Liberalism

JavaFox · Sep 16, 2002, 07:13 PM

An excerpt from Ann Coulter's Slander:

"Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century.

They were wrong about Stalin (praised in the New York Times and known as "Uncle Joe" to Franklin Roosevelt). They were wrong about Reagan (won the Cold War and now polling as the greatest president of the twentieth century). They wre wrong about the Soviet Union (defeated by the twentieth century's greatest president) They were wrong even about their precious "Abraham Lincoln brigade" in the Spanish Civil War (the disgorging of Soviet archives proves that the Lincoln brigade was part of 'a rigidly controlled Soviet operation'). They were wrong about Nicaragua (communist dictatorships in Latin America turned out not to be 'inevitable revolutions,' after all). They were wrong about welfare (since overhauled by Republicans to notable success). They were wrong about crime (Giuliani's achievement is evident in the number of candidates who promise tpo continue his policies). They were wrong about social security (now bankrupt). They were wrong about the Civil Rights Act (which was never going to be used as an instrument of discrimination against whites). They were wrong on the sexual revolution (witness the explosions of AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, hepatitis B, and abortion).

It is not an accident that, today, the left's single biggest cause is 'global warming.' This time, conservatives won't be able to prove them wrong for a thousand years."

Discuss.

~~ByteMe~~ · Sep 16, 2002, 10:45 PM

I dunno, with as much $hit as liberals seem to be able to spew... maybe I sould start supporting them.

Highwood · Sep 16, 2002, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ByteMe
I dunno, with as much $hit as liberals seem to be able to spew... maybe I sould start supporting them.

Great idea, this fourm needs the perspective of a red neck liberal.

Smoothdrive · Sep 17, 2002, 02:30 AM

Reagan won the cold war ?? When the F#ck did that happen ?? nobody won the cold war..the Russians just proved the wiser of the 2 and stopped the foolish race with the US.

Greatest President of the century = Reagan ?? yeah right dream on..maybe he fooled you Americans with his acting but nobody else bought it.

PS wonder if that winning the cold war and Global warming is connected

fornicatarachnid · Sep 17, 2002, 04:37 AM

merry · Sep 17, 2002, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smoothdrive
Reagan won the cold war ?? When the F#ck did that happen ?? nobody won the cold war..the Russians just proved the wiser of the 2 and stopped the foolish race with the US.

The Russians proved the weaker - economically, then they crumbled politically. Don't bet too much on communist nostalgia, this is common when things don't go that good and people start to starve. Don't make them communists, just nostalgics.

As my mum used to say: 'Ah, the good old Stalin days... We were young...'

Don't know if Reagan won the cold war... It is said that his military policy (starwars etc.) put a too big a challenge on Soviet economy, not able to support military development needs. Out here in the East we didn't get a lot of info, but communist propaganda was very active on the 'down with the neutron bomb' edge of the wooden tongue - and not a word on starwars, which possibly meant the latter gave them gastritis.

Anyway, it's never that obvious who wins a war - the mudjahedins used to be 'freedom fighters' in their time, didn't they... And WWII, the British won and the Germans lost, right?

As for the liberals...

I'm not sure what the term actually means. I guess that people acting for a change have always been rated 'liberals' - until they made it and became conservative. Like the Whigs in England.

If you read the whole excerpt, you will see many odd things, like They were wrong even about their precious "Abraham Lincoln brigade" in the Spanish Civil War and They were wrong on the sexual revolution - the same 'They"? And was FD Roosvelt wrong about Nicaragua?

People who claim change are bound to be wrong most of the time, because most possible solutions are wrong - look again at Eastern Europe. It's much easier to see than to foresee. But it's them who push, and some of them do push forward.

JavaFox · Sep 17, 2002, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by merry
As for the liberals... I'm not sure what the term actually means. I guess that people acting for a change have always been rated 'liberals' - until they made it and became conservative. Like the Whigs in England.

As far as the last fifty years are concerned, the term "liberal" generally means someone that is to the left of the political spectrum. This generally means a "Democrat" in America. Liberalism has little, if anything, to do with wanting change, though. Look at the actions of the Democrats as of late. They didn't want to change taxes or the tax system. They didn't want to reform welfare. And Liberals aren't interested in reforming Social Security.

Conservatives (Republicans) are the only ones with new ideas regarding those programs. Republicans came up with workfare which was a success. Republicans see the short-comings of the Social Security program and came up with privatization. Republicans came up with school vouchers. Republicans came up with the flat tax. Whether you agree with those ideas or not, recent history shows that Republicans are the ones responsible for new ideas, not liberals.

reno · Sep 17, 2002, 10:48 PM

Bill clinton cashed a 100 dollar check from Hemp Growers of America
Pat Buchannon cashed a 250 dollar check from Pro-Choice Doctors of Florida

But then again...Republicans gave 313 billion dollars in no-interest loans and merger grants to big business during Bush senior's term.

Republicans came up with welfare reforms, which put 20 million American children homeless and hungrey out on the streets and saved American taxpayers 112 million over the course of 3 years.

Republicans promote mergers and mass layoffs, giving companies like GE, Ford, and Proctor and Gamble billions of dollars to "cover relocation costs" while the companies fire thousands of workers and move to mexico where they pay fat mexican bitches 1.45 an hour for the same work a bluecollar worker did for an annual income of $34,000.

Republicans! Don't ask what you can do for your country, ask what your country did to you!

I hate democrats too...consumer advocates all the way! Nader!

JavaFox · Sep 18, 2002, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
Republicans came up with welfare reforms, which put 20 million American children homeless and hungrey out on the streets and saved American taxpayers 112 million over the course of 3 years.

That's a fascinating figure, reno! So we went from 230,000-462,000 (composite of statistics from US Census Bureau, G.A.O., and The Urban Institute) homeless in 1990 to 20,000,000 in 2002? That's astounding! So the significant welfare reform bills passed in 1996 led to 20,000,000 homeless children today? That's weird considering that the National Coalition for the Homeless estimates only 2,000,000 homeless persons in 1999.

Next!

Quote:

Republicans promote mergers and mass layoffs, giving companies like GE, Ford, and Proctor and Gamble billions of dollars to "cover relocation costs" while the companies fire thousands of workers and move to mexico where they pay fat mexican bitches 1.45 an hour for the same work a bluecollar worker did for an annual income of $34,000.

That is a fallacy. It is foreign labor that allows companies to pay Americans the wages that they do. Think about it. What costs less? One American worker making $20 an hour and one Mexican making $5 an hour, or two American workers making $15 an hour? If other countries didn't have cheap labor, American companies would only operate in the US, and lower wages of American workers to keep costs down.

merry · Sep 18, 2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
As far as the last fifty years are concerned, the term "liberal" generally means someone that is to the left of the political spectrum. This generally means a "Democrat" in America. Liberalism has little, if anything, to do with wanting change, though. Look at the actions of the Democrats as of late. They didn't want to change taxes or the tax system. They didn't want to reform welfare. And Liberals aren't interested in reforming Social Security.

Conservatives (Republicans) are the only ones with new ideas regarding those programs. Republicans came up with workfare which was a success. Republicans see the short-comings of the Social Security program and came up with privatization. Republicans came up with school vouchers. Republicans came up with the flat tax. Whether you agree with those ideas or not, recent history shows that Republicans are the ones responsible for new ideas, not liberals.

This is rather confusing for me. Afaik, liberalism is a doctrine promoting the individual, as oposed to social doctrines, which value the community. I always thought liberals are right wing - but then this right/left thing is also confusing.

Starting in the XIX-th century, left wing was the name of so called progressists, which - at least in some countries - were the liberal parties (sometimes called 'reds'), oposing the big 'agricultural' parties, which were conservatists. Later, with the industrialization, liberal parties came to power, leaving the left wing to socialists, social democrats and such. Communists still claim they are 'progressists', suggesting their doctrine is a natural evolution from older, obsolete doctrines, like liberalism.

The term 'liberal(ism)' comes from the latin word for freedom, and indeed liberalism values the individual, therefore individual freedom (not only economically), while socialists (from social, society) the group - in spite of the individual. Social programmes are funded by taxes, which are paid by individuals in favor of the whole society.

My understanding of the text you quoted was that 'liberals' were possibly the militant organizations and such, like Green Peace, maybe.

I see myself as a liberal, and definitely right wing - so that you can understand my confusion.

Are 'socials' also called liberals in other English speaking countries, England or other?

JavaFox · Sep 18, 2002, 01:03 PM

As I said earlier, merry, the term "liberal" has come to mean any person whose ideology is left of center. Liberal policies are typically ones that increase governmental oversight and involvement or promote social programs. Socialists and Communists are considered, typically, far-left liberals.

~~David~~ · Sep 18, 2002, 03:48 PM

Bah I am a registered libertarian. I personally cant stand the democrate party and thier beliefs. Read the communiest manofesto and then look at democrate policy today ,you might be supprized how simmular they are.On the subject of walefare : Freaken people get off your lazy ass and work. I dont like paying for your messups.

skastel · Sep 18, 2002, 04:15 PM

As far as greatest president goes, shouldn't we go with someone who did something good for the most amount of people? FDR brought us out of the depression, and carried the nation through a world war and died doing it. C'mon people Regan? He might have been a likeable movie star, but he wasn't exactly a good statesman, by the end of his career he couldn't remember much of anything, "I don't recall" sound familiar?
FDR may have purposely got us into WWII or me have not, there are quite a few controversies surrounding his presidency, but all the greats had conflicts and controversey. He was no different.
Liberals, democrats, who cares about politics, government should work for the people not the big business. FUCK politics, and most of all FUCK politicians, they are nothing but whores. They can be bought and sold and replaced. Unfourtunately I don't have an alternative, and no one can simply fix the system, the coruption that runs our government is inherit in our system. It's not going away and we don't have a saviour to fix it.

JavaFox · Sep 18, 2002, 05:28 PM

I have a lot of respect and admiration for the Libertarian Party. I don't agree with their take on borders, or with their "let's allow everything!" stance on narcotics, but the LP strikes me as a party that has some of their priorities straight. And anyone that's for strict interpretation of the Constitution is an ally, as far as I am concerned.

Quote:

Originally posted by skastel
As far as greatest president goes, shouldn't we go with someone who did something good for the most amount of people? FDR brought us out of the depression, and carried the nation through a world war and died doing it. C'mon people Regan? He might have been a likeable movie star, but he wasn't exactly a good statesman, by the end of his career he couldn't remember much of anything, "I don't recall" sound familiar?

I'd disagree about FDR. FDR did not bring us out of the Depression, WWII did. FDR did a lot for the morale of America and some of his creations --like the SEC-- are very noble and useful. But, for the most part, FDR took Keynesian economics a little too far, and created some unsustainably large social programs (Social Security). People, I think, give him too much credit sometimes.

I will not say that I think Reagan was the greatest president this country has ever seen, because --to be honest with you-- I don't know enough about his policies. But what I do know is this: Reagan, through various initiatives --SDI or "Star Wars" certainly being a significant one-- made the US so competitive that the Soviet regime (one that had vowed to "bury [our] country!") collapsed. Reagan also reformed and greatly decreased the amount of money Americans paid for taxes. Do you realize that, prior to Reagan, people paid 50-70% of their income in taxes? That is obscene! Reagan's brand of supply-side economics --since dubbed "Reaganomics"-- was responsible for an 8% drop in inflation. As interest rates plummeted six points under Reagan, private wealth enjoyed a yummy 8% jump. It is estimated that eight million new jobs were created because of the economic boosts of Reagan. The end of the Cold War led to huge cuts in Defense and military budgets that led to the economic boom that most liberals attribute to Clinton. The list goes on. Whether or not Reagan was our best president is debatable, but he was one fuckin' good president.

Quote:

Liberals, democrats, who cares about politics, government should work for the people not the big business.

If the government was only concerned with making a buck, there would never be a law restricting business (Bush just passed a massive Corporate Responsibility law). The SEC would never be sent to probe any company (which it does), and there would be no anti-trust legislation (there is). And, best of all, if money TRULY controlled the government to the extent that you think it does, Republicans would completely overrun and control the government, as they have --on hand-- $85,583,073 to the Democrats' $45,494,745.

Besides, in a capitalist society, what's so wrong with helping --at least some of the time-- big businesses? For example, when the capital gains tax is cut, it really only directly benefits companies, not you and I. But capital gains cuts are beneficial for everyone! When they are cut, you will see higher wages and more jobs. It's called the "trickle-down effect."

reno · Sep 18, 2002, 08:19 PM

So 20,000,000 is an exaggeration, well...

That's based on homeless people observed in emergency shelters, free kitchens and the like, and usually only includes adult males in 32 major cities in America (shelters are overfilled, and underfunded). All the homeless people in Chicago (esitimated at 20 percent, as homeless by non-leasee or non-owner status is defined) can't fit into the few homeless shelters now can they?

One can expect monthly rent of a small trailer or moderate apartment to be around 500-700 in cities below 150,000 in population...and prices are MUCH higher in metropolitan areas in general, but if former welfare cases are now working on $6.00 an hour, 40 hours a week, how can they possibly afford not only the downpayment (usually two months rent) for the home, or pay for their home, food, clothing, transportation and insurance?

About 31.1 million people were poor in 2000, 1.1 million fewer than in 1999 again according to the US census... How many of these people do you figure can afford a trailer or apartment, let alone a home, in the highly concentrated metropolitan areas they generally live in? Some estimates, such as those used by Clinton in the early 90's estimated anywhere from 7,000,000 to 4% of the total population were without shelter. That an excerpt from the National Coalition for Homelessness.

read this then

and this

finally, this

Many of those not included in homelessness statistics are those that reside in hotels, communities (four people to an apartment), and even more interesting, according to the National Coalition for Homelessness, 1 in 5 homeless people in 29 major cities had a full or part-time job.

But! (in 1995) The top 1% of America's richest own 38.5% of America's total wealth...compared to Canada's 17%...or the UK's 22%...Japan has 25% of their total wealth spread amongst their top 5% richest...so Republicans since 1983 have helped their rich friends go up from 33 percent of the money to almost 40 percent! while the bottom 40% of America holds .2 percent of the wealth! Yay Republican bastards Reagen and Bush!

Oh, and most of the companies you say need to move to Mexico to stay competitive and keep wages up for the remaining bluecollar workers...give me a break! We had a local chemical company in Milwaukee that laid off thousands...after making 500 million dollars in PROFIT while paying $34,000 a year average salaries with benefits over their last three years until they moved to mexico, where their stock shot up 20% and netted them a total of 1.2 billion in profits for the next three years. MOSTLY due to decreased health and environmental regulations in Mexico.

Think Java, you may have to pay American workers 15 bucks an hour as opposed to 1.40 for mexicans...but American health and environment regulations compliance costs are more than twice that of Mexicos...so of that 1.2 billion dollars, 1 billion of it was gained through much less severe regulation, and 200 million was gained by putting over 10,000 workers out of the jobs they held for 15 years. Most moves come from the pressure of stockholders that want stock prices raised, and guess what! Competitiveness has NOTHING to do with it! You justify moving business to Mexico, even though it puts hundreds of thousands out of jobs, AND increases profit margins for handfuls of CEO's and stockholders, because you think you're protecting blue-collar workers? HA! Our local Precision Twist Drill plant recently shutdown and relocated because profit margins weren't within 2% of projections! Over 250 people in our small town of 7000 lost their $16 an hour with benefits jobs to mexicans so the corporation could make an extra 2% profit. Most of those people laid off two years ago still can't find jobs, are are working in jobs at less than half the pay and no benefits. But that's GOOD for them, RIGHT?

Don't even get me started on the living conditions of those mexicans who work pitiful wages and grueling hours. If creating extremely-low wage jobs in mexico continues, how will the people who make $59 dollars a week be able to afford american products? Or should they all just continue running their 13 inch black and white tv for the one hour their car battery will last before it needs to be recharged?

Vote Republican they'll send the country straight back into another recession, unless they start a war, in that case, they'll be heroes!

Argh.

Go to your local college and pick up the book "Crisis in American Institutions" eleventh edition, by Skolnick and Currie. Maybe it'll open your eyes.

reno · Sep 18, 2002, 08:28 PM

Trickle down effect, dumbass reagen-ite. Remember the term voodoo economics? See how well that worked for us? Huh? I'm SURE G/E Needs millions in federal funds to create higher-paying jobs, and I'm sure they will too! Since they are SUCH a benevolent company.

Why not issue a flat-tax, instead of catering to the rich and big business? Because...most of our government consists of wealthy oil moguls, lawyers, doctors, real-estate traders, former big business high-ups, and dweebs who got inheritances. Plus, most of the people they know are extremely wealthy. How would that help the poor rich people?

"We can't pay more than the middle class in taxes! I won't be able to maintain my summer home and my Corvette payment anymore!"

Give me a break.

reno · Sep 18, 2002, 08:42 PM

And ANOTHER THING!

You pay 10 times more for CORPORATE welfare than you do for poverty cases.

In Minnesota (according to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) tax breaks were offered to Northwest Airlines in 1993 that amounted to 558,000 dollar PER JOB. That means, if there were 100 employees across Northwest Airline's crew (which there are many more than that) Taxpayers just paid an extra $55,800,000 to their government to state accounts balanced for that year (even though it would be spread apart many years, taking approximately 5% more from income taxes to cover what the state paid over a ten year period.

Estimated expenditures for national food, shelter, and health services for the poor ranged from 2 to 3 billion dollars per year. The situation in Minnesota was followed by Alabama's taxbreaks to Mercedes, Dofasco Steel getting "help" in Kentucky. And my favorite, Intel (who made a 2.3billion dollar profit in 1993) getting a $114 million tax break bid from Rio Rancho new mexico which consequently forced Rio Rancho to shut down schools and bus kids at their own expense to Albuquerqe schools filled to twice their capacity.

When I think of how screwed up the world is I REALLY want to move to Sweden, supposedly the best country to live in overall.

Highwood · Sep 19, 2002, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
And ANOTHER THING!

You pay 10 times more for CORPORATE welfare than you do for poverty cases.

How do liberals justify calling tax breaks corporate welfare?

Tax breaks = government letting a company keep the money it has earned

Welfare = paying some lazy @ss to sit around doing nothing.

JavaFox · Sep 19, 2002, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
And ANOTHER THING!

You pay 10 times more for CORPORATE welfare than you do for poverty cases.

That is an absolute fallacy. It is absurd and has no basis in fact. The fact of the matter is the biggest program paid for by federal tax revenue is Social Security. $.23 of every tax dollar went to Social Security in 2001. Medicare, a program that provides medical care for over 40 million elderly Americans and disabled peoples, made up 12% of spending in 2001. Medicaid --health care for the poor accounted for 7% of the 2001 budget. Another category of spending ("Other means-tested entitlements") which includes the Food Stamp program, aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, veterans' pensions and others accounted for 6% of the budget. 48% of your tax money is spent on social welfare programs. That is fact.

Tax breaks offered to Northwest Airlines, Mercedes, Dofasco Steel, and Intel in 1993? Seems to me, reno, that anything that happened during that time period happened under a Democrat's watch, not a Republican's.

Quote:

When I think of how screwed up the world is I REALLY want to move to Sweden, supposedly the best country to live in overall.

That trade off for living in the borderline socialist countries of Europe is that you trade in mobility for a safety net. 80% of the millionares in America are self-made. The richest man in the world is self-made. America's tax structure is such that you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and climb the social ladder. That's harder to do in, say, a socialistic country like Canada or much of Europe. Indeed, you'll see that the wealthy in Europe have largely inhereited their wealth. In America, you can BUY good health care if you want to, and you are free to go from middle-class to wealth. In Europe, you receive good health care, but it's harder to move up that ladder. Both systems, to some extent, have their pros and cons, but I --for one-- would much rather have mobility than social healthcare.

JavaFox · Sep 19, 2002, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Trickle down effect, dumbass reagen-ite. Remember the term voodoo economics? See how well that worked for us? Huh? I'm SURE G/E Needs millions in federal funds to create higher-paying jobs, and I'm sure they will too! Since they are SUCH a benevolent company.

If you can't see how the trickle-down effect DOES work, then I cannot help you. Look at how personal wealth climbed under Reagan. But one only needs to look to Asia to see how a the trickle-down effect is a clear economic truth. In an issue of the August 3rd-9th edition of The Economist (consider by most to be a liberal publication) details this phenomenon. In the 60s, Asia's per capita income was less than that of Africa. Since then, there have been great pushes towards expanded exportation and market reform and now, a mere generation or so later, the per capita income of Asia is DOUBLE that of Africa. Poverty has dropped from 67% to 17%, infant mortality is a third of what it used to be, and the life expectancy is up from 41 to 67. Clearly, when businesses is booming, people seem to do well, too. Isn't that weird?

Quote:

Why not issue a flat-tax, instead of catering to the rich and big business? Because...most of our government consists of wealthy oil moguls, lawyers, doctors, real-estate traders, former big business high-ups, and dweebs who got inheritances. Plus, most of the people they know

are extremely wealthy. How would that help the poor rich people?
"We can't pay more than the middle class in taxes! I won't be able to maintain my summer home and my Corvette payment anymore!"

Give me a break.

The funny thing is, reno, that the flat tax is a conservative idea. Liberal aren't interested in it. Let the record show that Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes made the flat tax his biggest issue. Liberals argue against the flat tax and portray it as stupid in the media (an infamous CBS News diss of the flat tax inspired veteran reporter Bernard Goldberg to write his bestselling book on the liberal bias of the media).

So give me a break. I am for tax reform.

JavaFox · Sep 19, 2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
So 20,000,000 is an exaggeration, well...
Many of those not included in homelessness statistics are those that reside in hotels, communities (four people to an apartment), and even more interesting, according to the National Coalition for Homelessness, 1 in 5 homeless people in 29 major cities had a full or part-time job.

A