Discussion in 'Politics' started by dmp, Jun 2, 2005.
d your avatar is sweet
Best point of all....
Overall it is a good article Darin, although a little dated.
What's popping up is the NeoLib, a new fiscal idea. The defense of ideology abroad with behemoth costs now seems to have come from Conservatives, while the Liberals are against that. Are the new Liberals for welfare programs? Sort of. The last liberal President cut welfare and had a balanced budget. Liberals are now believing that programs that hand money to people are not good and need to go, but there are programs to help people get started on jobs, help provide transportation to their worksite if they are unable to afford that transportation, and other programs like that. However, liberals have taken a turn at fiscal conservatism and make balancing the budget a top priority.
The tax burden needs to be about what it was when this article was written, before the Bush tax cuts. The Laffer Curve shows those rates were better. Defining one's identity through a job is more alientating and dehumanizing in the first place than tax rates could ever be. Sure communal help is great, I'm a volunteer myself, but if we can't leave everything to charity. I mean imagine if we had option to decide how much in taxes ("charity taxes") we pay to the government. Our government would hardly earn any money.
You know I'm all for the philosophy of helping ones self, but the problem is in the "cycle of poverty" people aren't taught they can succeed, and that is why they fail. If you're poor, you definately have to help yourself a lot more, and you'll usually fail at least once on something very important, but persistence is key.
defense of ideology? seems to me we're protecting ACTUAL PEOPLE from fundamental islamist aggression.
Balanced budget only becomes a top priority for libs when there's a war on. Most libs are internationalists and feel the sovereignty of nations should be eroded so we "can all get along". Additionally, many libs feel America is fundamentally evil and is not worth defending. I'm not sure libs are really turning toward fiscal conservatism as you assert.
Liberals perpetuate the psychological spiral of poverty by attempting to convince people that their ONLY way out is through reliance on government social programs instead of themselves.
We're out defending our ideology that those people should have Freedom and Democracy. I think they've seen the light after Clinton had a balanced budget and supported the Third Way programs, which cut many aspects of welfare. I think they've realized their mistakes about government social programs. Meanwhile, under the current administration even just domestic spending is much higher than it was under Clinton. We had a balanced budget back then, when there wasn't a war on.
Most liberals are internationalists, but not to a degree that if we need to defend ourselves we will go ahead unilaterally. They consider something like Afghanistan as okay to do unilaterally, but don't consider a situation like Iraq as being suitable for unilateral action (but we had a coalition anyways).
I can tell you many libs don't feel America is evil. They feel the need for America to stick to its principles, and will concentrate to harshly on America's mistakes, to either decide how we can be a better nation or some will just do it for political gain.
We're also defending flesh and blood people from jihadi bombers.
I wish. I think this is not the case, though.
I wish. I think this is not the case though. they've just realized they need to sell themselves as moderates.
Somehow I'm still not convinced that the DEMS are the party of small government.
Yeah. Their litmus test is "is kojo annan doing ok with the whole deal?".
American principles are freedom and freemarkets, not tyranny by a self elected cultural elite, and planned economies.
is that all you can say? c'mon, you can do better than that
See: all of my other political forum posts for an indirect rebuttal.
Separate names with a comma.