What exactly have Liberals done for us?

[rightwinger]

Liberals fought for medicare, medicaid and social security. Just look at the state all three of those programs are in. It clearly proves that liberals can't run a damn thing. And now we have Barack Hussein ObamaBOY thinking he can run socialized healthcare. Bwahahahahahahahahhahaaaaa!
Liberals are friggin' IDIOTS!

And what did conservatives propose to fill the void?

What do you do with retired people once they leave the workforce?
- Who provides their healthcare?
- What do they have as a source of income?

Prior to those programs, old people either worked until they died or had enough children in hopes that one of them would provide for them in their old age.

I don't see any republican lining up to abolish those "entitlement" programs. In fact, the Bush initiative to privatize Social Security was an enormous flop in light of the economic meltdown.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Liberals fought for medicare, medicaid and social security. Just look at the state all three of those programs are in. It clearly proves that liberals can't run a damn thing. And now we have Barack Hussein ObamaBOY thinking he can run socialized healthcare. Bwahahahahahahahahhahaaaaa!
Liberals are friggin' IDIOTS!

And what did conservatives propose to fill the void?

What do you do with retired people once they leave the workforce?
- Who provides their healthcare?
- What do they have as a source of income?

Prior to those programs, old people either worked until they died or had enough children in hopes that one of them would provide for them in their old age.

I don't see any republican lining up to abolish those "entitlement" programs. In fact, the Bush initiative to privatize Social Security was an enormous flop in light of the economic meltdown.

Who provides their healthcare?
They provide for themselves. It's that "personal responsibility" thingamajigee. It's not up to me OR you to provide what is ones own responsibility. Nor is it the governments responsibility.
What do they have as a source for income?
Pensions, savings, retirement accounts. Once again, that "personal responsibility" thingamajigee that liberals refuse to understand. Or, shall I say, they fully understand but vehemently oppose. It's that "coddle me from cradle to grave" mentality that all liberals suffer from.
Bottom line, I provide very well for myself, wife and kids. They will never have to want for anything. It's not my responsibility to provide you with a damn thing, including healthcare on my tax paying dollar. If you get sick, that's your problem, and in no way my concern.

 

[Mr Natural]

If you get next Monday off with pay, thank a Liberal.

 

[paperview]

" If you get sick, that's your problem, and in no way my concern."

You should try and get that into the Republican party platform.

Oh wait!

 

[Vast LWC]

You are all mixed up about "Classic Liberals" and modern day Liberals. The founders of our nation were "Classic Liberals" which is summed up best by one of the founders of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. His words are "The government that governs least governs best". Modern Liberals have turned this on its head and say "the government that governs most governs best." Too bad the Democratic Party has turned its back on Jefferson's words. He and the other founders based their philosophy on FREEDOM of the individual and personal responsibility for one's actions. So, don't dump the founders in with many of the other "Liberals" you listed, they are complete opposites. Read your history and maybe you can get it straight. By the way, another history lesson. If were not for Republican votes in the Senate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed because many Democrats were opposed to it.

In the 1860's the Republicans were "Liberal", not the Democrats. Lincoln arguably did more to make the federal government more powerful than any other president in history, except maybe FDR.

The major parties have switched positions on almost all the major issues several times.

For instance, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was one of the nations biggest environmentalists.

As far as the Civil Rights Act goes, just about all of the districts that had representatives that voted against it are now Republican.

You know why? Because they blamed Johnson and the Democrats for the Civil Rights Act, and switched allegiances because of it.

 

[rightwinger]

Who provides their healthcare?
They provide for themselves. It's that "personal responsibility" thingamajigee. It's not up to me OR you to provide what is ones own responsibility. Nor is it the governments responsibility.
What do they have as a source for income?
Pensions, savings, retirement accounts. Once again, that "personal responsibility" thingamajigee that liberals refuse to understand. Or, shall I say, they fully understand but vehemently oppose. It's that "coddle me from cradle to grave" mentality that all liberals suffer from.
Bottom line, I provide very well for myself, wife and kids. They will never have to want for anything. It's not my responsibility to provide you with a damn thing, including healthcare on my tax paying dollar. If you get sick, that's your problem, and in no way my concern.

'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?"
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

 

[paperview]

Who provides their healthcare?
They provide for themselves. It's that "personal responsibility" thingamajigee. It's not up to me OR you to provide what is ones own responsibility. Nor is it the governments responsibility.
What do they have as a source for income?
Pensions, savings, retirement accounts. Once again, that "personal responsibility" thingamajigee that liberals refuse to understand. Or, shall I say, they fully understand but vehemently oppose. It's that "coddle me from cradle to grave" mentality that all liberals suffer from.
Bottom line, I provide very well for myself, wife and kids. They will never have to want for anything. It's not my responsibility to provide you with a damn thing, including healthcare on my tax paying dollar. If you get sick, that's your problem, and in no way my concern.

'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?"
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

 

[Vast LWC]

Liberals fought for medicare, medicaid and social security. Just look at the state all three of those programs are in. It clearly proves that liberals can't run a damn thing. And now we have Barack Hussein ObamaBOY thinking he can run socialized healthcare. Bwahahahahahahahahhahaaaaa!
Liberals are friggin' IDIOTS!

All 3 programs are actually quite successful. They are cost effective for what they do, and have provided tens of millions of Americans with health care coverage.

There are several reasons why these programs do not have the funds to continue what they have been doing, none of which are due to the ineffectiveness of the programs themselves:

1. The funds that they were supposed to use have been used for other things.

2. The baby boomers and later generations decided to have less children, later in life, thus making their early lives easier.

and

3. People are living longer and healthier lives, necessitating a raising of the eligible retirement age for these programs.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I'm reading this, and I can't believe no has challenged the individual assertions of the main post. In fact, many Democrats were THE loudest and most vociferous voices AGAINST the abolition of slavery.

Would anyone here rather have a government pension, or Social Security? Remember, there are millions of government workers today from many states, and even some left in federal government hired before 1983, who do not pay into Social Security today, and never will either.

 

[paperview]

I'm reading this, and I can't believe no has challenged the individual assertions of the main post. In fact, many Democrats were THE loudest and most vociferous voices AGAINST the abolition of slavery.
....

Do you understand the differentation between the words

liberal.
democrat.
conservative.
republican.

Think about this for a few minutes.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm reading this, and I can't believe no has challenged the individual assertions of the main post. In fact, many Democrats were THE loudest and most vociferous voices AGAINST the abolition of slavery.

Would anyone here rather have a government pension, or Social Security? Remember, there are millions of government workers today from many states, and even some left in federal government hired before 1983, who do not pay into Social Security today, and never will either.

I take it you still can't comprehend the idea that at one time Republicans were quite liberal or that Southern Democrats were very conservative.
Liberalism and Conservatism are philosophies

Democrats and Republicans are parties

Its about Liberals and Conservatives NOT Democrats and republicans

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm reading this, and I can't believe no has challenged the individual assertions of the main post. In fact, many Democrats were THE loudest and most vociferous voices AGAINST the abolition of slavery.

Would anyone here rather have a government pension, or Social Security? Remember, there are millions of government workers today from many states, and even some left in federal government hired before 1983, who do not pay into Social Security today, and never will either.

See my post on the last page.

Civil War era Republicans were Liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm reading this, and I can't believe no has challenged the individual assertions of the main post. In fact, many Democrats were THE loudest and most vociferous voices AGAINST the abolition of slavery.

Would anyone here rather have a government pension, or Social Security? Remember, there are millions of government workers today from many states, and even some left in federal government hired before 1983, who do not pay into Social Security today, and never will either.

Also...welcome from the MSNBC Boards

 

[paperview]

I'm reading this, and I can't believe no has challenged the individual assertions of the main post. In fact, many Democrats were THE loudest and most vociferous voices AGAINST the abolition of slavery.

Would anyone here rather have a government pension, or Social Security? Remember, there are millions of government workers today from many states, and even some left in federal government hired before 1983, who do not pay into Social Security today, and never will either.

See my post on the last page.

Civil War era Republicans were Liberals.

It's a hard concept for them to grasp.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No shit. Thanks for making my point. Even 200 years ago, some had it and some didn't. Those who didn't, bartered (traded) goods and services with others. Hello?

I'm afraid I don't even know what your point is.

By your single comment, you appear to imply that the pioneers all walked around with gold coins in their pockets, able to purchase their goods and services. OF COURSE the gold standard, nor the bullion itself, are a universal bartering systems. They never were.

That's not what I meant to imply at all. There's still currency in a gold standard, it's simply backed by gold. Or you could turn in the currency for the gold.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's irrelevant now, but you can thank your lucky stars that Nixon took us off the gold standard in the 1970's. Otherwise, by now, if say China decided to call in our debt and we had to pay it back in gold equivalence, they would literally own us, without having fired a shot.

The gold standard is a monetary system in which a region's common medium of exchange are paper notes that are normally freely convertible into pre-set, fixed quantities of gold.

Nixon didn't take us off the gold standard, he took us off the Bretton Woods system. FDR took us off the gold standard. Which was, of course, a big mistake.

FDR suspended the gold standard. By the end of the Vietnam War, global monetary systems were tied to the dollar. Nixon saw the danger in that and rightfully abandoned the ENTIRE idea.

FDR suspended it permanently and confiscated the gold of the American citizens. Global monetary systems are still tied to the dollar, all Nixon stopped was other nations being able to turn in their dollars for gold. This isn't a genuine gold standard, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Only of those goods and services that can be quantified in value by price alone. Public goods are not efficiently allocated by the market.

All goods are more efficiently allocated by the market. If they're not then that means there isn't enough demand for them, and that's also an important economic indicator. It means that wouldn't be an efficient allocation of resources because nobody wants it.

Air is in pretty high demand, so is clean water, and there is no way to price or profit from either that would not be an abomination. Effective remedies for deadly diseases are in high demand, but there's no profit in R&D because enough of those who need cannot pay.
People want plenty of things that cannot be priced or sold, they are public goods, and there is either no way to make a profit from them or the profit motive would be a rather cold-blooded method of allocating them.

There doesn't need to be a market for air because it's all around us. As for water, I believe the bottled water industry does fairly well.

 

[JBeukema]

Of course, classic liberalism the was in vouge in the 19th century and before was a great thing, the modern version is a not.

The modern version is not even really liberal in ideology, but collectivist statism

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem was, and you are choosing to ignore the inyourface fact, there WERE no markets left. The private money to "allocate" anything was G.O.N.E.

That's vastly over-exaggerating. Of course there was a market, it just contracted. Which was necessary to reallocate resources into more productive sectors due to the misallocation caused by the Federal Reserve.

Are you nuts? What did the Federal Reserve have to do with bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers? The feds weren't even called in until within a matter of 48 hours, someone discovered that LB had no capital to cover massive losses. That was the fault of the Federal Reserve how? It had NOTHING to do with credit default swaps going on internally within those failed financial institutions for years.

It was the Fed's policy of low interest rates that made the housing bubble and all the consequences of that possible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Capitalism is a system of pure CONSUMTION. Left unattended it would consume EVERYTHING and there would finally be one rich guy with everything and everyone else would be dead. It only works governed and regulated.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is a complete fucking moron...that would include you.

Actually the market economy leads to the most efficient allocation of resources.

I do not exist to be a consumer and eventually a victim of someones greed.

We are a nation of human beings. Whatever system we subscribe to it must serve US!

This isn't a game of monopoly. The walking dead vampires of the neo con stinking christian fundimentalist end of days don't give a shit cuz they get sucked up out of thier underwear movement don't get to determine my future.

Some of you take offense to my hatred of these people. Self defense or defense of my country has always trumped all other reasons to justify action that would under other circumstances be viewed as against societies laws.

The health care debate is a crystal clear example of the hatred they have for us. I submit they have declaired us the enemy and demand we pay them tribute even as they meter the rope that hangs us and charge accordingly.

If it is a bloodless war they think they can easily win because they view us as weak and stupid then I say leave them bleeding and wanting.

You that give in willingly to the financial rape of our country deserve whatever they do to you. You are weak and stupid. Piss on you.

How are consumers victims of greed? You only buy something that you value more than the money you have, and a person only sells something if they value the money more than the product they have. Sounds like a win-win situation.