Definition of "Liberal"

[Bill of Rights]

Hi there, the names Jeff.

Good to meet you.

Likewise, Jeff. I'm Bill.

If you do not support socialized medicine, do not think government should do the cradle to grave thing, and don't want change for the sake of change, by what definition do you call yourself a liberal? I'm not challenging you, I'm trying to understand what your definition of the term is.

On the subject of the 2A, likewise: To me, the uninfringed RKBA means that there is no prohibition on arms of any type for free men, there are no places where arms are disallowed, and no laws requiring any jumping-through of hoops to exercise a God-given right. Along with that right goes the duty to act in a lawful manner-that is, if I commit a crime whether with my firearm or without it. I run the risk of being killed in the process.

That's it. No "reasonable regulations", no "gun free zones", no anything but simple, straight-up responsibility. Agree? Disagree? No judging, just education. Teach me what liberal means to you, please.

Mods: I realize that this departs from the subject of Palin's speechwriter being vegan. If the thread needs split for that reason, please consider this my request for that to happen and also my apology for the to the OP.

Blessings,
B

 

[Pami]

Yes, please.

Carry on.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, please.

Carry on.

Thanks, Pami.

 

[BloodEclipse]

 

[ar15junkie]

I'm not Jeff but my definition would be something like, A liberal is someone who seeks to remove all forms of personal responsibility. That is to stop people from being responsible for themselves.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not Jeff but my definition would be something like, A liberal is someone who seeks to remove all forms of personal responsibility. That is to stop people from being responsible for themselves.

This started off on the "Palin's speechwriter is vegan" thread (here) and was split off as it diverged from the point of that thread. I said something similar,

I'm sure there are liberals who don't want socialized medicine, don't want the government to take care of them cradle to grave, and don't want something different solely because it's different. (ie Obama's "change".)

I have seen some who believe in the 2A, but I don't know of any who believe in it in it's original, uninfringed state, with every word meaning exactly what it says. There may be some, but none I've met or talked to that I know of.

Until I meet a liberal who doesn't fit those definitions, I'll continue using the "brush" I use. If the shoe fits (or the foo shits)... y'know?

Blessings,
B

and the above was his reply. Apparently, at least one self-described liberal doesn't believe that way. I'm curious and interested to see wherein lie the differences.

Blessings,
B

 

[haldir]

I heard this definition of liberal vs. conservative many years ago and I am not certain who said it, perhaps one of my personal heroes William F. Buckley Jr.
A liberal strives for equality while a conservative strives for liberty.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I heard this definition of liberal vs. conservative many years ago and I am not certain who said it, perhaps one of my personal heroes William F. Buckley Jr.
A liberal strives for equality while a conservative strives for liberty.

If that is taken to be true and is carried out to what I'll call it's "extended meaning", then under one system we are all equally casting off our liberties, but under the other we retain equality as all have liberty.

Sound right to you?

Blessings,
B

 

[finity]

1. I don’t want government controlled medicine. I want government subsidized health insurance for those who can’t afford it. It makes no sense to live in the wealthiest country on earth & have our citizen’s die of completely preventable diseases. Providing people with at least basic preventative healthcare will save us millions each year by preventing catastrophic illnesses. We are already paying for a lack of healthcare in this country.

No hospital is allowed to deny treatment to someone because of a lack of insurance. They will see them & then send them a bill. If they can’t afford to pay it then the hospital eats the cost & raises our prices to cover the expense. Most people who don’t have insurance will wait until they are really sick then go to the ER to be seen when it would have been less expensive for them (& ultimately us) for them to go to a GP & get a cheaper prescription, but they can’t afford to do that. In those offices people without insurance have to pay up front to be seen.

2. I fully believe that we need a welfare system. It is a social ‘safety net’. Some people need more help than others in supporting themselves. Let’s say that in today’s economy someone gets down-sized. Jobs that pay a living wage are hard to find. Unemployment benefits are very limited. “Sorry kids we have to go hungry because I wasn’t able to find a job in the time the government allotted me”. Before the current welfare system people who couldn’t take care of themselves were still a burden on the local society. The only difference now is that the government runs the program.

Prior to the 30’s at least there was still land available if someone wanted to not live off others & try to support themselves. Today, even if someone wanted to they couldn’t fend for themselves due to hunting restrictions/fees/lack of land to hunt or grow food on. The current system was instituted on the heels of the Great Depression. During that time there were soup lines, families were separated & destroyed, etc. The government didn’t create these programs in a vacuum. Without the government creating jobs through civil construction projects people would have been much worse off. I guess there were options: starvation (better do it & decrease the surplus population) or stealing to get what you need.

I don’t believe that the benefits should be unlimited but there are no easy answers. We have made good progress in that direction through welfare reform signed by Clinton. I have no problem with making people work for the assistance they get if they are able.

3. I believe in progressive income taxes. The progressive income tax system is the only way to make the taxation system fair to the largest number of people. Taxes aren’t just made up of income taxes. There are consumption & use taxes such as sales, property, excise, permit & license fees and so on.

There was a website I found a while back that showed the percentage of income that went to taxes for different income levels. I can’t find it now but I saved the PDF data files if anyone is interested in seeing them. The numbers were based 1995 data. It showed that if all taxes & fees were taken into account the wealthiest people actually paid less tax as a percentage of income (6-8%) as the poorest people did even with the progressive income tax. People with the largest tax burden were the lower middle class, those making between $40-60K if memory serves. This makes sense if you think about it. If you have no discretionary income or may even be worried where you next meal may be coming from you obviously have no money to save or invest. Every dime you make is spent & therefore subject to sales or use tax. Giving tax cuts to wealthy people (who are already paying less tax than others) who will just save more will not have as much impact on the economy as cuts for poorer people who will immediately put the money back into the economy promoting fluidity. Wealth is not created by investors or savers, it is created by the people who do the producing (the workers).

Even if the wealthy did pay more why shouldn’t they? They have more to lose from the loss of infrastructure & services if taxes were stopped today. They benefit from a more educated work force through public education (I know there are some pretty bad schools but there are a lot of really good ones too. I don’t think that is necessarily because it’s run by the government, we’ve had public education for decades & only recently have standards been slipping.), government built/subsidized highway & rail systems to transport the goods from which their wealth derives, the utilities that power the factories, etc. Its interesting that few conservatives, if any, ever complain about corporate welfare that the wealthy use to get richer at the expense of the poor. Responsibility isn’t just for the lower classes.

Taxes are a necessary evil in a civilized society. There are some services that should be given without regard to who can pay or not. Police, fire, education, defense. I would even go as far as to say even running water, electricity, & basic health care.

4. I believe in every one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I believe every person deserves the rights guaranteed by them whether they are citizens or not. Why should a non-citizen not be given due process before being stripped of life or liberty? Do we have something to hide? Should a person be subject to torture just because they weren’t born here? If I remember correctly the Constitution does not grant rights it only guarantees the natural rights of man (some would say God-given). It is my understanding that all people, no matter where they are born, are given those same guarantees, not just citizens.

We want the world to see the US as a shining beacon of hope & the way that a government should treat its people but we hypocritically deny those rights to people around the world every day. We should lead by example. We don’t even guarantee those rights to our own citizens consistently.

I completely agree with you on the 2A.


No one is redistributing wealth in this country. The rich are getting richer & the poor are getting poorer. No one is being punished for succeeding or rewarded for being lazy. If any here has ever been on public assistance I doubt they would say that they felt they were being rewarded. I have been, a long time ago. Liberals don’t want people to not take responsibility for their actions. That’s BS. If you are a criminal, even a poor one, you should & will be held accountable.

Liberals don’t want change for the sake of change. That’s like saying that businesses want to change just because they can, not because they want to improve their product. Do conservatives want to keep things the same just because that’s the way it’s always been? Even if the end results are negative? A goal of any civilized society should be the betterment of its people. Sometimes change is required to meet that goal. Government should be the unbiased representative of that society.

Every person should take responsibility for themselves. Sometimes that’s not possible. Sometimes you just need a little help. As a civilized society we should be obligated to provide that help. Hand in hand with that, we should also provide incentives for people to do better & make better choices. Not all incentives have to be negative, though those are also useful.

 

[finity]

I heard this definition of liberal vs. conservative many years ago and I am not certain who said it, perhaps one of my personal heroes William F. Buckley Jr.
A liberal strives for equality while a conservative strives for liberty.

Equality is not possible. A level playing field is what we strive for.

Every person alive wants liberty, so that point is a diversion.

 

[Fletch]

...

That's all very nice, but government is not the answer. It is not necessary to rob Peter to save Paul. Just save Paul. Leave Peter alone.

 

[Bill of Rights]

1. I don’t want government controlled medicine. I want government subsidized health insurance for those who can’t afford it. It makes no sense to live in the wealthiest country on earth & have our citizen’s die of completely preventable diseases. Providing people with at least basic preventative healthcare will save us millions each year by preventing catastrophic illnesses. We are already paying for a lack of healthcare in this country.

No hospital is allowed to deny treatment to someone because of a lack of insurance. They will see them & then send them a bill. If they can’t afford to pay it then the hospital eats the cost & raises our prices to cover the expense. Most people who don’t have insurance will wait until they are really sick then go to the ER to be seen when it would have been less expensive for them (& ultimately us) for them to go to a GP & get a cheaper prescription, but they can’t afford to do that. In those offices people without insurance have to pay up front to be seen.

2. I fully believe that we need a welfare system. It is a social ‘safety net’. Some people need more help than others in supporting themselves. Let’s say that in today’s economy someone gets down-sized. Jobs that pay a living wage are hard to find. Unemployment benefits are very limited. “Sorry kids we have to go hungry because I wasn’t able to find a job in the time the government allotted me”. Before the current welfare system people who couldn’t take care of themselves were still a burden on the local society. The only difference now is that the government runs the program.

Prior to the 30’s at least there was still land available if someone wanted to not live off others & try to support themselves. Today, even if someone wanted to they couldn’t fend for themselves due to hunting restrictions/fees/lack of land to hunt or grow food on. The current system was instituted on the heels of the Great Depression. During that time there were soup lines, families were separated & destroyed, etc. The government didn’t create these programs in a vacuum. Without the government creating jobs through civil construction projects people would have been much worse off. I guess there were options: starvation (better do it & decrease the surplus population) or stealing to get what you need.

I don’t believe that the benefits should be unlimited but there are no easy answers. We have made good progress in that direction through welfare reform signed by Clinton. I have no problem with making people work for the assistance they get if they are able.

3. I believe in progressive income taxes. The progressive income tax system is the only way to make the taxation system fair to the largest number of people. Taxes aren’t just made up of income taxes. There are consumption & use taxes such as sales, property, excise, permit & license fees and so on.

There was a website I found a while back that showed the percentage of income that went to taxes for different income levels. I can’t find it now but I saved the PDF data files if anyone is interested in seeing them. The numbers were based 1995 data. It showed that if all taxes & fees were taken into account the wealthiest people actually paid less tax as a percentage of income (6-8%) as the poorest people did even with the progressive income tax. People with the largest tax burden were the lower middle class, those making between $40-60K if memory serves. This makes sense if you think about it. If you have no discretionary income or may even be worried where you next meal may be coming from you obviously have no money to save or invest. Every dime you make is spent & therefore subject to sales or use tax. Giving tax cuts to wealthy people (who are already paying less tax than others) who will just save more will not have as much impact on the economy as cuts for poorer people who will immediately put the money back into the economy promoting fluidity. Wealth is not created by investors or savers, it is created by the people who do the producing (the workers).

Even if the wealthy did pay more why shouldn’t they? They have more to lose from the loss of infrastructure & services if taxes were stopped today. They benefit from a more educated work force through public education (I know there are some pretty bad schools but there are a lot of really good ones too. I don’t think that is necessarily because it’s run by the government, we’ve had public education for decades & only recently have standards been slipping.), government built/subsidized highway & rail systems to transport the goods from which their wealth derives, the utilities that power the factories, etc. Its interesting that few conservatives, if any, ever complain about corporate welfare that the wealthy use to get richer at the expense of the poor. Responsibility isn’t just for the lower classes.

Taxes are a necessary evil in a civilized society. There are some services that should be given without regard to who can pay or not. Police, fire, education, defense. I would even go as far as to say even running water, electricity, & basic health care.

4. I believe in every one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I believe every person deserves the rights guaranteed by them whether they are citizens or not. Why should a non-citizen not be given due process before being stripped of life or liberty? Do we have something to hide? Should a person be subject to torture just because they weren’t born here? If I remember correctly the Constitution does not grant rights it only guarantees the natural rights of man (some would say God-given). It is my understanding that all people, no matter where they are born, are given those same guarantees, not just citizens.

We want the world to see the US as a shining beacon of hope & the way that a government should treat its people but we hypocritically deny those rights to people around the world every day. We should lead by example. We don’t even guarantee those rights to our own citizens consistently.

I completely agree with you on the 2A.


No one is redistributing wealth in this country. The rich are getting richer & the poor are getting poorer. No one is being punished for succeeding or rewarded for being lazy. If any here has ever been on public assistance I doubt they would say that they felt they were being rewarded. I have been, a long time ago. Liberals don’t want people to not take responsibility for their actions. That’s BS. If you are a criminal, even a poor one, you should & will be held accountable.

Liberals don’t want change for the sake of change. That’s like saying that businesses want to change just because they can, not because they want to improve their product. Do conservatives want to keep things the same just because that’s the way it’s always been? Even if the end results are negative? A goal of any civilized society should be the betterment of its people. Sometimes change is required to meet that goal. Government should be the unbiased representative of that society.

Every person should take responsibility for themselves. Sometimes that’s not possible. Sometimes you just need a little help. As a civilized society we should be obligated to provide that help. Hand in hand with that, we should also provide incentives for people to do better & make better choices. Not all incentives have to be negative, though those are also useful.

Jeff, I'm sorry to say that while your ideals and desires are positive and sound wonderful, they simply are, for the most part, exactly what I said.

Any hospital may choose not to see a patient, they just have to at the same time give up any Medicare/Medicaid (government supplied, from our taxes) reimbursement. It is not the proper job of government to meet all the needs, medical or otherwise, of the citizens. You may have read the story of the person who watched a butterfly attempting to emerge from it's chrysalis. He saw how hard a time the butterfly was having, so he took a sharp knife and cut the chrysalis to make the job easier for the butterfly. The fat, bloated body with the shrunken, limp wings never became the beautiful creature it would have- the struggle to squeeze through the tiny hole it was able to make in the chrysalis was designed to force the excess fluids from it's body into it's wings to give them not only their color but also their size, and to reduce the size of the load they would have to lift. The man was responsible for crippling the poor creature and dooming it to a short, unproductive life, never able to fly as it was supposed to.

When local churches (or whatever non-governmental source) provide aid, they quickly realize that Old Tom, who shows up all the time for a free bed and a hot meal, could actually work, but he prefers to sponge off the limited resources the church has. They will quickly put a stop to his freeloading, either by telling him to leave or by putting him to work, earning his keep. When government runs the welfare system, there is no oversight, just "mailbox money". The solutions are rampant: If when you get on welfare you have two children, that's what we'll pay for. If you have seven, fine, but either way, we aren't paying for more unless you're pregnant when you get on. Stop giving money. Give them a catalog. Let them say, "I need meat and cheese this week." They can then come and pick up the meat and cheese at whatever warehouse is used to store it. It's not name brand, and it's not the best in the world, but it provides nourishment to a family. It also does not give extra to be used to buy booze, smokes, lottery tickets, and drugs. People won't like it, but those people can be told that if they better themselves and get off welfare, they can buy whatever meat and cheese they can afford.

You make the point that gov't now manages so much land. That's true. If instead of doing so, they sold that land to people who wanted to farm or hunt or whatever, there would be no upkeep costs for the land and people would have options. Once again, government is the problem masquerading as it's own solution.

Graduated, aka "progressive" taxation is not a new idea. It's one part of the Communist Manifesto. Why should the more wealthy not pay a higher percentage of their income? Simply, to force them to do so violates the entire goal of the free market; if you work hard, come up with a unique idea, or provide a service few are able to provide, you are highly compensated for any or all of those things. Without this incentive, what is the reason for anyone to do those things? Put another way, if I work hard and earn $100,000, and you do nothing at all and earn nothing, by what right, rhyme, or reason should I have to live on $50,000 and give the other half of my earnings to you, who've done nothing?

It's interesting that you bring up "corporate welfare". This is a "pet peeve" of mine. This, like extortion (aka taxation) is exactly what you later denied is happening: Wealth redistribution. If a business cannot survive on it's own, either they are charging too much or there is not enough demand for their product or service. Government-built roads and other infrastructure? Dwight Eisenhower wanted our interstate system built not to help the people but to make troop movements easier. His focus because of his background, bordered on fascism. In any case roads can be built, police, fire, and medical services can be provided privately, and for that matter, even judges could be available in the free market. We call them road construction companies, security guards, fire protection companies, private ambulances, and "mediation services". It requires a paradigm shift to see these private services as capable of fulfilling roles the government has blundered as long as most of us have been alive, but it is possible. Removing tax funding for such things would provide more disposable income for people, allowing them to pay for those services when they need them. Private charities could easily voluntarily collect funding for those in need who did not plan well or who have not had time to do so due to age.
Running water, electricity, and basic health care should be provided without cost? Who is going to provide these things without pay? Would you? If so, and that is your full-time job, how do you feed YOUR family?
You say you believe in all of the Bill of Rights. How, then, do you reconcile your stated opinions and feelings with the Tenth Amendment?

Amendment [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.

Translated, that says that unless a power is Constitutionally granted to government, government, specifically the federal government, does not have that power. Wherein lies the power to create a nationally funded healthcare system? A tax-funded water utility? A welfare system? Indeed, most things for which our taxes are extorted from us are not government's place to provide.
You asked why a non-citizen should be stripped of life or property- if all that person did was not be a citizen of America, they should not. If, however, they have violated our laws, conspired to or actually injured or killed our people, then they have waived their human rights by virtue of not behaving like human beings.

You said that Liberals believe in holding accountable those who have committed crimes. That sounds good, but the reactions you see and hear when a criminal commits a crime are that for whatever reason, it's not his fault... Broken home, oppressed childhood, no father figure, blah blah blah. All kinds of reasons why it's not his fault or why this or that ethnic group is so put upon and jailed more often than another. That's not holding someone accountable for their actions, it's placing blame everywhere but on the person committing the crime.

Change for the sake of change: What is Obama's campaign slogan? Change. He doesn't say how it will be better, only that it will be different. If you're buried up to your neck in and are promised change, things would have to be better, right? So you say you want change and you quickly find yourself buried up to your ankles in Oh, did I mention you're now upside down? But hey! It's CHANGE! By the way, typically when a business changes it's product, it's to save money, not just to make the product better. I can't fault that, but let's not pretend that things change solely to improve the products. Further, government should not be the unbiased representative of anything. Government should be the biased servant of the people who employ it, and the bias should be for the betterment of (in our case) America, not the lofty but unreachable goal of "the world at large".

A little help? Sure, I can agree with that, but you don't help people by making them dependant, you help them by giving them a little boost up-a temporary thing, not one to last over generations.

I had high hopes that you would teach me something new, Jeff, and while I credit you for the attempt and I'm sure that you don't see things as I do, I thank you for offering your viewpoints. I tried hard to keep an open mind and to listen and hear what you were saying. You're idealistic, and that's not at all a bad thing. I truly hope that your idealism, once it's tempered with a bit of pragmatism, will serve you well. We should always have dreams and goals, and I applaud yours, I just don't think that they're realistic or fit with the American ideals of our Founders.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bigum1969]

Jeff, I'm sorry to say that while your ideals and desires are positive and sound wonderful, they simply are, for the most part, exactly what I said.

Any hospital may choose not to see a patient, they just have to at the same time give up any Medicare/Medicaid (government supplied, from our taxes) reimbursement. It is not the proper job of government to meet all the needs, medical or otherwise, of the citizens. You may have read the story of the person who watched a butterfly attempting to emerge from it's chrysalis. He saw how hard a time the butterfly was having, so he took a sharp knife and cut the chrysalis to make the job easier for the butterfly. The fat, bloated body with the shrunken, limp wings never became the beautiful creature it would have- the struggle to squeeze through the tiny hole it was able to make in the chrysalis was designed to force the excess fluids from it's body into it's wings to give them not only their color but also their size, and to reduce the size of the load they would have to lift. The man was responsible for crippling the poor creature and dooming it to a short, unproductive life, never able to fly as it was supposed to.

When local churches (or whatever non-governmental source) provide aid, they quickly realize that Old Tom, who shows up all the time for a free bed and a hot meal, could actually work, but he prefers to sponge off the limited resources the church has. They will quickly put a stop to his freeloading, either by telling him to leave or by putting him to work, earning his keep. When government runs the welfare system, there is no oversight, just "mailbox money". The solutions are rampant: If when you get on welfare you have two children, that's what we'll pay for. If you have seven, fine, but either way, we aren't paying for more unless you're pregnant when you get on. Stop giving money. Give them a catalog. Let them say, "I need meat and cheese this week." They can then come and pick up the meat and cheese at whatever warehouse is used to store it. It's not name brand, and it's not the best in the world, but it provides nourishment to a family. It also does not give extra to be used to buy booze, smokes, lottery tickets, and drugs. People won't like it, but those people can be told that if they better themselves and get off welfare, they can buy whatever meat and cheese they can afford.

You make the point that gov't now manages so much land. That's true. If instead of doing so, they sold that land to people who wanted to farm or hunt or whatever, there would be no upkeep costs for the land and people would have options. Once again, government is the problem masquerading as it's own solution.

Graduated, aka "progressive" taxation is not a new idea. It's one part of the Communist Manifesto. Why should the more wealthy not pay a higher percentage of their income? Simply, to force them to do so violates the entire goal of the free market; if you work hard, come up with a unique idea, or provide a service few are able to provide, you are highly compensated for any or all of those things. Without this incentive, what is the reason for anyone to do those things? Put another way, if I work hard and earn $100,000, and you do nothing at all and earn nothing, by what right, rhyme, or reason should I have to live on $50,000 and give the other half of my earnings to you, who've done nothing?

It's interesting that you bring up "corporate welfare". This is a "pet peeve" of mine. This, like extortion (aka taxation) is exactly what you later denied is happening: Wealth redistribution. If a business cannot survive on it's own, either they are charging too much or there is not enough demand for their product or service. Government-built roads and other infrastructure? Dwight Eisenhower wanted our interstate system built not to help the people but to make troop movements easier. His focus because of his background, bordered on fascism. In any case roads can be built, police, fire, and medical services can be provided privately, and for that matter, even judges could be available in the free market. We call them road construction companies, security guards, fire protection companies, private ambulances, and "mediation services". It requires a paradigm shift to see these private services as capable of fulfilling roles the government has blundered as long as most of us have been alive, but it is possible. Removing tax funding for such things would provide more disposable income for people, allowing them to pay for those services when they need them. Private charities could easily voluntarily collect funding for those in need who did not plan well or who have not had time to do so due to age.
Running water, electricity, and basic health care should be provided without cost? Who is going to provide these things without pay? Would you? If so, and that is your full-time job, how do you feed YOUR family?
You say you believe in all of the Bill of Rights. How, then, do you reconcile your stated opinions and feelings with the Tenth Amendment?
Translated, that says that unless a power is Constitutionally granted to government, government, specifically the federal government, does not have that power. Wherein lies the power to create a nationally funded healthcare system? A tax-funded water utility? A welfare system? Indeed, most things for which our taxes are extorted from us are not government's place to provide.
You asked why a non-citizen should be stripped of life or property- if all that person did was not be a citizen of America, they should not. If, however, they have violated our laws, conspired to or actually injured or killed our people, then they have waived their human rights by virtue of not behaving like human beings.

You said that Liberals believe in holding accountable those who have committed crimes. That sounds good, but the reactions you see and hear when a criminal commits a crime are that for whatever reason, it's not his fault... Broken home, oppressed childhood, no father figure, blah blah blah. All kinds of reasons why it's not his fault or why this or that ethnic group is so put upon and jailed more often than another. That's not holding someone accountable for their actions, it's placing blame everywhere but on the person committing the crime.

Change for the sake of change: What is Obama's campaign slogan? Change. He doesn't say how it will be better, only that it will be different. If you're buried up to your neck in and are promised change, things would have to be better, right? So you say you want change and you quickly find yourself buried up to your ankles in Oh, did I mention you're now upside down? But hey! It's CHANGE! By the way, typically when a business changes it's product, it's to save money, not just to make the product better. I can't fault that, but let's not pretend that things change solely to improve the products. Further, government should not be the unbiased representative of anything. Government should be the biased servant of the people who employ it, and the bias should be for the betterment of (in our case) America, not the lofty but unreachable goal of "the world at large".

A little help? Sure, I can agree with that, but you don't help people by making them dependant, you help them by giving them a little boost up-a temporary thing, not one to last over generations.

I had high hopes that you would teach me something new, Jeff, and while I credit you for the attempt and I'm sure that you don't see things as I do, I thank you for offering your viewpoints. I tried hard to keep an open mind and to listen and hear what you were saying. You're idealistic, and that's not at all a bad thing. I truly hope that your idealism, once it's tempered with a bit of pragmatism, will serve you well. We should always have dreams and goals, and I applaud yours, I just don't think that they're realistic or fit with the American ideals of our Founders.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill of Rights:

I generally agree with most of what you have said. And, I must compliment you on the way you present your thoughts.

No one who knows me would ever say I was a liberal, but I have spent almost my entire adult life working in the social service field and must say real life in the trenches dealing with people and their problems is very complex. It is easy to say "X must do this or Y will happen" or "X must do this or they will not get Y", but reality is much different in my opinion.

I certainly don't think government can solve many problems, if any by itself. But the private sector cannot solve everything without a little prodding from the collective conscious, which at times is government.

I'm swayed because of the micro level I've dealt with some of the issues you address. Behind most welfare cases are children. They may have horrible parents (or parent) who may take all they can from the welfare system, but you've still got the children to think about. I agree that many, many people abuse the system. That goes without saying.

I certainly don't have an answer. But I used to see the issues in a much more black and white (not referring to race) way. Now, I see there are several shades of gray as well.

I admire your position, Bill of Rights. And I appreciate you sharing them. It sparks good discussion and helps tackle some of the rampant apathy that runs through the veins of this country.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Giving tax cuts to wealthy people (who are already paying less tax than others) who will just save more will not have as much impact on the economy as cuts for poorer people who will immediately put the money back into the economy promoting fluidity. Wealth is not created by investors or savers, it is created by the people who do the producing (the workers).

Not true. Investors and savers put money into the system to create more wealth. You can't create wealth without selling more product. You can't sell more product without creating more jobs. The largest employers we have are small and mid sized businesses. Without that money to borrow, jobs would not be created. It is a proven fact that every time taxes have been reduced the Treasury brings in more revenue. The reason is, people of all economic classes spend money more effectively than the government. You want a fair tax? That would be a flat sales tax with the elimination of all other taxes including all of those that hamper our businesses. You want jobs to come back to America. Get rid of the reasons they left in the first place. And no, labor cost are not the reason. Taxes and unnecessary regulations are the main reasons.

No one is redistributing wealth in this country. The rich are getting richer & the poor are getting poorer. No one is being punished for succeeding or rewarded for being lazy. If any here has ever been on public assistance I doubt they would say that they felt they were being rewarded. I have been, a long time ago. Liberals don’t want people to not take responsibility for their actions.

I don't know about you, but I have been to other countries and people who are on welfare here do not know what poor is. All the people I know on welfare have cars, TV's, cellphones, and they seem to eat rather well. The problem with welfare is we have made it an attractive alternative to an entry level job. No able body American should draw a dime of my hard earned money if they are not willing to work for it. Those unable or disabled is another issue altogether.

Liberals don’t want change for the sake of change. A goal of any civilized society should be the betterment of its people. Sometimes change is required to meet that goal. Government should be the unbiased representative of that society..

Wanting change is a good thing if you have a well defined plan. But change for the sake of change without knowing what the goal is, is just an exercise in futility.

Every person should take responsibility for themselves. Sometimes that’s not possible. Sometimes you just need a little help. As a civilized society we should be obligated to provide that help. Hand in hand with that, we should also provide incentives for people to do better & make better choices. Not all incentives have to be negative, though those are also useful.

This is how the States have lost their rights..... a bigger federal government withholding tax dollars for States not toeing the line. The Federal govt should not be punishing or rewarding citizens based upon what choices we make regarding employment.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill of Rights:

I generally agree with most of what you have said. And, I must compliment you on the way you present your thoughts.

No one who knows me would ever say I was a liberal, but I have spent almost my entire adult life working in the social service field and must say real life in the trenches dealing with people and their problems is very complex. It is easy to say "X must do this or Y will happen" or "X must do this or they will not get Y", but reality is much different in my opinion.

I certainly don't think government can solve many problems, if any by itself. But the private sector cannot solve everything without a little prodding from the collective conscious, which at times is government.

I'm swayed because of the micro level I've dealt with some of the issues you address. Behind most welfare cases are children. They may have horrible parents (or parent) who may take all they can from the welfare system, but you've still got the children to think about. I agree that many, many people abuse the system. That goes without saying.

I certainly don't have an answer. But I used to see the issues in a much more black and white (not referring to race) way. Now, I see there are several shades of gray as well.

I admire your position, Bill of Rights. And I appreciate you sharing them. It sparks good discussion and helps tackle some of the rampant apathy that runs through the veins of this country.

Thank you, Bigum, for your thoughts and your compliments. There are grays, yes, but as someone wise told me once, you cannot have grays unless there are blacks and whites. There must be clear rights and wrongs before there can be exceptions, but sadly, our current society seems to think that everything is a gray. This is not the case, as you've said. I'm guessing that you're specifically referring to my thoughts on the welfare system. I would say that if the rule is hard and fast that someone with two children (or however many) will only get benefits for two children and if she has more, she better find a way to support them, it would quickly put an end to the "baby factories" that get on public aid and then start pumping out benefit enhancers to increase the monthly income.I could make an exception for a woman who is pregnant at the time she goes on welfare; that child would be covered as well, presuming that we actually need a gov't run welfare system, a factoid of which I am not convinced. What happens today when a parent does not (for whatever reason) provide for his or her children? That parent loses custody of those children. This would provide children for adoption as well, and if those children are newborns, it's not like they would have spent months or years with their birth parents, leading to the hand-wringing "taking them from the only parents they've ever known!"
Education. Education is the key. O"h, you're on public aid? You better be learning a skill, because when that runs out, you'll either support yourself or you'll starve to death. Pick one." Is it cold? Possibly. Is it heartless? I don't think so. See, I think it's more heartless and cold to create unavoidable dependency at the government sugartit. Besides, given that option, I think they'll learn a skill.

I do not have facts to support what I'm about to say. I don't know that it is true or false, it's something a coworker told me a long while back. His claim was that if on Jan. 1 every year, every American man, woman, and child was to receive from the treasury of the United States a check in the sum of $10,000 with the caveat that, barring catastrophic change in circumstance, that is the sum total of public aid that that person would receive that year, the following would be the results:
1) The elimination of poverty, because with that amount, every American would be over the poverty line.
2) A reduction in government payout amounts (because with payments currently to some Americans, we're already paying out over $300,000,000 a year in entitlement spending)
3) A reduction in the number of "needy", because some would take their check and blow it on beer and big screen TVs, then have nothing left on which to buy food and pay rent.
That I don't have supporting facts for this makes it neither true nor false, only unsubstantiated. I mark it clearly as such; feel free to agree, disagree, prove or disprove at your leisure.

What it all comes down to is that if we're going for the "it's for the children!" argument, then we need to get the children out of that environment. We hear all the time about how many people want to adopt children and cannot for lack of children needing good homes or lack of people willing to put their children's needs first or whatever. I think this would increase those numbers, and it wouldn't take new laws, new enforcement, or anything except dismantling a horribly broken system.



Blessings,
B

 

[BloodEclipse]

Education. Education is the key. O"h, you're on public aid? You better be learning a skill, because when that runs out, you'll either support yourself or you'll starve to death. Pick one." Is it cold? Possibly. Is it heartless? I don't think so. See, I think it's more heartless and cold to create unavoidable dependency at the government sugartit. Besides, given that option, I think they'll learn a skill.

How many of us learned how to swim this way? I know I did. Tossed in the deep end of the pool. Seems I figured out pretty quickly what it took to survive.
Without the realization of drowning it would be easy to wade in the shallow end all your life.

 

[finity]

Bill of Rights stated:

Any hospital may choose not to see a patient, they just have to at the same time give up any Medicare/Medicaid (government supplied, from our taxes) reimbursement.

That is true. Forgive my oversimplification. Most hospitals wouldn’t give up those payments therefore it is a moot point.


It is not the proper job of government to meet all the needs, medical or otherwise, of the citizens.

I never said “meet all needs”. I said provide, at a minimum, basic preventative health care for those who can’t afford it, with the end result being a reduction in costs for everyone.


When local churches (or whatever non-governmental source) provide aid, they quickly realize that Old Tom, who shows up all the time for a free bed and a hot meal, could actually work, but he prefers to sponge off the limited resources the church has. They will quickly put a stop to his freeloading, either by telling him to leave or by putting him to work, earning his keep.

I guess you missed the part where I said that requiring able bodied people to work for their assistance is A-OK with me.


When government runs the welfare system, there is no oversight, just "mailbox money".

This needs to, and can, change

Stop giving money. Give them a catalog. Let them say, "I need meat and cheese this week." They can then come and pick up the meat and cheese at whatever warehouse is used to store it. It's not name brand, and it's not the best in the world, but it provides nourishment to a family. It also does not give extra to be used to buy booze, smokes, lottery tickets, and drugs. People won't like it, but those people can be told that if they better themselves and get off welfare, they can buy whatever meat and cheese they can afford.

I agree completely. I never said we had to give them money. I am all for common sense solutions to the welfare problem.

You make the point that gov't now manages so much land.

Actually I didn’t say the government manages too much land. I said there is no longer any significant amount of public land on which to hunt raise crops to sustain anyone who doesn’t want to live off gov’t handouts.

Graduated, aka "progressive" taxation is not a new idea. It's one part of the Communist Manifesto.

You completely glossed over the point I made that even though there is a progressive income tax system, wealthy people still manage to pay less overall taxes, as a percentage of their income, as the middle class or the poor. Again, as a percentage of their income.


Why should the more wealthy not pay a higher percentage of their income?

They don’t

Simply, to force them to do so violates the entire goal of the free market; if you work hard, come up with a unique idea, or provide a service few are able to provide, you are highly compensated for any or all of those things. Without this incentive, what is the reason for anyone to do those things? Put another way, if I work hard and earn $100,000, and you do nothing at all and earn nothing, by what right, rhyme, or reason should I have to live on $50,000 and give the other half of my earnings to you, who've done nothing?

I never said that you should give up 50% of your income. You are making an extreme example not based in reality. I make close to what you said & I have never had to give 50% of my pay in taxes. Not even close. It’s more like asking a multi-millionaire to give up buying one more yacht to help 100 people not starve to death.

Even if they did pay a higher percentage (which they don’t), they use more services than poorer people do. You wouldn’t want to use more services & pay less for them would you? I think that is already happening. Doesn’t sound like paying your fair share.

It's interesting that you bring up "corporate welfare". This is a "pet peeve" of mine. This, like extortion (aka taxation) is exactly what you later denied is happening: Wealth redistribution. If a business cannot survive on it's own, either they are charging too much or there is not enough demand for their product or service.

We agree again.

In any case roads can be built, police, fire, and medical services can be provided privately, and for that matter, even judges could be available in the free market. We call them road construction companies, security guards, fire protection companies, private ambulances, and "mediation services".

And what of the poor who can’t pay? Do we let them get raped or robbed? Do we let their homes burn? Do we let people with more means steal what little they do have because they can pay off the mediator? Do we not allow them to use the roads until they can fork over the dough?


Private charities could easily voluntarily collect funding for those in need who did not plan well or who have not had time to do so due to age.

They already do but there is still not enough to go around

Running water, electricity, and basic health care should be provided without cost? Who is going to provide these things without pay? Would you? If so, and that is your full-time job, how do you feed YOUR family?
I never said without cost. That would be communism. I said government subsidized for those who can’t afford it.

You say you believe in all of the Bill of Rights. How, then, do you reconcile your stated opinions and feelings with the Tenth Amendment?

Translated, that says that unless a power is Constitutionally granted to government, government, specifically the federal government, does not have that power. Wherein lies the power to create a nationally funded healthcare system? A tax-funded water utility? A welfare system? Indeed, most things for which our taxes are extorted from us are not government's place to provide.

From the same authority that any other law that is passed by the gov’t. We (the people) say it’s OK by our votes. Also, none of this precludes the idea that the states themselves can perform all of these services, not necessarily the Federal gov’t.

You asked why a non-citizen should be stripped of life or property- if all that person did was not be a citizen of America, they should not. If, however, they have violated our laws, conspired to or actually injured or killed our people, then they have waived their human rights by virtue of not behaving like human beings.

So do you also think that of our own citizens who break our laws and conspire to injure or kill our people? That flies directly in the face of the Fifth Amendment which again only guarantees a pre-existing right for all mankind not just US citizens. No human being can waive a pre-existing right without due process of law unless of course you don’t really believe in the entire Bill of Rights.

You said that Liberals believe in holding accountable those who have committed crimes. That sounds good, but the reactions you see and hear when a criminal commits a crime are that for whatever reason, it's not his fault... Broken home, oppressed childhood, no father figure, blah blah blah. All kinds of reasons why it's not his fault or why this or that ethnic group is so put upon and jailed more often than another. That's not holding someone accountable for their actions, it's placing blame everywhere but on the person committing the crime.

Just because some people would like to try to find the reasons people commit criminal acts & feel bad about the potential circumstances that may have gotten the person to that point in their life, doesn’t mean they should not be held accountable. No one I know of advocates letting criminals (especially violent ones) walk away free with no punishment.


By the way, typically when a business changes it's product, it's to save money, not just to make the product better.

Yes I agree that is also a motivation. But I stand by my assertion that they also want to improve their products so that they can capture more market share, sell it for more money, etc. therefore more profits.


Further, government should not be the unbiased representative of anything. Government should be the biased servant of the people who employ it, and the bias should be for the betterment of (in our case) America, not the lofty but unreachable goal of "the world at large".

I think we are saying the same thing here. We can’t change the world but we try all the time which is why we are in much of the mess we are in the Middle East right now.

A little help? Sure, I can agree with that, but you don't help people by making them dependant, you help them by giving them a little boost up-a temporary thing, not one to last over generations.

You again are saying that like that’s not also what I said: limits, incentive to improve, responsibility & so on.


We should always have dreams and goals, and I applaud yours, I just don't think that they're realistic or fit with the American ideals of our Founders.

That, sir, is debatable.

I have one other question. You are not a wealthy person (as I gathered from another post). Why not? Don’t you want to be? Obviously every person in the US has choices & we can all be rich if we just work hard enough, right?

Just to clarify I mean no disrespect to you. I am just making a point.

 

[haldir]

Equality is not possible. A level playing field is what we strive for.

Every person alive wants liberty, so that point is a diversion.

Ah but that is the point. Liberals aren't satisfied with a level playing field. That is why you must punish (tax and regulate) the achievers in society and try to lift up those left behind with income redistribution, racial preferences, changing history by changing what is taught in schools, etc. They don't see it as fair that some have more than others.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[Scutter01]

Stop giving money. Give them a catalog. Let them say, "I need meat and cheese this week." They can then come and pick up the meat and cheese at whatever warehouse is used to store it. It's not name brand, and it's not the best in the world, but it provides nourishment to a family. It also does not give extra to be used to buy booze, smokes, lottery tickets, and drugs. People won't like it, but those people can be told that if they better themselves and get off welfare, they can buy whatever meat and cheese they can afford.

Just my two cents on this particular point. The problem isn't giving them money. The problem is that the welfare system is not designed to allow people to get OFF welfare. I've had several welfare recipients working for me at various times, and they've all wanted nothing more than to work full time and not take handouts. As soon as they log more than 20 hours in a week, however, the assistance stops cold. There's no weaning off. They literally coulnd't afford to work full time. Welfare forced them to work part time permanently. When you're a single mother trying to raise two kids, you can't afford the paycut that fulltime work would cause.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just my two cents on this particular point. The problem isn't giving them money. The problem is that the welfare system is not designed to allow people to get OFF welfare. I've had several welfare recipients working for me at various times, and they've all wanted nothing more than to work full time and not take handouts. As soon as they log more than 20 hours in a week, however, the assistance stops cold. There's no weaning off. They literally coulnd't afford to work full time. Welfare forced them to work part time permanently. When you're a single mother trying to raise two kids, you can't afford the paycut that fulltime work would cause.

That actually was a point I made, Scutter. The quoting was a little confusing. I agree with you, that's exactly what it does. It's clearly a system broken beyond repair. It's time to abolish it. (How did people survive prior to the onset of a welfare system?)

Blessings,
B