Political Crossfire Forums

[mojo]

Zoot wrote: Quote: Liberals want every freedom accept the most important one: economic freedom.

Actually, right-wing minarchist "libertarians" want every freedom except for economic freedom.

Economic freedom is controlling the full product of your labour.

Capitalism is directly opposed to economic freedom.

As opposed to countries that create regulation, heavy taxation, and general discontent.

When you work you dont work for product of your physical labor if that was true than many Africans would earn far more than Westerners. Your paycheck is a reflection of the your value. When you are employed you under legal obligation to make you company the most money. Obviously skilled labor will be payed more than general labor. Capitalism creates this.

[anselfir]

Zoot wrote: Quote: Liberals want every freedom accept the most important one: economic freedom.

Actually, right-wing minarchist "libertarians" want every freedom except for economic freedom.

Economic freedom is controlling the full product of your labour.

Capitalism is directly opposed to economic freedom. Well, considering the fact that your actions (labor) affects everyone, how do you plan on capturing its supposedly deserved value? Then again, you can surely trade the service of your labor, no? As long as you are not being held in slavery, you are not being denied the product of your labor.

[thefranzkafkafront]

I hate Socialists becuase they enforce otheres to make acts they deem charitable.

They are thieves and collectivists.

[usuchamp]

If helping the poor is considered a virtue, then why would socialists deny the freedom to be charitable? Capitalism allows people to choose whether to be miserly or giving, and, in a more general sense, whether to be religious or nonreligious.

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

[Katsumoto]

George W Bush wrote: Ide like to know what makes someone opposed to liberalism?

On the right (right wingers) side, you have the 'moral' police who think Government should enforce stricter legislation in order to create a 'decent' society.

Theres also the right who believe in less government - to axe welfare and make everyone work even if they cannot.

ON the left, government should NOT enforce morality as we are free people with the right to act as we please as long as no laws are broken.

Also on the left, welfare works. It keeps people fed, keeps them contributing to the economy, and keeps them alive. If they cant work, they shouldnt have to die.

I'm interested in seeing some responses to this.

In short I am opposed to all statists. whether they are "liberal" socialists, or "conservative" fascists. Makes not difference to me. Both want to use the guns of government to force people to adhere to their world view. Both are equally disturbing in my view.

[Katsumoto]

Zoot wrote: Quote: Liberals want every freedom accept the most important one: economic freedom.

Actually, right-wing minarchist "libertarians" want every freedom except for economic freedom.

Economic freedom is controlling the full product of your labour.

Capitalism is directly opposed to economic freedom.

Minarchist Libertarians are simply libertarians who have not taken their own non-agression philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Nice to see you again Zoot. Still confusing capitalism with the state i see... :-D

[George W Bush]

usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

[mojo]

George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

[Rozzlapeed]

usuchamp wrote: A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

I think you have hit upon the essential point here, but this quality is not limited to liberals. It would be the worst nightmare of every ideologue, whether liberal or conservative or authoritarian or libertarian, to suddenly be left on his own without an opposing viewpoint that is as extreme as his own. That is because ideologues are by nature disconnected from reality. And without the opposing side serving as a scapegoat for all the imperfections of our current system, they would be forced to face the impracticality of their ideas.

And being forced to accept that you are wrong in this day and age would not a pleasant experience, based on the apparent emotional attachment partisans have to their beliefs:

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds

Article wrote: "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

[Dezz]

Liberals do a very poor job of marketing themselves. They place their more radical members in the spotlight as opposed to conservatives who hide their crazy uncles in the basement when the moderates come over for tea. Liberals also tend to focus on the negative drawing their political energy from outrage.

Also it's important to remember that a lot of this so called hatred is artificial. It's promoted by hate peddlers on the airwaves that make a great deal of money keeping this nation divided. The differences between the parties in the US aren't all that extreme.

[Katsumoto]

Dezz wrote: The differences between the parties in the US aren't all that extreme.

Very true. Infact the two parties are so similar that it is barely worth differentiating them.

[TheKrava]

George W Bush wrote:
The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

About college students:
What college students are you talking about?
When I was doing my first 2 years of liberal studies me and 90% of all students around me were liberal.
Now, during my 4th year into accounting I noticed a long time ago a crazy shift - me and 90% of all students around me are conservative.
I think first 2 years we (students) were very liberal because we thought we know everything about this world and we know how everything works. After studying disciplines such as accounting, business law, taxation, economics, management and so on we realized how much damage liberals can cause to our economy.
I like conservatives because they try to help the economy in economic ways. I do not like liberals because they are trying to mindlessly help poor, raise taxes and unintentionally damage the economy.

About welfare:
It should be limited to 1 year at a time. I believe that nobody will die if they will be thrown out of welfare - these people will actually start looking for jobs. I exclude from this theory throwing away disabled and those who physically cannot work.


Just my two cents.
:owned:

[raf]

politicalmojo wrote: George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

What do you mean liberals are fighting a moral issues? It’s the conservatives who fight moral issue. Pro-Life, Christian values, Bush is conservative and he makes it seem like his on a crusade from God. Don't tell me that conservatives don't fight moral values, they are worse when it comes to that, that's what makes them conservative; sticking to the status quo wanting they morals to make up the ethical system. I am a liberal, I can see you don't like seeing your tax going to dole bludgers, but they only make up a small percentage of the welfare system which has been blown out of proportion but the conservative controlled media. What about the honest ones, which are the majority I might add. Are you just going to leave them there with nothing? Economically it’s better off if they were given welfare payments so they can consume and contribute to the circular flow of the economy, injecting the money back into the system. This wasn’t done before and was a reason why the great depression of the 1930s was so bad.

[anselfir]

oh ok, liberals fight and react to moral impulses. like that better?

[raf]

oneofthem wrote: oh ok, liberals fight and react to moral impulses. like that better?

yes

[mojo]

raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

What do you mean liberals are fighting a moral issues? It’s the conservatives who fight moral issue. Pro-Life, Christian values, Bush is conservative and he makes it seem like his on a crusade from God. Don't tell me that conservatives don't fight moral values, they are worse when it comes to that, that's what makes them conservative; sticking to the status quo wanting they morals to make up the ethical system. I am a liberal, I can see you don't like seeing your tax going to dole bludgers, but they only make up a small percentage of the welfare system which has been blown out of proportion but the conservative controlled media. What about the honest ones, which are the majority I might add. Are you just going to leave them there with nothing? Economically it’s better off if they were given welfare payments so they can consume and contribute to the circular flow of the economy, injecting the money back into the system. This wasn’t done before and was a reason why the great depression of the 1930s was so bad.

On the "social issues" those are in fact the arguments many liberals amke including on this board. So I will respond with a similar argument.

Who is it for you to tell me what to do with my money. Afterall it is my money, why should you take it and give it to someone I may believe is less worthy than me or perhaps to something I don't even agree with.

Yes I will just leave them there I assure you they will drag themselves out. Cause our primary animal instinct is to survive,
people either adapt or die. Its Darwinism. I thought liberals believed in evolution.

Actually they tried welfare during the great depression and it didn't do a whole lot. All it did was create these programs that weren't supposed to be around but for five years but are still hanging around today. Social Security immediately comes to mind. The main reason the great depression was so long was because Hoover raised taxes directly after the stock market crash. He feared the US would a run a deficit so he raised taxes and deepened the problem further.

[raf]

politicalmojo wrote: raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

What do you mean liberals are fighting a moral issues? It’s the conservatives who fight moral issue. Pro-Life, Christian values, Bush is conservative and he makes it seem like his on a crusade from God. Don't tell me that conservatives don't fight moral values, they are worse when it comes to that, that's what makes them conservative; sticking to the status quo wanting they morals to make up the ethical system. I am a liberal, I can see you don't like seeing your tax going to dole bludgers, but they only make up a small percentage of the welfare system which has been blown out of proportion but the conservative controlled media. What about the honest ones, which are the majority I might add. Are you just going to leave them there with nothing? Economically it’s better off if they were given welfare payments so they can consume and contribute to the circular flow of the economy, injecting the money back into the system. This wasn’t done before and was a reason why the great depression of the 1930s was so bad.

On the "social issues" those are in fact the arguments many liberals amke including on this board. So I will respond with a similar argument.

Who is it for you to tell me what to do with my money. Afterall it is my money, why should you take it and give it to someone I may believe is less worthy than me or perhaps to something I don't even agree with.

Yes I will just leave them there I assure you they will drag themselves out. Cause our primary animal instinct is to survive,
people either adapt or die. Its Darwinism. I thought liberals believed in evolution.

Actually they tried welfare during the great depression and it didn't do a whole lot. All it did was create these programs that weren't supposed to be around but for five years but are still hanging around today. Social Security immediately comes to mind. The main reason the great depression was so long was because Hoover raised taxes directly after the stock market crash. He feared the US would a run a deficit so he raised taxes and deepened the problem further.

Fine I’ll play that game. Who are you to tell me that I cannot have abortion? Who are you to tell me I cannot kill myself if I am pretty a vegetable.
I can't believe you would "just leave them there ". Using survival of the fittest as an excuse for your inhumanity?
Obviously you are not familiar with John Maynard Keynes’, who is credited as the best economist ever, and his work on the welfare state. No wonder your country doesn’t as rank highly in terms of standard of living. The countries with a higher standard of living such as the Scandinavian countries, my country Australia and even Canada, have a higher standard of living than the US because we have good welfare systems. These countries aren’t poor either, they also rank rather highly in GDP and are all considered developed countries.

[mojo]

raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

What do you mean liberals are fighting a moral issues? It’s the conservatives who fight moral issue. Pro-Life, Christian values, Bush is conservative and he makes it seem like his on a crusade from God. Don't tell me that conservatives don't fight moral values, they are worse when it comes to that, that's what makes them conservative; sticking to the status quo wanting they morals to make up the ethical system. I am a liberal, I can see you don't like seeing your tax going to dole bludgers, but they only make up a small percentage of the welfare system which has been blown out of proportion but the conservative controlled media. What about the honest ones, which are the majority I might add. Are you just going to leave them there with nothing? Economically it’s better off if they were given welfare payments so they can consume and contribute to the circular flow of the economy, injecting the money back into the system. This wasn’t done before and was a reason why the great depression of the 1930s was so bad.

On the "social issues" those are in fact the arguments many liberals amke including on this board. So I will respond with a similar argument.

Who is it for you to tell me what to do with my money. Afterall it is my money, why should you take it and give it to someone I may believe is less worthy than me or perhaps to something I don't even agree with.

Yes I will just leave them there I assure you they will drag themselves out. Cause our primary animal instinct is to survive,
people either adapt or die. Its Darwinism. I thought liberals believed in evolution.

Actually they tried welfare during the great depression and it didn't do a whole lot. All it did was create these programs that weren't supposed to be around but for five years but are still hanging around today. Social Security immediately comes to mind. The main reason the great depression was so long was because Hoover raised taxes directly after the stock market crash. He feared the US would a run a deficit so he raised taxes and deepened the problem further.

Fine I’ll play that game. Who are you to tell me that I cannot have abortion? Who are you to tell me I cannot kill myself if I am pretty a vegetable.
I can't believe you would "just leave them there ". Using survival of the fittest as an excuse for your inhumanity?
Obviously you are not familiar with John Maynard Keynes’, who is credited as the best economist ever, and his work on the welfare state. No wonder your country doesn’t as rank highly in terms of standard of living. The countries with a higher standard of living such as the Scandinavian countries, my country Australia and even Canada, have a higher standard of living than the US because we have good welfare systems. These countries aren’t poor either, they also rank rather highly in GDP and are all considered developed countries.

Because Abortion infringes upons the rights of another human being (but that argument is for a different section of the forum). You have every right to kill yourself so long as it doesn't interfere with me in anyway.

In America your standard of living is waht you make out of it. My standard of living is probably above your own standard of living. Im not out to make huge generalizations of societies. I am out to make life happier. I give a large amount of money to the poor because it makes me feel good to help others out. My money going to private organizations is distributed far better than those overly regulating beauracracies of the government.

[raf]

politicalmojo wrote: raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

What do you mean liberals are fighting a moral issues? It’s the conservatives who fight moral issue. Pro-Life, Christian values, Bush is conservative and he makes it seem like his on a crusade from God. Don't tell me that conservatives don't fight moral values, they are worse when it comes to that, that's what makes them conservative; sticking to the status quo wanting they morals to make up the ethical system. I am a liberal, I can see you don't like seeing your tax going to dole bludgers, but they only make up a small percentage of the welfare system which has been blown out of proportion but the conservative controlled media. What about the honest ones, which are the majority I might add. Are you just going to leave them there with nothing? Economically it’s better off if they were given welfare payments so they can consume and contribute to the circular flow of the economy, injecting the money back into the system. This wasn’t done before and was a reason why the great depression of the 1930s was so bad.

On the "social issues" those are in fact the arguments many liberals amke including on this board. So I will respond with a similar argument.

Who is it for you to tell me what to do with my money. Afterall it is my money, why should you take it and give it to someone I may believe is less worthy than me or perhaps to something I don't even agree with.

Yes I will just leave them there I assure you they will drag themselves out. Cause our primary animal instinct is to survive,
people either adapt or die. Its Darwinism. I thought liberals believed in evolution.

Actually they tried welfare during the great depression and it didn't do a whole lot. All it did was create these programs that weren't supposed to be around but for five years but are still hanging around today. Social Security immediately comes to mind. The main reason the great depression was so long was because Hoover raised taxes directly after the stock market crash. He feared the US would a run a deficit so he raised taxes and deepened the problem further.

Fine I’ll play that game. Who are you to tell me that I cannot have abortion? Who are you to tell me I cannot kill myself if I am pretty a vegetable.
I can't believe you would "just leave them there ". Using survival of the fittest as an excuse for your inhumanity?
Obviously you are not familiar with John Maynard Keynes’, who is credited as the best economist ever, and his work on the welfare state. No wonder your country doesn’t as rank highly in terms of standard of living. The countries with a higher standard of living such as the Scandinavian countries, my country Australia and even Canada, have a higher standard of living than the US because we have good welfare systems. These countries aren’t poor either, they also rank rather highly in GDP and are all considered developed countries.

Because Abortion infringes upons the rights of another human being (but that argument is for a different section of the forum). You have every right to kill yourself so long as it doesn't interfere with me in anyway.

In America your standard of living is waht you make out of it. My standard of living is probably above your own standard of living. Im not out to make huge generalizations of societies. I am out to make life happier. I give a large amount of money to the poor because it makes me feel good to help others out. My money going to private organizations is distributed far better than those overly regulating beauracracies of the government.

The fact that you don’t care if I kill myself proves you’re not really that conservative; many would crap on about right to live and turn it into a religious issue, etc. How do you know that your standard of living is better than mine? The government provides me with free healthcare and I don’t have to pay for University/College until I finish and have a job; do you have those benefits? Aside from that, your attitude is so selfish. It’s all about “me” isn’t it? You give money to charity because it makes YOU feel good, not because you want to help. Secondly, giving money to charity organisations in most circumstances does not distribute the money far better than the government. Most of the time organisations keep a large proportion of the money and gives the rest to charity. This isn’t “far better than those overly regulating beauracracies of the government”.

[mojo]

raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: raf wrote: politicalmojo wrote: George W Bush wrote: usuchamp wrote:

Many liberals are simply lazy and hope to "get something for nothing" by mooching off the skills and intelligence of others (the American dream is based on shrewdness, not hard work). A liberal's worst nightmare might be the disappearance of all conservatives.

The liberalism attributed to laziness is not liberalism.
In other words, how are people on welfare liberal?
They've been lumped into the same category as academic professors and college students?

To look at welfare in a different light: what would happen to our economy if people ended up living in the streets, dying in the open, etc?
Capitalism should thank welfare as it assures a contributing hand to a prosperous economy by taking the percentage of tax dollars, and essentially 'giving it back' when recipients spend money.

Liberals often say when fighting a moral issue: Who is it for you to impose your morals on me? or perhaps, Morals are a subjective issue.

But liberals fail to see that the other side of the argument. Who is it for you to take my money and spend it as you please. Its a double standard.

What do you mean liberals are fighting a moral issues? It’s the conservatives who fight moral issue. Pro-Life, Christian values, Bush is conservative and he makes it seem like his on a crusade from God. Don't tell me that conservatives don't fight moral values, they are worse when it comes to that, that's what makes them conservative; sticking to the status quo wanting they morals to make up the ethical system. I am a liberal, I can see you don't like seeing your tax going to dole bludgers, but they only make up a small percentage of the welfare system which has been blown out of proportion but the conservative controlled media. What about the honest ones, which are the majority I might add. Are you just going to leave them there with nothing? Economically it’s better off if they were given welfare payments so they can consume and contribute to the circular flow of the economy, injecting the money back into the system. This wasn’t done before and was a reason why the great depression of the 1930s was so bad.

On the "social issues" those are in fact the arguments many liberals amke including on this board. So I will respond with a similar argument.

Who is it for you to tell me what to do with my money. Afterall it is my money, why should you take it and give it to someone I may believe is less worthy than me or perhaps to something I don't even agree with.

Yes I will just leave them there I assure you they will drag themselves out. Cause our primary animal instinct is to survive,
people either adapt or die. Its Darwinism. I thought liberals believed in evolution.

Actually they tried welfare during the great depression and it didn't do a whole lot. All it did was create these programs that weren't supposed to be around but for five years but are still hanging around today. Social Security immediately comes to mind. The main reason the great depression was so long was because Hoover raised taxes directly after the stock market crash. He feared the US would a run a deficit so he raised taxes and deepened the problem further.

Fine I’ll play that game. Who are you to tell me that I cannot have abortion? Who are you to tell me I cannot kill myself if I am pretty a vegetable.
I can't believe you would "just leave them there ". Using survival of the fittest as an excuse for your inhumanity?
Obviously you are not familiar with John Maynard Keynes’, who is credited as the best economist ever, and his work on the welfare state. No wonder your country doesn’t as rank highly in terms of standard of living. The countries with a higher standard of living such as the Scandinavian countries, my country Australia and even Canada, have a higher standard of living than the US because we have good welfare systems. These countries aren’t poor either, they also rank rather highly in GDP and are all considered developed countries.

Because Abortion infringes upons the rights of another human being (but that argument is for a different section of the forum). You have every right to kill yourself so long as it doesn't interfere with me in anyway.

In America your standard of living is waht you make out of it. My standard of living is probably above your own standard of living. Im not out to make huge generalizations of societies. I am out to make life happier. I give a large amount of money to the poor because it makes me feel good to help others out. My money going to private organizations is distributed far better than those overly regulating beauracracies of the government.

The fact that you don’t care if I kill myself proves you’re not really that conservative; many would crap on about right to live and turn it into a religious issue, etc. How do you know that your standard of living is better than mine? The government provides me with free healthcare and I don’t have to pay for University/College until I finish and have a job; do you have those benefits? Aside from that, your attitude is so selfish. It’s all about “me” isn’t it? You give money to charity because it makes YOU feel good, not because you want to help. Secondly, giving money to charity organisations in most circumstances does not distribute the money far better than the government. Most of the time organisations keep a large proportion of the money and gives the rest to charity. This isn’t “far better than those overly regulating beauracracies of the government”.

I pay for my own college thank you very much. That is one of my proudest things in my life. You are more than capable of providing for yourself. Do you really think you dont have the ability to provide for yourself. I have faith that you can. If you honestly cant provide after workling hard I will be more than happy to help you out. When I go to school and see those lousy ingrates who could honestly care less about their furture or their life I want to never help them. They chose to put themselves in that position.

But If you think about it if everyone just took care of themselves and just thought about themselves then their wouldn't be any problems. The only ones who should be put under welfare is the mentally disabled because they cant choose whether to work or not. That is one of the only exceptions.