Liberals please explain this one....

[hawgs]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Perhaps you have the freedom not to participate - but if you do, you arent allowed to ever get government benefits such as unemployment, welfare, social securit. I think thats a fair trade.

No. I already pay taxes. I already contribute my labor and entrepreneurial ability to this country's economy. My efforts already raise this country's Gross Domestic Product.

Just because I do not work for the government does not mean that I do not benefit this country. Where would this country's government and economy be without private sector workers like me?

The reason America is the economic superpower of the world is because the U.S. economy benefits from private activities much more than it does from public activities. Look at states with a high degree of government-employed/sponsored activities (i.e. democratic socialist states). Their economies cannot come close to match the American growth in production and output that is a result of a free market system.

Private Americans make America the superpower that it is--not government workers. Right now I benefit this country a lot more than some deadbeat who works as a payroll clerk in a stuffy government office in Washington D.C. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Stefan on this one.

[ June 18, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Infernal ]

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Perhaps you have the freedom not to participate - but if you do, you arent allowed to ever get government benefits such as unemployment, welfare, social securit. I think thats a fair trade.

No. I already pay taxes. I already contribute my labor and entrepreneurial ability to this country's economy. My efforts already raise this country's Gross Domestic Product.

Just because I do not work for the government does not mean that I do not benefit this country. Where would this country's government and economy be without private sector workers like me?

The reason America is the economic superpower of the world is because the U.S. economy benefits from private activities much more than it does from public activities. Look at states with a high degree of government-employed/sponsored activities (i.e. democratic socialist states). Their economies cannot come close to match the American growth in production and output that is a result of a free market system.

Private Americans make America the superpower that it is--not government workers. Right now I benefit this country a lot more than some deadbeat who works as a payroll clerk in a stuffy government office in Washington D.C.

It is a myth that you must work for civil service or be in the military to "serve your country". </font>[/QUOTE]We could lower taxes if we implemented a system like this. I said work for charities as well.
I dont think this system would require the service all at once - 1-2 years of service spread out over someones life time??
What if its volunteer work?? I think this idea has merits. While I share your concern about "forcing" people to do things, I think we have a problem in this country with too many lazy people - across class lines.

[Infernal]

I'm scared. I'm actually sort of agreeing with Machiavelli on a political subject. ;)

Sort of.

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Infernal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by token sebring:
I think short term, most liberals who supported bringing back the draft are doing it NOT to bring back the draft and have the war go on forever, but instead, to make the US really decide whether this war is worth the lives of our men and women. How people REALLY feel about the war will come out and then people will be looking to make sure that the justifications for it are real and not imagined/made up/exaggerated/etc.

I think it's more of a "test the waters" thing or a short term gamble than anything else...

I think I may agree with you. Actually, I may support a two year mandatory service. The problem is, everywhere I look whether it be message boards or "real life", people are saying "Bush wants to bring back the draft", and if this is the bill they're referring to then there are definitely some misconceptions that need to be cleared up. </font>[/QUOTE]This isnt the bill theyre referring to, b/c this isnt a draft bill. And your drastically misinterpretting what people are saying. There is fear among some, that Bush will push for a draft in order to continue to provide manpower for a war that most people now are questioning.
I dont share these views - I dont think a draft will possibily be reinstated.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Infernal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by token sebring:
I think short term, most liberals who supported bringing back the draft are doing it NOT to bring back the draft and have the war go on forever, but instead, to make the US really decide whether this war is worth the lives of our men and women. How people REALLY feel about the war will come out and then people will be looking to make sure that the justifications for it are real and not imagined/made up/exaggerated/etc.

I think it's more of a "test the waters" thing or a short term gamble than anything else...

I think I may agree with you. Actually, I may support a two year mandatory service. The problem is, everywhere I look whether it be message boards or "real life", people are saying "Bush wants to bring back the draft", and if this is the bill they're referring to then there are definitely some misconceptions that need to be cleared up. </font>[/QUOTE]This isnt the bill theyre referring to, b/c this isnt a draft bill. And your drastically misinterpretting what people are saying. There is fear among some, that Bush will push for a draft in order to continue to provide manpower for a war that most people now are questioning.
I dont share these views - I dont think a draft will possibily be reinstated. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you don't understand. People have referred to this bill specifically, saying "Bush wants to bring back the draft".

[Machiavelli]

Well, obviously if you know someone who has done this and referred to this bill - theyre stupid.

Conservative Republicans dont corner the market on idiots - idiocy is nonpartisan in many cases.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
We could lower taxes if we implemented a system like this.

Forcing every citizen to at some point in their life work for the government would LOWER taxes? Please explain how that novelty works. The more people who work for the government the MORE we have to pay in taxes for their payrolls.

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
I said work for charities as well.

Oh yes, forcing people to work for a charity instead of working for a for-profit corporation is going to do wonders for the economy... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
I dont think this system would require the service all at once - 1-2 years of service spread out over someones life time??

Why bother? What is the point of attempting to get more people into civil service and/or military positions? The government is already bloated and inefficient as is, adding more employees only makes it worse. We need government cuts, not expansion.

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
While I share your concern about "forcing" people to do things, I think we have a problem in this country with too many lazy people - across class lines.

So forcing people to work for the government will weed out the lazy people, eh? Why not just cut welfare benefits, or more important, limit their duration? I agree, there are a lot of lazy people who live off the system in this country. But forcing them to work for the government is not the solution. Indirectly forcing them to work (for whoever will hire them) by cutting welfare benefits is.

The very notion of someone being required to serve in civil service or the military is absurd. Look at the great countries who have done this and where it got them:

1. Germany, 1933-1945
2. Soviet Union, 1917-1993
3. Cuba
4. North Korea

You get the idea.

Mandatory conscription is not an effective technique for weeding out "lazy" citizens.

[RallyRed 98]

don't forget israel and colombia, stefan...

this issue is where my libertarian/anarchist side comes out. i don't like the government forcing me to do something unless they use it to help others or me out. i'm not sure where compulsory service will help others or me- i have to agree that we have way too many civil servants as it is, and not enough cash to pay them.

[ellik]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Perhaps you have the freedom not to participate - but if you do, you arent allowed to ever get government benefits such as unemployment, welfare, social securit. I think thats a fair trade.

No. I already pay taxes. I already contribute my labor and entrepreneurial ability to this country's economy. My efforts already raise this country's Gross Domestic Product.

...........

It is a myth that you must work for civil service or be in the military to "serve your country". </font>[/QUOTE]Stefan, while you are aboslutely correct, look at the programs that he listed. Unemployment, welfare, social security. How much are those programs going to benefit you or me? Not in the least... well, perhaps unemployment but most likely not. Essentially, what Machiavlelli is suggesting is use those programs as a trade off for their efforts that are otherwise being eaten up by the couch and television. Wasnt it Eisenhower and Roosevelt created the goverment programs like the WPA, TVA and others that did just this? utilize the unproductive (not necessarily by their fault, but because of the Great Depression) to stimulate the economy? Doesnt sound like a bad idea to me.

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by ellik:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Perhaps you have the freedom not to participate - but if you do, you arent allowed to ever get government benefits such as unemployment, welfare, social securit. I think thats a fair trade.

No. I already pay taxes. I already contribute my labor and entrepreneurial ability to this country's economy. My efforts already raise this country's Gross Domestic Product.

...........

It is a myth that you must work for civil service or be in the military to "serve your country". </font>[/QUOTE]Stefan, while you are aboslutely correct, look at the programs that he listed. Unemployment, welfare, social security. How much are those programs going to benefit you or me? Not in the least... well, perhaps unemployment but most likely not. Essentially, what Machiavlelli is suggesting is use those programs as a trade off for their efforts that are otherwise being eaten up by the couch and television. Wasnt it Eisenhower and Roosevelt created the goverment programs like the WPA and others that did just this? utilize the unproductive (not necessarily by their fault, but because of the Great Depression) to stimulate the economy? Doesnt sound like a bad idea to me. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course it sounds like a bad idea to someone who hates everything Roosevelt did for this country.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Of course it sounds like a bad idea to someone who hates everything Roosevelt did for this country.

:rolleyes: again...

This isn't even worth arguing about. The ideas in posted in this thread are absurd.

[Machiavelli]

How can you even take not liking what Roosevelt did for this country as an insult!?
You DONT, do you?

[imported_admin]

I said I'm not going to argue because you're comparing apples to oranges. I never said anything bad about FDR. He was one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever seen.

What Roosevelt did during the 1930's was provide work through the government to millions of able and willing workers who simply could not find work because the economy was in such sorry shape it could not provide them.

That is very different from your assertion that forcing EVERYONE in this country to work for the government for 2 years will somehow force lazy welfare-types to work. It will also force successful people--the majority of this nation's population--into a situation they should not and will not stand for.

It would never pass. Your intent may be to employ people who are otherwise too lazy to get a job, but the result would be displacing millions of WORKERS who already have good jobs.

[ellik]

I was not intending to suggest that mandatory national service be required throughout the population. I agree, that goes against the very grain of the notion our founding fathers had. Forcing hard working productive people to stray from the direction in their life to fullfill this type of service would cause a huge strain in the effectiveness in our capitalist system.
I was merely saying that a revival of the types of programs Roosevelt utilized as a way of helping to reform welfare (specifically) and unemployment (possibly) and apply those principals to those who participate in the benefits of the government programs might make some sense. I guess I took part of Machiavellis post and drifted slightly off topic with it (and didnt point that out).

[wannabe]

Machiavelli, just wanted to correct one thing. You stated that the most Americans are questioning the Iraq war, but recent ABC News (I think that's the source, but it might be someone else) polls show that nearly 60% of Americans think thta the war is going well or that we are winning it.