Lets try to define the fundamental difference.
I consider myself conservative and you liberal - Is that close?
I think everyone should do their best to pull themselves up to a better lifestyle.
I think your view would be that we should do our best to help each other pull us all up to a better lifestyle.
Is that close?
Very inpsiring but yet very confusing.
What is then that you are advocating?
-dK
I think it is human nature to want to work, be productive, and contribute to society, and I absolutely think everyone should do their best to be self sufficient. I also think that as a nation, we fail when we place the good of the individual above the good of the country, which is what is happening right now. This undermines us AS A NATION. When millions of children grow up without adequate nutrition, adequate health care, and adquate educational opportunities, this undermines our competative edge in the global economy.
To say that the parents of those children don't deserve our help, because they haven't "worked" for it, completely misses the point that our destiny is interconnected with theirs, that our success depends on theirs. Yes you have paid into medicare all your working life. But unless I pay into medicare when you retire, you won't see the benefit of what you have paid in. Your future depends on mine, and to argue that I don't deserve your help is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I knew you'd avoid the questions...
So then it goes back to the Republic system so that communities will look after themselves and the power is given back to the community and let the federales subsidize those poorer communities.
-dK
What about the other statement?
Per yer post calling me a "deregulator" and comparing me to McCain.
I believe the federal government should just do their jobs. It was the government regulation that gave out subprime loans. No bank would have risked such a loan if people out there like Obama hadn't been sueing them to take on those loans and risk based upon the regulating law that made them.
I believe the federal government should only regulate where necessary (monopolies, etc). I believe they should deregulate when it comes to States and let the States do their jobs. I believe that States ought to deregulate and let counties (and parishes) do their jobs.
If that is your definition of a great deregulator, then yes, I am a great deregulator.
-dK
What republican system are you talking about? The system where the government subsidizes wealthy corporations, but removes regulations that protect consumers?
Hold a moment ...
So if the government passes a law and says "You will provide subprime loans no matter what." Is that not regulating an institution will give a loan?
-dK
He said "Republic" not republican.
The US is a "Republic". That is what he was referring to.
That was the one that I answered in the first post. If you wanted a one word answer, I am sorry to dissappoint you, but that subject is too complex for a simple yes or no.
In other words you don't want to try and identify anything actionable that can be fixed you just want rhetoric because once you commit to a tangible proposition you'll have to labor to refine it...
IF the government had passed such a law, then yes. But that's not what happened.
Oh, then everyone is making up that there was a law called the "Community Reinvestment Act"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
An the enforcement of it?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0
Who's blind waiting on the world to go up in flames?
-dK