• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?

Are Republicans against helping the middle class?


  • Total voters
    83
if the federal government was meat to do that, the founders would have delegated them power to do it but they didn't, the delegated them with the power to settle commerce disputes among the states.

if the federal government have been delegated a power to regulate business and people, then that would allow the federal government to be directly involved in the personal lifes of the people...........they didn't grant that power to the federal government, that remained a power of the states.

You seem to not want any flexibility, you do not deny that states doing it would be worse either. Hm.
 
You seem to not want any flexibility, you do not deny that states doing it would be worse either. Hm.

states regulated their own commerce until 1942..

the federal government was granted the power of regulation inside of state by the USSC, because a man wanted to grow his own wheat to feed to his own cattle. and the government did not want him to, they wanted him to buy the wheat on the open market........funny how the USSC court can use this as a way of thinking to take over commerce.
 
states regulated their own commerce until 1942..

the federal government was granted the power of regulation inside of state by the USSC, because a man wanted to grow his own wheat to feed to his own cattle. and the government did not want him to, they wanted him to buy the wheat on the open market........funny how the USSC court can use this as a way of thinking to take over commerce.

Oh, and they were doing fantastic :roll: Wait, what? Source to that cattle story.
 
Oh, and they were doing fantastic :roll: Wait, what? Source to that cattle story.

no.... they are not doing a fantastic job, because since they were allowed to do it they have been violating rights of the people.

the founders did not grant the federal government powers into the personal lifes of the people, and because they didn't, ..it would make it impossible to violate the rights of the people by the federal government...which is both mansion and Hamilton's argument.

Wickard vs Filburn
 
no.... they are not doing a fantastic job, because since they were allowed to do it they have been violating rights of the people.

the founders did not grant the federal government powers into the personal lifes of the people, and because they didn't, ..it would make it impossible to violate the rights of the people by the federal government...which is both mansion and Hamilton's argument.

Wickard vs Filburn

I was talking about the states. Regulation and intervention isn't bad, every other country does it.
 

I'm often amazed at those who are so invested in failed policies that they have to make up "estimates" to prove what has not happened has happened. But forget your lying eyes on the actual stats versus the estimates that liberals would use to replace the. Look at the manufactured slums you progressives have produced and how hard you've made it for people to get out of them by siding with teacher's unions against vouchers. There's a huge difference between providing well intentioned programs and providing real help.
 
Look at his post history, he doesn't care about other human beings, it's obvious.

Regulated capitalism leads to crony capitalism. Without the the ability of our representative to legislate favoritism there would be no crony capitalism.

And its ludicrous to suggest that capitalists don't care about other human beings. Your brand of socialism seems to be born of hate.
 
One question: Do you want to cut food stamps? And this is relevant. If so, how would you propose helping those punished by a destructive system if no government help programs exist, during the GD, hoover tried to encourage private charities, and that failed massively.

Hoover's policies didn't work over a period of three years. FDR's policies didn't work over a period of nine years. Obama's polices haven't worked over a period of seven years.
 
I think the government itself doesn't like the middle class. They only want poor people to take care of and rich people to pay them. As for people themselves who are republican, yes they do care.
 
Really now? All of the proposed systems we will never get to test automatically suck. :roll: Here is a system that could work in a country as well established as ours. Socialism - a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. :peace

We have that system in the Post Office, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, The VA... One problem with socialism is that the cooperative management has learned that if they vote to limit benefits to what we can afford or raise taxes enough to pay for programs they get voted out of office. So it never works or will work unless or until those in authority are not beholden to the people. The examples of how well that has worked out include China, Russia, Cuba...
 
I'm not whinnying about capitalism, it's preferred to dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy, kings and queens, despots, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, or any other ambition that compromises individual liberty, but it MUST be regulated!

Regulating capitalism cause the perversion of crony capitalism. Regulating capitalism makes that capitalism something other than capitalism. Free markets are not free when regulated.

I'd be all for the states experimenting with this as it would prove for all to see what works and what does not. That was the intention of our system. But progressives have slipped socialism in at the federal level where it does not belong.
 
So you don't think regulated capitalism can be a benefit to everyone?

Even if it is regulated, over time it will produce distortions in wealth that will led to those with wealth having far too much power than what is good for human society. Unless you mean regulating it so heavily until it is really not capitalism anymore.
 
You ignored my point on religion, and if democrats are all irresponsible. Unbelievable. Here is some advice from Jesus.

All dems are not irresponsible. Just those who apparently envy and hate people who work hard for what they have and don't mind helping those who need help, but don't want the fruits of their hard work taken and given to people who won't work because they don't have to.
 
If we allow individual states to do it, that will be even worse. It shouldn't be hard to see why.

Maybe you could explain why instead of doing what you accuse others of doing, dodging the question. The we might have a meaningful discussion instead of all this hate.
 
Incentive to take a job comes with the expiration of benefits. This is a proven fact.

The rest of your post about penises and whatnot is completely off topic. Your assertion that I must not be black, though, well that just shows us all your propensity to rely on stereotypes yourself and assume characteristics for people you have never met. Hell, I don't believe I've given one clue on this board as to my ethnic makeup.

You're not serious about debate. I thought perhaps your opening post was designed to illicit a response for rebuttal, but no. You're just a troll.

Well if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I shoot heavy flame and blood suckers. Its not for the weak at heart.
 
I think the government itself doesn't like the middle class. They only want poor people to take care of and rich people to pay them. As for people themselves who are republican, yes they do care.

I think the government is made up of politicians who care more about how to get votes than the best policies for the people and the country. And that's the reason that socialism is so bad, because its advertised as being the people. But its actually the elected people. Can you imagine our elected officials running the food industry the way they run the Post Office? We'd soon be trillions of dollars in debt headed for a financial disaster with no apparent interest in getting things under control because voters would not vote for representatives who want to reduce benefits to match costs or to raise taxes to match benefits. Oh, wait a minute...
 
Even if it is regulated, over time it will produce distortions in wealth that will led to those with wealth having far too much power than what is good for human society. Unless you mean regulating it so heavily until it is really not capitalism anymore.

Regulating capitalism and suggesting it is still capitalism is like staining plastic and calling it wood.
 
Well if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I shoot heavy flame and blood suckers. Its not for the weak at heart.

Hate speech does not lead to thoughtful discussion.
 
Regulating capitalism cause the perversion of crony capitalism. Regulating capitalism makes that capitalism something other than capitalism. Free markets are not free when regulated.

I'd be all for the states experimenting with this as it would prove for all to see what works and what does not. That was the intention of our system. But progressives have slipped socialism in at the federal level where it does not belong.

My friend, seriously? You have this all backwards. Unregulated capitalism allows "crony capitalism"!! Are you familiar with the gilded age through the 1920's, do you know the main reason for the financial crash of 1929, the force behind the New Deal, and the reforms and regulations put in place in the 1930's? Unions, the forty hour work week, social security, etc., etc.. This produced a strong middle class that grew and thrived through the 1970's. This has been reversing since Reagan deregulated the financial industry which was put under heavy regulation during the early depression.
 
Even if it is regulated, over time it will produce distortions in wealth that will led to those with wealth having far too much power than what is good for human society. Unless you mean regulating it so heavily until it is really not capitalism anymore.

No, it can be over regulated too. What we had from about 1930-1980 was about right.
 
Regulating capitalism and suggesting it is still capitalism is like staining plastic and calling it wood.

No, it's not. Too little, or too much will be bad, it takes a good balance. Here's a fine example for you from another thread.


Originally Posted by American
Oil trains put US on target for more derailments, warn experts | Fox News

Hmmm, what could we do about this?

It's the same old same old, profits trump safety. One problem is the antiquated cars mostly used that aren't designed for the product, and are prone to rupture when they derail. The corporate worlds nightmare, REGULATION!!!
 
Last edited:
No, it's not. Too little, or too much will be bad, it takes a good balance. Here's a fine example for you from another thread.


Originally Posted by American
Oil trains put US on target for more derailments, warn experts | Fox News

Hmmm, what could we do about this?

It's the same old same old, profits trump safety. One problem is the antiquated cars mostly used that aren't designed for the product, and are prone to rupture when they derail. The corporate worlds nightmare, REGULATION!!!

I'd like to see one instance where unregulated capitalism has worked, they can't provide one.
 
No, it's not. Too little, or too much will be bad, it takes a good balance. Here's a fine example for you from another thread.


Originally Posted by American
Oil trains put US on target for more derailments, warn experts | Fox News

Hmmm, what could we do about this?

It's the same old same old, profits trump safety. One problem is the antiquated cars mostly used that aren't designed for the product, and are prone to rupture when they derail. The corporate worlds nightmare, REGULATION!!!

I disagree and have explained why. I understand the concerns for the imperfections of capitalism. But nothing is perfect. I would suggest that Consumer Reports, United Labs, now Angie's List go along way towards helping an informed consumer avoid the pitfalls of capitalism with the addition of simple liability litigation. When you put the government as the arbiter between the consumer and business we have crony capitalism which clearly is not working.
 
I disagree and have explained why. I understand the concerns for the imperfections of capitalism. But nothing is perfect. I would suggest that Consumer Reports, United Labs, now Angie's List go along way towards helping an informed consumer avoid the pitfalls of capitalism with the addition of simple liability litigation. When you put the government as the arbiter between the consumer and business we have crony capitalism which clearly is not working.

Not working? Oh come on, it's working better then unregulated capitalism ever did.
 
My friend, seriously? You have this all backwards. Unregulated capitalism allows "crony capitalism"!! Are you familiar with the gilded age through the 1920's, do you know the main reason for the financial crash of 1929, the force behind the New Deal, and the reforms and regulations put in place in the 1930's? Unions, the forty hour work week, social security, etc., etc.. This produced a strong middle class that grew and thrived through the 1970's. This has been reversing since Reagan deregulated the financial industry which was put under heavy regulation during the early depression.

I would ask you to explain that a bit further. To me crony capitalism is when a capitalist engages a politician for mutual benefit, ie the capitalist gets favorable treatment in regulation in return for monetary contributions.
 
Back
Top Bottom