Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

[☭proletarian☭]

None.

Abolition was before modern liberals.

Civil rights movement? Nope. What would have occurred anyway took place only by enlarging the state and trampling on individual rights and property rights.

People aren't property.


So you propose an oligarchy?

No fault divorce? Nope. Sent the message that relationships are cheap and expendable. Fail.

As opposed to costing 40 sheckles?

You religion devalues life more than ideology ever has. Just ask the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, Ammonites...

I think it's "50" sheckles.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

My bad, I was thinking of the price of god...

God costs less than a virgin woman?

Those priests got a damned good deal!

 

[Toro]

History proves the idea of Conservative Fiscal Prolicies is a fraud.

Depends what you define as "conservative." What is a fraud is this supply side nonsense that has permeated the Republican Party and some conservative thinking over the past 30 years. Cutting income taxes in America does not raise total revenues. Republicans and conservatives have sold a bill of goods to Americans that you can cut taxes and not cut spending. That is an outright fraud. This is what I rail against. It drives me nuts because it is so fucking stupid.

"Conservative" used to mean less government, i.e. less taxes AND less spending. I rarely criticize this type of conservatism, except in technical details and at certain times and in certain situations. It is logically consistent. But conservatives in this country, at least in politics, have basically abandoned this idea and are now champions of tax cuts only, which is intellectually bankrupt and politically and economically dangerous. Oh sure, they are saying all the right things now when they have lost every single branch of government and it is politically convenient. But when they were in office, they did absolutely nothing. By not targeting vast entitlements most Americans receive, they are essentially conceding that they have lost the intellectual argument that Americans don't want social security or Medicare.

 

[Modbert]

Seems to me that we're back to assigning blame to somebody rather than discussing the thread topic.

For instance, using modern definitions for 'conservative' and 'liberal' in America, was abolition a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept? Modern American Conservatism is very big on personal liberties and unalienable rights.

Is Women's suffrage a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept. Modern American Conservatism draws no distinction between people based on any demographic and assigns unalienable rights to all.

So, I'm not sure you can now assign those as 'liberal' successes. I am prepared to have somebody show me how I'm wrong.

Have you been paying attention the last forty years? Last I checked, your hero Reagan voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[rdean]

People aren't property.


So you propose an oligarchy?
As opposed to costing 40 sheckles?

You religion devalues life more than ideology ever has. Just ask the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, Ammonites...

I think it's "50" sheckles.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

My bad, I was thinking of the price of god...

God costs less than a virgin woman?

Those priests got a damned good deal!

Oh no, you were right. Sorry.

 

[Si modo]

Seems to me that we're back to assigning blame to somebody rather than discussing the thread topic.

For instance, using modern definitions for 'conservative' and 'liberal' in America, was abolition a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept? Modern American Conservatism is very big on personal liberties and unalienable rights.

Is Women's suffrage a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' concept. Modern American Conservatism draws no distinction between people based on any demographic and assigns unalienable rights to all.

So, I'm not sure you can now assign those as 'liberal' successes. I am prepared to have somebody show me how I'm wrong.

Have you been paying attention the last forty years? Last I checked, your hero Reagan voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Do tell? How did Ronald Reagan 'vote against' the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

[emilynghiem]

So, let me ask again, what is ONE liberal Democratic policy that had positive results? Just one!!??

Liberal/progressive ideas that work to break the cycle of poverty and dependence on govt:

1. MICROLENDING instead of welfare handouts
Grameen Foundation | Combining the power of microfinance and technology to defeat global poverty.
Won the Nobel Prize in 2006. If you ask me, Obama's mother did more to earn the Nobel Prize than he did (she also was instrumental in setting up microlending in Indonesia)

2. Alternative Currency (more a Green idea, but still progressive/liberal)
Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York
Ithaca HOURs Online: Home Page

3. Students for Fair Trade/Students Against Sweatshops
Pushes for farmers to own and manage their own cooperatives, using the existing free enterprise/capitalist model but educating consumers to influence market forces freely

4. Any number of conflict resolution or violence prevention program, including recovery from abuse or addiction
* STAR / Success Through Addiction Recovery and "Drug Courts" that allow violators to keep working to support their families while undergoing rehab instead of sending to jail and putting their families on welfare
* No More Victims Inc (founder Marilyn Gambrell is featured in a Lifetime cable movie and also her program to get kids of incarcerated parents through school and into college instead of going to jail was featured on CNN and MTV)
* Center for the Healing of Racism
http://www.centerhealingracism.org
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/CHRguide.html
Moderates and teaches forums for people to address their own personal issues and healing from racial, religious or political divisions instead of projecting blame on "other groups" seen as representing the problem

5. Pacifica Radio/public radio foundation
Instrumental in organizing local liberal/progressive activities in peace and justice; and fighting to stop the threat of media conglomerates monopolizing the industry.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Social security has lasted how long now? providing the elderly with money that they can't work for because of their age. And its been supposedly failing now for decades, yet still is going. Medicare provides for elderly who no longer can work and get health insurance, at a time when they need healthcare the most.

Discrimination against black people and women, especially sexual harrassment in the workplace, which now bosses and other coworkers can't get away with it. People who lose their jobs get some help so they don't starve and lose their home or what not while they look for jobs. How is public housing, allowing poor people to have a place to live, a failed policy?

You haven't made any arguments as to why you claim those things failed. Another idiot that thinks a sound argument is calling something stupid and fail and a hoax.

 

[rdean]

My take on all of this 'liberal/conservative' partisan bickering is that a liberal (MY definition of one - it's the classic bleeding heart type) without a conservative (MY definition - fiscal and constitutional conservative), and a conservative without a liberal are of no use to a society that wishes to remain great. Each tempers the other from becoming radical in their views.

History proves the idea of Conservative Fiscal Prolicies is a fraud. A tax break deoesn't create long term jobs. Then the FACT that only 6% of Republicans are scientists. Republicans say, "So what? What does that prove?" It proves and highlights Republican disdain for education.

If tax breaks were so good at creating jobs, then the 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut the Republicans made would have left a sparkling economy, not led to a great depression that still might happen, only Democrats are working hard to avoid that disaster, without Republican support I might add.

We all know you want a one party state like the good little fascist you are. But, no need to demonstrate your lack of understanding of one of this country's fundamental founding principles at the same time. You end up looking like a stupid fascist.

Like I said before. It's the Republicans that are "one" party. One race, one religion.

I don't understand how you can accuse the Democrats of being "one" party.

Republicans:

White
Christian

Democrats:

White
Black
Gay
Straight
Hispanic
Educated
Uneducated
young
old
conservative
liberal
feminist

Now, which party seems the most likely to be "Fascists"? This isn't an argument you can win.

 

[rdean]

Social security has lasted how long now? providing the elderly with money that they can't work for because of their age. And its been supposedly failing now for decades, yet still is going. Medicare provides for elderly who no longer can work and get health insurance, at a time when they need healthcare the most.

Discrimination against black people and women, especially sexual harrassment in the workplace, which now bosses and other coworkers can't get away with it. People who lose their jobs get some help so they don't starve and lose their home or what not while they look for jobs. How is public housing, allowing poor people to have a place to live, a failed policy?

You haven't made any arguments as to why you claim those things failed. Another idiot that thinks a sound argument is calling something stupid and fail and a hoax.

Actually, Social Security is failing, but not for the reasons the Republicans give. When Social Security was enacted, life expectancy was 62. To receive SS at full benefits was 65. The same as it is today.
Many baby boomers retired and because of the mess the Republicans left the economy, they have to go back to work. But when they reach 62 or 65, they will be applying for SS.

There simply aren't enough people to keep it funded. The minimum age of retirement MUST be raised. Or benefits cut at 62 so people will continue to work. After all, what is life expectancy these days? 72?

 

[Conspiracist]

If tax breaks were so good at creating jobs, then the 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut the Republicans made would have left a sparkling economy, not led to a great depression that still might happen, only Democrats are working hard to avoid that disaster, without Republican support I might add.

One thing to consider while making this claim is we never had floods of companies moving overseas. Tax cuts have proven to work in moderation for creating jobs and spurring companies to invest in growth.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is public housing, allowing poor people to have a place to live, a failed policy?

The public housing program was not never designed to help the poor, but started out as a way to give govt money & jobs to contractors to keep them working during the Depression.

Like the public schools, the public housing is bureaucratic and corrupt without direct check by the taxpayers, much less the families herded through to get the federal funds.

I know this because I volunteered with residents who organized their own councils and even wrote their own corrective legislation to protect tenants rights and input in developing a proposed "campus plan" to convert public housing into sustainable residential colleges with service internships to break the cycle of poverty and abuse. These plans were not only censored by "competing" public housing officials, but the residents were evicted and housing torn down, so that contract money could go to people with conflicts of interest mixing government with private profiteers. Total abuse of public resources and power at taxpayers expense -- abused to deprive community residents of "inalienable" constitutional rights peaceably to assemble and to petition to redress legal grievances. Totally censored at at estimated cost of $25 million to taxpayers to demolish and reduce 1000 units to 500, instead of renovating all 1000 units into a campus with health services.

A neighbor is writing a book on this to expose the abuse of the African American community and voters. You can see the plans censored by government through unlawful evictions by abusing federal courts to bypass laws which would have protected the residents: http://www.houstonprogressive.org/campus94.html

Again I have firsthand knowledge as I witnessed these abuses, and paid thousands of dollars myself to return the head community leader back to the neighborhood after he and 10 families were evicted to demolish their plans despite protection under federal laws.

I only know 1 person who has benefited from public housing at this complex without constant fear of eviction or abuse, and even she had to fight bureaucratic rules that were counting her income as "too high" even though most of it was grants and donations to pay for her medical care and recovery as a paraplegic. There is not enough check on the government contract money that goes to cronies, even worse than the public schools.

Even fighting in federal court was doomed, because no lawyers would dare defend the poor residents against the will of corporate developers who fund and decide city elections.

 

[maineman]

I'm so baffled at all these liberals who are dropping at their knees at the feet of Obama. The last Democratic president we had a problem with ONE person dropping to their knees for Clinton, but now we have 100 million people doing it. So, that begs the question, why? Why are liberals who they are? Sifting through decades of liberal ideals, policies, and dreams, I don't think I can find ONE that actually works in the long run? A quick summary:

Appeasment? Failed vs Hitler. Failed vs Iran. Failed vs North Korea.
Welfare? The poor keep getting poorer, despite welfare. At least thats what liberals are saying. Welfare has caused MORE people to become or remain poor, not less.
Social Security? Bankrupt. Failed.
Medicare/Medicaid? Soon to be bankrupt. Failing.
Obamacare? Soon to be failure, just wait and see.
Higher taxes? Obviously, higher taxes hurt job and economic growth.
Housing? Greenspan finally admits what we've known for 2 years. The liberal practice of threatening racism allegation on banks who wouldn't loan to poor people is the root of this recession as it caused the housing bust.
Public education? Failed.
Public housing? Failed. Have you ever seen a pleasant gov't housing project? Ever?
Global Warming? Hoax.
Anit-civil rights? Yes, thats right, read your history, the Republicans were responsible for passing civil rights in the 60's, Democrats strongly opposed it. So, the DEMOCRAT anti-civil rights stance failed.
Pro-Slavery? Yes, again, it was the Republican Party that freed slaves, Democrats opposed, so they failed there again.


So, let me ask again, what is ONE liberal Democratic policy that had positive results? Just one!!??

you seem to interchange "liberal" with "democrat" when it suits your purpose. Civil rights was a LIBERAL idea. Child labor laws were a LIBERAL idea. Women's suffrage was a LIBERAL idea. Environmental protection was a LIBERAL idea. Workplace safety was a LIBERAL idea. Allowing workers to organize was a LIBERAL idea.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I'm so baffled at all these liberals who are dropping at their knees at the feet of Obama. The last Democratic president we had a problem with ONE person dropping to their knees for Clinton, but now we have 100 million people doing it. So, that begs the question, why? Why are liberals who they are? Sifting through decades of liberal ideals, policies, and dreams, I don't think I can find ONE that actually works in the long run? A quick summary:

Appeasment? Failed vs Hitler. Failed vs Iran. Failed vs North Korea.
Welfare? The poor keep getting poorer, despite welfare. At least thats what liberals are saying. Welfare has caused MORE people to become or remain poor, not less.
Social Security? Bankrupt. Failed.
Medicare/Medicaid? Soon to be bankrupt. Failing.
Obamacare? Soon to be failure, just wait and see.
Higher taxes? Obviously, higher taxes hurt job and economic growth.
Housing? Greenspan finally admits what we've known for 2 years. The liberal practice of threatening racism allegation on banks who wouldn't loan to poor people is the root of this recession as it caused the housing bust.
Public education? Failed.
Public housing? Failed. Have you ever seen a pleasant gov't housing project? Ever?
Global Warming? Hoax.
Anit-civil rights? Yes, thats right, read your history, the Republicans were responsible for passing civil rights in the 60's, Democrats strongly opposed it. So, the DEMOCRAT anti-civil rights stance failed.
Pro-Slavery? Yes, again, it was the Republican Party that freed slaves, Democrats opposed, so they failed there again.


So, let me ask again, what is ONE liberal Democratic policy that had positive results? Just one!!??

you seem to interchange "liberal" with "democrat" when it suits your purpose. Civil rights was a LIBERAL idea. Child labor laws were a LIBERAL idea. Women's suffrage was a LIBERAL idea. Environmental protection was a LIBERAL idea. Workplace safety was a LIBERAL idea. Allowing workers to organize was a LIBERAL idea.

I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, pretty much every bit of change is "liberal" since the very nature of "conservative" is to keep things the same.

 

[emilynghiem]

History proves the idea of Conservative Fiscal Prolicies is a fraud. A tax break deoesn't create long term jobs. Then the FACT that only 6% of Republicans are scientists. Republicans say, "So what? What does that prove?" It proves and highlights Republican disdain for education.

If tax breaks were so good at creating jobs, then the 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut the Republicans made would have left a sparkling economy, not led to a great depression that still might happen, only Democrats are working hard to avoid that disaster, without Republican support I might add.

We all know you want a one party state like the good little fascist you are. But, no need to demonstrate your lack of understanding of one of this country's fundamental founding principles at the same time. You end up looking like a stupid fascist.

Like I said before. It's the Republicans that are "one" party. One race, one religion.

I don't understand how you can accuse the Democrats of being "one" party.

Republicans:

White
Christian

Democrats:

White
Black
Gay
Straight
Hispanic
Educated
Uneducated
young
old
conservative
liberal
feminist

Now, which party seems the most likely to be "Fascists"? This isn't an argument you can win.

Dear Rdean: I am a progressive Democrat in a historic African American district with a long history of abuse and corruption by Democrat leaders and officials
* What about the gay Log Cabin Republicans? Dick Cheney even spoke out in defense of gay marriage as an issue of Constitutional equality.
* Or Republicans like Guiliana and Hutchison who openly acknowledge Constitutional protections of beliefs in prochoice without government interfering in private decisions
* Or the black Republicans like my neighbor Gladys House whom I work with and support financially (while I also work with my fellow Democrats and also independent Greens).
Colin Powell was my number one pick for President. Second would have been McCain for Prez and Obama as Vice Prez so he could develop all these experimental social programs for reform "voluntarily" through his statewide networks instead of relying on government

In general I find the Republicans to be the stronger Constitutionalists, while the Democrats seem to take this for granted. Under the Constitution, you can protect the equal interests of all other groups instead of fighting individual battles.

Ralph Nader and the Greens, and other independent Libertarians, probably have the best approach to integrating Constitutional values in with Democratic and liberal issues; but they still don't have as strong and centralized stance on Constitutional authority as the Republicans who put God and country first. All the other diversity can follow from there.

We need both parties working together, not divided against each other, which weakens the fabric of the nation.

It doesn't matter what Party you affiliate with, as long as you stand on Constitutional principles first before personal or political agenda. I thought McCain was the stronger Constitutionalist, though my views/ideas aligned most with Nader, and Obama was the weakest and talked the talk but did not do enough to enforce and implement Constitutional principles on an equally accessible level (as lawyers, he and his wife would probably alienate their professional legal and financial base if they went against the legal monopoly and promoted equal access, education, and enforcement of legal protections by mediation)

 

[The Rabbi]

None.

Abolition was before modern liberals.

Civil rights movement? Nope. What would have occurred anyway took place only by enlarging the state and trampling on individual rights and property rights.

People aren't property.

Democracy? Nope. Extending the franchise to anyone over 18 has meant a growing list of entitlements that will eventually bankrupt this country and end our government.

So you propose an oligarchy?

No fault divorce? Nope. Sent the message that relationships are cheap and expendable. Fail.

As opposed to costing 40 sheckles?

You religion devalues life more than ideology ever has. Just ask the Moabites, Jesubites, Hittites, Ammonites...

So the Civil Rights movement and subsequent legislation did not affect property rights? News to me.
There is a mighty big divide between the original suffrage laws and an oligarchy. But go ahead with your reductio ad absurdum.

And again with the ignorant anti-Jewish cracks. Really bolsters your creds here.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is public housing, allowing poor people to have a place to live, a failed policy?

The public housing program was not never designed to help the poor, but started out as a way to give govt money & jobs to contractors to keep them working during the Depression.

Like the public schools, the public housing is bureaucratic and corrupt without direct check by the taxpayers, much less the families herded through to get the federal funds.

I know this because I volunteered with residents who organized their own councils and even wrote their own corrective legislation to protect tenants rights and input in developing a proposed "campus plan" to convert public housing into sustainable residential colleges with service internships to break the cycle of poverty and abuse. These plans were not only censored by "competing" public housing officials, but the residents were evicted and housing torn down, so that contract money could go to people with conflicts of interest mixing government with private profiteers. Total abuse of public resources and power at taxpayers expense -- abused to deprive community residents of "inalienable" constitutional rights peaceably to assemble and to petition to redress legal grievances. Totally censored at at estimated cost of $25 million to taxpayers to demolish and reduce 1000 units to 500, instead of renovating all 1000 units into a campus with health services.

A neighbor is writing a book on this to expose the abuse of the African American community and voters. You can see the plans censored by government through unlawful evictions by abusing federal courts to bypass laws which would have protected the residents: http://www.houstonprogressive.org/campus94.html

Again I have firsthand knowledge as I witnessed these abuses, and paid thousands of dollars myself to return the head community leader back to the neighborhood after he and 10 families were evicted to demolish their plans despite protection under federal laws.

I only know 1 person who has benefited from public housing at this complex without constant fear of eviction or abuse, and even she had to fight bureaucratic rules that were counting her income as "too high" even though most of it was grants and donations to pay for her medical care and recovery as a paraplegic. There is not enough check on the government contract money that goes to cronies, even worse than the public schools.

Even fighting in federal court was doomed, because no lawyers would dare defend the poor residents against the will of corporate developers who fund and decide city elections.

Add to this demolition of entire vital old neighborhoods in the name of urban renewal. The people forced into the shiny new government projects unfortunately were unable to transfer the vitality and community spirit and support of those old neighborhoods. And the projects were soon rat infested slums that most of us would have nightmares if we had to live inone.

But in both cases, had the government provided tax incentives and worked to create favorable regulation for the private sector to provide low income housing, it would have been done far more efficiently, effectively, and compassionately. That would have been the conservative way.

Social security was well intentioned, but obviously it was not sustainable. And it has continued to drain the national resources even as it spirals out of control and cannot be maintained indefinitely. Tax incentives and favorable regulation that allows people to create and manage their own retirement funds in the private sector have been far more effecive and efficient. That is the conservative preference.

Programs to help and assist single moms and inner city poor were all well intentioned, but succeeded only in creating permanent under classes, almost intractable unemployment, and savaged the nuclear traditional family, especially among black Americans, even as it did little to alleviate poverty. Far better would have been providing tax incentives and favorable regulation to provide a path for people to become self sufficient, responsible, and successful contributors to society. That would be the conservative way.

So many liberal programs have been well intentioned and looked so noble on paper. In practice, however, I can't think of one that has been significantly successful.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good points all.
Look at a Youtube video titled something like Must See on Detroit. It details how the very neighborhoods in detroit that are abandoned and dangerous were the subject of "model cities" programs in the 1960s.
The more gov't tries to "solve the problem" the worse they make the problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm so baffled at all these liberals who are dropping at their knees at the feet of Obama. The last Democratic president we had a problem with ONE person dropping to their knees for Clinton, but now we have 100 million people doing it. So, that begs the question, why? Why are liberals who they are? Sifting through decades of liberal ideals, policies, and dreams, I don't think I can find ONE that actually works in the long run? A quick summary:

Appeasment? Failed vs Hitler. Failed vs Iran. Failed vs North Korea.
Welfare? The poor keep getting poorer, despite welfare. At least thats what liberals are saying. Welfare has caused MORE people to become or remain poor, not less.
Social Security? Bankrupt. Failed.
Medicare/Medicaid? Soon to be bankrupt. Failing.
Obamacare? Soon to be failure, just wait and see.
Higher taxes? Obviously, higher taxes hurt job and economic growth.
Housing? Greenspan finally admits what we've known for 2 years. The liberal practice of threatening racism allegation on banks who wouldn't loan to poor people is the root of this recession as it caused the housing bust.
Public education? Failed.
Public housing? Failed. Have you ever seen a pleasant gov't housing project? Ever?
Global Warming? Hoax.
Anit-civil rights? Yes, thats right, read your history, the Republicans were responsible for passing civil rights in the 60's, Democrats strongly opposed it. So, the DEMOCRAT anti-civil rights stance failed.
Pro-Slavery? Yes, again, it was the Republican Party that freed slaves, Democrats opposed, so they failed there again.


So, let me ask again, what is ONE liberal Democratic policy that had positive results? Just one!!??

you seem to interchange "liberal" with "democrat" when it suits your purpose. Civil rights was a LIBERAL idea. Child labor laws were a LIBERAL idea. Women's suffrage was a LIBERAL idea. Environmental protection was a LIBERAL idea. Workplace safety was a LIBERAL idea. Allowing workers to organize was a LIBERAL idea.

I hope that answers your question.

Using modern definitions for 'conservative' and 'liberal', civil rights would be a conservative idea and ideal. Conservatives support constitutional concepts of unalienable rights and apply them to all people. That would apply to women's suffrage as well as previously posted.

Child labor laws were pretty generic when it comes to ideology. Both liberals and conservatives love children, though I do believe conservatives are more likely to put the welfare of the children ahead of other political issues and their own self interests whether in the work place, in appropriate entertainment, in appropriate restrictions on what children will and will not be allowed to do or should be exposed to, etc.

Environmental protection and workplace safety is also is pretty generic when it comes to ideology. Believe it or not, conservatives do not want dirty water, dirty air, contaminated soil, a dangerous workplace, etc. any more than liberals do. Conservatives also know that prosperity is the best means of preserving and protecting endangered species and providing impetus for a clean, safe, and beautiful environment without getting into so much of the realm of the absurd to accomplish it.

Organized labor was definitely a conservative initiative to give the individual more power in negotiating the terms of his/her employment. As it became more liberal over the decades, however, it shifted from giving the individual power to giving the union bosses and politicians power and too often became counter productive. Some individuals benefitted, but like social security, it could not be sustained because the drain on resources far outstripped productivity. Conservatives do not promote benefitting any privileged group.

 

[Father Time]

If he hasn't all ready anyone else wanna bet the TC will pull off a No True Scotsman?

 

[geauxtohell]

My family was pretty grateful for the New Deal, which prevented people in our part of the world from losing their farms and starving to death.

Other than that, sorry to contribute to an otherwise trollish thread.