Redefining "Liberal"

[halcyon985]

Oh and as far as lazy living middle class lifestyles, lets go about 30 minutes from where I live into North Philly and you tell me how Middle Class it looks.

[halcyon985]

Compare our spending on social programs to that of other Industrial Nations, we spend very little. This could all change if we get National Healthcare, but we all know that won't pass.

As far as the poor being stupid, well yes and no. There are plenty that aren't very smart, but thats why they are poor. There are also very many that are, but its very easy to get poor and stay poor. I was laid off a few years ago, and I came very close to being homeless. There isn't as much aid available to people as you would like to believe there is. There's all sorts of barriers to getting it, just because there isn't enough to go around. When your phone gets shut off because your broke, how are you supposed to get a job? It's not so easy. Trust me, I lived through it. It's easy to talk about other people if you haven't lived through what they went through, its entirely another if you can look at it from both sides.

[halcyon985]

Well it's a good thing you had all this figured out, because everyone just fits right into these perfect situations where they can do all that. Good call. Not everyone has relatives that can spare money, and like you said, you don't always meet the criteria for aid.

[USA50]

I am a modern Liberal, a distant past Liberal, just a Liberal. The thing is Liberals haven't actively defined themselves as much as conservatives have defined them (like you just did, Serf).

I retired early from investing and managing real estate, then investing it well while working at one of the largest companies in the US in corporate accounting. I guess I succeeded in spite of my hating the business world.

It is only common sense to see that there really is no such thing as Adam Smith's 'hand' that nobly guides the greed, corruption, and power that grows out of the soild of free-enterprise. Anyone who turns their head from that is a fool and dangerous, and complicitous.

We formed a nation to "promote the common good" which means we work cooperatively together with respect for everyone's rights and needs so that no isolated power within or without can disrupt our pursuit of a decent, safe, and free life.

Let me help you define Conservative: someone who blindly (naievely) trusts that everyone will consider the common good when they endeavor to get all they can (everyone except poor Blacks and Mexicans, those dudes will do ANYTHING).

I read the Road to Serfdom, but I've also seen it. Nicholas II and the power structure he oversaw was no left wing, liberal, socialist outfit. But he sure knew (or thought) how to control Serfs. Unrestrained power insensitive to the 'common good' is the road to serfdom.
Ask the migrant workers in LaLa Land, ask JD Rockefeller, ask george about the roughshod makeshift industries on the border of his own state.

And conservatives are the cheerleaders for unrestrained power insensitive to the common good; ie
don't question, don't mess with Bidness.

[lordjulius7]

"It is only common sense to see that there really is no such thing as Adam Smith's 'hand' that nobly guides the greed, corruption, and power that grows out of the soild of free-enterprise. Anyone who turns their head from that is a fool and dangerous, and complicitous."

LOL! He brazenly dismisses the work of the worlds most famous economist, with an "it's only common sense"!
Instead of such arrogant statements, why not explain to us poor saps just WHY it is wrong.

"I read the Road to Serfdom, but I've also seen it. Nicholas II and the power structure he oversaw was no left wing, liberal, socialist outfit. But he sure knew (or thought) how to control Serfs. Unrestrained power insensitive to the 'common good' is the road to serfdom."

Um, yes, and what happened when lefties like yourself replaced him? things got worse, didn't they?

[USA50]

LJ: smoke on this...

PART I:
Adam Smith’s invisible hand has always been celebrated more in theory than in practice. Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, an early blueprint for America’s commercial development, ignored Smith’s faith in the free market. Hamilton urged the federal government toward an activist role in creating an urban, industrial society. The Transcontinental RR was subsidized by massive federal land grants, as was the settlement of the West. The tariff that protected American business for decades after the Civil War was contrary to Smith’s invisible hand.

No period of American history has remotely resembled the free market ideal in the Wealth of Nations. Smith believed the interests of consumers must always take precedence over producers, who often care little about the public good and seek to avoid competition.

Smith did not become an American icon until the early 2oth century when his writings were used as a defense against government efforts to curtail monopolies.

PART II:
So, you are an admirer of Nicholas II and the manner in which he efficiently ruled over Russia? There was a leftwing, socialist revolution in 1917 against an extremely oppressive rightwing monarchy. That revolution was co-opted by two equally oppressive totalitarians, Lenin and Stalin. No one knows how a true socialist Russia would have fared in the 2oth century, because those two military crazed dictators crushed it.

[lordjulius7]

"So, you are an admirer of Nicholas II and the manner in which he efficiently ruled over Russia?"

Yes. The Tzar was a good man, who would have helped Russia evolve into a modern state if he hadn't been murdered by loathsome thugs who proceeded to drive his country into the ground.

"There was a leftwing, socialist revolution in 1917 against an extremely oppressive rightwing monarchy. That revolution was co-opted by two equally oppressive totalitarians, Lenin and Stalin. No one knows how a true socialist Russia would have fared in the 2oth century, because those two military crazed dictators crushed it."

Presumably, it would have fared as well as Poland, Cuba, Hungary, Ethiopia, Romania, China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua and every other place that had socialist revolutions. You can't blame the specific leaders for the fact that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that has had such a revolution has failed miserably. Sooner or later, the evidence becomes conclusive.

[AgentOrange]

The USA is the wealthiest nation in the world yet we cant even provide medical coverage for our people. 43 million Americans have NO mediacl coverage and another 60 million have inadequate coverage. How pathetic we are.

[lordjulius7]

Yes, that's relevent....

[Ashanogaroth]

Overall, though, "conservative" is now a cooler and better reputed term than "liberal". Such perversions of originally harmless terms occur throughout modern history, e.g., "gay", etc.

[ItWillNeverWork]

"Overall, though, "conservative" is now a cooler and better reputed term than "liberal". Such perversions of originally harmless terms occur throughout modern history, e.g., "gay", etc. "

Angmar is that you?

[Angmar]

Nah, not me, though I would tend to agree--I don't really consider any political term "cool", though.

[RussianJewishAthiest]

personally if in order to get universal healthcare we must be taxed into the abyss i rather not have it.

its easy to establish a new tax thats grabing money out of you pacheck but its much harder to get rid of that moneygrubing govt hand. They have the universal healthcare in canada it costs a great deal to pay for it.

The reason for most rate increases is the lawyer community due to letigious nature of healthcare these days. I remember an article where it said it costs a doctor 78 000 dollars to have liability insurance in missisipi or missiouri and that is why they now have an extreme shortage of practicioners. If you have to pay half your salary to an insurance company because the lawyers are suing constantly to get those juicy settlements you would jack up the costs of treatment too.

[ItWillNeverWork]

"personally if in order to get universal healthcare we must be taxed into the abyss i rather not have it."

Actually it does not cost that much. Have a look at what we pay here in the UK.

www.taxcentral.co.uk/taxcentral/home/reference/pockettaxguide/taxguidenic/default.asp

[Aurora]

Hell, I don't even know what "liberal" is anymore. Even people I don't consider to be big right-wingers make fun of liberals, and it's got me confused. One of my friends whom I've always considered to be liberal was joking over the phone about "Berkley liberals", and I asked her to explain, because I couldn't understand what was wrong with wanting freedom (which has always been my understanding of what the word meant, until recently).

Well, she explained it and the people she described sounded more like communists than liberals, to me.

So on the one hand, you have people bitching about the liberals. On the other, you have people bitching about the fundies.

I'm trying to stay in the middle myself, because frankly neither extreme is a bit flattering. Both sides are getting crazier than ever and harder to understand. I hate Rush and men like him because I don't think they have any business deciding what's best for me. Their arrogance makes me want to do painful things to them. However, I also hate people that don't believe in disciplining their children and leave said offspring to run about like wild animals in public places, disrupting other patron's evenings.

So, because both sides have equally wacky views, I've decided to avoid "joining" one or the other and staying independant, as it were.