Liberalism is self defeating

Originally posted by grover
Eliminate foreign bases.
Eliminate Foreign aid.
Downsize the military to a reasonable size.
Mind our own business.

NOW those really are conservative principles despite what those who call themselves conservative maintain.

And there you go. I don't know if it's great to downsize the military too much, since we do need the ability to effectively respond to threats (a bargaining chip if anything, it protects us from coercion), but get us the hell out of foreign countries.

Well considering we spend more than our top 5 competitors we could make a more efficient military... also if we concentrate our forces at home, they won't be spread so thin.

Originally posted by stumason

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.

You know, what you say is true. Before 9-11 I was a "hawk on defense" and a lifelong conservative Republican.

In this dark, post 9-11 Cheney world, I am accused of being a liberal (as I write for a paper).

Paradigms have shifted.

The more I learn, the more left of what I once thot was conservative Republican I get.

I still believe in the same fundamental things (truth, justice, love), but the lines on the field have been moved so far from what I know, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, I can no longer lay claim to being a "conservative Republican."

And I used to be proud of being that. Before Republicans became the party of torture and illegal war.

Ya know its funny... while I consider myself a life long liberal in my 20's and into my 30's my attitude towards the government was more in line with Johnmike's; that it was evil and could do nothing right blah blah blah. What changed? Well not much really I am still very distrustful of the government but I have come to see the claim that if we leave everything up to the marketplace for what it is a disingenious lie. The average person like Johnmike may believe it with all their heart and soul but time and again we have seen what happens when regulatory controls are taken off and when corporate lobbyists are allowed to help draft laws. The little guy gets screwed. Enron is the classic example but there are plenty of others. I have no faith in the marketplace keeping the forces in it honest... they look after their own interests and they are not yours or mine. The government when it is doing its job provides a counter weight as it were and sets standards. Long before the truth came out about what was really happening I was telling people that the rolling blackouts in California in 2001/02 were fishy and that someone was pulling a scam on the state. Regulations are supposed to provide checks and balances to prevent that sort of thing. Here in Virginia, deregulation of the power companies has resulted in higher rates and the local one changing a 25% increase and billing for it before it was even approved because lobbyists for the power companies had it written into the law deregulating them. Now the state board has said no you can have a 3.5% increase instead after nine months of way over charging. If the system had been working properly that would have never happened but instead the corporations involved had the books stacked in their favor and our chronically Republican state senate failed its duty to look out for the people.

That's a good point. A good example of the Republican wing of the elites screwing the little people (you and me). They have had such a great propaganda campaign since REagan, they actually still have people who shill for the Republican party - when it goes totally against their (and our) interests. Its unbelievable.

I personally willing and able to embrace a good idea no matter where it comes from after I have examined it. I am not so blind as to look at only liberal ideas like some on the right who immediately reject anything even passably left of center.

I firmly believe that government has a place in society besides law enforcement and military action... preventing companies and individuals from polluting our air and waters are one...because they are all of ours... no air and no water stays put.

Helping clean up pollution because time and again companies have done their damnest to wiggle out of accepting any responsibility of their action; and if the responsible parties no longer exist the damage must be cleaned up.

Setting standards and enforcing them; the adulterating of foods is a prime example; the use of below par building materials is another.... there are scores in which we benefit as a nation from them.

Regulating businesses to keep them honest... one of the worst deregulations was one of the first; the airline industry... it is a mess and it all dates back in part to the deregulation in the late 70's. Power companies; banks and financial instituitions, mining and heavy industry all need oversight because time and again it has been proven they will not keep themselves honest or clean without it.

People should not be allowed to starve in the streets in the wealthiest nation on earth; welfare is not charity, Semper is right (here that Semper?) but helping the poorest and the most vernable among us is simple human decency.

I could go on by my dog is fussing about being let in.

Whenever I hear the claim from business that this or that deregulation, merger, privatization and what not will benefit the consumer (or taxpayer) I know I better prepare myself to get screwed.

And its not all the Republicans fault either; there is plenty of blame to go around. That being said:

The major difference between the parties is that at least the Democrats try and kiss you before they tell you to bend over; with the Republicans its more akin to date rape.

Originally posted by grover
I firmly believe that government has a place in society besides law enforcement and military action... preventing companies and individuals from polluting our air and waters are one...because they are all of ours... no air and no water stays put.

I don't think any major political party believes that the government shouldn't play a part in those, at least the first two. That's more akin to anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. The government exists to protect the rights of the individual. You need law enforcement to prevent infringements on rights within the nation, and a military to protect them from external threats.

Pollution, you have to be very careful. For example, Global Warming, or whatever they call it now, is often sold off as truth, while it really isn't certain at all. At least, not the theory that humans are the cause. I'm afraid that half-baked theories could be justification to do stupid things like implementing the Kyoto Protocol, which would hurt the economy, causing more starving people to die (yes, the economy is a matter of life and death to some). But I think that the government should moderately regulate pollution, since that is infringing on people's right to life.

Originally posted by grover
Helping clean up pollution because time and again companies have done their damnest to wiggle out of accepting any responsibility of their action; and if the responsible parties no longer exist the damage must be cleaned up.

This should be a localized thing, though, state level or lower, unless it affects multiple states or is just impossible to do without a bigger effort.

Originally posted by grover
Setting standards and enforcing them; the adulterating of foods is a prime example; the use of below par building materials is another.... there are scores in which we benefit as a nation from them.

I'm not sure about this, I'd have to study the actual affects of doing such a thing. From what I can see, things like that delay implementation of technologies until they meet the standards, which is a good thing to me. So I would maybe support such a thing for public buildings, let municipalities or counties regulate it. For private buildings, someone's house (not renting), I don't like the idea since it drives up the cost of housing for the poor.

Food is a tough one. More regulation means that food is more expensive, meaning more people starve, while the lack thereof means that your food can be unsafe. Personally, I choose regulating it, though a lot of my reasoning comes from the fear that my burger can kill me.

Originally posted by grover
Regulating businesses to keep them honest... one of the worst deregulations was one of the first; the airline industry... it is a mess and it all dates back in part to the deregulation in the late 70's. Power companies; banks and financial instituitions, mining and heavy industry all need oversight because time and again it has been proven they will not keep themselves honest or clean without it.

Maybe oversight to ensure the safety of those involved. Economic regulation is harmful, though, unless you have a monopoly that's impossible to cure like utilities. Transportation doesn't meet that criteria anymore. Again, I would do nothing at the federal level.

Originally posted by grover
People should not be allowed to starve in the streets in the wealthiest nation on earth; welfare is not charity, Semper is right (here that Semper?) but helping the poorest and the most vernable among us is simple human decency.

There's nothing you can do. You can't just redistribute wealth to your liking, as much as you or I might want to. By paying for welfare, you raise taxes. You can target it through progressive taxation, but no matter where it's aimed, it will result in a slowing in the economy (though other factors influence it too, of course). Through this, more people will be starving and/or in some kind of poverty, requiring more aid, thus requiring you to raise taxes more.

It's a slippery slope, you can't really save anyone without hurting even more people. That, not ideology, is why I don't like social welfare. There's nothing government can do to solve hunger or unemployment, no matter how hard you try.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Johnmike]

In regards to pollution... a few years back this man around here had the largest illegal tire dump in the state on his property and even though the county had given the man a few warnings nothing was done. Then some kid set it on fire and it burnt for weeks fouling the air for the whole valley. Well when people started voicing their outrage over the inaction by local officials about this mess... some damned fool county supervisor got on the air and said that "they didn't really think the voters wanted the county to spend their money on things like this." He got thrown out of office next election and the clean up cost the county far more in the long run than it would have had they dealt with the problem from the very beginning. And that is the rub localities often don't want to deal with it; they don't want to pressure employers, especially big ones who pollute because they hold the threat of taking their business elsewhere if they do. And while the above example doesn't fall into that mold the analogy remains the same.

Who does that leave? That may or may not be an issue up where you live but it definitely is down here in the south and other regions starving for jobs. And when the state is reluctant to get involved either because of economic restraints or (in the case of Virginia, one party, the Republicans have controlled the legislature for decades) and ideology prevents them from doing anything, responsiblity falls on the federal government.

Just because some business man wants to save money by dumping his pollutants into the air and water; doesn't mean he has the right to.

As for food do you realize that the federal government already sets standards for things like how much sawdust or how many rat dropping can be in a box of cereal? How many additives can be added to milk (mostly to make it stretch) before they have to call it by another name and so on... and believe me if it far more than you or I want to know about and even those aren't being regularly enforced. I will see if I can find a link to those standards; it really is appalling. It is because these regulations are not being enforced because agencies such as the FDA have been gutted is why there are so many e. coli outbreaks and the like. It essentially tells businesses to go for it.

A short time ago I heard it said very succinctly: "Taxes pay for civilisation." We set government in place to accomplish just that.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
A short time ago I heard it said very succinctly: "Taxes pay for civilisation." We set government in place to accomplish just that.

Yes, but it doesn't say high taxes pay for civilization. That quote in no way implies that anyone should pay more tax than is necessary.

What we pay in taxes here in the United States are a pittance to what they pay in Europe and some other places.

Of course the services we get here in the United States for what we pay are a pittance to what they get in Europe and some other places as well.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by grover]

Here is an interesting take on the fair tax debate from factcheck.org, which by the way takes on both parties for their spin:

www.factcheck.org...

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
A short time ago I heard it said very succinctly: "Taxes pay for civilisation." We set government in place to accomplish just that.

Yes, but it doesn't say high taxes pay for civilization.

That quote in no way implies that anyone should pay more tax than is necessary.

..and you know what? Ya get what you pay for.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
..and you know what? Ya get what you pay for.

A small government? Yes please!

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
..and you know what? Ya get what you pay for.

A small government? Yes please!

Clean water.

Garbage pickup

Good roads to drive on

Public transporation

on an on....

civilization

It takes money to man these operations.

Not one of those is a responsibility of the federal government.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Not one of those is a responsibility of the federal government.

Ok. Let's step into another tax realm of our being.

The Fed. oversees protection from external sources; treaty negotiations and laws governing interstate commerce. As well as the federal judiciary passing down laws.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Not one of those is a responsibility of the federal government.

The point is, we pay taxes for a good reason. And no one wants them to be higher than they should be. But, we have to pay something.