What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[logical4u]

Does a woman own her own body? Anti-choice conservatives don't think so. Am I free to smoke marijuana? Conservative anti-drug types would throw me in prison. Is a gay person free to marry the partner of choice? Not if conservatives have their way about it. Conservatives pay lip service to freedom, but in practice not so much. Freedom to conservatives is essentially no oversight over business. Unfettered capitalism. Individual liberty, equal opportunity, and social justice mean nothing to them.

Is it legal for a person to commit suicide (after all, it is their own body)? Apparently, a baby's body is not its own, and another person can say, "kill them", and you are okay with that.
Does your marijuana smoking endanger others (second hand smoke, releasing pollutants, impaired judgment, operating machinery, moving near machinery, etc)?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Re-defining the word to implement a legal status for another type of partnership is fraud.

Freedom does not mean that you get to do what ever you want to do. It is a very mature concept where people respect each other, and are responsible for their own actions. It is not where people get to do what ever they want to do, until they fail, and then hold everyone else responsible for their failed life, when they expect "support".
Individual liberty is extremely important to conservatives. That liberty has a heavy burden; the liberated person is responsible for their own well being, and supports themselves and adds to the community. If they make it to old age, the community repays their contribution by kindness and generosity.
Equal opportunity, also extremely important to conservatives, if you want to tax one person, everyone else should be taxed accordingly (I guess that wasn't your definition of "equal opportunity"). Jobs: each child born in this country can start applying for "dead-end" (usually low paying) jobs when they reach the immature age of 16. They can continue to apply for jobs (and do volunteer work), until they get a job. They can then stay in that "dead-end" job until they are bored, or have gained enough experience to apply for a better "dead-end" job. Once they figure out that they are not satisfied with the job or the pay, they can "improve" themselves (saving money for school, scholarships, grants, military, volunteer work). They can then apply for better jobs. They may have to move to get a better job. The opportunity is there for every child in America. If the child at the immature age of 16 decides that it is important to them to dye their hair funny colors/get piercings in unorthodox places/get noticeable tattoos, those opportunities may be limited (individuality comes at a price). But there are still opportunities.
Social justice: an extremely dangerous tool for tyrants and dictators that has been used to overthrow governments, murder select groups, and control masses (mobs or people with mob mentality). It has nothing in common with "individual liberty". It is not something that conservatives want, after all if you believe in "individual" liberty, each person will want something different out of life (social justice implies equal outcomes, but usually ends with equal misery). What better way to get it, than to encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do an experiment for me. Ask people that seem happy, how they got to that point in their lives. I am willing to bet that they (the individual) worked to achieve personal goals, failed, picked themselves back up and went after that goal, again. They do not go out of their way to bad mouth others. Ask them if they are special. Chances are, they will tell you, no, just lucky or blessed.

I would tell you to ask an angry person the same question, but usually, they are not truthful. If you spend much time around angry people, you will see a pattern: some one helped them, but they did not help them "enough". They should be "given" more because they are "better" than those around them. They will run down others, while bragging on themselves. What is really, really sad, is that many of these people are extremely good at their jobs, have been blessed, but cannot see what they have because they want what someone else has, so badly. Instead of focusing on how to achieve those goals, they become focused on destroying what others have.

How on Earth to you espouse Conservatives are champions of "equal opportunity" in the same post you say that gays people don't have an "equal opportunity" to marry the person whom they love like a straight person does. Not allowing gay marriage is a direct violation of the 15th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Conservatives are only for "equal opportunity" when it suits them.

Straights do not always get to marry their first choice for marriage. Gays are allowed to marry within the definition of marriage. That is "equal" opportunity. You are advocating "additional" opportunities. It is a corruption of a long standing institution that has built societies and civilizations. In every place where homosexuals were elevated to legal status (or even accepted status), that society has fallen. Are you willing to sacrifice the country to give "additional" rights to people that practice "corruption"?
At the time the 15th Amendment was written, there were homosexuals. There was no specific reference to giving them "additional" rights. There was no specific reference of intentionally persecuting them either. Please quote the Constitution where it speaks of "marriage".

 

[Faun]

Clearly, whatever they're political bend, Liberals are pathological lairs.

Render unto Obama what is Obamas, render unto God what is Gods.

And you dare to say Jesus was a Loliberal

I'll tell you what, Frank. We'll have a pop test. Who said these words:

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."


1. Sarah Palin
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Glenn Beck
4. Jesus Christ

No Googling is allowed.

I didn't notice where it said that "you voted to have your gov't tax the working people (middle class), and to have the corrupt tax collectors feed me, give me clothing, take care of me, or visit me in prison"......

Matthew 22:21

 

[logical4u]

Ending a life for convenience is murder.

In YOUR opinion. In the opinion of more than 80% of Americans, abortion should be legal in some, if not all cases. Only 14% of Americans think as you do, yet you would impose your values of everyone else.

"homosexual or promiscuous behavior is harmful to individual's health and society". Check the ages for homosexual men. Homosexual women are more likely to be overweight according to a new study that the gov't is paying tax dollars to study. How do you think AIDS spread? Are you suggesting AIDS is good for societies?

Do I understand you correctly. You oppose homosexuality and promiscuous behaviour on the grounds that it's not good for society and spreads AIDS. So homosexual = AIDS to you. False but I understand your complete lack of knowledge about the gay community. Those we fear we demonize . You probably think you don't know any gay people.

Are you aware that nuns have a high incidence of breast cancer because they don't have sex? Having sex reduces the incidence of women's breast cancer.

"I said that drug dealers are teaching drug users to scam the system. Instead of condemning these criminal actions, you change the subject, hmmmm.

You accused me of "bigoted" opinions. I see factual statements. You have said nothing to "prove" my statements "wrong". Please do so, if you still feel that way.

These aren't facts. They're urban legends. You've linked to nothing to support these ideas which are rife with prejudice, homophobia and just plain disordered thinking. Turn off the conservative radio/TV and get out side.

Where am I "imposing" my views? Where did I say that abortion should be "illegal"? I said it is murder. Calling it anything else is ignoring the truth.

I said homosexual and promiscuous behaviors were unhealthy for the individual and society. I was told that wasn't so. I gave a few obvious examples. You ignore, and shuffle my words so you don't have to deal with the facts.....

Still waiting to see "facts" proving my statements incorrect.....

 

[logical4u]

I'll tell you what, Frank. We'll have a pop test. Who said these words:

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."


1. Sarah Palin
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Glenn Beck
4. Jesus Christ

No Googling is allowed.

I didn't notice where it said that "you voted to have your gov't tax the working people (middle class), and to have the corrupt tax collectors feed me, give me clothing, take care of me, or visit me in prison"......

Matthew 22:21

That last part is not in there. Yeshua wanted the "individual" to become a better person, to walk closer with the LORD. Yeshua never said that people should support their gov't because their gov't should be treated like G*d.

 

[Clementine]

Every liberal I've had discussions with seem to hold a basic belief that people all need help, "entitled" to things not listed in the bill of rights and somehow government is superior and more capable of making the decisions that affect people's lives. They feel that government should take the lead and that government bears the responsibility for peoples' well being. No one has ever been able to explain why some person who is good at playing politics and fooling people are experts on anything. It's not impressive when someone tells you they've been a politician for years. It just means they are better at playing the game and that is bad news for the people.

It's frustrating because they forget that this country was founded by people who sought to keep government in check and ensure that this would be a country governed by people. This country became great quickly. Even though America is the youngest nation, we had the strongest military, the best economy and more people becoming wealthy. Notice I said "had." As much as our healthcare is criticized, the truth is that people come from all over the world to seek care here. Even leaders from countries with socialized medicine, like Canada, come here. The health care in certain countries was apparently good enough for the people, but not good enough for the leaders. Of course, congress and Obama are exempt from Obamacare. If it's not good enough for them, it damn sure isn't good enough for any citizen.

It was a liberal president who took us seriously off track over a hundred years ago. With the mindset that government should rule, the Wilson administration made income tax law with a promise it would never go over 7%. The reasons were because we needed to take care of people and build up the infrastructure. Never mind we already had most of the things that government now takes credit for. Wilson also sold us out when he allowed private banks to take over the job of printing and distributing our money. Does anyone realize that we pay interest on every dollar printed? And then we have to borrow even more money from the Federal Reserve to pay that interest, which means even more interest. Goldman Sachs is part of the Federal Reserve and it's not surprising that they benefitted from the stimulus. It's also not surprising that they would be the biggest benefactors from Cap and Trade. The 'trade' part is where they come in and it would ultimately allow them to hoard the lion's share of money in the world.

Why have both parties pandered to the Federal Reserve? It was the banks who actually wrote the legislation, which Wilson signed. They literally own us and their very existence has threatened this country from the day they took over our money. I don't believe any president has been elected without approval or backing from the Federal Reserve banks.

Neither party has the balls to declare the Federal Reserve unconstitutional and attempt to transfer the power back where it belongs. The people, through their elected officials, should be in control.

It doesn't matter which ideology each party has. Neither will work until we get things back to where they are meant to be.

As it is, government has created problems and both sides pretend to know the solution. Yet we go through years of each party in control and nothing changes. That is because they don't want it to change. Or they can't because we are so far off track, it's hopeless. They will never attack any problem at the core and will continue to offer up lame solutions to treat the symptoms.

The biggest difference between parties?

Republicans do love personal responsibility and capitalism. Freedom and liberty are not gifts from government. Our rights are sacred and government can't touch them as they are our protection from tyranny.

Democrats love government being responsible for people and socialism. Freedom and liberty are what the government allows and they limit those as they see fit for the "greater good." Our rights change according to their policies.

Government's only role was to create fair legislation to keep people honest and to oversee those regulations. Never, ever, was government created so they could tell us what to eat, how to live and have the ability to take as much of our money as they see fit. That is the same shit our forefathers ran away from and the very reason our constitution was written.

Dictators always believe they know best and they think that the lesser people in the world should obey them. They claim everything they do is for the greater good, yet more people become miserable under their rule.

We keep hearing now that we all have to sacrifice for the greater good, but many realize those are empty words.

People can do more for themselves than government. Too bad most don't realize that. Millions look to government for answers and the politicians never deliver. I think liberals tend to react emotionally to things and too often come up with "feel good" legislation that does nothing, but sounds good. People tend to feel safer when government promises to address problems, but nothing changes except our freedoms and liberty take another hit.

Serving one's country should be an honor, not a lucrative money making venture, yet most politicians come out very wealthy. The founders did not intend for our elected officials to use their power to serve themselves with raises and cushy benefits. They decided they don't need to follow laws. Insider trading will get you or I thrown in jail. Insider trading will get a politician wealthy.

The politicians always serve themselves first and it seems their number one priority is ensuring that money pours into their states so their constituents will re-elect them.

Many politicians, especially on the left, have built up a class of people who are completely dependent on government and, by doing so, ensured their own power for years.

Does the left really believe that people need government to survive? Maybe, maybe not, but they've spent decades convicing a growing number of welfare recipients that they do need government.

I find it sad that so many ignorant Americans buy into that crap and believe that their miserable lot in life is really someone elses fault. The liberals convinced them that if some people are making a lot of money, it means others will get less. They believe some take a bigger piece of the pie unfairly as if wealth is finite. They don't understand how wealth is created and how the pie grows when more people work. That is why we hear phrases, like fair share, inequality in incomes and wealthy taking from the poor. It's about blaming others, then turning to government to make it right. It's quite pathetic, but some will never understand why liberalism is flawed when it comes to economics.

 

[Dragonlady]

You don't want to hear about the "solution". You want to scream that it is "bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. You want to accuse us of shoving "religion" down other peoples' throats. You want to call us homophobes.

Opposition to women's freedom of choice on abortion is shoving your religion down my throat. You don't believe in abortion, don't have one. That's how "choice" works.

You don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. Again, you are shoving your beliefs down our throats. It's paternalistic and it says that you know better than we do. We don't believe that your values are correct and proper. They are prejudiced and disrespectful.

Your Judeo Christian values of maturity and marriage as the solution to poverty is the most simplistic approach to the most complex situation and ignores the economic realities of our times. Increases in poverty have been caused by stagnant wages for working class families since the Reagan took office in 1980, and by the massive transfer of wealth from working and middle class families to the wealthiest 20% of individuals and corporation under the guise of free market economics.

In real terms, wages for the working poor have gone down, as free trade policies saw manufacturing moved offshore chasing lower costs. Returning to Judeo Christian values will not bring back jobs lost to China and other low wage, free market countries. It won't increase the minimum wage, or put food on the table. While you want the country to return to God, the Fortune 500 are cleaning out your bank accounts.

Why do you keep voting democrat? They said they were going to help the blacks. Are the blacks doing better? Are black families staying together? Is black unemployment being reduced? They said they would have a war on poverty. Poverty is higher now than it has been in decades (mostly democrat controlled congress for that time period). They said they were going to improve education. Do you think education is better? I believe that there are a whole bunch of people on this board that have not even read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, let alone, comprehend them. The democrats have told you they are for a strong middle class. How is the middle class doing? Haven't their wages come down under democrat "leadership"? Why DO you keep voting democrat?

I have absolutely no recollection of any of these things you say they promised. You decry government involvement in people's lives and then ask why the Democrats are doing nothing to keep black families together. How is that the job of a political party? A government's job is to provide infrastructure, regulation, and security to the nation and it's people. Marriage counselling isn't part of the package.

Obama has reduce unemployment - for all races. It's at it's lowest levels since he took office. As for education, he just announced he's going to start working on that in this year's State of the Union address. It takes more than 2 months to make sweeping changes to education.

The middle class are doing fine. They have recovered the value of their stocks and the market is doing well. The housing market is recovering and prices are starting to rise. This is the stuff Romney didn't want happening before the election. The recovery has turned a corner and is picking up steam.

Obama's policies are working, not that any Republican will ever admit it.

 

[tjvh]

Question: What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

Answer: Ask not what you can do for your Country, but what can your Country do for you.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Liberals evolve...which might be a good lesson for conservatives to learn...

 

[Dragonlady]

Where am I "imposing" my views? Where did I say that abortion should be "illegal"? I said it is murder. Calling it anything else is ignoring the truth.

I said homosexual and promiscuous behaviors were unhealthy for the individual and society. I was told that wasn't so. I gave a few obvious examples. You ignore, and shuffle my words so you don't have to deal with the facts.....

Still waiting to see "facts" proving my statements incorrect.....

For someone who calls themself "logical", there is no logic and certainly no facts in your posts.

"Facts" are studies by from unbiased sources which back up your assertions. You are reciting your personal prejudices and passing them off as facts. Please provide evidence that "abortion is murder" - studies to back up these statements of yours. I don't have to prove them to be false because you haven't provided any proof that they're true.

 

[Faun]

Is it legal for a person to commit suicide (after all, it is their own body)? Apparently, a baby's body is not its own, and another person can say, "kill them", and you are okay with that.
Does your marijuana smoking endanger others (second hand smoke, releasing pollutants, impaired judgment, operating machinery, moving near machinery, etc)?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Re-defining the word to implement a legal status for another type of partnership is fraud.

Freedom does not mean that you get to do what ever you want to do. It is a very mature concept where people respect each other, and are responsible for their own actions. It is not where people get to do what ever they want to do, until they fail, and then hold everyone else responsible for their failed life, when they expect "support".
Individual liberty is extremely important to conservatives. That liberty has a heavy burden; the liberated person is responsible for their own well being, and supports themselves and adds to the community. If they make it to old age, the community repays their contribution by kindness and generosity.
Equal opportunity, also extremely important to conservatives, if you want to tax one person, everyone else should be taxed accordingly (I guess that wasn't your definition of "equal opportunity"). Jobs: each child born in this country can start applying for "dead-end" (usually low paying) jobs when they reach the immature age of 16. They can continue to apply for jobs (and do volunteer work), until they get a job. They can then stay in that "dead-end" job until they are bored, or have gained enough experience to apply for a better "dead-end" job. Once they figure out that they are not satisfied with the job or the pay, they can "improve" themselves (saving money for school, scholarships, grants, military, volunteer work). They can then apply for better jobs. They may have to move to get a better job. The opportunity is there for every child in America. If the child at the immature age of 16 decides that it is important to them to dye their hair funny colors/get piercings in unorthodox places/get noticeable tattoos, those opportunities may be limited (individuality comes at a price). But there are still opportunities.
Social justice: an extremely dangerous tool for tyrants and dictators that has been used to overthrow governments, murder select groups, and control masses (mobs or people with mob mentality). It has nothing in common with "individual liberty". It is not something that conservatives want, after all if you believe in "individual" liberty, each person will want something different out of life (social justice implies equal outcomes, but usually ends with equal misery). What better way to get it, than to encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do an experiment for me. Ask people that seem happy, how they got to that point in their lives. I am willing to bet that they (the individual) worked to achieve personal goals, failed, picked themselves back up and went after that goal, again. They do not go out of their way to bad mouth others. Ask them if they are special. Chances are, they will tell you, no, just lucky or blessed.

I would tell you to ask an angry person the same question, but usually, they are not truthful. If you spend much time around angry people, you will see a pattern: some one helped them, but they did not help them "enough". They should be "given" more because they are "better" than those around them. They will run down others, while bragging on themselves. What is really, really sad, is that many of these people are extremely good at their jobs, have been blessed, but cannot see what they have because they want what someone else has, so badly. Instead of focusing on how to achieve those goals, they become focused on destroying what others have.

How on Earth to you espouse Conservatives are champions of "equal opportunity" in the same post you say that gays people don't have an "equal opportunity" to marry the person whom they love like a straight person does. Not allowing gay marriage is a direct violation of the 15th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Conservatives are only for "equal opportunity" when it suits them.

Straights do not always get to marry their first choice for marriage. Gays are allowed to marry within the definition of marriage. That is "equal" opportunity. You are advocating "additional" opportunities. It is a corruption of a long standing institution that has built societies and civilizations. In every place where homosexuals were elevated to legal status (or even accepted status), that society has fallen. Are you willing to sacrifice the country to give "additional" rights to people that practice "corruption"?
At the time the 15th Amendment was written, there were homosexuals. There was no specific reference to giving them "additional" rights. There was no specific reference of intentionally persecuting them either.

How the fuck do you figure giving someone "equal opportunity" is advocating "additional opportunity??"

It's bullshit to claim that treating gays as equals will destroy the nation, so that point gets thrown in the dumpster as the false premise it was intended to be. Same sex marriage is legal in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have not fallen. Same sex marriage is legal in Belgium. Belgium has not fallen. Same sex marriage is legal in Spain. Spain has not fallen. Same sex marriage is legal in Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina. None of those coutries have fallen.

Please quote the Constitution where it speaks of "marriage".

Holy shit!

Read the 14th Amendment!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Do you get it? Or do you need me to explain it to you? Equal protection of the laws. That means you can't impose the law differently from one person to another. While Churches are completely within their right to decide who can marry whom, the state cannot, since a marriage is a legally sanctioned contract by the state.

There; now ya know where marriage is covered by the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

Ending a life for convenience is murder.

In YOUR opinion. In the opinion of more than 80% of Americans, abortion should be legal in some, if not all cases. Only 14% of Americans think as you do, yet you would impose your values of everyone else.



Do I understand you correctly. You oppose homosexuality and promiscuous behaviour on the grounds that it's not good for society and spreads AIDS. So homosexual = AIDS to you. False but I understand your complete lack of knowledge about the gay community. Those we fear we demonize . You probably think you don't know any gay people.

Are you aware that nuns have a high incidence of breast cancer because they don't have sex? Having sex reduces the incidence of women's breast cancer.

"I said that drug dealers are teaching drug users to scam the system. Instead of condemning these criminal actions, you change the subject, hmmmm.

You accused me of "bigoted" opinions. I see factual statements. You have said nothing to "prove" my statements "wrong". Please do so, if you still feel that way.

These aren't facts. They're urban legends. You've linked to nothing to support these ideas which are rife with prejudice, homophobia and just plain disordered thinking. Turn off the conservative radio/TV and get out side.

Where am I "imposing" my views? Where did I say that abortion should be "illegal"? I said it is murder. Calling it anything else is ignoring the truth.

I said homosexual and promiscuous behaviors were unhealthy for the individual and society. I was told that wasn't so. I gave a few obvious examples. You ignore, and shuffle my words so you don't have to deal with the facts.....

Still waiting to see "facts" proving my statements incorrect.....

You're wrong because abortion is not murder.

Words have meaning.

"Murder" means to unlawfully kill a human being with malice aforethought.

Abortions are typically not illegal, though some are depending on the stage of the pregnancy and the state it is performed in.

But most are lawful, meaning it ain't murder. And calling it murder when it's not, does not make it so.

 

[Faun]

I didn't notice where it said that "you voted to have your gov't tax the working people (middle class), and to have the corrupt tax collectors feed me, give me clothing, take care of me, or visit me in prison"......

Matthew 22:21

That last part is not in there. Yeshua wanted the "individual" to become a better person, to walk closer with the LORD. Yeshua never said that people should support their gov't because their gov't should be treated like G*d.

Matthew 22:21

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" ~ Jesus

"Taxes" are included in "the things which [were] Caeser's."

 

[Faun]

Every liberal I've had discussions with seem to hold a basic belief that people all need help, "entitled" to things not listed in the bill of rights and somehow government is superior and more capable of making the decisions that affect people's lives....

My belief is that the government should be the safety net of those who need the help, NOT all people. Not all people need help. But for the ones who do need the help and don't have others they can rely on to provide it, it's great for them to live in a country where most people pitch in to help those who need it.

There. I'm a liberal. No now you can never again say "every Liberal" holds that belief which you claim every Liberal holds.

 

[Dragonlady]

A safety net is a requirement in a capitalistic society which is subject to more volatile markets and swings in employment. But I want corporations to pay living wages.

Food stamp receipients receive, on average, $131 a month, but this is an expensive program to administer, through two levels of government, with a qualifying criteria and approval process. Raising the minimum wage $2 and hour would raise wages by $80 per 40 hour week, raising income by $320 a month, and reducing the need for people to receive food stamps.

Administration costs are reduced. Entitlement expenditures are reduced and the working poor get a raise. Republicans oppose the idea, yet they want to end entitlement programs and have people take responsibility for themselves. These are the choices guys - raise wages or keep paying for food. Pick one and quit complaining. People need a living wage.

 

[Oldguy]

A safety net is a requirement in a capitalistic society which is subject to more volatile markets and swings in employment. But I want corporations to pay living wages.

Food stamp receipients receive, on average, $131 a month, but this is an expensive program to administer, through two levels of government, with a qualifying criteria and approval process. Raising the minimum wage $2 and hour would raise wages by $80 per 40 hour week, raising income by $320 a month, and reducing the need for people to receive food stamps.

Administration costs are reduced. Entitlement expenditures are reduced and the working poor get a raise. Republicans oppose the idea, yet they want to end entitlement programs and have people take responsibility for themselves. These are the choices guys - raise wages or keep paying for food. Pick one and quit complaining. People need a living wage.

No, the GOP has a third option: Let 'em starve.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the repubs did not "force" the sequester....the budget 'super committee' could not come to any resolution so the sequester trigger happened.....both sides had agreed on it..in fact i believe this trigger idea first came from the White House...

now both sides are regretting it in various ways...

however BO is doing his best to make sure that maximum pain is being felt....nice guy huh?

and to top it off.... instead of making a reasonable deal to just reorganize priorities and soften the blow of the sequestration cuts.....BO is throwing more taxes on the deal.....nice guy once again huh?

now what have the repubs done.....? refused to tax the American people even more than BO has already done this January....? gosh....real bastards aren't they....? (sarcasm)

It would all be so heartrending the way you present it if the fact is that the Republicans are trying to use the Sequestration to prevent the implementation of the ACA, which, if you will recall, was one of the things that the American public voted in favour of in the last election. They also voted in favour of higher taxes for the wealthy.

Do you not understand that using the Budget negotiations to force measure on the American public that they clearly rejected in the Presidential elections is both stupid and wrong? I know that Republicans must do this, otherwise their Tea Party constituents will nail their asses to the wall for caving, but that doesn't mean that they should be doing it or that it is of any help to the situation.

Republicans are negotiating in bad faith. It's the only tool they have left, and it won't work.

excuse me but you do not seem to understand the American system....

just because you dimwits voted a subversive marxist into the executive office again does not mean we have to agree with his proposals....his slim win was hardly a mandate....

Congress is the legislative part of the process....you might take notice that the voters elected a majority of Republicans in the House....and the Tea Party conservatives DO have America's back...

Without republican gerrymandering you wouldn't have a majority in the house either. The Tea Party has an approval rating on a par with Congress. The majority consider them to be out of touch with mainstream America.

 

[Publius1787]

None of those on the right who are posting in this thread are the slightest bit interested in what liberals believe.

I was. Thats why I posted the op. No "liberal" has responded to it.

 

[Publius1787]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?



That which does the greatest number of people the greatest amount of good for the greatest length of time.

You just defined utilitarianism. But the specifics are lacking.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Someone needs to read Hayek.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

here we are. Book Discussion on [Bad History, Worse Policy] - C-SPAN Video Library
Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative about the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act - Economics - AEI

In 1999, Peter Wallison was quoted in The New York Times to the effect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to put American taxpayers at risk. “This is another thrift industry growing up around us,” he said. “If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Now, in his new book, “Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative about the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act,” (AEI Press) Wallison argues that the Dodd-Frank Act — the Obama administration’s sweeping financial regulation law — will suppress economic growth for years to come. Based on his essays on financial services issues published between 2004 and 2012, Wallison shows that the act was based on a false and ideologically motivated narrative about the financial crisis. Some prominent conclusions from the book:
•As the economy began to recover from the recession, it was growing at 2.5 percent annually, but since the enactment of Dodd-Frank in July 2010, the average growth rate has been 2 percent, and each year has been slower than the last.
•Large financial institutions — designated under the Dodd-Frank Act as threats to the stability of US financial markets — will be seen as “too big to fail,” receiving lower cost funds from creditors and investors who believe they are less risky than their smaller rivals.
•Because of these benefits, large firms will come to dominate the financial markets, stifling competition and providing a basis for new forms of crony-capitalist cooperation between government big finance.
•The Volcker Rule, when finalized, will reduce liquidity in the financial markets and raise the costs of borrowing for state and local governments as well as every US company that finances itself through the issuance of bonds.
•New requirements for mortgage lending, such as the Qualified Residential Mortgage and the Qualified Mortgage, will make it difficult and substantially more expensive even for people with good credit to obtain mortgage financing.
•The new regulatory scheme for derivatives will add enormous new costs to hedging and risk-management transactions for all financial and non-financial firms.
•The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will impose substantial new costs on all small businesses, forcing many small companies out of business or into mergers with larger firms, and will reduce innovation in consumer products.



These myriad consequences flow directly from a narrative that blames the financial crisis on deregulation and private-sector risk-taking. In reality, the government itself has escaped blame for housing policies that deliberately degraded mortgage-underwriting standards and built a housing bubble in which half the mortgages were subprime or otherwise low quality.

“I don’t remember any period in modern history when the analysis of historic economic events has been more dominated by the clear thinking of one person. That person’s name is Peter Wallison. He has dispelled more myths and provided more insights than all other scholars and commentators combined. If you want to know what triggered the financial crisis and why Federal policy misdiagnosed both the illness and the appropriate treatment, all you have to do is read this book.”

—Phil Gramm, Former Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and Senior Partner of US Policy Metrics

“This book is indispensable reading for anyone seeking to understand the actual causes of the financial crisis and why the Dodd-Frank Act should be reconsidered. Peter Wallison reveals how government failures, not market failures, produced the financial crisis. With sound logic and solid evidence, he explains how the Left’s blind faith in unaccountable regulators and its institutionalization of government bailouts have made our financial system less safe. Peter Wallison was right on the dangers posed by the GSEs; in time he will also be proven right on the origins of the
financial crisis and the flaws of the Dodd-Frank Act.”

—Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

“The Dodd-Frank Act is a mind-numbing combination of costly, destructive, and ineffective measures, executed quickly to make maximum use of the political momentum that followed the U.S. subprime crisis. As its practical failures are revealed, the act will have to be reformed. Although future reformers may not agree with everything in Peter Wallison’s Bad History, Worse Policy, they will find the evidence and logic he brings to bear impossible to ignore.”

—Charles Calomiris, Professor, Columbia University