Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2011, 05:34 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,015,110 times
Reputation: 10270

Advertisements

This has always astounded me.

Liberals tend to feel that government can solve all problems.

Where does this come from, being that the politicians in the Federal Government are perhaps the least efficient, least accountable, most expensive people in the world?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2011, 05:45 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,681,234 times
Reputation: 4209
I think the notion that any, aside from a few radicals, think "government can solve all problems" is a caricature created by the opposition to make them look silly.

It's more just a recognition that there are some gaps the market can't fill and they're willing to allow government a larger role to help fill those gaps and to help maintain stability during crises. I don't know of any who vote liberal and don't support a vibrant private sector. In fact, most educated liberal cities are the private economic engines of their area: Boston, New York, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Asheville, Ann Arbor, Austin, Miami, Minneapolis...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,499,230 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
I think the notion that any, aside from a few radicals, think "government can solve all problems" is a caricature created by the opposition to make them look silly.

It's more just a recognition that there are some gaps the market can't fill and they're willing to allow government a larger role to help fill those gaps and to help maintain stability during crises. I don't know of any who vote liberal and don't support a vibrant private sector. In fact, most educated liberal cities are the private economic engines of their area: Boston, New York, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Asheville, Ann Arbor, Austin, Miami, Minneapolis...
That's just a dumb recognition. The private sector has and does provide every single service the government "performs". And does it better. And at 2-4 times less cost. The only reason anyone wants more government is because they are naive or power hungry. That's it. There is no evidence that the market has ever failed at providing anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:19 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,768 posts, read 40,902,683 times
Reputation: 62071
If the government shut down for an extended period of time and we don't miss the functions some of those people performed, would you all say that's where we should start with the limiting?

But to answer your question:

In my opinion, liberals are against limited government because government workers vote their paychecks over other issues and because government puts money in the pockets of people who get entitlements. True liberals need those recipients of government largesse to keep voting for their candidates so they can get their other liberal issues/programs through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:22 AM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,189,623 times
Reputation: 3411
I'm a moderate (a "small c" conservative) and here's what I don't get--so called big C "Conservatives" (you know, the ones that call people like me a RINO) are for HUGE government when it comes to enforcing socially conservative behavior, and then they basically want almost no government on economic issues. In doing that, you create a rule free, survival of the fittest type environment where a few people make it big on the backs of everyone else, and the rest of the country suffers.

In civilized societies, people create rules, or laws, so that one group can't easily take advantage of another. This country is founded on LAW. It's not about a free ride--it's about a level playing field--if the rules are completely stacked against you from the beginning, there can be no upward mobility. I'm a small business owner--I pay out the nose in taxes (my personal income tax rate) and HIRE people, while some big companies make huge profits, and often pay no taxes by hiding money off shore, hire off shore, and get pork on top of it from the government (because guess who funds Conservative politicians?). The rules aren't fair, and we're moving back to the days of corporate robber barons in this country. That isn't about smaller government--it's about no protections for most of us, and a free ride for big business. That's why I'm not opposed to unions--what's wrong with a group of employees banding together to sell their services through a fair, negotiated contract to their employer? I insist on fair terms for my business--why shouldn't they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:25 AM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,624,812 times
Reputation: 7943
Depends on what you're talking about, exactly. I think most liberals would say that the government has no right to interfere in our personal social behavior. Social liberals usually fight for less government regulation in who we marry and what we do with our bodies. Liberals also fought to give blacks and women the right to vote. Conservatives wanted the government to continue to restrict these groups from participating in the democratic process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,902,306 times
Reputation: 5932
Define Limited Government first.
Casper
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:40 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,681,234 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
That's just a dumb recognition. The private sector has and does provide every single service the government "performs". And does it better. And at 2-4 times less cost. The only reason anyone wants more government is because they are naive or power hungry. That's it. There is no evidence that the market has ever failed at providing anything.
That's simply not true at all. You'll have to provide evidence to make such a radical claim. Look at food stamp programs or free lunches so impoverished children don't starve or Social Security or national defense (and the atrocities that occur when private companies are given too much leeway). Look at firefighters and police and libraries. Look at zoning and planning that help maintain property values and direct private development into areas that can maximize investment. Look at regulations that keep toxins out of our air and water, that ensure the products we purchase are safe for use and/or consumption. Look at the public spaces maintained so that our rights to protest cannot be squelched like they can in a private mall.

Just look at the 30 million without health care until government filled in the gaps. The fact is, I would be scared to have some religious group with a lot of charity donations determining what health care I am or am not allowed to have simply based on their own religious views and not a broader cultural determination vetted through the mechanisms of science and open government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:46 AM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,681,234 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
I'm a moderate (a "small c" conservative) and here's what I don't get--so called big C "Conservatives" (you know, the ones that call people like me a RINO) are for HUGE government when it comes to enforcing socially conservative behavior, and then they basically want almost no government on economic issues. In doing that, you create a rule free, survival of the fittest type environment where a few people make it big on the backs of everyone else, and the rest of the country suffers.

In civilized societies, people create rules, or laws, so that one group can't easily take advantage of another. This country is founded on LAW. It's not about a free ride--it's about a level playing field--if the rules are completely stacked against you from the beginning, there can be no upward mobility. I'm a small business owner--I pay out the nose in taxes (my personal income tax rate) and HIRE people, while some big companies make huge profits, and often pay no taxes by hiding money off shore, hire off shore, and get pork on top of it from the government (because guess who funds Conservative politicians?). The rules aren't fair, and we're moving back to the days of corporate robber barons in this country. That isn't about smaller government--it's about no protections for most of us, and a free ride for big business. That's why I'm not opposed to unions--what's wrong with a group of employees banding together to sell their services through a fair, negotiated contract to their employer? I insist on fair terms for my business--why shouldn't they?
I couldn't agree more. I, too, am a centrist and one of my biggest frustrations is the hypocrisy within conservatives to yell "limited government!" the loudest, yet use big government the minute someone doesn't align with their worldview. That's the opposite of freedom. People need to start calling their hypocrisy out more. We spent 8 years protecting our personal liberties from big government intrusion under Bush.

Jon Stewart did a great job Thursday night showing Fox News pundits' hypocrisy in defending big bonuses to Wall Street because of binding contracts and then the same people calling for teacher contracts to be terminated because they get paid too much already. Absurd hypocrisy rooted in short-term partisan gain. No underlying ideological foundation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2011, 06:51 AM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,189,623 times
Reputation: 3411
This movement toward no social safety net programs isn't a traditional republican thing--it's a new radical right wing thing. You have to be pragmatic--if we don't want old people starving in the streets, we have to make sure they have some type of mandatory savings program (like social security). Some people don't know how to invest, and others lose their investments in market swings (like we just experienced recently--I know people who lost nearly all of their retirement savings because of crooks on wall street--is that their fault?) The same goes with health care--if you throw vital services to the free market alone without some type of regulation (HCR uses private insurers--not a new government entity), it becomes accessible for the rich, and unattainable for everyone else. I don't want privatized police protection, fire protection, etc. either for the same reasons. This myth that conservatives support a completely unrestricted free market is just that--a myth. Practicality has it's place.

Here's an example of what happens when you let right wing radicals like Scott Walker privatize public services:

http://www.examiner.com/cultural-iss...g?render=print

Walker's M.O. and Past Privatization Disaster Revealed | Center for Media and Democracy

Last edited by mb1547; 03-05-2011 at 07:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top