ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2017, 02:46 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

It's both.

Your side has an incorrect philosophy that nevertheless has strong appeal. The slogans of freedom and less government have the effect of clouding out the truth. After all, who likes "the government"?

And your side is adept at ignoring the facts about which philosophy actually works, and endlessly trying to spin them in your direction. Your alternative-facts universe is enough to convince poorly-educated voters, and that's what the bosses that you support depend on.

It's not as much about less government or the elimination of government, it's about lessening governments power of influence and control. I believe in a constitutionally limited government. Who wants their government to have power and influence over themselves? Who wants their government to have the power to make their decisions and in determining their beliefs for them and power to control them with money, threats, intimidation and so on? I'd say, no one other than clueless people. Have you ever had a foreign money merchant call you on the phone disguising themselves as IRS agents? I have. They remind me of you. I don't believe in the governments you'd prefer and seem to favor.

Yes indeed; "less government's power of influence and control" is an appealing slogan. But I am more concerned about big business' power of influence and control, and our government is the only potential check on what they do to workers, consumers, the environment and the economy. The government is needed to "control them" and keep us safe from them. That is the kind of "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." As long as small business and regular folks contribute a decent and fair share and follow fair laws, they have no reason to be against "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." I'm all in favor of fewer regulations on small business and family farmers if they are not needed to protect workers, consumers, the environment and the economy.

The Party you support, for example, wants to give favor to big business on the internet, so that users like us are stuck with an internet that's slower and has less of a voice. I support what Obama's FCC did to rein in these big companies and keep the internet neutral. That's the kind of "government I'd prefer and seem to favor

The internet doesn't have anything to do with the speed of your internet provider or the speed of your computer hard drive. The progressives wanted the government (Obama/ the FCC) to take control over the internet in order  to censor information and severely weaken and eliminate their political competition on the internet.

I don't know what you mean, except that Bush set up the NSA spying system and Obama did not dismantle it. The Bush FCC also enforced censorship on broadcast media after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl.

No, internet neutrality decided upon by the Obama FCC keeps the big billionaire corporations from taking it over by making it slower for everyone else and giving big users priority. Trump and Republicans support the corporations' and the billionaires' internet priority; Democrats support our rights to use the internet on the same level as the billionaires and corporations.

Remember, when you support Republicans, you always and only support the rich and powerful against your own interests.