To all the liberals tonight.... - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
December 21st, 2010  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
To oversimplify...Conservatives want a small unintrusive State, & Liberals want a large Nanny State that gets involved with every facet of life.
And what would you like? A government that does virtually nothing until the moment you need them? And then they have to be at the ready! I just don't understand your fear of a big bad government. What are you so afraid of, that they will curtail "the American Dream"? This is happening regardless who is governing. Perhaps you should opt for anarchy, then noone will do anything no more...
December 21st, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
And what would you like? A government that does virtually nothing until the moment you need them? And then they have to be at the ready! I just don't understand your fear of a big bad government. What are you so afraid of, that they will curtail "the American Dream"? This is happening regardless who is governing. Perhaps you should opt for anarchy, then noone will do anything no more...
If you think about it, this is what they're really asking for.
Said there's a place like that. It's called Somalia.
December 21st, 2010  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
So Somalia is the norm.

What many Americans´are doing is to mix up the socialist theory with the liberal, (not at the universities)

All the ideologies have their theory about the creation of the state. What I have read here is not a liberal theory, its a socialist theory, in Europe they are called Social Democrats

The socialst theory about the state has two paths. The Social Democratic approach is the change the society with reforms. The other path is the Lenin Marxistic approach, when the revolution shall take place in three stages. The first stage is the avantgarde, which shall lead the revolution, and then implement the prolitarian dictatorship-then communism, there all parts of the society share the means of the production. Will it work in reality? The social democratic approach is more or less the same, but instead of using violence, they want to change the state by reforms

The classical Liberal theory is focused on the individual, and his freedom is absolute, the government has no right to reduce his freedom with taxes, laws, etc. The night watch man state is very liberal, which the conservative is using in the US, so are the conservative in the US conservative? No, in reality they are liberal.

the democratic party is more social democratic than liberal, the health care programme, which is a major policy change in the US, to increase the taxes, reduce the spending with a reduced defense budget. They are also institutionalist, both domestically and international.

Btw, do you when you serve in the armed forces get an opportunity to study and get college degree?
--
Boots
December 21st, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
If you think about it, this is what they're really asking for.
Said there's a place like that. It's called Somalia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
And what would you like? A government that does virtually nothing until the moment you need them? And then they have to be at the ready! I just don't understand your fear of a big bad government. What are you so afraid of, that they will curtail "the American Dream"? This is happening regardless who is governing. Perhaps you should opt for anarchy, then noone will do anything no more...
Going off the deep end again, eh? The states created the Fed. Govt. to handle things of national importance. The sates handles things that weren't of national importance, including assistance(welfare). Now we have such things as the Feds telling towns what size letters have to be on street sings, absolutely non of thier business. Education was @ the County level, the more the Feds have gotten involved, the worse the results. I could ask why your side has such absolute faith in big govt. They're not geniouses, they just think they can run everybodys lives better than the individual can. Like Rob sorta said in a Thread...a guy who is smart enough to makes millions, 10s or 100s of millions isn't smart enough to spent it "the right way" (in the view of Libs) so the Govt has to sieze the money from the productive so these people, who choose to try to run other people lives for them, can in thier delusional state, spend other peoples money in what they think is "the right way". I have more faith in the people making the right decisions, that together forms the free market that has benefits to the whole is far greater than any from a planned economy. Way too uch belief in a wise govt working for the benefit of the people vs the probablility that they're just a bunch of control freaks. The Anarchist movement pretty much died out a century ago.
December 21st, 2010  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Going off the deep end again, eh? The states created the Fed. Govt. to handle things of national importance. The sates handles things that weren't of national importance, including assistance(welfare). Now we have such things as the Feds telling towns what size letters have to be on street sings, absolutely non of thier business. Education was @ the County level, the more the Feds have gotten involved, the worse the results. I could ask why your side has such absolute faith in big govt. They're not geniouses, they just think they can run everybodys lives better than the individual can.
In a country this big, a large, involved national government is ESSENTIAL. The states are not countries unto themselves, they are STATES. They are not capable of running themselves completely. They need the federal government. Now, if you find someone in the United States who is satisfied with the government the way it is, let me know, so I can punch them in the face. The government right now is in DESPERATE need of reformation, but reformation of the current government doesn't necessarily mean the view of the government that Republicans want (note: I did not say conservatives. Libertarians and Liberals have a SCARY amount in common.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Like Rob sorta said in a Thread...a guy who is smart enough to makes millions, 10s or 100s of millions isn't smart enough to spent it "the right way" (in the view of Libs) so the Govt has to sieze the money from the productive so these people, who choose to try to run other people lives for them, can in thier delusional state, spend other peoples money in what they think is "the right way". I have more faith in the people making the right decisions, that together forms the free market that has benefits to the whole is far greater than any from a planned economy. Way too uch belief in a wise govt working for the benefit of the people vs the probablility that they're just a bunch of control freaks. The Anarchist movement pretty much died out a century ago.
I never said they weren't *smart* enough. I said they weren't *generous* enough. Instead of realizing how fortunate they are in their situation and giving back to a community and country that was able to provide the opportunities for their success, they horde their money and watch with no remorse as their fellow men are forced to live in squalor and poverty.


George, if the wealthiest people all over the world give back as much as you think they do, why is there still poverty? Don't you think if allll those movie stars and allll those athletes and allll those billionaire executives gave back a real chunk of their salaries, we would have enough money to at least greatly *diminish* poverty in the United States?

Do you want to know why there's still poverty? BECAUSE THE RICH DON'T CARE.


Side note: The Anarchist Movement is not dead. It just has a new name........
December 21st, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
In a country this big, a large, involved national government is ESSENTIAL. The states are not countries unto themselves, they are STATES. They are not capable of running themselves completely. They need the federal government. Now, if you find someone in the United States who is satisfied with the government the way it is, let me know, so I can punch them in the face. The government right now is in DESPERATE need of reformation, but reformation of the current government doesn't necessarily mean the view of the government that Republicans want (note: I did not say conservatives. Libertarians and Liberals have a SCARY amount in common.).
I never said they weren't *smart* enough. I said they weren't *generous* enough. Instead of realizing how fortunate they are in their situation and giving back to a community and country that was able to provide the opportunities for their success, they horde their money and watch with no remorse as their fellow men are forced to live in squalor and poverty.


George, if the wealthiest people all over the world give back as much as you think they do, why is there still poverty? Don't you think if allll those movie stars and allll those athletes and allll those billionaire executives gave back a real chunk of their salaries, we would have enough money to at least greatly *diminish* poverty in the United States?

Do you want to know why there's still poverty? BECAUSE THE RICH DON'T CARE.


Side note: The Anarchist Movement is not dead. It just has a new name........
I think you underestimate generousity. You're probably overestimating the actaull amout held by the waelthy & how far it would go if dispersed. Not only would economic progress stop, no one would have enough money in hand to invest, but the poor would be looking @ the "give em a fish, vs teaching them how to fish' senario. The money just wouldn't be enough for long term prosperity & they must likely wouldn't change habits from a loosing way to a winning way for long term sucsess. Generosity in the form of the Welfare State is going a long way twords bankrupting us.
Libertarians want as much personal freedom as possible & as little govt interference as possible. They have positions that attract & repel both Liberals & Conservatives. Liberals seem to want as intrusive a govt as possible, except in certain areas like recreational drugs. There are control freaks on both Left & Right, the trick is trying to figure out who they are.
December 21st, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Liberals seem to want as intrusive a govt as possible, except in certain areas like recreational drugs. There are control freaks on both Left & Right, the trick is trying to figure out who they are.
No.
They want a government that invests in its own people.
Educating and giving healthcare coverage to the public is an investment. Giving some sort of parachute to those who lost their jobs so they don't end up becoming homeless is an investment.
Once you're out on the street, it's pretty much for life. Would you hire a homeless man even if he knew how to do the work? Practically no one will.
December 21st, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
No.
They want a government that invests in its own people.
Educating and giving healthcare coverage to the public is an investment. Giving some sort of parachute to those who lost their jobs so they don't end up becoming homeless is an investment.
Once you're out on the street, it's pretty much for life. Would you hire a homeless man even if he knew how to do the work? Practically no one will.
"Invest" is a word that Dems found out during the Clinton Era that could be used to sucker people into favoring programs that wouldn't sell under the old Titles.
December 22nd, 2010  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
"Invest" is a word that Dems found out during the Clinton Era that could be used to sucker people into favoring programs that wouldn't sell under the old Titles.
George

Such as? Please state these programs you mention.

And its a really weak argument to state people are "suckers" because they don't happen to buy the BS you are selling. The painful truth to you is that Clinton left office a very popular president (about 60%), the guy after him who embraced the "limited government" ideology you embrace...much less popular.

And on that subject, "limited government" is a crock of bull. The largest governments to date have all been republican governments. The GOP believes in limited government only when its the Democrats who are in office, you don't hear them mention "limited government" when the conservatives are in office. Funny coincidence isn't it?

Whose the "sucker" George? The vast majority of the public who would kill to return to the Clinton era or someone like you who promotes a radical ideology without question that has proven time and time again to be totally wrong, and self-destructive. As for Ted going off the "deep end", you need to take a good look in the mirror. Even to establishment republicans your views would be considered nuts.

And COM is correct, your self-described paradise of a place with no government actually already exists its called Somalia. Is that what you have in mind for us? Thanks, we will pass.

I absolutely believe that the government is required to protect its citizens from ALL threats and not just that carry a gun or bomb. Poverty/unemployment is a threat, lack of a healthcare system is a threat, illiteracy is a threat, capitalism is a threat, inequality is a threat, organized crime is a threat, etc...
December 22nd, 2010  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
I think you underestimate generousity. You're probably overestimating the actaull amout held by the waelthy & how far it would go if dispersed. Not only would economic progress stop, no one would have enough money in hand to invest, but the poor would be looking @ the "give em a fish, vs teaching them how to fish' senario. The money just wouldn't be enough for long term prosperity & they must likely wouldn't change habits from a loosing way to a winning way for long term sucsess. Generosity in the form of the Welfare State is going a long way twords bankrupting us.
Hardly. Ever watched the MTV show "Cribs"? A different color Ferrari for each day of the week is a common occurrence. And they don't cover ALL wealthy people.

However, you're right. The "teach a man to fish" ideology will always apply. I'm still a believer in hard work and elbow grease going a long way. But sometimes working hard still doesn't cut it. Especially in an economy where minimum wage can barely sustain a 20 year old college student with no bills to pay. THAT'S where government assistance comes in. When a person is trying to make ends meet, and they still don't. That's where the government fills in what's left. ACoM is right, too. Welfare should never come in the form of a blank check. Food stamps are a WONDERFUL idea. I also like the idea of gas cards that can only be used at the pump. When I come across a homeless man, I don't give him a $5 bill, I give him a coupon for a free item at a fast food restaurant.

I guess the point is, generosity isn't always throwing around money. Sometimes it can be as simple as buying a man a meal or a piece of clothing. That goes a LOT farther than some spare change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Libertarians want as much personal freedom as possible & as little govt interference as possible. They have positions that attract & repel both Liberals & Conservatives. Liberals seem to want as intrusive a govt as possible, except in certain areas like recreational drugs. There are control freaks on both Left & Right, the trick is trying to figure out who they are.
And that would be the new name for the Anarchist Movement. Nobody telling me what to do, I can do whatever I want. How is that NOT anarchy?

American Liberals want the government to work efficiently for the people. They want the government to take care of the people. For example, in social issues like gay marriage... Liberals think the federal government should take the stance that it should be made legal because it is no one's business but the two getting married. Conservatives think the federal government should take the stance that it should be up to the states because that is clearly not something that should be blanketed. Libertarians think the federal government shouldn't take a stance at all.

How is that an intrusive government?


By the way, George. Just a little tidbit for you to munch on till the morning... The latest standardized testing scores just came out... Wanna know who's on top in EVERY CATEGORY?

Shang Hai, China. But government involvement in education is bad, right?
 


Similar Topics
Are Liberals Exploiting People's Needs?
Liberals expect to survive confidence votes, warn MPs to sh
O'Brien quits Liberals over gay marriage bill; threatens to
Liberals cling to power as week in Commons ends in bitterne
State of the Union