Why do people hate Liberals?

[thanatos144]

Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?

How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?

stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?

How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?

stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself

Same here in TX. No State income tax. High five...

What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion? We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.

 

[thanatos144]

How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS?

stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself

Same here in TX. No State income tax. High five...

What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion? We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.

That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.

 

[RKMBrown]

stealing your paychecks huh? I don't steal s***. in my state taxes are sales taxes. that's how we pay for things like police fire department you know those things you want to take advantage of yet not want to pay for yourself

Same here in TX. No State income tax. High five...

What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion? We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.

That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.

No it's not, you stupid lying pea brained dufus. I was talking about social security, medicare, federal welfare, etc... Go back under your rock.

 

[thanatos144]

Same here in TX. No State income tax. High five...

What does police, fire, and rescue have to do with this discussion? We are talking about federal government program funding not state and local government.

That what government is suppose to provide you fucking idiot! Thats what you are calling authoritarian.

No it's not, you stupid lying pea brained dufus. I was talking about social security and medicare. Go back under your rock.

Yet NONE of us was talking about that.... Just you......

 

[Foxfyre]

RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted. And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law. They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.

That is NOT social contract.

Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote. Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department. Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program. But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.

Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.

You are quibbling over terms. As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."

Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"

From websters:

Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.

No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."

Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.

SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.

You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.

Definition: The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power.
Social Contract - Definition of Social Contract

Bing Dictionary
so·cial con·tract

1.agreement of social rights and duties: an agreement among individual people in a society or between the people and their government that outlines the rights and duties of each party.

Dictionary.com
social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.

All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.

American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.

For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.

There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract. Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal. At the Federal level, never.

 

[peach174]

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one.
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one.
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?

We do seem to have a problem.

Nobody wants to even try to reach an agreement on defintions for:

Left Winger
Liberal
Progressive
Statist
Political Class
Libertarian
Anarchist
libtertarian
Classical Liberal
Right Winger
Conservative

We can't agree on a description of concepts like Social Contract or on any concepts of principle period.

We can't agree on what the Constitution says.

We can't agree on separate roles for the Federal, State, County, local government or mini-governments created by bylaws and/or agreed rules.

We can't agree on what liberty or freedom are.

But for sure everybody has strong opinions about the sins and greed and corruption and evil of the other guy and the moral superiority of their own group. They just don't want to bring any discussion or good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, constructive or destruction concepts into that and refuse any attempt to do so.

And we wonder why there is such contention between members or groups of Congress and why intelligent conversation is so difficult to come by on a message board.

 

[rightwinger]

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one.
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?

Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all

To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda

 

[Foxfyre]

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one.
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?

Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all

To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda

Really? I don't see anybody else here who has even suggested such a comparison of virtue other than you. Why is it on your mind and not on the mind among those you most criticize, accuse, and blame?

To your credit you don't always claim moral superiority though. Probably even more often you justify what your people do because those other guys' do it or did it too.

You just contradicted yourself though because earlier you were saying on this very thread something to the effect that it doesn't make any difference what level of government is involved because it is all government and we'll pay one or the other regardless.

Edit. Ah yes, here it is - Post #1593

Glad you asked...

Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare
Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services

Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.

>>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare

So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics. Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs? From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.

>>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services

I can get all of that for free on the internet. Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?

Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?

Government is Government is Government

It all comes out of our pocket

 

[peach174]

I don't recall any rightwingers saying that city, towns or state governments are virtuous.
Our City of Benson has corruption just as much as other AZ. cities, as well as our State Government.
Tucson if full of corrupt politicians.
The local people are working at correcting this, at all levels of Government.
Benson just got a recall petition going on 2 of our corrupt city Council Members.
The people of Arizona are working at getting a recall petition on our Senators McCain and Flake.

 

[dblack]

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one.
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?

Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all

To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda

Nah.. there's nothing magical about local governments that makes them more likely to get it right. It's just that when they're wrong, they don't take the rest of us down with them. When policies are local and limited, they're easier to correct if and when they go off the rails. National programs, on the other hand, put all our eggs in one basket and tend to commit us to long term solutions that often don't fit local needs.

 

[RKMBrown]

RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted. And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law. They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.

That is NOT social contract.

Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote. Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department. Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program. But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.

Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.

You are quibbling over terms. As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."

Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"

From websters:

Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.

No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."

Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.

SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.

You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.

Bing Dictionary
so·cial con·tract

1.agreement of social rights and duties: an agreement among individual people in a society or between the people and their government that outlines the rights and duties of each party.

Dictionary.com
social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.

All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.

American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.

For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.

There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract. Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal. At the Federal level, never.

Then by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement. Please recognize that anyone saying they like the idea of social contracts makes them sound like a socialist in the current public square. The reason being, socialists have co-opted the term and bastardized it to cover forced authoritarian contracts, such as social security, welfare, and even the civil war amendments that were agreed to by the south only upon thread of death. Our constitution has been bastardized to allow state and federal governments to take away our life, liberty, and happiness as long as they claim it was done with due process. For example, call it a tax. Because of personal income taxes, our federal government does not need to quibble with your version of social contracts.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are quibbling over terms. As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."

Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"

From websters:

Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.

No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."

Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.

SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.

You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.

Dictionary.com
social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.

All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.

American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.

For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.

There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract. Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal. At the Federal level, never.

Then by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement. Please recognize that anyone saying they like the idea of social contracts makes them sound like a socialist in the current public square. The reason being, socialists have co-opted the term and bastardized it to cover forced authoritarian contracts, such as social security, welfare, and even the civil war amendments that were agreed to by the south only upon thread of death. Authoritarians and Socialists have bastardized our constitution to allow state and federal governments to take away our life, liberty, and happiness as long as they claim it was done with due process. For example, call it a tax.

We are not in any kind of agreement if you insist on calling programs like Medicare and Social Security social contract. They are not. They are authoritarian government dictates. Social contract requires consent of the people--in order for social security or Medicare to be social contract the people would have decided they were desirable for mutual benefit and would have instructed the government to implement them. That is not the way we got either program and that is why they both are the shaky boondoggles that they have become.

Taxes were to fund the necessary constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government. That too was agreed via social contract. Anything beyond that authorization and presumed by the government on its own arises out of overreach of an authoritarian government the Founders never intended the Federal government to be.

At the state, county, local, or group level, the Founders intended the people to be free to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have and, the Federal government would not interfere with that in any way other than to prevent the states from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other.

 

[numan]

...have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS? Is that your "philosophy?" Do nothing and live off the labors of others?

It is my view that if the vast majority of humanity is not working to support me and others who are the finest flower of culture and civilization in our intense and subtle lucubrations, then there is really very little else that justifies their continued inconsequential existence.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

...have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS? Is that your "philosophy?" Do nothing and live off the labors of others?

It is my view that if the vast majority of humanity is not working to support me and others who are the finest flower of culture and civilization in our intense and subtle lucubrations, then there is really very little else that justifies their continued inconsequential existence.

.

I salute your honesty, and look forward to the day I can throw you out into the street.

 

[RKMBrown]

You again are as stubborn as some others in refusing to see what a definition says.







All of the above are the Lockean model adopted by the Founding Fathers and was written into the Constitution as they interpreted it.

American leftists, liberals, anarchists, progressives, Stattists, political class and Libertarians (big L) of course most reject the principle because all are authoritarian to the point of denying others the society they wish to have.

For the same reason the liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/political class among us refuse to define their beliefs in any substantive way I think mostly because it would be hugely embarrassing to do so - or - they know they cannot defend what they promote without looking like the hardcore authoritarians that they are.

There is no way that a mandate from the Federal government, like social security for instance, for which the people gave no consent, can be said to be social contract. Not only did the people have no say whether it would be imposed upon us, but it violates every principle of social contract the Founders wrote into the Constitution. At the State or local level, if the people deem it necessary, it would be legal. At the Federal level, never.

Then by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement. Please recognize that anyone saying they like the idea of social contracts makes them sound like a socialist in the current public square. The reason being, socialists have co-opted the term and bastardized it to cover forced authoritarian contracts, such as social security, welfare, and even the civil war amendments that were agreed to by the south only upon thread of death. Authoritarians and Socialists have bastardized our constitution to allow state and federal governments to take away our life, liberty, and happiness as long as they claim it was done with due process. For example, call it a tax.

We are not in any kind of agreement if you insist on calling programs like Medicare and Social Security social contract. They are not. They are authoritarian government dictates. Social contract requires consent of the people--in order for social security or Medicare to be social contract the people would have decided they were desirable for mutual benefit and would have instructed the government to implement them. That is not the way we got either program and that is why they both are the shaky boondoggles that they have become.

Taxes were to fund the necessary constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government. That too was agreed via social contract. Anything beyond that authorization and presumed by the government on its own arises out of overreach of an authoritarian government the Founders never intended the Federal government to be.

At the state, county, local, or group level, the Founders intended the people to be free to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have and, the Federal government would not interfere with that in any way other than to prevent the states from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other.

What part of by "your" preferred definition of the term "social contract" you and I are in violent agreement confused you?

What part of the general understanding by 99.99999% of all humans on the face of the planet that view social contracts to include mandated social programs for which you have no choice is confusing you?

Your choice of terms is "classical" not "modern." Just as with the co-opting of the term liberalism you have to qualify which version you are talking about because they are clearly the opposite of each other. You can't just stammer around and whine about the fact that the term has been bastardized by modern liberals. Well, you can but it won't solve your stated goal of achieving a vocabulary that we can use.

 

[rightwinger]

There are quite a few in this Nation who do not seem understand the difference between State Government and Federal Government.
They seem to lump them together as one.
How will we ever get well informed voters if they can't even understand the different roles that the States and Federal Governments have?

Some functions are best performed by local government, some are best performed by state governments and some by the federal government. Some are best not done by government at all

To pretend that our local and state governments are paradigms of virtue while the federal government is evil incarnate is just rightwing propaganda

Really? I don't see anybody else here who has even suggested such a comparison of virtue other than you. Why is it on your mind and not on the mind among those you most criticize, accuse, and blame?

To your credit you don't always claim moral superiority though. Probably even more often you justify what your people do because those other guys' do it or did it too.

You just contradicted yourself though because earlier you were saying on this very thread something to the effect that it doesn't make any difference what level of government is involved because it is all government and we'll pay one or the other regardless.

Edit. Ah yes, here it is - Post #1593

Since we are talking feds, I'll assume by government you meant federal.

>>> Federal Government programs allow people to survive while they are getting back on their feet. Food, Shelter, Healthcare

So do local food banks, shelters, and free clinics. Can you explain the difference between federal programs for same and local programs? From what I can tell the primary difference is federal programs are unlimited in duration and not designed to wean people off assistance, by contrast they are designed to make people permanently dependent.

>>> Federal Government programs also provide education, jobs training, childcare while you work or go to school. job placement services

I can get all of that for free on the internet. Why do we need hundreds of MASSIVE duplicate federal programs to provide education and jobs training for jobs that are being off-shored?

Why are you guys obsessed with the Feds?

Government is Government is Government

It all comes out of our pocket

My point is consistent...

Namely, that to break out the federal government as an entity to be despised is ridiculous. We pay for GOVERNMENT......period
Government is provided at different levels depending on what functions are performed. The key is to set the level of government that is most efficient. The local level is not always the most efficient

 

[Pogo]

The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.

My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with, and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.

The thread should rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them. Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

"Why do people hate liberals"? Because the man in the box tells them to. What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means. That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box. His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate. You're not supposed to ask "why". Ignorance is Strength.

The thread should rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them. Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

You mean like stuff like this?


"Why do people hate liberals"? Because the man in the box tells them to. What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means. That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box. His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate. You're not supposed to ask "why". Ignorance is Strength.

As Individual Liberty is attacked and eroded away, this is your big concern? Freedom of Speech is an important tool, as much for the listener as for the speaker. You might want to consider that. Personally, I find those most offended by speech, and ideas, not their own, are out of balance. Life is about more than controlling others and bending them to anyone's will. Witness, and bearing witness of what you see, is both a developed skill, and an obligation to conscience, at the least.

No construct is of more value, than the principle purpose it was created to preserve.

The point about the thread being rooted in Liberal Philosophy was in relation to the forum it is located in, and why.

Perhaps I didn't convey the meaning. I'm not even sure what your counterpoint is addressing.

The passage you put in bold was sarcasm. I already agree that this thread does belong in Philosophy; I'm simply observing, going back to the thread title "why do people hate liberals" -- that they don't... they hate what the man in the box describes to them as "liberals". Which isn't the same thing, and I tried for a dozen posts here to make that point, only to deaf ears.

I'm saying most wags on this board, and in political discourse in general, aren't interested in what "liberalism" actually is or what "conservative" or "right" or "left" actually mean. They're interested in flinging catchphrases in some vast political football game. They're interested only in parroting the man in the box -- which means talk radio bloviators, demagogue political bloggers, TV talking heads, all those gadflies for whom truth is an inconvenience and fatuous insipid catchphrases are a godsend. The objective of the man in the box is to demonize their (perceived) opponents for the purpose of eliminating them. And of course, ratings. But certainly it has nothing to do with discourse.

And I speak of that whole tactic sarcastically because the very idea of pushing a monologue where one entire side is eliminated -- as opposed to a balance of two sides' give-and-take exchange -- is bullshit.

"What is a Liberal?" is one question. "What is the word liberal used for in contemporary discourse?" is quite another. It was the latter that was alluded to in sarcasm.

But the idea of what this thread could be? Sure, it definitely belongs in Philosophy.

 

[Bfgrn]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

JFK would be a Republican today...REALLY? Today's GOP would propose Medicare? Civil Rights Bill?? A War on Poverty???

A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.

Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:

Medicare
Civil Rights
The War on Poverty

Economy

The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,

The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,

The redevelopment of distressed areas,

An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,

An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,

The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and

The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

Labor

Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage

An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.

The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of “maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."

A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.

The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established “standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts”.

A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.

Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.

Education

Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.

Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.

The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.

The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.

The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.

A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.

The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.

An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it “the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history”.

Welfare

Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.

In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.

The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.

The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.

The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.

A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, “enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk”.

ADC was extended to whole families (1961).

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.

A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief”.

A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.

Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs’ primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.

Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.

Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.

An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.

Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

Civil rights

Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, “Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.”

Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.

Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.

The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.

Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administration’s affirmative action policies).

The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.

The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations “showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs”.

Housing

The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.

Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.

Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.

Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.

Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing ‘urban textures’.

Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.

Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.

The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were “designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over”.

Unemployment

To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a “pilot” Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.

Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.

The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.

The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.

Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.

The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.

The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.

Health

In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.

A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.

The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.

The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established “a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families”.

The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).

The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.

The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.

Equal rights for women

The President’s Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.

In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.

Environment

The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.

The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.

The water pollution prevention program was doubled.

More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon “previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.”

Crime

Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.

wiki

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy