What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[bripat9643]

Hitler wasn't a liberal, moron.

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

So Conservatives claim to base their philosophical values on 17th century liberals? I was thinking their values are more closely aligned with the person who said these things:


“If you win, you need not have to explain...If you lose, you should not be there to explain!”

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

“What luck for rulers that men do not think.”

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

“When diplomacy ends, War begins.”

“It is not truth that matters, but victory.”

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

“Think Thousand times before taking a decision But - After taking decison never turn back even if you get Thousand difficulties!!”

“What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.”

“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.”

And these:

"Greed is eternal."

"Nothing is more important than your health ... except for your money."

"War is good for business."

"Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies."

"Every man has his price."

"A man is only worth the sum of his possessions."

"Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them."

"Never be afraid to mislabel a product."

"Treat people in your debt like family ... exploit them."

"Why ask, when you can take?"

"A good lie is easier to believe than the truth."

 

[Borillar]

Hitler wasn't a liberal, moron.

I know he wasn't a liberal you stupid putz! I was saying that is what aligns with conservative values today. Not some 17th century liberals.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah, I've heard this argument before. (See video below). And after I've pointed to Locke and Mill YOU STILL NEEDED TO SEE WHERE I STOOD???? Obviously you've never read either. Your the anti-liberal claiming to be liberal without knowing the greats of liberalism. Funny. If you want to see how I explain the cognitive dissonance between my mindset and my actions you best understand the motivations of Machiavelli. But then again, I wouldn't want to you to strain yourself in an lazy attempt to understand the classics of political thought.

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So your position is that unfettered capitalist greed is the solution to every problem in the world. Furthermore you believe that any attempt to help the less fortunate is a mob trying to steal from you. Under your feudal mindset there will be no police or fire services because those are for the evil "common good". You will pay a toll on every road beyond your driveway because they must all be owned by capitalists. Your neighbors will be free to pollute your air and water since you have no right to deprive them of their rights to unfettered capitalist greed. Your grasp of how society actually operates as opposed to the utopian nonsense that you are advocating indicates a failure to grasp the most fundamental of principles.

You obviously have never heard of J.S. Mill's "harm principle." Am I talking to a brick wall? Listen, you cannot hang in this conversation. You lack the intellectual capacity. Everything you’re asking about can be assessed in the op where I have told you where I stand. The problem is that you lack the education to understand that. Please don’t make me step down any further into the land of teaching the ignorant. Go study Mill and Locke before you continue this conversation. You have no clue how lost you are and it is a joke to everyone here who understands what I am talking about. Or perhaps look up Thomas Hobbes who no doubt you agree with assessing the above response.

Perhaps you would be better served by studying Cicero. In essence there is no difference between you and Karl Marx except for the positions you are postulating. Both of you argue for extremism over pragmatism. Both of you ardently believe that only your particular answer is the solution to every problem. Both of you are equally wrong. Just as communism has been proven to be an abject failure so has your unfettered capitalist dogma. The economic crises of 1929 and 2008 are both the result of fundamentalist capitalism being allowed to run rampant. Unregulated capitalism always fails because there are no limits on greed and avarice. Your utopian capitalist ideal is an unrealistic delusional fantasy. Reality requires that capitalism be as equally constrained as socialism. Neither can exist without the other. Only fools believe that one is superior to the other. Only idiots advocate for a purist solution. Realists understand that compromise is the only way that both can coexist.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So your position is that unfettered capitalist greed is the solution to every problem in the world. Furthermore you believe that any attempt to help the less fortunate is a mob trying to steal from you. Under your feudal mindset there will be no police or fire services because those are for the evil "common good". You will pay a toll on every road beyond your driveway because they must all be owned by capitalists. Your neighbors will be free to pollute your air and water since you have no right to deprive them of their rights to unfettered capitalist greed. Your grasp of how society actually operates as opposed to the utopian nonsense that you are advocating indicates a failure to grasp the most fundamental of principles.

You obviously have never heard of J.S. Mill's "harm principle." Am I talking to a brick wall? Listen, you cannot hang in this conversation. You lack the intellectual capacity. Everything you’re asking about can be assessed in the op where I have told you where I stand. The problem is that you lack the education to understand that. Please don’t make me step down any further into the land of teaching the ignorant. Go study Mill and Locke before you continue this conversation. You have no clue how lost you are and it is a joke to everyone here who understands what I am talking about. Or perhaps look up Thomas Hobbes who no doubt you agree with assessing the above response.

Perhaps you would be better served by studying Cicero. In essence there is no difference between you and Karl Marx except for the positions you are postulating. Both of you argue for extremism over pragmatism. Both of you ardently believe that only your particular answer is the solution to every problem. Both of you are equally wrong. Just as communism has been proven to be an abject failure so has your unfettered capitalist dogma. The economic crises of 1929 and 2008 are both the result of fundamentalist capitalism being allowed to run rampant. Unregulated capitalism always fails because there are no limits on greed and avarice. Your utopian capitalist ideal is an unrealistic delusional fantasy. Reality requires that capitalism be as equally constrained as socialism. Neither can exist without the other. Only fools believe that one is superior to the other. Only idiots advocate for a purist solution. Realists understand that compromise is the only way that both can coexist.

could you put that relationship into a top marginal tax rate....? i'd like to know your 'ideal'...

 

[bripat9643]

Hitler wasn't a liberal, moron.

I know he wasn't a liberal you stupid putz! I was saying that is what aligns with conservative values today. Not some 17th century liberals.

I meant 17th century liberal. He was indistinguishable from modern American liberals. They even hate Jews, just like Hitler.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of those on the right who are posting in this thread are the slightest bit interested in what liberals believe. We're all lazy, shiftless commies who want others to give us free stuff. That's what you believe and nothing we say is going to change your opinion. Every time someone in this thread posts what they believe, the right wingers tell us that's false. The right wingers know what we believe, we don't. You keep losing elections because you refuse to listen to ANYTHING that liberals are saying and then you call US stupid.

The economic policies and models you idiots believe will save America, have failed miserably. Unregulated free markets always result in extreme poverty, supressed wages, and destruction of the middle class. Well regulated, mixed economies are far more successful and sustainable, and reduce poverty, improve education and support a thriving middle class, which is necessary to the success of a consumer based economy.

Liberals don't want a welfare state, they want a social safety net. The don't want dependency, they want jobs which pay a living wage. They want good schools and teachers for their children, safe neighbourhoods, and equal opportunities for all. They want good roads, public buildings which are maintained and show pride in community.

The rewording or the Constitution is just a laugh. Conservatives keep trying desperately to justify their greed, their disregard of the poor, and their contempt for government, but they come off as sad and desperate. They cling to their failed ideas about an unfettered free market and refuse to acknowledge that conservative Republican ideology is as much a failure as communism.

Just to make a few points. I am a conservative and I am sure what you would call a right winger.

In my post on this subject I said that only liberals can answer the question.

But I must say why are right wingers greedy when the left wing in Congress, at least, have the most rich? When Obama and company brag about how much more money they can raise. Why when the left will rail against rich Republicans then in the next breath laugh because Republicans win all the poor states and have the most on welfare? Why is it greedy for me to want to keep what I, ME, MYSELF, earned and not greedy for someone to take what I earned and give it to someone else? Do liberals even listen to themselves?

Every survey I have ever read lists the conservatives as more generous in charitable giving then liberals. Yet you stereotype. As if our welfare state government is somehow those who do actually work fault. Can't be that we created the out of control welfare system through good intentions. Can't be that now that we have put millions into poverty and thus a welfare state the liberals know of no what to end what they have started, and maybe there is no way.

Can't be that the "free" trade and illegal immigrants are taking the jobs of those with low skill and education. No it has to be because a guy like me who puts in 50-60 hours a week wants to hang onto what I earned. If that is greed then I just might as well become charitable and stop working. Why in the hell would I work if getting ahead is now the liberal vice, except when applied to them.

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Otherwise this is more evidence in support of conservative confusion and ignorance that liberals are pragmatists, and don’t adhere blindly to a particular political, social, or economic dogma. You and others on the right are clueless as to the truth outside of this ideological frame of reference.

The fact is that what little taxes you pay buys a great deal in the way of Federal, state, and local services.

The fact is there is no ‘welfare state,’ it’s a contrivance by the right.

The fact is that liberals view public assistance as a temporary stop-gap measure designed to assist families in becoming self-sufficient. Public assistance in conjunction with employment and training programs is the most efficient way to get Americans back to work.

And the fact is that charity in the context of services provided by private non-profit entities can in no way be a substitute for state and Federal programs designed to assist the poor, unemployed, and low income.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You obviously have never heard of J.S. Mill's "harm principle." Am I talking to a brick wall? Listen, you cannot hang in this conversation. You lack the intellectual capacity. Everything you’re asking about can be assessed in the op where I have told you where I stand. The problem is that you lack the education to understand that. Please don’t make me step down any further into the land of teaching the ignorant. Go study Mill and Locke before you continue this conversation. You have no clue how lost you are and it is a joke to everyone here who understands what I am talking about. Or perhaps look up Thomas Hobbes who no doubt you agree with assessing the above response.

Perhaps you would be better served by studying Cicero. In essence there is no difference between you and Karl Marx except for the positions you are postulating. Both of you argue for extremism over pragmatism. Both of you ardently believe that only your particular answer is the solution to every problem. Both of you are equally wrong. Just as communism has been proven to be an abject failure so has your unfettered capitalist dogma. The economic crises of 1929 and 2008 are both the result of fundamentalist capitalism being allowed to run rampant. Unregulated capitalism always fails because there are no limits on greed and avarice. Your utopian capitalist ideal is an unrealistic delusional fantasy. Reality requires that capitalism be as equally constrained as socialism. Neither can exist without the other. Only fools believe that one is superior to the other. Only idiots advocate for a purist solution. Realists understand that compromise is the only way that both can coexist.

could you put that relationship into a top marginal tax rate....? i'd like to know your 'ideal'...

Realism is not idealism. Compromise means finding a middle ground where neither side has an advantage over the other. Both sides have to give up something of what they hold dear. To put this in practical terms how many aircraft carrier groups does America actually need? How many people actually need healthcare? Both of these have pro and con arguments and somewhere there is an acceptable compromise. Once that compromise is reached the tax rates to fund that compromise can be determined.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Perhaps you would be better served by studying Cicero. In essence there is no difference between you and Karl Marx except for the positions you are postulating. Both of you argue for extremism over pragmatism. Both of you ardently believe that only your particular answer is the solution to every problem. Both of you are equally wrong. Just as communism has been proven to be an abject failure so has your unfettered capitalist dogma. The economic crises of 1929 and 2008 are both the result of fundamentalist capitalism being allowed to run rampant. Unregulated capitalism always fails because there are no limits on greed and avarice. Your utopian capitalist ideal is an unrealistic delusional fantasy. Reality requires that capitalism be as equally constrained as socialism. Neither can exist without the other. Only fools believe that one is superior to the other. Only idiots advocate for a purist solution. Realists understand that compromise is the only way that both can coexist.

could you put that relationship into a top marginal tax rate....? i'd like to know your 'ideal'...

Realism is not idealism. Compromise means finding a middle ground where neither side has an advantage over the other. Both sides have to give up something of what they hold dear. To put this in practical terms how many aircraft carrier groups does America actually need? How many people actually need healthcare? Both of these have pro and con arguments and somewhere there is an acceptable compromise. Once that compromise is reached the tax rates to fund that compromise can be determined.

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

 

[Borillar]

Hitler wasn't a liberal, moron.

I know he wasn't a liberal you stupid putz! I was saying that is what aligns with conservative values today. Not some 17th century liberals.

I meant 17th century liberal. He was indistinguishable from modern American liberals. They even hate Jews, just like Hitler.

Most Jews vote Democratic. Do they hate themselves? You're full of shit. American conservatives are very much the modern day fascists. They use his playbook all the time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

could you put that relationship into a top marginal tax rate....? i'd like to know your 'ideal'...

Realism is not idealism. Compromise means finding a middle ground where neither side has an advantage over the other. Both sides have to give up something of what they hold dear. To put this in practical terms how many aircraft carrier groups does America actually need? How many people actually need healthcare? Both of these have pro and con arguments and somewhere there is an acceptable compromise. Once that compromise is reached the tax rates to fund that compromise can be determined.

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

On what basis are you assuming that all additional tax revenues would be for social programs? Currently social programs are almost fully funded by the existing tax revenues.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Realism is not idealism. Compromise means finding a middle ground where neither side has an advantage over the other. Both sides have to give up something of what they hold dear. To put this in practical terms how many aircraft carrier groups does America actually need? How many people actually need healthcare? Both of these have pro and con arguments and somewhere there is an acceptable compromise. Once that compromise is reached the tax rates to fund that compromise can be determined.

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

On what basis are you assuming that all additional tax revenues would be for social programs? Currently social programs are almost fully funded by the existing tax revenues.

then why does Obama need more revenue....?

 

[Dragonlady]

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

First off, social programs do not equal socialism. That again is a lie promulgated by Milton Friedman and adopted by the Republican Party to frighten ordinary citizen off of social programs of any sort. Friedman, who is every bit as radical as Karl Marx, but on the opposite side of the coin. Marx believed that the government should provide everything, Friedman believed that the government should provide nothing. Neither system works. Under Marx, initiative is stifled. Under Friedman, the poor are kept in a continual state of poverty to serve the investor classes.

What does work is mixed economies. Countries which have strong social safety nets, strong government regulation, import taxes as protections for local manufacturing. A good public education system is necessary to produce a work force with the skills and training to support themselves and contribute to the economy.

Friedman opposed public education, health care, and any government social program as "communistic" and a distortion of the free market. Every day, people in this forum still echo Friedman's words, describing liberals a Marxist and commies, but none of you seem to even understand why it is you do that.

Do conservatives consider yourselves facists? Conservatives values are quite similar to those of facism, so facist would be the right-wing equivalent to a commie. If every time a conservative posted on this board, we were to say "You and your facist friends want to destroy America" would that be a valid comment?

Saying liberals are communists and out to destroy America has as much validity and accuracy as saying all conservatives are nazis and facists who want to kill all of the minorities and restore America to an all white country. It's not true and it's not helpful to any discussion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

On what basis are you assuming that all additional tax revenues would be for social programs? Currently social programs are almost fully funded by the existing tax revenues.

then why does Obama need more revenue....?

Congress is spending more than it is getting in revenue. If Congress is willing to reduce defense spending then Obama won't need any more revenue.

 

[Freewill]

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

First off, social programs do not equal socialism. That again is a lie promulgated by Milton Friedman and adopted by the Republican Party to frighten ordinary citizen off of social programs of any sort. Friedman, who is every bit as radical as Karl Marx, but on the opposite side of the coin. Marx believed that the government should provide everything, Friedman believed that the government should provide nothing. Neither system works. Under Marx, initiative is stifled. Under Friedman, the poor are kept in a continual state of poverty to serve the investor classes.

What does work is mixed economies. Countries which have strong social safety nets, strong government regulation, import taxes as protections for local manufacturing. A good public education system is necessary to produce a work force with the skills and training to support themselves and contribute to the economy.

Friedman opposed public education, health care, and any government social program as "communistic" and a distortion of the free market. Every day, people in this forum still echo Friedman's words, describing liberals a Marxist and commies, but none of you seem to even understand why it is you do that.

Do conservatives consider yourselves facists? Conservatives values are quite similar to those of facism, so facist would be the right-wing equivalent to a commie. If every time a conservative posted on this board, we were to say "You and your facist friends want to destroy America" would that be a valid comment?

Saying liberals are communists and out to destroy America has as much validity and accuracy as saying all conservatives are nazis and facists who want to kill all of the minorities and restore America to an all white country. It's not true and it's not helpful to any discussion.

I must say I agree that liberals are not intending on destroying the country. But with all things liberal the outcome is always the opposite of the stated intent. So even though the "Great Society" was well intended look where it got us. More poverty and more dependency then we had back then. So although it may not be the liberals intent certainly when one looks at the results it sure looks like what they intended or they royally screwed up.

The point is, why continue on the same disastrous path?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

On what basis are you assuming that all additional tax revenues would be for social programs? Currently social programs are almost fully funded by the existing tax revenues.

then why does Obama need more revenue....?

Congress is spending more than it is getting in revenue. If Congress is willing to reduce defense spending then Obama won't need any more revenue.

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......
seems BO doesn't care about that...yet Defense is the primary job of the Federal Government....not social programs....

why not make the spending cuts in other areas as the repubs suggest....?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

yet the realism of socialism seems to have no boundaries....

example....why does BO continue to push for even more taxes....?

First off, social programs do not equal socialism. That again is a lie promulgated by Milton Friedman and adopted by the Republican Party to frighten ordinary citizen off of social programs of any sort. Friedman, who is every bit as radical as Karl Marx, but on the opposite side of the coin. Marx believed that the government should provide everything, Friedman believed that the government should provide nothing. Neither system works. Under Marx, initiative is stifled. Under Friedman, the poor are kept in a continual state of poverty to serve the investor classes.

What does work is mixed economies. Countries which have strong social safety nets, strong government regulation, import taxes as protections for local manufacturing. A good public education system is necessary to produce a work force with the skills and training to support themselves and contribute to the economy.

Friedman opposed public education, health care, and any government social program as "communistic" and a distortion of the free market. Every day, people in this forum still echo Friedman's words, describing liberals a Marxist and commies, but none of you seem to even understand why it is you do that.

Do conservatives consider yourselves facists? Conservatives values are quite similar to those of facism, so facist would be the right-wing equivalent to a commie. If every time a conservative posted on this board, we were to say "You and your facist friends want to destroy America" would that be a valid comment?

Saying liberals are communists and out to destroy America has as much validity and accuracy as saying all conservatives are nazis and facists who want to kill all of the minorities and restore America to an all white country. It's not true and it's not helpful to any discussion.

since when is it the job of the federal government to make your (or anybody's) day....?

 

[Freewill]

None of those on the right who are posting in this thread are the slightest bit interested in what liberals believe. We're all lazy, shiftless commies who want others to give us free stuff. That's what you believe and nothing we say is going to change your opinion. Every time someone in this thread posts what they believe, the right wingers tell us that's false. The right wingers know what we believe, we don't. You keep losing elections because you refuse to listen to ANYTHING that liberals are saying and then you call US stupid.

The economic policies and models you idiots believe will save America, have failed miserably. Unregulated free markets always result in extreme poverty, supressed wages, and destruction of the middle class. Well regulated, mixed economies are far more successful and sustainable, and reduce poverty, improve education and support a thriving middle class, which is necessary to the success of a consumer based economy.

Liberals don't want a welfare state, they want a social safety net. The don't want dependency, they want jobs which pay a living wage. They want good schools and teachers for their children, safe neighbourhoods, and equal opportunities for all. They want good roads, public buildings which are maintained and show pride in community.

The rewording or the Constitution is just a laugh. Conservatives keep trying desperately to justify their greed, their disregard of the poor, and their contempt for government, but they come off as sad and desperate. They cling to their failed ideas about an unfettered free market and refuse to acknowledge that conservative Republican ideology is as much a failure as communism.

Just to make a few points. I am a conservative and I am sure what you would call a right winger.

In my post on this subject I said that only liberals can answer the question.

But I must say why are right wingers greedy when the left wing in Congress, at least, have the most rich? When Obama and company brag about how much more money they can raise. Why when the left will rail against rich Republicans then in the next breath laugh because Republicans win all the poor states and have the most on welfare? Why is it greedy for me to want to keep what I, ME, MYSELF, earned and not greedy for someone to take what I earned and give it to someone else? Do liberals even listen to themselves?

Every survey I have ever read lists the conservatives as more generous in charitable giving then liberals. Yet you stereotype. As if our welfare state government is somehow those who do actually work fault. Can't be that we created the out of control welfare system through good intentions. Can't be that now that we have put millions into poverty and thus a welfare state the liberals know of no what to end what they have started, and maybe there is no way.

Can't be that the "free" trade and illegal immigrants are taking the jobs of those with low skill and education. No it has to be because a guy like me who puts in 50-60 hours a week wants to hang onto what I earned. If that is greed then I just might as well become charitable and stop working. Why in the hell would I work if getting ahead is now the liberal vice, except when applied to them.

than

How many such surveys have you read? I am guessing none. You saw it posted here a time or two and never even bothered to fact check it.

I am sure that when contributions to churches are figured in......the claim can be substantiated. But please don't act as though you have researched the matter.

The rest of your comment is whining drivel.

Whow, what I posted is so well known to be true it is hard to believe you would double down on stupid. But then again that is what low information liberals do, stay uninformed. That makes it easier to make up the facts as you go.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Also read here:

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was far more generous to charities than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden last year, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income, tax return data Romney’s campaign released Friday indicate.

Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.

Read more: Mitt Romney gives more to charity than President Obama, Joe Biden - POLITICO.com

Being as you seemingly have something against reading you can hear it here:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB0W6WL5H9E]Cheap in America Who Gives More ABC News - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragonlady]

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......

The US currently spends more than anybody else on Defense. China is #2 in Defense Spending. They spend half as much as the US, and they are surrounded on three sides by countries who are hostile to the Chinese and their interests. The US spends more on Defense than the next 13 countries combined, and most of those countries are American allies.

The US could easily cut Defense spending in half without in any way risking National Security. What would be at risk, is the ability of the US government to protect "US interests", read the property and assets of large US multi-national corporations, outside the US. Protecting "US interests" is why Defense spending is so high.

I say, if American companies are doing business in hostile environments, they should hire Blackwater to protect those interests and pay for them out of corporate revenues. If a foreign government opts nationalize an industry, that's a risk of doing business in a foreign country. Suck it up and accept that this is the right of foreign governments.

Studies show that every time the US government has intervened abroad to protect "US interests" over the past 100 years, such intervention is a protection of US corporate interests, and not those of the US people as a whole. I say let US multi-nations pay for protection of their own interests and stop making US taxpayers foot the bill for their economic colonialism.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

History is rife with examples of CIA directed coups against left-leaning governments. The CIA backed Pinochet murdered thousands of Chileans on the grounds that Allende was a communist. He wasn't, but he lead a protectionist government which would was nationalizing the banks, and barring US multi-nationals from taking money out of Chile, and that was "communistic" in the eyes of US officials (Nixon's Republicans).

 

[Freewill]

...

[.

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Obviously there is a point or you would not be responding.

Otherwise this is more evidence in support of conservative confusion and ignorance that liberals are pragmatists, and don’t adhere blindly to a particular political, social, or economic dogma. You and others on the right are clueless as to the truth outside of this ideological frame of reference.

The fact is that what little taxes you pay buys a great deal in the way of Federal, state, and local services.

Little I pay? Define little. Even Bill Mahr has had enough of the little he pays. What benefit that you know of do I recieve in local services? I grant you I get road work. I get a volunteer fire department. I get some police protection to investigate after a crime has been committed. Other then that I am not sure of what else I might get for my tax dollars.

The fact is there is no ‘welfare state,’ it’s a contrivance by the right.

You deny the statistics that welfare is exploding? Welfare spending as a percentage of GDP. One thing to note. Notice how it was trending down until something awful happened to the country in 2006?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com..._4.51_5.42_4.95_4.47_3.96_3.58_3.34_3.22_3.13
.

 

[dblack]

any more Defense cuts could jeopardize national security......

The US currently spends more than anybody else on Defense. China is #2 in Defense Spending. They spend half as much as the US, and they are surrounded on three sides by countries who are hostile to the Chinese and their interests. The US spends more on Defense than the next 13 countries combined, and most of those countries are American allies.

The US could easily cut Defense spending in half without in any way risking National Security. What would be at risk, is the ability of the US government to protect "US interests", read the property and assets of large US multi-national corporations, outside the US. Protecting "US interests" is why Defense spending is so high.

I say, if American companies are doing business in hostile environments, they should hire Blackwater to protect those interests and pay for them out of corporate revenues. If a foreign government opts nationalize an industry, that's a risk of doing business in a foreign country. Suck it up and accept that this is the right of foreign governments.

Studies show that every time the US government has intervened abroad to protect "US interests" over the past 100 years, such intervention is a protection of US corporate interests, and not those of the US people as a whole. I say let US multi-nations pay for protection of their own interests and stop making US taxpayers foot the bill for their economic colonialism.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

History is rife with examples of CIA directed coups against left-leaning governments. The CIA backed Pinochet murdered thousands of Chileans on the grounds that Allende was a communist. He wasn't, but he lead a protectionist government which would was nationalizing the banks, and barring US multi-nationals from taking money out of Chile, and that was "communistic" in the eyes of US officials (Nixon's Republicans).

Coudn't agree more. This is right out of Ron Paul's speeches and writings. Now if we could just get Democrats on board, we might be able to do something about it.