Would u accept opposite party prez if it meant wildy successful USA?

[FA_Q2]

The word 'successful' means different things to different people. To me, successful has very little to do with the economy and more to do with freedom. I would vote any president that increased all freedoms no matter what party that may be. The economy has little to do with it aside from the fact that you need the capability to make a comfortable living to be free. Besides that, being more prosperous is not necessarily better. As Taz brought up, I would not live in China for anything and the economy there is steaming ahead very well.

 

[bucs90]

I personally believe purchasing power is an important aspect of freedom. Being able to buy food, water, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare, etc, at one's own descretion, is an imporant part of freedom. Thats why I don't want the government in control of any of that. Once the government takes control of those things, your only options are what the gov't sees fit.

 

[Nosmo King]

I personally believe purchasing power is an important aspect of freedom. Being able to buy food, water, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare, etc, at one's own descretion, is an imporant part of freedom. Thats why I don't want the government in control of any of that. Once the government takes control of those things, your only options are what the gov't sees fit.

The government provides options for those who cannot afford food, yet the government does not dictate, even to those people, what food to buy.

The government provides options for people who cannot drill their own water wells. I am one of those people and I happen to like the idea of paying for clean, potable water and the maintenance of the water distribution and treatment facilities.

The government provides options for those who cannot afford housing. But the government does not control most of that housing. It's in private hands and the renters are given a voucher to subsidize rent. I own my own home and did not take any government money to buy, maintain or renovate it.

The government provides roads and mass transit systems. I like the idea of driving my car across the Interstate highway system coast to coast. I also like the mass transit systems in cities so I don't have to hassle with paying huge fees in private parking garages.

I attended public schools and a state university. Without these options, I doubt my education would have been as extensive or affordable. I can't see anything wrong with maintaining the option of public education. Paying for it would exclude far too many capable people who only lack the means to make a better life for themselves.

And with all these public services, I can't list the freedoms I sacrificed to enjoy them. Can you?

 

[editec]

Just a quick question. Would you be happy under a president of totally different ideology than you if it meant a wildly successful economy in the USA?

Probably not.

Depends on what that government does.

We can have a wildly successful economy where the people's lives are still crap.

A facist government can have a wonderful economy, for example.

There's more to governance than just the economy, amigo.

 

[Barb]

I don't have the sort of lock-step belief system you describe, bucs, but I am prolly more liberal than conservative...certainly I am socially. To me, your question sounds like "if most people had more/enough, would you accept set backs for certain unpopular groups"?

I'll admit I am fortunate and I don't fear hunger or homelessness, etc., and mebbe if I did my answer would change. But at this time, no. I could not accept progress than was paid for by the suffering of others.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Madeline again.

 

[Barb]

I personally believe purchasing power is an important aspect of freedom. Being able to buy food, water, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare, etc, at one's own descretion, is an imporant part of freedom. Thats why I don't want the government in control of any of that. Once the government takes control of those things, your only options are what the gov't sees fit.

The government provides options for those who cannot afford food, yet the government does not dictate, even to those people, what food to buy.

The government provides options for people who cannot drill their own water wells. I am one of those people and I happen to like the idea of paying for clean, potable water and the maintenance of the water distribution and treatment facilities.

The government provides options for those who cannot afford housing. But the government does not control most of that housing. It's in private hands and the renters are given a voucher to subsidize rent. I own my own home and did not take any government money to buy, maintain or renovate it.

The government provides roads and mass transit systems. I like the idea of driving my car across the Interstate highway system coast to coast. I also like the mass transit systems in cities so I don't have to hassle with paying huge fees in private parking garages.

I attended public schools and a state university. Without these options, I doubt my education would have been as extensive or affordable. I can't see anything wrong with maintaining the option of public education. Paying for it would exclude far too many capable people who only lack the means to make a better life for themselves.

And with all these public services, I can't list the freedoms I sacrificed to enjoy them. Can you?

 

[Yurt]

Exactly. While people like Bucs may be willing to give up rights and freedoms for a fruitful economy, others are not so gung-ho about it.

did bucs ever say that?

link....

No, I didn't. I asked if one would be willing to compromise on some political issues in exchange for a great economy.

If God came down today, and said he would fix the US economy permanently, but we would have to allow our borders to remain open and legalize gay marriage, I'd compromise that.

oh, modbert lied....

no surprise

 

[syrenn]

There will never be a perfect package president.

What is good for some may not be good for others. Just as what may be good for the country may not be good for the people.

A strong economy may not be the best thing if it breaks the backs of the average people.

However is what you mean by a strong economy is that the dollar is once again king, unemployment is a its lowest, and that the US is once again the leader in manufacturing I am all for that.

I dont have a "party" so there is not voting for the "other" party. I can and do vote for who i think is best and also will cast votes against someone if i feel they are both shit barrel crap worthless piece of scum not fit to hold office but have to pick the lesser of two evils.
.