Why do you want more government in your life?

[drsmith1072]

I want to know how the government will be more involved in my life?

You're kidding right? They just took over your health care. "Forcing you to pay for you own health care--the if you don't--with all the powers of the IRS--then can and will get into your checking/savings accounts--withhold income tax refunds--lein and seize your personal property for payment. Then when you pay for all of this and are older--ration your health care to pain pills versus your doctors recommendation for surgery.

Now--they're onto energy--which is something they have always wanted in their pockets--which will along with your health care--control your every single move--

Right now the government can "kill" you with health care--and if that doesn't work they can freeze you to death--

WOW, I am so scared by this ranting insane ramble of incoherent babble whose only purpose is to scare up support for an insane unjustifiable and unsubstantiated postion. LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

The right wants the government out of your life until it come to morality, then they want laws to enforce their morality. The left is the exact opposite.

Bullshit. The left's always pushing some morality on us.. whether it be green initiatives under the notion of "doing the right thing and conserve" or bans on smoking (smoking's wrong) or ban salt (it's bad for you) or transfats (bad for you) or it's illegal to say this (cause it's wrong or mean or whatever)...

Get over yourself, the left is always pushing it's convoluted morality on the rest of us.

That is not morality, it is the lefts need to protect us from ourselves and that was the exact point of my post. The left says they want the government out of our lives and then they want more government to protect us all. The right says the same and then wants more government to hold up their morality.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanked you for that comment. I made a similar argument earlier in this thread.

And yet that applies to BOTH parties. The right wants the government out of your life until it come to morality, then they want laws to enforce their morality. The left is the exact opposite. They want the government out of your moral lives but as soon as it comes to the rest of it they want government to come in and save the world.

I used to call myself center right until I realized that was all wrong. I am not in the center at all as the crap in the center is a fusion of all the WORST ideas on both sides (more government in ALL aspects of your life). I am fiscally and regulatory right and social left. Government needs to get out of the religious world, get off the anti gay train and get the hell out of my life in general but that also goes for the other side of the isle. I do not need the government to decide what I am going to have for lunch, mandate I purchase healthcare or regulate the country into oblivion.

When making the argument for less government don't just focus on the hypocrisy of the right, the left has just as much hypocrisy as well.

LOL How can righties who try to claim that lefties WANT a nanny state even think about claiming that this applies to both parties??

Righties are the ones arguing against more government interference and involvement even as they seek and demand government interference and involvement.

I do think it's hilarious that you rail against the left with a bunch of fictitious nonsense even as you hypocritically tell me not to focus only on one side. LOL

It would be one thing if I was railing against big government as I am demanding more government but the fact remains that I am NOT. So, no hypocrisy on my part but thanks for the spin.

Case in point dr....

 

[Some Guy]

LOL How can righties who try to claim that lefties WANT a nanny state even think about claiming that this applies to both parties??

Righties are the ones arguing against more government interference and involvement even as they seek and demand government interference and involvement.

I do think it's hilarious that you rail against the left with a bunch of fictitious nonsense even as you hypocritically tell me not to focus only on one side. LOL

It would be one thing if I was railing against big government as I am demanding more government but the fact remains that I am NOT. So, no hypocrisy on my part but thanks for the spin.

The "right" wants to government in social issues while the "left" wants government in fiscal issues, or so it seems. Personally, it makes no sense. I would think one would either want to government to stay out of their way as much as possible or provide just about everything. In our jacked up two party system, i'm pretty much forced to side with republicans most of the time since staying out of my wallet is a lot more important to me than staying out of my civil rights (if only republicans would actually do that better, fuckers). If i was gay (regarding gay marriage), then maybe i'd see things differently in that regard.

So, yea, either party can rip on others for more government. More military and banning gay marriage and drugs = more government, just as socialized medicine, social security and regulation = more government.

 

[FA_Q2]

I feel like I am the same boat there some guy. I do think the left has done a fair job with civil rights though. I end up siding with the right most of the time not because my pocket book is more important than my right but because my rights are not in immediate danger and my pocket book is (and that is leading to the reduction in my rights anyway).

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL How can righties who try to claim that lefties WANT a nanny state even think about claiming that this applies to both parties??

Righties are the ones arguing against more government interference and involvement even as they seek and demand government interference and involvement.

I do think it's hilarious that you rail against the left with a bunch of fictitious nonsense even as you hypocritically tell me not to focus only on one side. LOL

It would be one thing if I was railing against big government as I am demanding more government but the fact remains that I am NOT. So, no hypocrisy on my part but thanks for the spin.

The "right" wants to government in social issues while the "left" wants government in fiscal issues, or so it seems. Personally, it makes no sense. I would think one would either want to government to stay out of their way as much as possible or provide just about everything. In our jacked up two party system, i'm pretty much forced to side with republicans most of the time since staying out of my wallet is a lot more important to me than staying out of my civil rights (if only republicans would actually do that better, fuckers). If i was gay (regarding gay marriage), then maybe i'd see things differently in that regard.

So, yea, either party can rip on others for more government. More military and banning gay marriage and drugs = more government, just as socialized medicine, social security and regulation = more government.

That's not the point and I think you missed the core of the discussion.

I was agreeing with this statement.

if you want government to stay out of your life, then this should pertain to ALL aspects of your life. If you want people to listen to you and take you seriously, then stop picking and choosing how and when the government stays out of your affairs

fa_q2 said "that applies to both parties."

Righties demanding smaller government even as they like and support big government to intervene on issues they support is hypocrtical.

I don't see the left demanding smaller government even as they wish for larger government to support their issues.

That's the primary difference and I don't see how that argument "applies to both parties."

 

[mskafka]

The right wants the government out of your life until it come to morality, then they want laws to enforce their morality. The left is the exact opposite.

Bullshit. The left's always pushing some morality on us.. whether it be green initiatives under the notion of "doing the right thing and conserve" or bans on smoking (smoking's wrong) or ban salt (it's bad for you) or transfats (bad for you) or it's illegal to say this (cause it's wrong or mean or whatever)...

Get over yourself, the left is always pushing it's convoluted morality on the rest of us.

The "left" is banning smoking? That's news to me. That's almost ubiquitous. Smoking is prohibited is almost ALL establishments in Tennessee (one example). It doesn't get much further to the right, than TN. I was under the impression that the whole salt issue, is disclosure. Morality vs. health issues...hmmm... Does it cost you anything to allow gays and lesbians to get married? I don't think so. Does it cost you when someone consumes immense amounts of salt, and they're on medicare or medicaid? You bet it does. Aren't many food corporations doing this voluntarily? I'm a salt lover, and am paying for it now with hypertension. I also smoke. But it isn't fair for me to sit and blow smoke into the air of a family establishment. Most smokers would love to smoke whenever and wherever they wish. But it's not just about the smoker. It's about the dozens of other people standing around you, who don't smoke, having to inhale it.

Can there ever be reason? Or does it always have to be taken personally by fragile, selfish egos? Why you've chosen to reduce it to this, is perplexing. I guess it's that "it's all about me" mentality, that seems to be so prevalent these days. It's disgusting.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Government is sort of like a rectal exam.


No one wants it, but its sometimes a necessity.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually it has been shown that unhealthy lifestyles and eating habits actually cost LESS than those that live a much healthier one. It comes out in the end as a fast food three times a day guy dies so much younger than healthy people that a very large chunk of healthcare costs are avoided. Your largest cost is experienced in your later years. So.... no, you consuming large amounts of salt actually costs me LESS. Insurance companies report larger yearly costs because unhealthy living costs more in the short term. It is only when you die at 35 that the savings is realized since you do not live to that ripe old age of 90.

I do not want the government to protect me from myself. If I chose to consume something that is going to kill me then that is my choice and Uncle Same should get out of my way. I am all for proper labels, I should be given the proper tools to make an informed decision but that is as far as it needs to go.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually it has been shown that unhealthy lifestyles and eating habits actually cost LESS than those that live a much healthier one. It comes out in the end as a fast food three times a day guy dies so much younger than healthy people that a very large chunk of healthcare costs are avoided. Your largest cost is experienced in your later years. So.... no, you consuming large amounts of salt actually costs me LESS. Insurance companies report larger yearly costs because unhealthy living costs more in the short term. It is only when you die at 35 that the savings is realized since you do not live to that ripe old age of 90.

You're completely ignoring the economic effects of someone dying when they are still young and have a family to support, health care costs are not the only costs in society. The children and spouse of those who die young are far more likely to need government assistance.

 

[FA_Q2]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

The only kind of "big government" that most conservatives object to is any government that (1) tries to regulate Big Business or (2) requires them to fork over money - end of story.

When it comes to imposing their own, moral/personal viewpoints on others, most conservatives have no problem whatsoever with having government do this for them, with no regard (or concern) whatsoever for how this might impact on the personal lives of those affected.

Completely made up and at best just an opinion.

I am a solid conservative. I believe in my religion, I believe in my rights, I believe in the sancitity of life ,I believe in freedom of choice and I believe government should not interfere in my decision making.

You want to abort a living fetus, go right ahead. Freedom of choice. I dont like it but it is none of my business. Do as you please. But do not make my tax dollars pay for it.

You want to marry someone of the same sex? Go for it. Freedom of choice. Not my style, but none of my dam business.

George, why the hell do you assume something and state it as fact? You have absolutely no idea how a conservative thinks. Your post certainly made that clear.

Replace conservative with republican and there is defiantly some meat to his statement. Though I do not agree that is what the majority of conservatives want there are some very vocal republicans that mire the conservative stance with their rhetoric. It bothers me that some of these people are 'on my side' so to speak when they truly do not understand what conservatives stand for.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually it has been shown that unhealthy lifestyles and eating habits actually cost LESS than those that live a much healthier one. It comes out in the end as a fast food three times a day guy dies so much younger than healthy people that a very large chunk of healthcare costs are avoided. Your largest cost is experienced in your later years. So.... no, you consuming large amounts of salt actually costs me LESS. Insurance companies report larger yearly costs because unhealthy living costs more in the short term. It is only when you die at 35 that the savings is realized since you do not live to that ripe old age of 90.

You're completely ignoring the economic effects of someone dying when they are still young and have a family to support, health care costs are not the only costs in society. The children and spouse of those who die young are far more likely to need government assistance.

Or they simply get remarried, or do not have families or any one of a thousand scenarios. There is no real evidence that backs your claim up as there really isn't any data tracked linking family costs and obesity/smoking. There is, however, strong evidence on medical costs for smokers/obese people, how it affects their lifespan, average increase of medical expenses per year and the average cost of medical expenses in the last decade of life. What it comes down to is the info is there but no one wants you to really know it. It does not help the people pushing for regulation because it does not support the biggest claim they make - added costs. Then again, no company is going to fight that regulation by POINTING OUT they are KILLING their customers. As such, those studies fall by the wayside.