I can't speak for all of us, but these are some of the things that many dirty-commie-pinko...I mean, many liberals believe. ;)
We believe that America is the greatest country in the world, and can be even greater.
We believe that important luxuries can and should be freely available to everyone. For example, we believe in the socialized police force and fire fighters who protect all of us. We also believe in our socialized schools that teach everyone who can’t afford private schooling, and we believe that university education has become important enough to socialize too. We also believe that medical care is advanced and prevalent enough to be socialized.
We believe in taxes to pay for these programs. We consider paying taxes to be a patriotic duty as much as some citizens consider military service to be a patriotic duty.
We believe in government by the people, for the people. We don’t trust politicians any more than anyone else, but we also know that a growing nation needs a growing government. A small limited government is like a small house with antique appliances--it worked for small families way back when, but it leaves modern citizens out in the cold who it should be sheltering. Oil lamps and tiny rooms might look cozy in old photos, but living with them in the modern world is impractical.
We believe that some heinous acts, such as rape and murder, are universally wrong and as such are rightfully punishable by law. But we believe that other acts are matters of personal opinion, and should be left up to each citizen’s judgment. Some citizens, for example, believe alcohol, pot, prostitution and certain marriages to be wrong, but that doesn’t make it so. The law therefore has no business punishing the responsible use of things like alcohol, mild drugs, prostitution, or denying the marriage of any adults. In fact, legalized trades can create tax revenue which is to everyone’s benefit.
We believe that every citizen should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, gender or sexual preference. We also believe that as a world leader, the United States should strive to treat foreigners as its own citizens.
We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves, but if one’s actions cause harm to others, the law is responsible for preventing further harm. When a murderer kills, the law is responsible for imprisoning the criminal; when an employer abuses his minimum wagers, the law is responsible for imprisoning the abuser; when second-hand smoke is found to cause cancer, the law is responsible for making public places smoke-free for everyone.
We believe that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, but not the greatest possible nation. We popularized secular government, but politicians must regularly invoke God to stay in office. We’re the first democracy in modern history, but we don’t nurture it elsewhere unless there’s something to gain--and even then we sometimes arm dictators and madmen to get the resources we want. We have unprecedented personal freedoms, but those freedoms mean less and less as the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer. We like to think of ourselves as the leader of the world because we have the most money and the best technology, but we’re socially backward in surprising ways.
We’ve got a long way to go, and we believe we can get there!
(About a year ago, David Fryer posted What Conservatives Believe. In the spirit of sharing and friendly discussion, I decided to post this as something of a response.)
Please be CIVIL!
This modern hippie (and I just got my hair cut too!) socialist progressive liberal really doesn't believe the US is the greatest country on Earth. It's a leader in some areas, average in others, and just plain awful in still others. That doesn't add up to any kind of clear greatest nation status to me unless we've answered the question of what it's to be greatest at.
|
As a "liberal" I agree with pretty much everything you stated, except this...
We believe that important luxuries can and should be freely available to everyone. For example, we believe in the socialized police force and fire fighters who protect all of us. We also believe in our socialized schools that teach everyone who can’t afford private schooling, and we believe that university education has become important enough to socialize too. We also believe that medical care is advanced and prevalent enough to be socialized.
Your use of the word "luxuries" implies that the listed services are not necessities. The reason I think those services should be freely available is because everyone needs them. They are absolutely necessary to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We all need safety, health care, and education so that everyone can compete fairly in a free market.
Wow, if I wasn't a cynic, I'd think so few replies are a result of unanimous agreement.
This modern hippie (and I just got my hair cut too!) socialist progressive liberal really doesn't believe the US is the greatest country on Earth. It's a leader in some areas, average in others, and just plain awful in still others. That doesn't add up to any kind of clear greatest nation status to me unless we've answered the question of what it's to be greatest at.
Actually I agree. I included a couple cheerleader lines because I think it helps the average citizen identify with ideas. (Or, at least, I think not having a cheerleader line turns a lot of people off.)
Your use of the word "luxuries" implies that the listed services are not necessities.
Yeah, these things have become necessities. I used 'luxuries' to avoid people splitting hairs over "Well, what's really necessary? The only things anyone really needs is a cave and two sticks to rub together."
Just like I included three unnecessary adjectives in my title to avoid someone posting "These are such hippie progressive socialist ideas," as if those are bad un-American things.
|
Agreed with the OP with just one fiat.
We shouldn't just want people to have the right to think for themselves, but we should actively encourage it.
This modern hippie (and I just got my hair cut too!) socialist progressive liberal really doesn't believe the US is the greatest country on Earth. It's a leader in some areas, average in others, and just plain awful in still others. That doesn't add up to any kind of clear greatest nation status to me unless we've answered the question of what it's to be greatest at.
This is a patriotic opinion. It's part of the patriotic process to say that we live in what *we* consider to be the greatest nation. Liberals like myself would hope to see this become true not just as hair splitting comparitive opinion but to make our country a shining beacon to the rest of the world.
Lets see....America is embracing every failed socialist policy that Europe is quickly abandoning for its collective survival. Take a good look at Europe to see were socialism can take a nation. I don't expect the hard core socialist, communists and America haters to agree with me. So for all you red, white and blue Americans who are a little right or left of center be proud of your country, its the best in the world!
|
|
Lets see....America is embracing every failed socialist policy that Europe is quickly abandoning for its collective survival. Take a good look at Europe to see were socialism can take a nation. I don't expect the hard core socialist, communists and America haters to agree with me. So for all you red, white and blue Americans who are a little right or left of center be proud of your country, its the best in the world!
Except in education (18th), life expectancy (49th behind most of those evil socialist countries in Europe, btw), law abiding (as you're first for people in prison)... I could go on but what do I know? I'm part of Europe where even our right wing parties would get called soailist in the US by ignorant people who have no idea what the term means.
Lets see....America is embracing every failed socialist policy that Europe is quickly abandoning for its collective survival. Take a good look at Europe to see were socialism can take a nation. I don't expect the hard core socialist, communists and America haters to agree with me. So for all you red, white and blue Americans who are a little right or left of center be proud of your country, its the best in the world!
There is a big difference between "socialism" and "social democracy". The latter is what many Western European countries actually embrace, as opposed to socialism as communism-lite (for want of a better term).
The fact that social democracy is actually a stock-standard form of democracy where certain basic human rights are prioritised is overlooked by the conservative side of politics, especially in the US. Things like universal access to decent health care (no medical insurance? well you'd rather live in France than the US), quality public education standardised across the nation (not dependent on how wealthy the district you live in is, Germany or the US?), a minimum wage that provides enough income to live off (US or Australia where the minimum wage actually is a "living wage"), the list goes on.
The US is a fantastic country with lots of great things about it, but that tired old conservative mantra of "socialism" is bad gets rather tiring, especially when it is socialism misattributed to social democracy, Labor or any of the other left-of-centre political systems.
It is baffling to me why so many in the US are opposed to a functioning universal healthcare system. Why should access to decent medical care be income reliant? Why, in the richest and most powerful country in earth, do so many miss out. Particularly when so many on the "right" who are opposed flaunt their "Christianity" - a basic tenant of which is to help those less well off. Or do they selective choose to adopt the "God helps those who help themselves" mantra?
Perhaps the US needs to embrace a few other "failed" "socialist" policies - better oversight of money markets, stopping rapacious home lenders who don't care whether people can actually pay their mortgages as long as a commission in gained, institute government driven energy generation reform so that more clean, green energy can be generated domestically and lower the reliance on imported oil....
This is a patriotic opinion.
Does it really have to be? I have a strong aversion to the very concept of patriotism. I don't want my country, or any country to be number one at all the things I think are good and number zero at all the things I think are bad because it's my country. (After all, it's only mine by meaningless accident of history just like everybody else's country, barring first adult generation immigrants.) Rather that's something I want for all people everywhere, whatever chunk of dirt they're standing on. It doesn't enter my mind that America deserves better or X and Y should be un-American values.
Nation-states are nothing more than tools with which to achieve those goals. To the degree one exceeds the one I live in at achieving my program, I eagerly and happily prefer it to my natal state. In the event of a war between the two, though I abhor violence and warfare, I would at least very seriously consider trying to be part of a collaborationist regime.
To me that sounds like the opposite of patriotism.
|
|
It is baffling to me why so many in the US are opposed to a functioning universal healthcare system. Why should access to decent medical care be income reliant? Why, in the richest and most powerful country in earth, do so many miss out. Particularly when so many on the "right" who are opposed flaunt their "Christianity" - a basic tenant of which is to help those less well off. Or do they selective choose to adopt the "God helps those who help themselves" mantra?
It is strange to me that a combination of fear and religion can make the majority of people vote against their own best interest.
The "Christianity" that most people practice today would likely make Christ himself puke up a Miata. It has become little more than a tool for corporations to control people. This is not saying that there are no good Christians--there are many fantastic people out there who follow the teachings of Christ. It just saddens me to see so many out there who are being taken advantage of simply because they have faith.
Put me strongly on the side of the Hippie Socialist Progressive Liberals.
The socialization of public schools is nothing to boast of - considering the performance record of these schools.
Perhaps if funds for education were spread evenly across all public schools it might be different. But wait! That would be evil socialism so we can't do that.
Social security will soon be bankrupt and my generation won't be getting any of it - though we need to continue to pay into it.
well if it was only available to those who needed it instead of public pensions not being means tested.....
Liberals -talk- like they alone value things like healthcare for all, education for all, etc., but when you look at the track record of liberal programs, it's crappy. All they're really accomplishing is getting people dependent on the federal government. Though, all that -talk- is good for elections. So, I think what liberals really believe is that if they keep up this -talk-, they'll win elections.
At least those evil so-called liberals are trying to do something about it and actually put in place programs to help the disadvantaged. All conservatives can do is scream "big government is bad", "socialists are trying to ruin us" etc without actually doing anything.
Mind, though, I am aware that there are many governments in Europe which are left of the US. In some of these countries, leftist programs have worked. Then again, Europe is a bunch of postage stamp sized countries. I think they've proven that leftist programs might work on the small scale. In the US, most liberals want to bring liberal programs to the federal level. I know of no country which has shown leftist policies to work on such a big scale.
When you have economic powerhouses like Germany showing that these "leftist" programs work, then it can work anywhere and size is irrelevant. Germany, and similar countries, actually care about the wellbeing of all sectors of society. Programs that reduce poverty and social disadvantage has flow on effects - lower crime, better health standards mean less stress of primary health care system, better educational outcomes etc. Conservatives have an attitude of if you can't make it yourself, tough luck. Compare educational standards between Germany and the US, percentage of the population in prison, or a whole range of other social indicators. Tell me which system works best.
Also, note that many European countries have far more stringent immigration laws than the US does and far more social pressure to have small families.
So are you suggesting immigration is bad or good? Or are immigrants a convenient scapegoat for wider woes? Remember, the US wouldn't be the US without immigration (though I suspect a lot of Native Americans wish immigration hadn't started back in the 1600s!)
Lets see....America is embracing every failed socialist policy that Europe is quickly abandoning for its collective survival. Take a good look at Europe to see were socialism can take a nation. I don't expect the hard core socialist, communists and America haters to agree with me. So for all you red, white and blue Americans who are a little right or left of center be proud of your country, its the best in the world!It is BS unless you can elaborate.
FYI Western Europe has never been socialist, if you know what socialism means.Disclaimer: I'm against so-called hippies and socialists, maybe because 99% of them aren't actually socialists or hippies. I am all for pink trousers and flowers.
I never said that Western Europe is / was socialist. I'm speaking about government policy. Its useless to talk to someone who is a liberal if your a conservative about politics. Religion to a liberal is the state. Speaking of religion, there is mention of how Christ would puke up a miata or Christians are supposted to be for helping others, ect, ect. I highly doubt any of the members here are a Church or Synagogue going bunch but answer me this. How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment? I can't believe I'm writing here, I should play some D&D / Pathfinder.
Here are some of the problems I see (I may be wrong on some of these issues since I'm Canadian not American). It is my understanding that there is a lot inequity of in the Public Education system in the US. Schools who don't perform well on various standardized tests get less funding, which perpetuates the cycle of them doing poorly (In Canada school in high needs areas get extra funding not less). Therefore a school in a wealthy neighborhood will be of much higher quality than one in a poor neighborhood. This means that people who are unfortunate enough to grow up in a low income area are going to have a hard time getting a good education and improving their circumstances. When they grow up their options are much more limited. They are likely going to have to take a low paying job, and when minimum wage is not a living wage, there is more incentive to not work at all and collect welfare instead. It also leads to more blue collar crime because things like selling drugs can be an easy way to make some decent cash. More crime equals more jails. Conservatives tend think that harsher prison sentences are the answer to crime, but it costs money to keep people in jail. All of these problems are compounding to create bigger gaps between the rich and poor in America.
Corporate greed is IMO the biggest obstacle in the way of dealing with any of these issues. Corporations have too much influence in government policy and make it extremely difficult to enact changes that will benefit the majority of the people. The reason being, is that those sorts of changes end up cutting into corporate profits.
What needs to happen is major changes in policy. Schools in Low income areas need to be properly funded. Money needs to be sunk into social programs that will help youth in high needs areas and give them what they need to be productive members of society, instead of turning to crime or welfare as a means of survival. Minimum wage needs to be increased, so that it is worth it for people to work instead of sit at home and treat their bodies like s~+$ (drinking, drugs, smoking, eating fast food). A decent universal daycare and health care system needs to be put into place so that single parents can go out and earn a living, and so that people aren't going bankrupt when they need medical care.
To do this money would have to be diverted away from things like defense, and laws would have to be instituted that would allow for increased taxation on the wealthiest part of society, as well corporations. Obviously, the wealthy have enough political power to keep such a thing from happening at the moment, and things haven't yet gotten bad enough that the general populace has the will to rise up and demand such change.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. With the US federal debt being as obscene as it is, I think the country is spiraling towards disaster/collapse. Major reforms need to happen.
Perhaps if our politicians all rode on chocolate flavored unicorns, everything would be better!
The fact is that if you could have spread funds evenly across all public schools, you would have. You've had decades to do it in. The fact is that you've failed to do it. Your method isn't working.
Very funny. I haven't had anything to do with it. Given I am neither an American politician nor an American the failure of your system has nothing to do with me. I am merely pointing out that some countries get it right - Germany, The Netherlands, amongst others. Don't use the excuse 'the US is too big" as size has nothing to do with it.
Pointing to your failures as if they were excuses doesn't help your cause.
Not my failures. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have happily supported this system. Conservatives can't attack social welfare while supporting one of the most egregiously unfair pension systems around. Likewise Republicans seem to love giving tax cuts to those who least need them, particularly high income earners. If that is not a form of welfare aimed at benefitting the big end of town ...
I'm not a conservative and, frankly, if the best defense you can muster is "quick, look over there!" that's not much of a defense now is it?
And your point is? If you want to defend conservative policies, feel free. It's your country not mine. And what do you mean by "quick look over there?" Bizarre. My point is that at least the left of politics appears to give a toss about the disadvantaged in society.
When you have economic powerhouses like Germany showing that these "leftist" programs work, then it can work anywhere and size is irrelevant. Germany, and similar countries, actually care about the wellbeing of all sectors of society....You do know that Germany has a population just a little over 1/4th of ours - right? It's a postage stamp sized country compared to ours. Also, Germany isn't exactly the role model you want it to be. As Stefan Karlsson points out, [words]
Actually I do know that as I lived in Germany for a number of years. Hardly a postage stamp. Though that is a pretty lame rhetorical tool to try and dismiss its economic and social performance in recent years. You can throw all sorts of stats around but I'd much rather live in Germany than in the US, especially if I was poor. See how Germany has recovered from the GFE compared to the US. If size is a determinant of whether "socialist" policies can work or not, then why is not the reverse true? Or is neo-coservatism and the like so good that it works anywhere? If so it is hardly taking the world by storm.
If you look at the big immigration surges of the past, you'll note that the giant welfare industry we've got today didn't exist back then. So, when there were surges of poor people, they didn't overwhelm the welfare industry. If the welfare industry went away tomorrow, huge immigration surges wouldn't be a huge economic problem.
The old "welfare industry" argument. That opens up a whole new area of discussion.... Would you prefer the good old days when Irish immigrants walked off the boat straight into the army to fight in the civil war? Back in those days there wasn't really a welfare system of any form for anyone, so bringing immigration into the discussion about social welfare today is not relevant.
How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?
Because one kills a person and the other doesn't.
|
|
EMTALA has bankrupted many, many hospitals.
What would you propose? Letting hospitals have the ability to refuse services to critically injured patients because they don't have insurance? Or maybe have ambulances go from hospital to hospital trying to find one that will accept their patient regardless of their insurance status?
A doctor's hippocratic oath alone should be enough to prevent this, but sadly hospitals are more in the business of making money than treating patients.
If anything this supposed "failure" of EMTALA is an argument for socialized medicine, rather than its repeal.
...Here are some of the problems I see (I may be wrong on some of these issues since I'm Canadian not American). It is my understanding that there is a lot inequity of in the Public Education system in the US. Schools who don't perform well on various standardized tests get less funding, which perpetuates the cycle of them doing poorly (In Canada school in high needs areas get extra funding not less). Therefore a school in a wealthy neighborhood will be of much higher quality than one in a poor neighborhood. This means that people who are unfortunate enough to grow up in a low income area are going to have a hard time getting a good education and improving their circumstances. When they grow up their options are much more limited. They are likely going to have to take a low paying job, and when minimum wage is not a living wage, there is more incentive to not work at all and collect welfare instead. It also leads to more blue collar crime because things like selling drugs can be an easy way to make some decent cash. More crime equals more jails. Conservatives tend think that harsher prison sentences are the answer to crime, but it costs money to keep people in jail. All of these problems are compounding to create bigger gaps between the rich and poor in America.
Corporate greed is IMO the biggest obstacle in the way of dealing with any of these issues. Corporations have too much influence in government policy and make it extremely difficult to enact changes that will benefit the majority of the people. The reason being, is that those sorts of changes end up cutting into corporate profits.
What needs to happen is major changes in policy. Schools in Low income areas need to be properly funded. Money needs to be sunk into social programs that will help youth in high needs areas and give them what they need to be productive members of society, instead of turning to crime or welfare as a means of survival. Minimum wage needs to be increased, so that it is worth it for people to work instead
I like your proposal on increasing opportunities for small business, but I don't think that it is really "smaller government" that is needed to allow for that, so much as change in government policy. Right now it can be very hard for small business owners to compete with big business like Wallmart and the like. Policies need to be enacted to reduce the amount of power such corporations have and give small business owners a fighting chance. When I say minimum wage needs to be increased, I'm meaning that there needs to be a redistribution of wealth, so that it isn't all being hogged by about 5% of the population. For example it would be nice if there were a way a make big companies (like Wallmart and their ilk) pay their employs a reasonable wage (maybe unionizing). It has thus far proven impossible to enforce, but I think there should be some sort of limit on how much money any one individual or corporation can earn. Once you've hit that limit the rest needs to get passed back out to the people whose backs you built your fortune on.
|
|
You're worried about critically injured patients not being able to get the care they need. I share that concern. The difference is, I don't think that having many, many hospitals go bankrupt mitigates that concern.EMTALA has bankrupted many, many hospitals.What would you propose? Letting hospitals have the ability to refuse services to critically injured patients because they don't have insurance? Or maybe have ambulances go from hospital to hospital trying to find one that will accept their patient regardless of their insurance status?
A doctor's hippocratic oath alone should be enough to prevent this, but sadly hospitals are more in the business of making money than treating patients.
If anything this supposed "failure" of EMTALA is an argument for socialized medicine, rather than its repeal.
So what, then, is your proposed solution to that problem? Hospitals cannot ethically or legally turn away critical patients, yet by not doing so, they are hurting themselves financially. Is there really a solution other than everybody having health insurance?
A bunch of irrelevant crap about ConservativismYou do know that this thread is about liberalism, not conservativism, right?
And, like I said, if the best defense of liberal politics you can muster is "quick, look over there!", it's damning your position.
Funnily enough I do know what the thread is about. It's a tad tricky to have a discussion about one aspect of the political spectrum without looking at other aspects. As some people have posted criticisms of "liberal" politics from a conservative standpoint, there is nothing wrong with raising conservative issues in response. It is the very nature of a thread like this and if you expect it not to happen, or to have a whinge because it does, then you may as well stay off the boards.
I still have no idea what your "look over here" stuff is all about. I assume it is an attempt by you to play the man, not the ball. Feel free to summarise my position as "irrelevant crap", again playing the man, not the ball. The same summarised descriptor could just as easily be applied to what you have said, but it doesn't really progress the discussion.
How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?Because one kills a person and the other doesn't.
How are conservatives against abortion but for capital punishment ;-)
If you raise the minimum wage of businesses in low class neighborhoods, you're going to reduce the number of people being hired (because business owners will feel they won't be able to afford higher wages).
I'm sure you'll agree that making it harder to find a job in a low income area is counter-productive.
What is needed is more small businesses. This will increase demand for labor.
So let's make it easier for poor people by making it easier for them to get a job which doesn't even pay enough for them to live off? How about working out what the minimum wage is required for people to live off and then set the minimum wage on that basis. It's not as though that money is going to be funnelled to Caribbean tax havens. Any extra money those people earn is going to be largely spent in their own communities. So the money is being fed back into those very same businesses that are afraid to pay their workers a few dollars an hour more. More money being spent at those businesses will create growth which in turn creates jobs.
Look at it as a form of investment. Businesses invest in equipment, technology, training etc to expand and improve performance, how is wage levels any different.
Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage. That hasn't stopped employers hiring staff or made the economies grind to a halt. In some cities the low wages is actually having an impact on provision of services as low income workers can't afford to reasonably close to where they work, for example menial workers in the CBD.
Because one kills a person and one doesn't.How are conservatives against abortion but for capital punishment ;-)How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?Because one kills a person and the other doesn't.
+1
It seems what's good for the conservative goose is not good for the liberal gander. And often vice versa.
|
|
Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.
The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
So let's make it easier for poor people by making it easier for them to get a job which doesn't even pay enough for them to live off? How about working out what the minimum wage is required for people to live off and then set the minimum wage on that basis. It's not as though that money is going to be funnelled to Caribbean tax havens. Any extra money those people earn is going to be largely spent in their own communities. So the money is being fed back into those very same businesses that are afraid to pay their workers a few dollars an hour more. More money being spent at those businesses will create growth which in turn creates jobs.
Look at it as a form of investment. Businesses invest in equipment, technology, training etc to expand and improve performance, how is wage levels any different.
Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage. That hasn't stopped employers hiring staff or made the economies grind to a halt. In some cities the low wages is actually having an impact on provision of services as low income workers can't afford to reasonably close to where they work, for example menial workers in the CBD.
First, if you increase demand for labor relative to the supply, you'll increase the cost (ie. the wages the laborer makes). This is Economics 101.
Second, it's becoming clear that you don't live in America. We're not a postage stamp country. People often work outside of their neighborhoods. Having spent years of my life being very poor, I can tell you that, in such situations, I'd be spending my money outside of my neighborhood - typically on the way home from work (forex. groceries are cheaper and shopping safer). To put it another way, the basic premise on which your model is founded is extremely flawed - in no small part due to the fact that you clearly don't know the dynamics of poverty in the US.
While I see where you are coming from, this is still a weak argument- perhaps no better than his(her?) own, but if all you can come up with is "You're not American, what do you know?" how is that any better than his/her "Hey, look over there?" argument? Also, it's very disappointing that you dismissed his/her well written post into "a bunch of crap about conservatism". There were some interesting critiques in there that I was looking forward to hearing a response to from a respected conservative perspective.
|
|
Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wage
While I see where you are coming from, this is still a weak argument- perhaps no better than his(her?) own, but if all...First, simply calling an argument "weak" without pointing out where you think it's weak is, well, weak.
Second, as I said before, this thread isn't about conservativism - it's about liberal views.
Third, I'm not a conservative.
Conservative or no, I'd still like your response to the bulk of the issues brought up. If you don't have an answer, that's fine, but I'd like to pick your brain some more. Clearly you have a strong opinion, and I'd like to hear more of it as opposed to encountering abrupt dismissal, which..well, makes your arguments look weak.
|
|
Conservative or no, I'd still like your response to the bulk of the issues brought up. If you don't have an answer, that's fine, but I'd like to pick your brain some more. Clearly you have a strong opinion, and I'd like to hear more of it as opposed to encountering abrupt dismissal, which..well, makes your arguments look weak.Create another thread, then - one for conservative views.
I'm repeating myself - this thread is about liberal views.
You should go back to the playtest section. You obviously have no idea how it works down here in the OTD section. Nothing down here pretends to be an echo chamber. So you're going to get all sorts of opinions in a political thread. If you want to live in that echo chamber where opposing views are not allowed, try posting on the Daily Kos.
Just sayin...
How are conservatives against abortion but for capital punishment ;-)How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?Because one kills a person and the other doesn't.
Like I said earlier, Liberalism is a mental disorder. lol ;)
No use debating a topic.|
|
UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wagePlenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Well, the tax structure in the UK is quite different than here, and, until recently, quite a bit could be done to reduce that liability to next to nothing (GAARs have been added in the last few years to close loopholes and disallow some tax saving accounting practices). Several European countries have a tax rate between 15% and 30%, but corporations in Europe enjoy, for the most part, far more deductions and receive far more subsidies from government than American corps do. Germany, for example, has a 15% marginal rate for corps, but after subsidies and deferment loopholes, that liability largely vanishes.
This allows European corporations to offer a higher wage (not having to pay health care benefits to employees helps considerably as well) than their American counterparts, by and large.
|
|
This is a patriotic opinion.Does it really have to be? I have a strong aversion to the very concept of patriotism. I don't want my country, or any country to be number one at all the things I think are good and number zero at all the things I think are bad because it's my country. (After all, it's only mine by meaningless accident of history just like everybody else's country, barring first adult generation immigrants.) Rather that's something I want for all people everywhere, whatever chunk of dirt they're standing on. It doesn't enter my mind that America deserves better or X and Y should be un-American values.
Nation-states are nothing more than tools with which to achieve those goals. To the degree one exceeds the one I live in at achieving my program, I eagerly and happily prefer it to my natal state. In the event of a war between the two, though I abhor violence and warfare, I would at least very seriously consider trying to be part of a collaborationist regime.
To me that sounds like the opposite of patriotism.
I agree that war and violence aren't the right solution for just about anything short of a goal of escalation. However, I don't think patriotisim is as bad as you make it out to be. You're doing it right now by freely discussing this with me.
It's so easy to do, it's hard to realize you're doing it at times. Just keep thinking freely and doing what you think is good and I will continue considering it to be patriotic. :D
UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wagePlenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Well, the tax structure in the UK is quite different than here, and, until recently, quite a bit could be done to reduce that liability to next to nothing (GAARs have been added in the last few years to close loopholes and disallow some tax saving accounting practices). Several European countries have a tax rate between 15% and 30%, but corporations in Europe enjoy, for the most part, far more deductions and receive far more subsidies from government than American corps do. Germany, for example, has a 15% marginal rate for corps, but after subsidies and deferment loopholes, that liability largely vanishes.
This allows European corporations to offer a higher wage (not having to pay health care benefits to employees helps considerably as well) than their American counterparts, by and large.
Can you give me an example of something that works well there that just wouldn't work here? Because you seem to know more about what's going on across the pond than I do, and I'm getting a lot of static from folks in terms of america not trying anything even remotely similar to what european nations have attempted economically without a lot of evidence other than personal dislike or fears of communism/socialism/cthulhuism.
|
|
Can you give me an example of something that works well there that just wouldn't work here? Because you seem to know more about what's going on across the pond than I do, and I'm getting a lot of static from folks in terms of america not trying anything even remotely similar to what european nations have attempted economically without a lot of evidence other than personal dislike or fears of communism/socialism/cthulhuism.UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wagePlenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Well, the tax structure in the UK is quite different than here, and, until recently, quite a bit could be done to reduce that liability to next to nothing (GAARs have been added in the last few years to close loopholes and disallow some tax saving accounting practices). Several European countries have a tax rate between 15% and 30%, but corporations in Europe enjoy, for the most part, far more deductions and receive far more subsidies from government than American corps do. Germany, for example, has a 15% marginal rate for corps, but after subsidies and deferment loopholes, that liability largely vanishes.
This allows European corporations to offer a higher wage (not having to pay health care benefits to employees helps considerably as well) than their American counterparts, by and large.
Well, for one, they have more in place to prevent "double dipping". The equivalent of a "capital gains" tax in the UK, for one, has several allowances for deductions on dividend payments (they have the tax on the books, but somehow know taxing the exact same pound twice for the exact same thing is wrong, hence the generous deductions). Furthermore, corporations do not have to pay for their employees health care, retirement, and a bunch of other benefits American companies have to offer just to be competitive in the employee attracting market.
Also, corps over there get far more in the way of government subsidies than American corps (tax breaks aren't "welfare" no matter how much the Left says it's so; letting a company keep more of its own money isn't a handout). Back during the Clinton years there was a big scandal regarding AirBus and unfair advantages in the market they were getting over Boeing due to France propping up AirBus. Something about Airbus being able to slash its quotes to prospective buyers due to government subsidies.
The U.S. really has to completely change the way it thinks about taxation, particularly corporate taxation, if it wants to adopt European style social democracy (which even Europe is trending away from more and more). As it is, the American Left's "tax everything to the max, let nothing breathe" philosophy makes European style policy very dangerous here. Somehow, I think the American Left thinks people who start companies do so for philanthropic reasons and don't really care if they make a profit on their investment. So they're continually surprised when people stop investing in a hostile business atmosphere (see: Michigan; Nevada; California).
In short, again, without a sea change in the way we view corporate taxation and corporate responsibility to provide benefits to employees, there is actually very little they do well in Europe we could do here. The systems and expectations are too different to have similar social structures.
Well, for one, they have more in place to prevent "double dipping". The...Can you give me an example of something that works well there that just wouldn't work here? Because you seem to know more about what's going on across the pond than I do, and I'm getting a lot of static from folks in terms of america not trying anything even remotely similar to what european nations have attempted economically without a lot of evidence other than personal dislike or fears of communism/socialism/cthulhuism.UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wagePlenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Well, the tax structure in the UK is quite different than here, and, until recently, quite a bit could be done to reduce that liability to next to nothing (GAARs have been added in the last few years to close loopholes and disallow some tax saving accounting practices). Several European countries have a tax rate between 15% and 30%, but corporations in Europe enjoy, for the most part, far more deductions and receive far more subsidies from government than American corps do. Germany, for example, has a 15% marginal rate for corps, but after subsidies and deferment loopholes, that liability largely vanishes.
This allows European corporations to offer a higher wage (not having to pay health care benefits to employees helps considerably as well) than their American counterparts, by and large.
Hmm. Your thoughts on the Bush Tax Cuts, then? Because after a number of years of such a system in place, ending it would be quite a system shock to anyone who flourished under it. I'm left wing(I used to say fairly left wing, but as things stand socio-politically in this country, I'm in the left wing camp wholesale), and I don't want to tax everything to the max, per se. I do think that the idea of these tax cuts ending(or at the very least being revised) would go a long way towards economic recovery. Also, what are your thoughts on whether or not taxes should go lower(a side question, would just appreciate your thoughts on this considering what that guy that won in Virginia had to say on the matter on FNS)?
|
...Well, for one, they have more in place to preventCan you give me an example of something that works well there that just wouldn't work here? Because you seem to know more about what's going on across the pond than I do, and I'm getting a lot of static from folks in terms of america not trying anything even remotely similar to what european nations have attempted economically without a lot of evidence other than personal dislike or fears of communism/socialism/cthulhuism.UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wagePlenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Well, the tax structure in the UK is quite different than here, and, until recently, quite a bit could be done to reduce that liability to next to nothing (GAARs have been added in the last few years to close loopholes and disallow some tax saving accounting practices). Several European countries have a tax rate between 15% and 30%, but corporations in Europe enjoy, for the most part, far more deductions and receive far more subsidies from government than American corps do. Germany, for example, has a 15% marginal rate for corps, but after subsidies and deferment loopholes, that liability largely vanishes.
This allows European corporations to offer a higher wage (not having to pay health care benefits to employees helps considerably as well) than their American counterparts, by and large.
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are nto swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?
|
|
...Well, for one, they have more in place to preventCan you give me an example of something that works well there that just wouldn't work here? Because you seem to know more about what's going on across the pond than I do, and I'm getting a lot of static from folks in terms of america not trying anything even remotely similar to what european nations have attempted economically without a lot of evidence other than personal dislike or fears of communism/socialism/cthulhuism.UK has a rate of 28% (21% on small businesses). That might be lower than the US but it's hardly 0. We also have a reasonable minimum wagePlenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The thing people forget about these countries is they also have zero or extremely low corporate taxes. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. When liberals in the U.S. figure out you don't have to tax everything that moves, maybe we can move towards some European style living. Until then, any move in that direction will be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Well, the tax structure in the UK is quite different than here, and, until recently, quite a bit could be done to reduce that liability to next to nothing (GAARs have been added in the last few years to close loopholes and disallow some tax saving accounting practices). Several European countries have a tax rate between 15% and 30%, but corporations in Europe enjoy, for the most part, far more deductions and receive far more subsidies from government than American corps do. Germany, for example, has a 15% marginal rate for corps, but after subsidies and deferment loopholes, that liability largely vanishes.
This allows European corporations to offer a higher wage (not having to pay health care benefits to employees helps considerably as well) than their American counterparts, by and large.
Sorry, lost the meat of the quote. You can look at history (even just the history of this nation) and see that raising taxes during a recession never helps economic recovery. Hasn't happened once here. Bush 41's tax increase actually triggered the recession that caused Perot to jump in in 92 and siphon votes away, allowing Clinton to win with a mere 43% of the vote. Clinton's tax increase didn't help when the internet bubble burst and we slipped into a recession in his last year in office. Bush's tax cuts, for better or worse, were followed by 50 some off months of steady economic growth and 4.6% unemployment, that is, until '06 when Dems took over, Pelosi started flapping her gums and investors ran scared. It still amazes me how the economy turned on a dime almost to the day the "Class of '06" was sworn in. And how the status of the Bush cuts has more or less paralyzed investment (in a time when the recession allegedly "ended" some time in the summer of '09 - funny how that is so, considering unemployment hasn't moved much, we're still losing private sector jobs, and investment is anemic).
Even Kennedy (for some reason a liberal paragon when, realistically, he'd be a Yellow Dog Dem or a moderate Republican by 2010 standards) lowered taxes to combat (successfully) a recession.
Like Winston Churchill said: "Taxing ones self into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and lifting yourself up by the handle."
The one thing the Left can never do is show an example of where high taxes and heavy government involvement (without, say, one nation providing a fat defense umbrella - for example, let's say, during a cold war or something) by itself generated prosperity. Had Europe (and Canada) ever spent money proportionally to the U.S. and Soviet Russia on defense, their system would have faltered long ago, rather than waiting twenty years to start showing serious cracks. Basically, they enjoyed a heavy subsidy from the U.S. to allow them to pursue their post war social experiment. And, frankly, they're now so spoiled that they riot when a government tries to keep the system afloat by raising the retirement age a few years.
"Cradle to grave" social coverage is unsustainable unless a nation really does go fully socialist, and, historically speaking, even that has proven unsustainable.
But, it doesn't matter. Every generation or so a new crop comes along thinking they're smarter than the last crop and assumes they can succeed with policies that have failed time and time again. Because, you know, it cannot be the theory that's flawed, it has to be that the previous people who tried it didn't go far enough or didn't do it right. Or something. It gets dizzying after a while.