[quote]pittbulll wrote:
<<< They are not radical at all , what is radical is claiming that having social programs that are cheaper than the free market can provide is some how wrong
[/quote]The mere fact of feasibility does not indicate the right or wrongness of a policy or program by itself. Something can work and be wrong at the same time. This comes from an ancient era when we used to think principle informed pragmatism and not the other way around.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Republicans don’t try to change the system. Democrats try to make the system even worse than it is. Of course, either alternative eventually leads to catastrophe, but its slower under the Republicans.
Republicans are dumb and unprincipled, Dems are the same but like a mentally challenged cousin.[/quote]
Republicans absolutley try to change the system. You only say otherwise because you are more aligned with the changes Republicans, particularly social conservatives, would like to make.[/quote]
Growing the debt at 12% as opposed to 13% isn’t a lot of difference.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They are not radical at all , what is radical is claiming that having social programs that are cheaper than the free market can provide is some how wrong
[/quote]
What Program is cheaper? The Galveston plan produces much better results then social security?[/quote]
I had never heard of the Galveston plan until you just said something. Looks like the Galveston plan is more of an annuity as we all know about. Social Security on the other hand is not. The Galveston Plan is something more I would like. It is my money, and it goes to pay for my retirement. Right now Social Security is not for me, but my money goes to pay for someone elses retirement. If I had a Social Security account that showed what my balance was, and not my possible monthly income, I would probably shit a brick.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
All of you should know better than to respond to a headhunter created thread. [/quote]
Yup.[/quote]
Yup.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Because a couple of social policies shape how 99% of the people vote, issues the government shouldn’t be involved with in the first place.
I bet most of you pro-choicers would never vote for a “pro-life” presidential candidate, no matter what their other stances are: the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade is too great to risk. And vice-versa, I bet most of you “pro-choicers” would never vote for the pro-choice guy.
That’s one issue, and it gets people to the polls, voting for the same party year after year. [/quote]
I am pro choice but would vote for a pro-lifer I otherwise like. Because I don’t believe there is any hope of ever overturning Roe v. Wade. But I agree with you general point. There are certainly some very salient, polarizing issues that prevent people from pulling the trigger on candidates they otherwise might favor.[/quote]
If the decision is not just blaring , i will vote Libertarian and Green Party
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They are not radical at all , what is radical is claiming that having social programs that are cheaper than the free market can provide is some how wrong
[/quote]
What Program is cheaper? The Galveston plan produces much better results then social security?[/quote]
I won’t disagree, roads , Social Security ( If they would have kept their fingers out of it ) Schools need competition from private sector , but I think we need public schools still, Health care would have been a winner had every one tried to be constructive ,( Health Care is going to crash if some one does not fix it )