What makes a liberal? (Iraq, legal, drugs, healthcare)

[AONE]

So a great many seem to a steady flow of obtuse attacks against liberals which makes me wonder just what you think us "liberals " believe that you so object to. Here are some of my quesses

A liberal supports abortion / the womans right to choose one.
of course there are degrees of this from aborting the implant of a rapist, to it being done for health issues or just because it is desired.

They want an end to the war.
guess that means conservatives think we should keep killing.... what is it we are fighting for? still looking for those WMD's?

Believe in gay rights gay marriage, civil rights for all and administered fairly
Guess conservatives want rights only for a few

I hear Liberals want big governement and we are said to take actions towards that.... but it was Regan that made government the biggest in history.. I think with Homeland Security W didn't help the trend... so since the "conservatives" are building big governments then doesnt it infer Liberals really want smaller gov?

We want social programs, nutrition programs for infants, education, arts in education, instead of building weapon systems.

Religious - We want no one religion recognized as a national religion but want the freedom to choose or not choose spiritual beliefs.

We want more equitable distributionof wealth, we tend to not like it when our money is taken to bailout a company in need and they want to spend it as bonuses for executives that screwed up the company to begin with.

We don't like our personal rights to be ifringed upon, from things like the Patriot Act, national id's, tracking software and so forth. On this note we arent too fond of the department of omeland security and think our emails and phone calls should be private.

We think taxes should be low but fairly administered, preferably eliminate them since they were never ratified by the Constitution.

Drugs... seem we vary on this, most think pot should be legal, some think everything should be.

We think small business is the cornerstone of American productivity and potential.

We open our arms to other nations and sometimes want to fight battles that arent ours.

We think excess grain should be used to feed the staving masses, where ever they are.

We don't like tyrants as they restrict freedoms of the people.

So what else do us "liberals" believe in that you conservatives don't?

[Dopo]

They are taugh-brainwashed to hate anybody that doesn't agree with their phylosophy.

They are taught (by talk radio and Foxnews) to insult anybody that says:
- Plant a tree
- Help the poor
- Buy american
- Bring our troops home

Listen to talk-radio and you'll see that all they do is brainwash people (preach their point of view for hours)
And they almost never have a rational discussion with somebody from is not a rightwinger.

[irspow]

It takes only the arrogance to believe that it is right to use government to take from one to give to another to be a liberal.

I am probably far more radical than the "radical right" you despise. I am okay with that

If you want to plant a tree...that's great!
If you want to help the poor...that's great!
If you want to buy American...good for you!
If you want to create programs that you can enroll in to take care of everything in life...God bless you!

If you want me to pay for what you want...shame on you!

Bash me as a libertarian in your reply please...I am not a republican or a "neo-con"(?)

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by irspow

It takes only the arrogance to believe that it is right to use government to take from one to give to another to be a liberal. ...

If you want me to pay for what you want...shame on you!

Bash me as a libertarian in your reply please...I am not a republican or a "neo-con"(?)

Right! It's much better for the country to be run by a "lone wolf" like yourself who doesn't understand economics and also believes that individuals SOMEHOW WORKING ALONE are what makes this country get by economically.

Keep dreaming! The Myth of the Noble Individual and its attendant Conservative Cult of the Individual are anachronisms that are pushed on the dopes of this country by the RICH.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Right! It's much better for the country to be run by a "lone wolf" like yourself who doesn't understand economics and also believes that individuals SOMEHOW WORKING ALONE are what makes this country get by economically.

Keep dreaming! The Cult of the Individual is an anachronism that is pushed on the dopes of this country by the RICH.

I must be ignorant, and I want to learn the truth, so can you please explain to me what does make this country 'get by economically'?

I am confused how taking responsibility for reform out of the hands of citizens and giving it to government officials qualifies as a good idea. Maybe a libertarian like me just needs to have it explained better, so please, I will listen to why you feel the way you do. I am always eager to have someone correct me if I am wrong (use factual data please, not just opinions from MSNBC). I must understand something incorrectly since I am nowhere near rich and yet don't want government intervention in my life...

[irspow]

Who is "alone"? Do we not all live in communities with family, friends, and neighbors? Did I say not to do anything to help the poor, improve your community, or interact in the market?

C'mon, be honest. I am simply saying that it is individuals or communities that should be doing these things and not the federal government. What is the problem?

[ParkTwain]

1. Scientific research, mathematics research, and technological innovation (especially in materials) discovers the "territory" within which, and sometimes the materials by which, new economic development can take place. Some of this research is very expensive and is best funded by large grants or disbursement over longer periods of time, perhaps not possible by funding sources in the private sector because the future cash flows cannot be sufficiently identified. There is a role for government to play in funding these activities, as they are part of an investment in the nation's economic future.

2. Entrepreneurial risk-takers, backed by both the public and private sectors, identify opportunities for new enterprises and utilize new discoveries from scientists, mathematicians, and technology innovators. These persons identify markets, develop those markets by establishing business relationships, and stimulate product/service development.

3. Some economic development requires new or ongoing investment/maintenance in publicly owned infrastructure (water systems, waste handling systems, transportation systems, energy systems).

4. Some economic activities are inherently prone to dysfunction and, for those activities to contribute to the economy in a sustainable manner, must be regulated. Examples are financial flows and securities trading, contractors to government at all levels, labor laws and business/labor relations, consumer product safety, food quality, and others.

5. Some economic activities are inherently more effective if produced and delivered as a "natural monopoly," and thus likely under the aegis of the public sector, such as educational services, energy delivery, economic monitoring, legal frameworks, and healthcare. These can understood as "overhead" functions, that is, they support all or most other economic activities across a region or even across the entire nation.

OK, that's a start. I'm trying to get across the idea that there are important realms of economic activity that basically must be performed by the government at all levels in order for our present standard of living to be maintained and improved.

Also, an important issue is to what extent can the American economy produce truly "national" marketplaces for its goods and services, rather than merely local or regional ones. There is such a fact of economics called "economy of scale." However, when a business, or an entire industry of related businesses, grows to the point of having truly national reach, new kinds of legal and regulatory issues come into play. This can be seen in many examples (energy, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, food distribution) in the history of American business.

A conservatively oriented person might say, "Well, we shouldn't be going into public debt to fund public infrastructure and other fundamentally supporting economic activities and investments." (Read the history of the construction of New York State's Erie Canal for an example of a far-sighted and publically funded counterexample. Its funding was beyond the capacity, or will, of even a syndicate of private investors at that time. However, its construction was major event in American history that changed the regional economies of the [industrial] Northeast and [agricultural] South.) This was the predominating point of view in the United States prior to roughly the beginning of the 20th century; the roles of local/state/Federal governments were VERY SMALL, but in fact America was STILL A DEVELOPING NATION in an economic sense, and we certainly weren't NUMBER ONE in the world by any major economic metric.

But on the other hand, if the society WAITS for the profits to be earned only from PRIVATE ENTERPRISES in order to fund each new public works projects and for each project to be specific to the needs of some private enterprise, the rate of economic growth is going to be MUCH SLOWER than if, after planning, cogitation, and public debate, the course of a local/regional/national public investment can be decided upon and implemented using PUBLIC FUNDING and built MUCH FASTER IN TIME than under the "private sector only" alternative. Look at the example of Hoover Dam, major public bridges, water systems, etc., etc., etc. I don't see how the "private sector only" point of view can be considered as nearly as helpful to the economy in the longer term. I believe that the testimony of American history is so clearcut on this "controversy" as to render the minority (that is, "conservative") point of view worthy of the least possible consideration.

So I would say the only real "controversy" is over HOW QUICKLY to grow the national economy using the proper public institutions and under WHAT GUIDELINES (management, regulation, legal frameworks, etc.) should the economic growth proceed?

[AONE]

Originally Posted by irspow

It takes only the arrogance to believe that it is right to use government to take from one to give to another to be a liberal.

I am probably far more radical than the "radical right" you despise. I am okay with that

If you want to plant a tree...that's great!
If you want to help the poor...that's great!
If you want to buy American...good for you!
If you want to create programs that you can enroll in to take care of everything in life...God bless you!

If you want me to pay for what you want...shame on you!

Bash me as a libertarian in your reply please...I am not a republican or a "neo-con"(?)

Well I guess i'm not typical.. I don't think we should rob from the rich to giove to the poor... but I thinkk that be it for guns or butter... seems as long as we buy guns the right side has no complaint s about being fleeced.... which I don't understand. I'd rather spend that money of the butter side of things but Id rather it not be taken in such massive amounts to begin with. we are basically robbed from a thousand directions and have become numb to it.

Don't for an instant think it wanst your money paying for $10B / month in Iraq. Don't think the Billions Haliburton received and the stocks options given to Cheney didnt come off of your back. Given a choice I'd ratrher pay for planting a tree than buying a pool for Dick Cheney. Isn't it a uniform goal to have accountability for spending OUR money....be it a liberal dollar or a conservative one... seems to me they are all green.

[Majordomo]

Social liberals don't want to interfere with the private lives of others. Social liberals believe gays should be able to get married, early abortions will always be legal, legalize marijuana, seperation of church and state, and all that other good stuff. Some people say citizens that want to disarm other citizens are social liberals but I consider that a communist stance held by some social liberals based on idealism. Social liberals are good people but I can't say the same about fiscal liberals.

I think a fiscal liberal is a person that wants the federal government to drain more money from state governments. I've never really understood why people want the federal government to take money from their state so they can give some of it back to them. Why not let the states keep a little more of their money so they can invest in projects that will help boost economic development? State income taxes should slightly increase and federal income taxes should be greatly decreased permanently.

The potential revenue taken from each state could help state governments fuel many state projects and it would be at a much faster pace than our current system allows. States are forced to wait for a chance to get a small portion of that money back from the federal government. This actually slows down economic growth in the states and that has a negative impact on our nation's economy.

[irspow]

Nice read Park...very interesting...really. You do realize that I don't have a problem with state government right? Seemed a lot of references to "private sector only". I will still have to hedge against the benefits you propose exist using federal edict. I just personally don't believe the "costs" are worth the "benefits". I respectfully disagree. I still, and probably always will, cringe at the notion of burdening one segment of the population to benefit another. I see the State government and private sector as the least oppressive and most responsive to fullfill the people's needs. No attack, just disagree.