ADVERTISEMENT

As a basically liberal voter,I am confused.

bobhawg

Starter
Oct 27, 2002
6,920
17
38
Frankly, I do not know his name but a conservative congressman was here in Georgia a couple days ago trying to convince the Georgia delegation to support a ten cent Federal gas tax increase. He says the highway fund is running out of money and we need to fund it better.

Well, now, I wonder, virtually all liberals I know support the Interstate Highway System, actually the National Defense Highway system, but these guys like the congressman have been screaming "get the government out of our lives."

My confusion is: if they really want the government out of their lives, the last thing they would want is a Federally funded highway system. After all, is it not the states responsibility to build their own roads?

There are some who may not know that Ike told Congress that he would veto a bill if it was passed for a Federal Highway concept. He said it was the job of the states to build roads. So the original bill never made it out of committee. However, the Defense Department later told Ike they needed better roads as they wanted to put Minutemen Missiles on flat bed trucks and move them constantly to avoid the possibility of an enemy first strike taking out our missiles. They discovered a lot of overpasses were not high enough for the missiles to pass under. And they needed a system with a minimum clearance to protect the US from attack. So the liberals who wanted the system anyway and the conservatives who wanted a good defense system passed the bill and Ike gladly signed the defense, not transportation bill.

But we no longer need the Minutemen so why are the conservatives now wanting Federal dollars for our highways?
 
As a conservative I don't have any problem with my and our tax dollars building infrastructure such as roads. You see the work is still done by bids from open market construction companies. The feds don't create a construction company of their own that all the business must flow through. Where I do have a problem is when the feds add things to the bills to force the business to be done by their preferred companies. When the laws force union labor to be used or when they show other preferences that guide the business to minority groups it interferes with the free market and causes companies to creatively structure their partners to take advantage of the rules. You end up with people who basically sell their union, race, ethnic, veteran and female qualifications so they can help a company meet qualifications to get contracts. Suddenly the tax payer is not getting the best deal for their dollar but people are getting rich through manipulation of the system.
 
There is no question that any socialistic type system costs more than a totally free market one does. But I feel a totally complete free enterprise system fails to provide an overall benefit for the majority of our citizens. That wealth gap would be even much larger. So I think a system with a little of both would work okay for us, free market that also provides benefits for all of us. The problem is or course, it is virtually impossible to have such a system as humans seem to not want to get along well.

So I fear we are headed back toward an economy akin to the very early 1900's and it will not bode well for us as a nation.
 
Conservatives don't want a wild west type of free market without any rules or taxes. They just want a free market that allows competition without the government unnecessarily getting in the way.
 
Originally posted by bobhawg:
There is no question that any socialistic type system costs more than a totally free market one does. But I feel a totally complete free enterprise system fails to provide an overall benefit for the majority of our citizens. That wealth gap would be even much larger. So I think a system with a little of both would work okay for us, free market that also provides benefits for all of us. The problem is or course, it is virtually impossible to have such a system as humans seem to not want to get along well.

So I fear we are headed back toward an economy akin to the very early 1900's and it will not bode well for us as a nation.
Stopping discrimination is a fine thing. Reversing discrimination and calling it just is not. When you give business to anybody based upon race, creed, sex, etc., you have to deny business to somebody else based on the same criteria. That punishes somebody for being who/what they are and rewards somebody else for the same thing. How could that possibly be fair and ethical?

Got news for you on the wealth gap. If libs could somehow realize their dream and divvy up all of the nations wealth equally to every citizen, in 20 years it would look very similar to what it looked like before the distribution. There would be rich folks, folks with nothing, and folks in between. You can't legislate responsible behavior, wise investing, honesty, or common sense. There are always going to be rich people and there are always going to be poor people b/c there are always going to be hard workers, lazy people, smart people, and blithering idiots out there. Divvy it up and somebody will squander it and somebody else will take it.
 
Like the debate. We do get along though but the news has to be controversial to get the ratings up. I have hugged a grown man, that I did not know, just because Matt Jones scored off of a busted play. We Americans, have a special bond that you see all over the world.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT