal of all politicans is election or reelection; everything else is secondary.

Something which I find quite interesting is that politicians today believe that their path to re-election is found by passing legislation which exerts more control over the citizenry.

 

[peach174]

I agree. What I can't understand is why liberals want to give up their freedom from government.
Someone posted somewhere around this forum about the millions of homeless eating out of garbage cans, if it was'nt for government. If government got out of the way we would have plenty of charities that can feed the homeless.
Charities do it much better than government and for less money, but lib's can't wrap their heads around this type of thinking.

 

[Annie]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summs up my sentiments in her "Free Society" speech in 1975. If you would like to see it here is the link to the video: http://http://obamacarefail.com/?p=393

I agree that the government has been ever increasingly infringing on our civil and constitutional liberties since the 70's. It really accellerated under bush and has taken off like a rocketship under obama.

The goal of most politicians howerver is to get re-elected and gain more power.

I'd say that the concentration of power from the ruled to the rulers began way before the 1970's, we're just seeing the escalation of something that started long ago. There were safeguards put into the Constitution, yet they needed to be exercised by the people. Will they demand a pullback? Would it be allowed, without force? Time will tell.

 

[The Rabbi]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summs up my sentiments in her "Free Society" speech in 1975. If you would like to see it here is the link to the video: http://http://obamacarefail.com/?p=393

YES!
Free education. Free healthcare. Free unemployment checks. Free this and free that.

Tax, tax. Spend, spend. Elect, elect. That's the mantra.

 

[Freedomfan1776]

YES!
Free education. Free healthcare. Free unemployment checks. Free this and free that.

Tax, tax. Spend, spend. Elect, elect. That's the mantra.

You are exactly right. However, one of the most frustrating things is when anyone believes that anything can be provided to them for 'free.' Just take the example of 'free' healthcare. Even if the consumer of the healthcare service does not believe it costs him anything to consume the product, the truth is, unlike free speech, in order for one to engage in the consumption of the product, he must take away something from another; namely the healthcare provider.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You are exactly right. However, one of the most frustrating things is when anyone believes that anything can be provided to them for 'free.' Just take the example of 'free' healthcare. Even if the consumer of the healthcare service does not believe it costs him anything to consume the product, the truth is, unlike free speech, in order for one to engage in the consumption of the product, he must take away something from another; namely the healthcare provider.

No one believes anything is free. I want the freedom to opt into a public option insurance co-op (where everyeone *gasp* pays in) with millions of others so that I can pay less for health insurance and receive more of the service that I pay for without fear that it'll be ripped away from me in order to increase profits. I no longer want to support the immoral greed of insurance companies.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are exactly right. However, one of the most frustrating things is when anyone believes that anything can be provided to them for 'free.' Just take the example of 'free' healthcare. Even if the consumer of the healthcare service does not believe it costs him anything to consume the product, the truth is, unlike free speech, in order for one to engage in the consumption of the product, he must take away something from another; namely the healthcare provider.

No one believes anything is free. I want the freedom to opt into a public option insurance co-op (where everyeone *gasp* pays in) with millions of others so that I can pay less for health insurance and receive more of the service that I pay for without fear that it'll be ripped away from me in order to increase profits. I no longer want to support the immoral greed of insurance companies.

Yes. You'd rather support the immoral greed of politicians. It's all so clear now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I agree. What I can't understand is why liberals want to give up their freedom from government.
Someone posted somewhere around this forum about the millions of homeless eating out of garbage cans, if it was'nt for government. If government got out of the way we would have plenty of charities that can feed the homeless.
Charities do it much better than government and for less money, but lib's can't wrap their heads around this type of thinking.

What evidence do you have that "Charities do it much better than government and for less money"? Many charities get their money via government grants.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Yes. You'd rather support the immoral greed of politicians. It's all so clear now.

And how did you deduct that from my post? My post had nothing to do with the greed of politicians.

 

[Freedomfan1776]

No one believes anything is free. I want the freedom to opt into a public option insurance co-op (where everyeone *gasp* pays in) with millions of others so that I can pay less for health insurance and receive more of the service that I pay for without fear that it'll be ripped away from me in order to increase profits. I no longer want to support the immoral greed of insurance companies.

I understand your point. However, it is not clear to me, do you believe that every American should be forced to pay into such a system, or are you simply saying that an alternative to the system should be permitted?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I understand your point. However, it is not clear to me, do you believe that every American should be forced to pay into such a system, or are you simply saying that an alternative to the system should be permitted?

Of course not. That is what the word "option" means in "public option". It's an option. . If it's mandatory, that's nationalized health care, like England has... which would still be better than what we've got now by the way...But I digress. I want an alternative to private insurance companies. I HATE them. You should see what we had to go through with my dying grandmother. I honestly don't know how they sleep at night.

 

[rikules]

There was a time when that was the goal, but it seems as though control is the new goal. What do you think?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summs up my sentiments in her "Free Society" speech in 1975. If you would like to see it here is the link to the video: http://http://obamacarefail.com/?p=393

apparently FREE for white, christian, heterosexuals


everyone else has LIMITATIONS.

 

[Freedomfan1776]

I understand your point. However, it is not clear to me, do you believe that every American should be forced to pay into such a system, or are you simply saying that an alternative to the system should be permitted?

Of course not. That is what the word "option" means in "public option". It's an option. . If it's mandatory, that's nationalized health care, like England has... which would still be better than what we've got now by the way...But I digress. I want an alternative to private insurance companies. I HATE them. You should see what we had to go through with my dying grandmother. I honestly don't know how they sleep at night.

Thanks for clarifying. The only problem I have is that it is not an option if every American is forced to pay for it. I agree with what you say in regard to the insurance companies. However, it would be wrong to say that they were operating under free market principles. That is why a majority of the companies supported Obama's legislation. They are the only ones who can afford to comply with the regulations and they know it. As competition is hindered, prices will go up and quality of care will decrease. One of the best articles I have read about government intervention in the healthcare industry dating back to around 1900 was written by Thomas DiLorenzo about a year ago. If you would like to check it out, here is the link: Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

 

[lizzie]

I agree. What I can't understand is why liberals want to give up their freedom from government.

Two reasons: money and ideology. Don't get me wrong- there's plenty on the right who are willing to vote for monetary security, but the welfare state is what's eating our collective lunch.

 

[Flopper]

I agree. What I can't understand is why liberals want to give up their freedom from government.
Someone posted somewhere around this forum about the millions of homeless eating out of garbage cans, if it was'nt for government. If government got out of the way we would have plenty of charities that can feed the homeless.
Charities do it much better than government and for less money, but lib's can't wrap their heads around this type of thinking.

Well it’s a nice idea, but the problem is a little bigger than you think. There are 36 million people that live below the poverty level in this country. 13 million are children. Food stamps feed 1 in every 8 Americans and 1 in every 4 children. Even with food stamps and charity operated food banks, near 4% of Americans go to bed hungry. Charitable contributions are down and the need is up. Conservatives would have you believe that local churches and charities could handle the problem, which is pure nonsense.

Some Statistics on Poverty in America
Ethical Musings: Reflecting on food stamp statistics

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No it isn't their goal.They may start out that way, but power will always make a good person go bad.