Liberalism is self defeating

Originally posted by semperfortis

Democrat = Liberal = LARGE Government .... Politics 101

Well then I guess George W. Bush and his moronic rubberstamp Repugnant congress is/was liberal Democrats BigTime. No other administration has exploded and expanded government like these dimwits have. :shk:

I voted for Dumbya in 2000 like a good Republican. And it was damn worst vote I ever cast. Makes me cringe thinking about it.

Its gonna take a new president of Churchillian brilliance to turn this mess (our nation is in) around.

Funny, I thought to be a Liberal was exactly that. And to be a conservative also.

The words are self explanatory and to equate one or the other to welfare states or systems is just stupid.

Traditionally, over the world, conservatives have sought to maintain the status quo whereas liberals lead reform, ie, Liberalise. It really is that simple.

Whatever beef you have with a welfare program, national healthcare or anything else should be directed at the particular Party, not the ideology. I can find plenty of conservative parties across the world that support welfare program's and vice versa for liberals.

Now, had this thread targeted Democrats Vs Republicans, then I could understand thsi wholly US centric approach taken by the OP, but Liberalism and Conservatism are worldwide phenomenon and, sorry to shock you here, but the US is not the world. Just because that is the the way the two party's behave in the US, you shouldn't automatically equate their behavior to a worldwide ideology.

It has to be said that someone who calls them self a liberal in the US would be viewed as a staunch conservative in Europe.

Honestly, you have no idea what a Liberal is and, quite likely, a conservative as well.

Liberals want universal health care. Seems like a good idea but where does the money to pay for it come from. (my taxes) Personally, I think that if big government takes over the medical industry it will be like Englands.

Liberals prefer big social programs like welfare but where does the money come from. (my taxes) I would prefer that for able bodied people that after six months on welfare you would be compelled to either sign up for school that will train you for a job that is in demand in your area or you become available labor for the community in which you live. If you refuse you can no longer get welfare and if you have children they'll be put in foster care.

Liberals like the UN and are more than willing to pay for more UN adventures. I think that all countries in the UN should pay an equal amout for being a member and an equal amout for all UN programs. The US cannot save the world using my tax dollars.

When liberals talk about labor they can't tell the difference between someone making minimum wage and someone who make a good living.

Every time that liberals are in control, my taxes go up. According to liberals, I'm rich but there are many months when I have difficulty getting my bills paid.

I am a pro labor democrate and I'd like to get rid of the stupid liberals in my own party.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Personally, I think that if big government takes over the medical industry it will be like Englands.

Ok, aside from that fact you've willfully ignored several posts correcting this funny ideal about being a "liberal", what is your beef with the UK's health service?

Used it often have you?

We're talking about America, right? OK, if you think there is anything left in the system that is either liberal or conservative, you're wrong. Those are only labels thrown around now to have people at each other. The root core of what it's meant to be is long dead.

To be honest, in this thread, the lib's look like whiners and the con's look like greedy people. GREAT core values.

The problem here is twofold: one is semantics: both liberal and conservative represent an attitude or a viewpoint, NOT a political party and neither are monolithic in their natures.

The second is the nature of politics here in America... over the last 50 years and specifically over the past 30, there has been a simplifying and a dumbing down of the nature of political discourse in this country until you have knee jerk threads like this that really make no attempt to seriously discuss the issues because, we have (well some us anyway) not been educated to. There are many issues and attitudes that overlap between the parties but because one side has been demonized by the other both have become blind to the realities. At one point in the not so distant past there were liberal Republicans, just as there are still conservative Democrats but with the current configuration of the Republican party, Nixon would be too liberal for them. And the nation as a whole loses out. This polarization, as represented by the attitude of this thread, has to stop or it will tear the body politic of this country apart and neither side seem to realize this simple fact. We cannot continue this wild swing back and forth between parties with each trying to undo the work of the previous administration. The result is gridlock and a political paralysis that prevents all parties from advancing forward on issues that affect us all regardless of political leanings.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Liberals want universal health care. Seems like a good idea but where does the money to pay for it come from.

As a lifelong Republican, I came around the idea of universal healthcare when I saw the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing occupation.

The costs of the occupation are extraordinary. In the billions. If we can blow that kind of dough on an unecessary war over on the other side of the earth, there's no reason why we shouldn't take medical care of all our citizens.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

The costs of the occupation are extraordinary. In the billions. If we can blow that kind of dough on an unecessary war over on the other side of the earth, there's no reason why we shouldn't take medical care of all our citizens.

That's insane.

There is no reason on earth why there should be socialized medicine in the US and especially to the extent that you suggest. Even if what you say about the war in Iraq were true, that would not justify the US taking on the burden of offering free health care to all citizens and the millions of illegals who would get it, too.

What ever happened to common sense?

I think he was trying to make a point grady not necessarily a suggestion.

I just posted this on another thread and it has some bearing with our discussion here so I am posting it here as well:

We don't need more "leaders"... "we the people" need to stop letting the politicians "lead" and start making them to do what we want.

I am sick to death of mealy mouthed politicians and vapid parties that represent greed, corruption, stupidity, extremisms and nothing more.

If we let them getting away with only doing what their owners want; then the only ones being represented in our government will be their owners, and the rest of us who can't afford a politician suffer.

I won't say the current crop of egotists running for president today lack vision but they would all benefit from seeing eye dogs.

The first step for regaining this country is to eliminate ALL corporate and private contributions to political campaigns and make every one from dog catcher to president 100% public funded. Set a minimum limit on a petition to get on the ballot and anyone who reaches it gets 100% public financing.

The second would be to repeal the Reagan error law doing away with equal air time.

The third would be to retool the way running for office is done. Have it that ALL caucus' and primaries are on the same day and make that day a national holiday to encourage voting. Have the conventions immediately afterwards...set strict limits on how long campaigns are and make election day, election weekend and again, a national holiday and ban all media reports and speculations on who is winning until the very last precinct has closed.

Unless we regain some degree of control over the process in this country; politicians will be the death of us yet.

This is true regardless of which party and political viewpoint we are talking about.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

The costs of the occupation are extraordinary. In the billions. If we can blow that kind of dough on an unecessary war over on the other side of the earth, there's no reason why we shouldn't take medical care of all our citizens.

That's insane.

There is no reason on earth why there should be socialized medicine in the US and especially to the extent that you suggest. Even if what you say about the war in Iraq were true, that would not justify the US taking on the burden of offering free health care to all citizens and the millions of illegals who would get it, too.

What ever happened to common sense?

First of all, it is not insane. What is insane is dumping billions of our taxpayer dollars down the halliburton/Iraq toilet year after year (when all justifications for it have turned out to be completely bogus). This has only profited the warmongers. THAT is insane.

That money could have been much more wisely spent on caring for those in need here at home - and they are they are legion. A national healthcare system for those who cannot afford healthcare is actually economically smart (in a national security sense) as well as compassionate. Afterall, don't we go around bragging about what a great, wealthy country we have here? Well, if we were so great, we would follow Jesus' lead and take care of those 'least among us.'

Remember Katrina? BushCo. and the Republicans don't give a rats a double S about our nation's poor. And they claim to be Christians...:shk:

I used to be against a national healthcare system, myself. 'Course I used to be without the facts and without compassion. But thankfully, I've come around to seeing reason - and the writing on the wall. Its true, you get what you pay for (and thankfully, I have excellent care). But what's even more true, is there are far too many people in our country (many of whom are innocent children) who do not have any care at all. For them, something like the care we had in the Army would be far better than nothing.

We are one of the few western nations who do not have some kind of healthcare system for all. So much for being a world leader.:shk:

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

The costs of the occupation are extraordinary. In the billions. If we can blow that kind of dough on an unecessary war over on the other side of the earth, there's no reason why we shouldn't take medical care of all our citizens.

That's insane.

There is no reason on earth why there should be socialized medicine in the US and especially to the extent that you suggest. Even if what you say about the war in Iraq were true, that would not justify the US taking on the burden of offering free health care to all citizens and the millions of illegals who would get it, too.

What ever happened to common sense?

OK Grady, devil's advocate. So you are saying you would rather have your tax dollars paying for the killing of Iraqi's rather than curing illegals?

lol

Yah, what do you like better? Paying for Iraqi deaths or for curing illegals at home

Seriously though, all that money we've blown on the Iraq disaster could've already funded years of medical care for this nation.

As far as legals getting treatment, once they show up in the ER, they should be treated, documented and dealt with legally. That's one place we can identify them.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Yah, what do you like better? Paying for Iraqi deaths or for curing illegals at home.

Neither.

Seriously though, all that money we've blown on the Iraq disaster could've already funded years of medical care for this nation.

So what? The last thing we need to do is waste money paying everyone's health care. We have Medicaid and Medicare.

As far as legals getting treatment, once they show up in the ER, they should be treated, documented and dealt with legally. That's one place we can identify them.

Yeah. Like that's going to happen.

The modern use of "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" greatly aggravates me. Liberalism, with a lower case l, was basically the child of the enlightenment. For one of the first times in human history people believed that the power to rule came from the people, that people didn't need the government for anything and everything. It's more closely compared to modern libertarianism. What's happened is that the (capital L) "Liberals" stole this term and it began to be applied to those who advocated strong government intervention, even socialists. What they don't realize that socialistic policies are nothing new; that's the way it had been for ages before the free market just recently (relatively) took hold. The "Liberals" want something more conservative than any other - going back to a time of government-dominated economies. Even communism is more closely related to feudalism than anything.

I'm a proud classical liberal, and I suppose that makes me more of a Conservative. It appears to me that the Liberals don't realize the implications of their own policies. Perhaps what people fail to see is that it's not just a matter of "agree to disagree" opinion; it is fact, and there is a way that people will be happiest and most prosperous, while there is also a way that they will be the least. Command economies, welfare states, and other New Deal socialistic policies really do seem like the best and most compassionate way to do things, at least to the uninformed. But anything that is done by government is inefficient and potentially tyrannical. It is, in fact, much more compassionate for government to do nothing than to do something just to try.

Even welfare does nothing but hurt the poor by damaging the economy. You raise taxes to pay for welfare and give it to the poor. But what you've just done is make more people hungry and poor by taking money and trade from both consumers and producers (on all levels - you can't just target one and only affect it). So you have more people to feed, and you must raise taxes even more to feed them... You enter a slippery slope of government reliance, doing nothing to help the poor except to make them even poorer and unable to care for themselves except though dependence on government. Unless, of course, that's your goal.

As for health care, I'm still learning about the issue, but I have read some works by Milton Friedman (great Chicago School economist who at first saw the New Deal as a good thing before opening his eyes and condemning it). Simply put, he believes that the cost of health care today is a result of an ever-growing reliance on third-party payment (for example, your employer).
The following is a link to How to Cure Health Care by (the late) Milton Friedman, hosted by the Hoover Institution. I think it'd be better for you to read this, written by one of the greatest economists to have lived, than some poor attempt at an explanation by myself.
www.hoover.org...

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Johnmike]

SO.... you have had what I have to say about liberalism... by your definition where does that leave me?

Again you are making the mistake of equating an attitude or viewpoint with a political party. When I use the word liberal I mean a social/moral, even spiritual stance that that stands in opposition to the notion of every man for themselves, dog eat dog, and a stance that has by its very nature political ramifications.

And GROVER...

THAT is a COP-OUT!!!!

I have read you going on and on about your supposed philosophical approach to YOUR very own brand of "Liberalism" just like none of us read your posts...

YOU claim no political affiliation, that your brand of Liberal is neither party..

BS

YOU defend every democrat and demonize every Republican at every opportunity...

You speak of Clinton as if he was there eating chicken at your house, and Bush as if he was the master mind of the 9/11 terrorists..

I knew when writing this that you would jump in and defend your party, then back off and once again claim no affiliation. (I was really hoping) Standard Liberal/Democrat Tactics my friend..

I hate to break it too you, but just reading your posts, it is clear that Boxer, Pelosi and Clinton are your hero's and that YOU ARE THE PERSONIFICATION of the Democrat Party....

It is really nothing to be ashamed of, in point of fact, I salute you for FINALLY making a stand. Now if you will just take that final step toward personal freedom; and admit you are pure Democrat, think how free you will feel...

One member has a quote on here that is perfect for you...

"You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything."

I am a Republican
I am a Conservative

I do not feel the need to constantly support one and then refuse to be affiliated with the other...
I am proud of who and what I am..

Try it Grover, feels good....

Semper

I am an unabashed liberal and make no bones about it but if you think the leaders of the Democratic party are my heroes all I can say is ROTFLMAO!!! You aren't paying attention. Hardly. In fact I would be third party if there worth voting for and actually had a chance. Devoid of that option, I vote Democratic because I agree with them more than I do the Republicans. As a matter of fact if you read through ALL of my threads I am pretty hard on the Democrats as well. If I defend them it is because there are so many restless leg syndrome conservatives, as opposed to knee jerk liberals on here, making threads like this one, that I feel obliged to support them.

"YOU defend every democrat and demonize every Republican at every opportunity... "

Again not true... though I do take to task those who think that being a Liberal and a Democrat are somehow antithetical to being a good American.

You seem to be trying to regain your conservative credentials ever since I outed you as a closet moderate semper.

So... why don't you go back and reread the excerpt of my essay and try and rebut it in a logical and coherent manner, and then we can have a discussion.

Again I will stress this point... Liberal and Conservative are NOT political parties per say, they are attitudes or viewpoints often based on personal philosophies, moral, social and even spiritual beliefs and as such are, neither of them, monolithic systems and to discuss them as such is to do both a disservice.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
...Hillary Clinton is no leader.
Rudy Guilliani is no leader.
Mitt Romney is no leader.
Barack Obama is no leader.
There is not a single politician running for office in America today who is a leader.

None of them can move, none of them can inspire, and none of them have the balls to lay their lives on the line for what they say that they believe. Consequently none of them are worthy to be considered a leader or worthy of any respect.

They are just another batch of vapid, mealy mouthed politicians... another pack of bloody visionless parasites and nothing more.

This is the first election cycle in my life time, that if the stakes were not so high, I would seriously consider not voting.
Trouble is we've had eight years of bush minor. And still out of the whole crop of presidential wannabes there is not one who could envision their way out of a wet paper bag. As a result our nations problems will not be addressed in a serious manner and the buck will keep being passed to the next president and the next congress until the problems that beset us become so large, that they will drag us down as a nation, as a people....


.....I am sick to death of mealy mouthed politicians and vapid parties that represent greed, corruption, stupidity, extremisms and nothing more.

If we let them get away with only doing what their owners want; then the only ones being represented in our government will be their owners, and the rest of us who can't afford a politician suffer.

I won't say the current crop of egotists running for president today lack vision but they would all benefit from seeing eye dogs......


........I mean all of them. There is no hope in any politician....all of them... period.

I am indeed impressed with Ron Paul on some things.... on others he sounds like just another Republican. The only difference is that he is a genuine conservative as opposed to most who call themselves that. And I can respect that even if I don't agree with him on some issues.

I would be happier if he was running as an independent.

He is obviously an honest man but that is why he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the nomination, much less a general election.

Sadly at the current time it looks like Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Guilliani and the thought of having to chose between those two makes me want to throw up.

I am a life long Democrat but I may do in the primary here in Va. What I did in 2000. Here both parties can vote in the others primary and in 2000 I voted in the Republican one for John McCain, not because I would have voted for him in the general election, because I wouldn't but I was already sick of bush minor and the fact that he was being tauted as the next president before he had even won a primary.

If he lasts that long I may vote for Ron Paul against Rudy Guilliani in the Republican primary here though I know he doesn't have a chance, just to register my protest.

Unfortunately there is not even one Democrat I want to vote for at all but, since the stakes are so high, if it comes down between Hillary and Rudy, I will put a clothespin on my nose, a gas mask on my face, seek absolution before the fact and....shudder.... vote for her........


.......I guess what I have been saying through all my most recent posts is that I have lost all faith in our political system. It is hopelessly broken. If you are in office today, you are already compromised since you had to play the game in order to get there in the first place, and to continue playing it in order to stay in office and that includes Ron Paul.

I will continue voting because the choices range from bad to worse and if anything I want to try and prevent worse from getting in, but after 2 terms of bush minor, the thought of what could be worse makes my blood run cold.

I remain a dyed in the wool liberal and will continue voicing my protests against the hard right, the neo-cons and their policies, but I cannot in all good conscious endorse any politician, of any stripe.

Short of gutting our whole system and starting over I don't see any way forward, and I fear it is even too late for that.....

.........the idiots who are running for president will never seriously address the problems that face us as a nation. Not one. Why?

The first 4 years they will go through on the job training and more important (from their viewpoint) trying to get re-elected... their 2nd four years will be one of diminishing influence as lame duckhood sets in.

None of them, just like their parties want to be the ones to bite the bullet and to make the hard choices consequently the buck will continue to be passed to the next... whether that be the next president or the next congress and we as a nation and as a people will pay the price........

Here are some recent posts of mine on my thoughts about the political process in this country and its parties. You will note that I do say that I am a life long Democrat, though in retrospect I should have said that I have voted Democrat my entire life (and that is not entirely accurate either) but out of a sense of honesty I didn't change it.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by grover]

The only correction I would make in the above is to date the only Democratic candidate I would consider backing for President would be Bill Richardson. He has more experince in his little toe than the top there front runners, Clinton, Obama and Edwards combined. That and that alone makes him noteworthy.

So... as it stands, I can back Bill Richardson and I can back Ron Paul... but I would be happier if Paul were running as an independent.

In fact I would be happy as a clam if we had a viable third (fourth, fifth, sixth, etc) candidates and parties.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by grover]

Semper, I'm surprised. I would have thought you wouldn't be so black and white when it comes to political ideology. You have presented the conservatives as 100% right and the liberals as 100% wrong. Your stated reasons for why the liberals are for some social programs makes no sense. I am a lifelong liberal and I don't know any liberals who want to continue to have poverty simply to keep the party alive. It doesn't even make sense. Why would ANYONE want to do that?

Do you remember back in the '60's when Johnson introduced the War on Poverty? He was a liberal Democrat who was trying to end poverty. Sure, it was a long time ago, but in that regards, liberals have changed little. We would still like to end poverty.

It was an icon of conservatism, Eisenhower, who said that every time we buy a new tank, nuclear weapon, etc. we take food and medical care out of the mouth of a hungry child. I agree with that. Personally, I don't think we need nearly so much weaponry as we have. We have far more than any other country on the earth.

I think the above 2 references from Johnson and Eisenhower pretty much dispute what you are saying. I know these 2 men were presidents a long time ago, but it was from a time when the 2 parties actually had differences. There's not a dime's bit of difference between Dems and Repubs at this point.

What is the point of your post, other than to demonize liberals? I wouldn't care for it if you bashed Repubs/conservatives either because I don't believe you can make generalized blanket statements about any group of people.