Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul comparisons

[BLS 313]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRcXfDt3ByI

[Me_2006 14]

Sadly, they may both get similar amounts of votes in 2008.

[Jonathan Wilson 0]

Gay for Ron Paul 2008

[Logan5 0]

What is this dude's last name anyway?

[Snoopy1 0]

They are both out of touch and have alzheimers?

[edjr 5,567]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRcXfDt3ByI

 

 

How can you watch this and not want to vote for Ron Paul? You hate america if you vote for anyone else.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

How can you watch this and not want to vote for Ron Paul? You hate america if you vote for anyone else.

 

 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Will someone with more time than me do a complete Gerald Ford and Ron Paul comparison.

 

 

1) Both likley to fall down in public

2)?

 

 

 

TIA

[listen2me 23 1,544]

Reagan was a terrible president.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Reagan was a terrible president.

 

 

[wiffleball 4,645]

Reagan was a terrible president.

 

Maybe not terrible, but there's a crapload of revisionist history. Not that it's unusual for the American people to be so passionate and so ill-informed at the same time. Pretty much anyone under 35 isn't even qualifed to address the subject as they were around or old enough to understand what was going on at the time. Truth is, Reagan has been lionized since his death, but wasn't nearly as revered during his presidency. I think of a line from one of my favorite songs whenever people start salivating over Reagan: "They Glorify the Past when the Future Dries Up."

 

Reagan was perceived (right or wrong) as lazy, dim-witted & uninvolved during his presidency. People will biitch about this statement, but if they're old enough and honest enough, they shouldn't. It was a widespread opinion - whether fair or not. Reagan gets way too much credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. Typical American arrogance that we think that any significant event in the world MUST be because of us. Truth is, the Soviet system was unsustainable. When you're paying your employees (when you can) in toilet paper, that's not going to last. Obviously, Gorbachev gets the most credit for Perestroika and Glasnost. - Those weren't American inventions or concepts. It's those policies that led to the process that opened up the Soviet Union.

 

Same with the Economy. It was shiit under him. When it recovered in the late 80's, it was due mostly to standard business cycles & lower intererest rates. We've had this discussion over and over again; Presidents get too much credit AND too much blame for an economy that adjusts itself regardless of who's in office. Don't get me wrong - his tax cuts were a great improvement over Carter's disastorous policies, but as we've talked about before, that's not nearly as important as the work of the Fed.

 

On Terrorism: Reagan refused to respond to multiple, horrific terror attacks (for Cap Wienberger's thoroughly stupid fear of "Upsetting the Palestinian Street" - Guess what? They already were.) OBL to this day refers to our failure to respond & our subsquent slinking out of Lebanon as OBL's basis for believing terrorism works against America - that's one hell of a Legacy, Gipper.

 

Reagan was affable and eloquent. He could deliver a great line - He just couldn't think of the line himself. He's most closely equivalent to Fred Thompson, Not Ron Paul.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

At least Regan had the balls to call them on the carpet during a very scary time in history. The arms race he put on the Russians is what collapsed their economy and helped drive them toward Democratic reforms. Now Putin is in there and he is trying to change it all back. Maybe even worse

[Snoopy1 0]

Maybe not terrible, but there's a crapload of revisionist history. Not that it's unusual for the American people to be so passionate and so ill-informed at the same time. Pretty much anyone under 35 isn't even qualifed to address the subject as they were around or old enough to understand what was going on at the time. Truth is, Reagan has been lionized since his death, but wasn't nearly as revered during his presidency. I think of a line from one of my favorite songs whenever people start salivating over Reagan: "They Glorify the Past when the Future Dries Up."

 

Reagan was perceived (right or wrong) as lazy, dim-witted & uninvolved during his presidency. People will biitch about this statement, but if they're old enough and honest enough, they shouldn't. It was a widespread opinion - whether fair or not. Reagan gets way too much credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. Typical American arrogance that we think that any significant event in the world MUST be because of us. Truth is, the Soviet system was unsustainable. When you're paying your employees (when you can) in toilet paper, that's not going to last. Obviously, Gorbachev gets the most credit for Perestroika and Glasnost. - Those weren't American inventions or concepts. It's those policies that led to the process that opened up the Soviet Union.

 

Same with the Economy. It was shiit under him. When it recovered in the late 80's, it was due mostly to standard business cycles & lower intererest rates. We've had this discussion over and over again; Presidents get too much credit AND too much blame for an economy that adjusts itself regardless of who's in office. Don't get me wrong - his tax cuts were a great improvement over Carter's disastorous policies, but as we've talked about before, that's not nearly as important as the work of the Fed.

 

On Terrorism: Reagan refused to respond to multiple, horrific terror attacks (for Cap Wienberger's thoroughly stupid fear of "Upsetting the Palestinian Street" - Guess what? They already were.) OBL to this day refers to our failure to respond & our subsquent slinking out of Lebanon as OBL's basis for believing terrorism works against America - that's one hell of a Legacy, Gipper.

 

Reagan was affable and eloquent. He could deliver a great line - He just couldn't think of the line himself. He's most closely equivalent to Fred Thompson, Not Ron Paul.

 

 

You are letting him get off very lightly, IMO. There is the unproven but highly suspicious hostage release on his inaugaration---that if any of the allegations are true is treason, pure and simple. And there is quite a bit of evidence that people in his camp negotiated with them, prior to the election.

 

Iran-contragate probably the biggest abuse of administrative power this country has ever seen. Unfortunately most of the populace can't be bothered to figure it out cause it's a bit more complicated then an shooting your man goo all over a fat interns ass.

[Snoopy1 0]

At least Regan had the balls to call them on the carpet during a very scary time in history. The arms race he put on the Russians is what collapsed their economy and helped drive them toward Democratic reforms. Now Putin is in there and he is trying to change it all back. Maybe even worse

 

 

The arms race that started in the 1950's with Eisenhower????

 

You should actually read some quotes from Gorbachov, he's flatly stated the arms race did not collapse the soviet economy, it had been crumbling for years. In fact most believe that the arms race actually held the USSR together longer, as the hard-liners were able to extend tighter contol because of the war rhetoric/hostilities of Reagan.

[wiffleball 4,645]

At least Regan had the balls to call them on the carpet during a very scary time in history. The arms race he put on the Russians is what collapsed their economy and helped drive them toward Democratic reforms.

 

That's the bumper-sticker sound-bite, and it's a lot more convenient & comforting than more intellectually burdensome actual answers, but it's not really true. Why can we say that? Because think about it: The Russians were excellent at making war machines, it was feeding their people & making consumer products they sucked at. Star Wars didn't scare the Russians - to this day, it STILL doesn't work. The Stealth Bomber? Wasn't even revealled until long after Reagan was gone. Buit more than that, the bottom line is - The Russians had enough Nukes to make an "arms race" absolutely irrelevant. To believe that "Reagan outspent the Russians and that's why they failed" is to believe that WW3 was going to be won like WW2 was - by throwing bodies and conventional arms at the other guy in greater numbers. That was never going to happen - and both sides knew it.

 

The reality is more like this:

The Cold War was not "won" by anyone. The Soviet Union collapsed due to economic weakness brought on by the unviability of its centrally-planned economy. A country with some of the greatest agricultural land in the world (Ukraine has as much grain production capability as the U.S. Midwest, for instance) could not feed itself because there was no incentive for the farm workers to produce. As a result, they bought grain from the West. The system of ideological indoctrination produced good technicians but little innovation. As a result, they bought technology from the West. The main source of finance for these goods, which had to be paid for in hard currency, was oil sales. When the price of oil hit rock bottom in the early eighties, widespread impoverishment resulted.

[akaoni 0]

I always find it interesting that Reagan is lionized by conservatives in spite of the fact that he nearly trippled the national debt and really was the harbringer of the national debt as we know it today. Under Reagan the debt grew to levels not seen since the post WWII era. Yes he cut taxes, but those tax cuts never delivered the revinue stream that trickle-down economists predicted, instead Reagan introduced the pattern of borrow and spend that we see repeated by today's policy makers. Reagan was many things, but a fiscal conservative was never one of them, in spite of all his rhetoric to the contrary. And yes, I am old enough to remember Reagan, FWIW.

[Juggernauts 0]

Reagan was a cross dresser?

[listen2me 23 1,544]

 

He was the beginning of putting our nation in the debt it is today. He tripled the debt while in office.

 

 

He is the start to Terrorism we have today. Reagan and Bush got us into the whole mess with teh Middle East by supplying weapons and screwing over Saddam and Iran at teh same time.

 

He was terrible. Many think he was the best or one of the best in teh 20th century. How?

[listen2me 23 1,544]

Carter was elected because he was straight forward (maybe a little too much) he told it like it was. Once he started saying things thatw ere really going on the people didn't want to hear it. Reagan comes into office and tells all these stories and makes everyone feel ok, while really screwing up the Middle East and their views on us today.

 

Reaganomics

 

Give to the rich, tax breaks here and there, owe countries money, who cares? The rich are benifiting.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I saw a funny cartoon in newsweek today.

 

It was a picture of an elephant and a donkey in a bar.

 

Elephant says "I can't believe we can't find the next reagan."

 

Donkey says "I can't believe we found our next clinton."

 

I found it amusing.

[Rattlesnake 0]

Ron Paul sucks, too........good to know.

[Saint Elistan 106]

Sorry for being a big nerd here...

 

But that music is from the Final Fantasy X for the PS2. Oh, Gamers and their politics...

[BLS 313]

That's the bumper-sticker sound-bite, and it's a lot more convenient & comforting than more intellectually burdensome actual answers, but it's not really true. Why can we say that? Because think about it: The Russians were excellent at making war machines, it was feeding their people & making consumer products they sucked at. Star Wars didn't scare the Russians - to this day, it STILL doesn't work. The Stealth Bomber? Wasn't even revealled until long after Reagan was gone. Buit more than that, the bottom line is - The Russians had enough Nukes to make an "arms race" absolutely irrelevant. To believe that "Reagan outspent the Russians and that's why they failed" is to believe that WW3 was going to be won like WW2 was - by throwing bodies and conventional arms at the other guy in greater numbers. That was never going to happen - and both sides knew it.

 

The reality is more like this:

The Cold War was not "won" by anyone. The Soviet Union collapsed due to economic weakness brought on by the unviability of its centrally-planned economy. A country with some of the greatest agricultural land in the world (Ukraine has as much grain production capability as the U.S. Midwest, for instance) could not feed itself because there was no incentive for the farm workers to produce. As a result, they bought grain from the West. The system of ideological indoctrination produced good technicians but little innovation. As a result, they bought technology from the West. The main source of finance for these goods, which had to be paid for in hard currency, was oil sales. When the price of oil hit rock bottom in the early eighties, widespread impoverishment resulted.

 

 

So what you're REALLY saying is that SOCIALISM is a fuckin joke, and anyone who speaks out as a Democrat should be taken behind the shed? (good...I agree)

[Savage Beast 1]

He was the beginning of putting our nation in the debt it is today. He tripled the debt while in office.

He is the start to Terrorism we have today. Reagan and Bush got us into the whole mess with teh Middle East by supplying weapons and screwing over Saddam and Iran at teh same time.

 

He was terrible. Many think he was the best or one of the best in teh 20th century. How?

 

 

You weren't even alive when Ronnie was president.

[Rattlesnake 0]

Many think he was the best or one of the best in teh 20th century. How?

 

Because he was a great actor, very underrated actually.......had the smile, the grandpa-like lovable charm, he wore his cowboy gear at just the right times, and he had great speech writers......and many Americans fell for his act hook, line, and sinker.

[akaoni 0]

So what you're REALLY saying is that SOCIALISM is a fuckin joke, and anyone who speaks out as a Democrat should be taken behind the shed? (good...I agree)

 

I think that by strictly equating Democrats with Socialists you're creating a pretty large straw-man. No one even close to the mainstream is advocating a command economy. Not even close. Even the Green Party isn't going there. That's an old experiment which as basically been cast aside in the US. You see some socialist movements in Central and South America but even there they're not coming close to becoming an old-style Soviet type of command economy. Chavez's recent defeat in Venezuela illustrates this pretty clearly. What most Democrats (and many Republicans for that matter) are advocating is a mixed economy which tries to harness the power of the market while mitigating the negative side effects which come with it. From my perspective this exactly what government should be doing.

[listen2me 23 1,544]

 

You weren't even alive when Ronnie was president.

 

 

[BLS 313]

I think that by strictly equating Democrats with Socialists you're creating a pretty large straw-man. No one even close to the mainstream is advocating a command economy. Not even close. Even the Green Party isn't going there. That's an old experiment which as basically been cast aside in the US. You see some socialist movements in Central and South America but even there they're not coming close to becoming an old-style Soviet type of command economy. Chavez's recent defeat in Venezuela illustrates this pretty clearly. What most Democrats (and many Republicans for that matter) are advocating is a mixed economy which tries to harness the power of the market while mitigating the negative side effects which come with it. From my perspective this exactly what government should be doing.

 

 

Well, most TRUE conservatives DON'T want socialized health care do they?

The fact is, and history has proven this time and time again, that government involvement only makes things worse in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

Federal Government (which is what we're talking about here) should do 2 things as far as I'm concerned.

1. Protect our Sovereignty

2. Uphold the Constitution

 

State Government can do the rest.

[wiffleball 4,645]

The fact is, and history has proven this time and time again, that government involvement only makes things worse in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

Actually, that quote shows a whole lot of historical ignorance.

• Labor practices were brutal - until the government stepped in.
  
• Continental transportation and mail delivery was abysmal - Until the Government stepped in.
  
• Food safety was abolutely horrible - toxic chemicals and literally inedible items like sawdust were frequent ingredients - Until the Government stepped in.
  
• Slavery was widespread and a commonly used form of labor - Until the Government stepped in.
  
• Segregation was the law of the land - Until the government stepped in.
  
• Pollution ran unchecked - Until the Government stepped in.
  

And, that's about .00001% of such examples.

 

As for "socialized medicine", that's a term that Fox and some relatively uninformed people use, but is nowhere near accurate. Most of the programs being proposed today don't call for funding health care for all 300,000 Million Americans or anywhere near that. - THAT would be socialized medicine. Moreover, most of the programs being proposed today are no different than what the Federal Government does with Cell Phone contracts, Military Contracts, Office Supplies, Computer contracts -

 

- What they propose is NOT to "put the government in charge of medicine", but to use the vast purchasing power of say 10 Million guaranteed customers to negotiate lower individual premiums while in return shooting revenues through the roof. (lower margin, exponentially higher volume) It's called "pooling" or "purchasing power". And is the same reason why Big Companies can negotiate lower premiums than a local mom and pop joint. - Is Corporate America going "socialist?" in doing so?

[BudBro 117]

- What they propose is NOT to "put the government in charge of medicine", but to use the vast purchasing power of say 10 Million guaranteed customers to negotiate lower individual premiums while in return shooting revenues through the roof. (lower margin, exponentially higher volume) It's called "pooling" or "purchasing power". And is the same reason why Big Companies can negotiate lower premiums than a local mom and pop joint. - Is Corporate America going "socialist?" in doing so?

 

not one candidate has explained it this way, and why would we need a tax increase for this? i'm sure john edwards does not have this in mind, and i doubt the others do either. people want the govt to buy their health insurance so they can buy ipods and tvs. your proposal doesn't allow that.

[akaoni 0]

not one candidate has explained it this way, and why would we need a tax increase for this? i'm sure john edwards does not have this in mind, and i doubt the others do either. people want the govt to buy their health insurance so they can buy ipods and tvs. your proposal doesn't allow that.

 

 

Ummm...from Edwards' campaign site:

 

The Edwards Plan Will:

 

Require businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.

Make insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.

 

Create regional Health Care Markets purchasing pools to give every American the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.

 

Once these steps have been taken, require all American residents to get insurance.

 

Under the Edwards Plan:

 

Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.

Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.

Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.

 

Also, I'm not an Edwards supporter, but I though I had remembered him using language very close to wiff's in his stump speech.

[wiffleball 4,645]

Ummm...from Edwards' campaign site:

Also, I'm not an Edwards supporter, but I though I had remembered him using language very close to wiff's in his stump speech.

 

Thank you!

[mayhem39 3]

How can you watch this and not want to vote for Ron Paul? You hate america if you vote for anyone else.

 

 

If he is anything like Reagan then he will never get my vote.

[Mrsteak21 0]

Actually, that quote shows a whole lot of historical ignorance.

• Labor practices were brutal - until the government stepped in.
  
• Continental transportation and mail delivery was abysmal - Until the Government stepped in.
  
• Food safety was abolutely horrible - toxic chemicals and literally inedible items like sawdust were frequent ingredients - Until the Government stepped in.
  
• Slavery was widespread and a commonly used form of labor - Until the Government stepped in.
  
• Segregation was the law of the land - Until the government stepped in.
  
• Pollution ran unchecked - Until the Government stepped in.
  

And, that's about .00001% of such examples.

 

As for "socialized medicine", that's a term that Fox and some relatively uninformed people use, but is nowhere near accurate. Most of the programs being proposed today don't call for funding health care for all 300,000 Million Americans or anywhere near that. - THAT would be socialized medicine. Moreover, most of the programs being proposed today are no different than what the Federal Government does with Cell Phone contracts, Military Contracts, Office Supplies, Computer contracts -

 

- What they propose is NOT to "put the government in charge of medicine", but to use the vast purchasing power of say 10 Million guaranteed customers to negotiate lower individual premiums while in return shooting revenues through the roof. (lower margin, exponentially higher volume) It's called "pooling" or "purchasing power". And is the same reason why Big Companies can negotiate lower premiums than a local mom and pop joint. - Is Corporate America going "socialist?" in doing so?

 

You are flat out wrong on almost all of you above posts.

 

1) Labor practices became better because of unions, not the govt

2) Mail delivery? You have to be kidding me if you are using this as an example of govt improvement.....how much as the govt been involved with FedEx or UPS??

3) Food saftey is still bad, the FDA has gotten in trouble multiple times in the last few years for letting tainted food AND deadly drugs get approval (ever heard of Vioxx, oh and the lists goes on and on)

4) Slavery was a movement of the people not the govt. 4th grade history shows that the North was against it and the South was for it. The people started the movement that led to war - not congressmen or the govt

5) Segregation - see above on slavery, the people react first, then the govt passes law based on what the people want, not the other way around.

6) Pollution - I will give you this one. The govt was the only enity that could force more expensive, cleaner equipment.

 

Govt and bigger govt never innovate anything, they are full of corruption and they have no reason to control costs. They are inefficient and slow to react. Less govt and more private corportations/entities would fix a lot of the mess in this current administration.

[Snoopy1 0]

Well, most TRUE conservatives DON'T want socialized health care do they?

The fact is, and history has proven this time and time again, that government involvement only makes things worse in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

Federal Government (which is what we're talking about here) should do 2 things as far as I'm concerned.

1. Protect our Sovereignty

2. Uphold the Constitution

 

State Government can do the rest.

 

 

If you really think this, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

 

Regulation of the Business Cycle

Public Health Programs

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention---guess you think polio and small pox must be a good thing. Are you also opposed to immunization programs.

Interstate Highway System

Social Security and Medicare

GI Bill

Clean Water and Clean Air Programs

Work Place Safety

National Weather Service

Student Financial Aid Programs

Food and Drug Safety Programs

 

Except from Al Franken's book(yes I know the source, but he's just quoting conservatives in this excerpt:

 

This got me thinking. Now, I'm no expert on government. And besides, I'm a liberal. So my naming ten or twenty of the hundreds of successful government programs isn't going to impress anyone. Hell, I think Rural Electrification worked! That's how big a dumbass liberal I am! So instead, I called a few bona fide conservatives and asked them to name a few:(*)

 

1. George F. Will (grim-faced conservative columnist)-rural Electrification, the Interstate Highway System ("the most successful public works program in the history of the world"). "The federal government has been tremendously successful in disseminating health and safety information, for example, about smoking and seat belts."

 

2. Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio; boyishly rugged, straight-talking chairman of the House Budget Committee)--National Institutes of Health, Youth Summer Jobs Program.

 

3. Rep. Bob Dornan (R-calif.; Republican candidate for president; crazy homophobe)--The F.A.A., lighthouses, federal penitentiaries ("We gotta keep those guys locked up").

 

4. Arianna Huffington (enigmatic, Greek-born, Cambridge-educated socialite; conservative commentator; fund-raiser for Newt Gingrich; wife of unsuccessful California Senate candidate Michael Huffington)--The National Park System, guaranteed student loans, aid to Greece.

 

5. Ben Stein (conservative columnist for the American Spectator; former Nixon speechwriter; noted character actor, famous for role as the "Bueller, Bueller, Bueller" teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off) - Social Security. Medicare. Head Start. Food Stamps. "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is the most wildly successful government program in the history of man."

 

6. Richard Viguerie (former publisher the Conservative Digest, archconservative direct-mail pioneer)--Public libraries, the F.B.I., the G.I. Bill.

[kutulu 1,551]

One is dead....the other likes jellybeans.

[akaoni 0]

You are flat out wrong on almost all of you above posts.

 

1) Labor practices became better because of unions, not the govt

2) Mail delivery? You have to be kidding me if you are using this as an example of govt improvement.....how much as the govt been involved with FedEx or UPS??

3) Food safety is still bad, the FDA has gotten in trouble multiple times in the last few years for letting tainted food AND deadly drugs get approval (ever heard of Vioxx, oh and the lists goes on and on)

4) Slavery was a movement of the people not the govt. 4th grade history shows that the North was against it and the South was for it. The people started the movement that led to war - not congressmen or the govt

5) Segregation - see above on slavery, the people react first, then the govt passes law based on what the people want, not the other way around.

6) Pollution - I will give you this one. The govt was the only entity that could force more expensive, cleaner equipment.

 

Govt and bigger govt never innovate anything, they are full of corruption and they have no reason to control costs. They are inefficient and slow to react. Less govt and more private corporations/entities would fix a lot of the mess in this current administration.

 

I think you're underestimating the importance of federal action in many of these areas. There are many successful programs which significantly help the American people including as mentioned Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Let's take a look at your list.

 

1) Yes, I would say that unions were probably the greatest force for improving labor laws and working conditions. That said, you still need the laws and federal governmental enforcement of those laws. As unions have lost power in the past decades, corporate interests and lobbyists have increased their influence. Regardless, without the federal government enforcing labor laws like minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, workers' comp, etc, do you honestly think that corporations would police themselves and protect workers' rights?

 

2) I think the US postal service does a fine job. I use it all the time and rarely have any problems with my letters, packages, parcels, etc not being delivered in a timely fashion and offer competitive rates for parcel delivery. If you think about the scope on which the US Postal service operates, I think it’s a surprisingly efficient operation. You put a stamp on a letter, put it in a mailbox, and you can be 99% confident it will arrive at it’s destination in a timely fashion. Is it perfect? Of course not, but I certainly don’t think it can be listed as a failure of the Federal Government.

 

3) Food Safety and FDA. I agree, there have been numerous problems with this agency, but I think the major reason is because there is too much influence from corporate lobbyists from pharmaceutical and food industries. They write the bills and often staff the agency itself. The FDA needs to be further strengthened and made more independent. This certainly not an area where we could trust corporate entities to protect our interests, it would be like the proverbial fox watching the henhouse.

 

4 and 5) Of course this people are responsible for movements. Regardless, the government is responsible for enacting and enforcement law. Maybe Mrsteak needs to go back to the text book and see what kind of action by the US Federal Government was necessary to enforce civil rights legislation, oppose segregation and overthrow Jim Crow laws. I suggest you start with the Little Rock Nine , The Civil Rights Act of 1964 , and the Voting Rights act of 1965 . In each case federal action was necessary to overturn racist state law and enforce civil rights for African Americans in the south.

 

6) At least you’ve granted this one.

 

I think you need to take a step back and rethink your position on this one. Sure, corporations are good a generating wealth, but I don’t think we can look to them to deliver public services or avoid abuse. In today’s society we need a mixed economy which harnesses the free market for wealth creation, with a government carefully regulating to avoid abuse and excess which often accompanies corporate entities (Enron anyone?) and protect the public. It’s called a mixed economy, and it’s the system that’s been in operation in the US since the country was founded.

[wiffleball 4,645]

You are flat out wrong on almost all of you above posts.

 

1) Labor practices became better because of unions, not the govt

2) Mail delivery? You have to be kidding me if you are using this as an example of govt improvement.....how much as the govt been involved with FedEx or UPS??

3) Food saftey is still bad, the FDA has gotten in trouble multiple times in the last few years for letting tainted food AND deadly drugs get approval (ever heard of Vioxx, oh and the lists goes on and on)

4) Slavery was a movement of the people not the govt. 4th grade history shows that the North was against it and the South was for it. The people started the movement that led to war - not congressmen or the govt

5) Segregation - see above on slavery, the people react first, then the govt passes law based on what the people want, not the other way around.

6) Pollution - I will give you this one. The govt was the only enity that could force more expensive, cleaner equipment.

 

Govt and bigger govt never innovate anything, they are full of corruption and they have no reason to control costs. They are inefficient and slow to react. Less govt and more private corportations/entities would fix a lot of the mess in this current administration.

 

You really are ignorant. To the point it's not even worth taking the time to try to educate you. hth.

[BLS 313]

If you really think this, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

 

Regulation of the Business Cycle

Public Health Programs

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention---guess you think polio and small pox must be a good thing. Are you also opposed to immunization programs.

Interstate Highway System

Social Security and Medicare

GI Bill

Clean Water and Clean Air Programs

Work Place Safety

National Weather Service

Student Financial Aid Programs

Food and Drug Safety Programs

 

Except from Al Franken's book(yes I know the source, but he's just quoting conservatives in this excerpt:

 

 

Sans my failure to mention Military benefits, etc., I have assertained that you and I don't see the role of FEDERAL government even remotely the same way.

[Snoopy1 0]

Sans my failure to mention Military benefits, etc., I have assertained that you and I don't see the role of FEDERAL government even remotely the same way.

 

 

Yeah, you can't possible give them credit for apparently anything....despite massive evidence to the contrary. Please show me how any of the programs I mentioned have made the US worse? Since then " government involvement only makes things worse in the overall grand scheme of things." it should be relatively easy. I'm especially interested how the US would be better if it hadn't eradicated polio and small pox.