Define liberals and conservatives

[CrotchetyGeezer]

To begin with the liberals have become unamerican's. While the consevatives are for the american people and the liberals aren't. But unfortunately not one of the politicians on both sides is doing nothing for us. The republicans try but then cave in. No politician in washington right now is working for the people and just working for what they want.

With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the opposition were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism.

LOL! Revisionist history at its best...folks.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

I did read it and that's why I am asking you that question.

"Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?"

The few get a lot. The many get little. Each single person in the small group the receives the 80% would normally pay more than each individual in the large group that gets little.

Let's take it to this level. You and I both start separate businesses selling potatoes, my potatoes and service providing them is not as good as yours. Therefore because you made more money than me, you have to be taxed at a 50% rate and I am taxed at 25% rate. Is that "fair"?

First, define "fair". I'm frankly getting so sick and tired of hearing that word "fair" I could puke. What the fuck is "fair" and, since when has anything in life been "fair"?

Second, if the guy selling the better potatoes and service providing than you and is making more money than you? No, it wouldn't be "fair" that the guy selling the better potatoes and better services is being taxed at a 50% rate while you're being taxed at a 25% rate. You should both be charged the same rate and pay according to how much it was you earned. However, if the guy selling the better potatoes and better services had to buy trucks, better irrigation systems, had to buy environmental devices of which you didn't have to buy, etc., etc., etc.? Then, he should be given a break on his taxes due to these purchases. And, if you have to buy all these things, you should get a break as well. If he has to buy trucks, which are part of the reason for which is services are better than yours, because you're still driving your worn out trucks of which you got ten years ago, he should be a break on his taxes for those new trucks. My brother works as a maintenance man and he has to buy his own tools for his job. He gets a tax break on those tools of which he has to buy. Now, however, the janitor doesn't require the same kind of tools my brother does and most of his supplies and tools are provided by the company. Should my brother NOT get those tax breaks it is he gets for buying his own tools, because the janitor doesn't get tax breaks for buying his tools and, the same kind of tools? The janitor doesn't have to take money out of his paycheck to buy tools which are required for him to do his job. My brother, however, does. So, he should get a tax break.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Any one year's GDP is fixed; i.e., one pizza.

If the four of us go in on a pizza and each get two slices, why should the people who make more money pay more for their two slices than the people who make less money? Everyone is going to get two slices.

They shouldn't pay more, presuming all slices of pizza are the same size. But, if you're talking about a pizza and who is paying what, it really isn't quite the same thing as taxes. Unless, you're basing the percentage you're going to charge each pizza eater on how much it is he/she makes, even though all the slices are the same size. How much the customer makes should have no bearing on that percentage it is one charges for the slices of pizza of which are the same size. If the ones who are making less pay 25% for both slices of their pizza, they should all pay 25% for both slices of their pizza. Unless, one of the guys is feeling generous and chooses to pay more than 25% for his two slices of pizza.

But, still, even at this rate it isn't quite the same as paying taxes. Because, even at a flat rate, the guy who is making more money will still pay more in taxes. Which, is the way it should be. In this instance, his paycheck would represent the size of pizza. And, the bigger his paycheck (pizza) is, even though he's paying a flat rate of, say, 15%, he's still going to pay more out of his paycheck than someone who is making less money.

If someone makes $2,000.00, he/she is going to pay $300.00 in taxes if he/she is charged at a rate of 15%.

If someone makes $6,000.00, he/she is going to pay $900.00 in taxes if he/she is charged at that same rate of 15%.

However, if the guy making $6,000.00 has to pay $3,000.00 for equipment and supplies for his business, whereas the guy who makes $2,000.00 does not? The guy who has to pay $3,000.00 for equipment and supplies should get a break on his/her taxes. He should have to pay the same, or less, depending on how much he spends on equipment and supplies, than the guy who makes $2,000.00 and purchases nothing insofar as equipment and supplies go.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

As a Liberal, my main focus is one Civil Liberties, a Foreign Policy that is more neutral and friendly than that of the republicans and democrats, energy independence, a fair or flat income/consumption tax, I have no problem with gay marriage, or Colorado's recent decision, I think that welfare and food stamps should be a temporary measure and a sort of loan that should be paid back at a very low percentage rate and payment.

That description reads more libertarian than liberal.

 

[editec]

Neither Liberalism nor Conservatism is a WISH LIST of what today's partisans think those terms mean.

Both words describe a point of view that imight be played out in partisan politics.

Neither party we have today is either consistently liberal nor conservative.

The history of both parties shows us that they BOTH subscribe to big government federalism.

Where they differ is merely whose oxen get gores and whose oxen get fed.

 

[Immanuel]

Only problem is, liberals are pushing this country forward, in the wrong direction. To, the dark side. The best portrayal of leftists' moving forward is depicted in a movie called Mad Max, where the guy is having sexual relations with a mannequin.

Well, I do agree this country is going in the wrong direction, but then I would ask you whether it is liberals (as I am going to define them here as being the normal everyday citizens of this great nation) or is it politicians and politics in general (regardless of political persuasion) that is pushing this country in the wrong direction?

I happen to think that it is politics (and corruption within politics) that is to blame, not one viewpoint of the other. I will give some examples of some fine liberal ideas that have been corrupted by politics... Social Security, Affirmative Action, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance. The list can go on and on.

The problem is not liberalism or conservatism. The problem is the corruption that we have allowed to seep into our national leadership over the years. Unfortunately, I am of the mind that it is too late to do anything about it.

Immie

Ah, but on the contrary, a politician can't do anything unless we elect them in. And, human beings have been defining themselves as belonging to one group or another since the dawn of time. They define themselves based on whether the individual they're supporting represents their principles and values for the most part or, entirely. Anyone who implies that they're somehow being brainwashed by some particular politician doesn't have very much confidence in themselves that they're capable of making their own decisions. Now, true, a politician can SAY he/she supports this, this and this and not necessarily REALLY support it and one might feel compelled to vote for the individual because he/she believes that politician believes this, this and this but, one has to be able to understand how realistic it is that said politician may actually be able to get it done on the basis of a multitude of differing factors. But, even if I know said politician isn't going to be able to do this, this and this, I feel confident enough in myself to judge a person's character and determine if that individual really represents my principles and values like he/she says he/she does.

Now, insofar as liberalism as a philosophy? I agree with you for the most part. Some of the philosophies of liberalism are good and many of them started out good. But, as with most anything else, they're taken to the limit and they go too far. Liberalism as a philosophy is in a lot of instances good ideas, LiberALS (the human beings pretending to practice liberalism as a philosophy), I will agree, is part of the problem. And, don't get me wrong, many conservaTIVES pretending to practice conserv-atism, are also part of the problem. There are so many conservaTIVES these days, who pretend to practice conserv-atism, it's absurd.

And, lastly, as to whether or not I believe it's too late, I guess I'm somewhat of an optimist and I still have some hope.

Where I differ from you is that I believe that power corrupts. We elect politicians who we believe have their hearts in the right place, but by the time they get to a position of national prominence, they have sold their souls so many times and owe so many favors that regardless of where their hearts are; the debt is called and they have no choice but to do their master's biddings.

So, is it the liberal that is the evil one or is it the influences which control him or her? My opinion is that it is those who influence the politician and it is they who are destroying this country not the politicians. Our liberal friends on this site would throw out names like Sam Walton as examples of who these influences are. However, they would balk when I throw out names like George Soros but he, too, is just as guilty.

Immie

 

[gallantwarrior]

Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?

So the amount we pay for our portion of the pizza should be means tested? Or should our payment be based on the proportion of the public infrastructure and/or government programs we benefit from?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Read the post.

I did read it and that's why I am asking you that question.

"Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?"

The few get a lot. The many get little. Each single person in the small group the receives the 80% would normally pay more than each individual in the large group that gets little.

Regardless of how many individuals are in each group, either "few" or "many", I would expect the 80% group to pay 80% of the cost of the pizza, divided any way they agree to among themselves. Same thing with the 20% group, the cost of their 20% would presumably be divided equally among themselves.

 

[zeke]

Good fuking God you crotchety ole geezer. Do you think you are doing the Lords work here. Kiss my ass.
Diaherra of the fingers is what you suffer from. That and the lack of any common sense. You're pretty impressed with your bad assed self, that's fo sure. Another ignorant Rethug wanting the world his way.
Based on his interpretation of the Bible from what I read. You a closet Taliban?

 

[Neurotika]

And, if their politics are of the left? They could just fuck off.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

if i had that philosophy i would've missed knowing two very fine women. whom i consider to be and call friends. i choose not to limit myself that way. better to stand on the common ground that is solid than the divisive shaky ground of political ideology...

and..i am precisely the same here as i am in real life..but a majority are not.

 

[there4eyeM]

Whew! I really thought this was clear and simple.
The number of people who eat 80% is less than the number of people occupied with the 20%. There are no equal slices! Each person in the 80% group would pay more than an individual in the 20% group.

 

[Pheonixops]

To begin with the liberals have become unamerican's. While the consevatives are for the american people and the liberals aren't. But unfortunately not one of the politicians on both sides is doing nothing for us. The republicans try but then cave in. No politician in washington right now is working for the people and just working for what they want.

With all due respect, that was a stupid fucking post. Neither ideology has a premium on "pro-American" or "un-American". This country was started by Liberals, the Constitution is a Liberal document and not a conservative one. The opposition to the Founders of this Country were the Tories and they were the conservatives of the time.
The proponents of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties were the Liberals, the opposition to that were the conservative bastards of the time (both democrat and republican), the proponents of Women's Suffrage were the Liberals of the time, the opposition were the conservatives of the time, the opposition to slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow were the Liberals the proponents were the conservatives. You can keep your conservatism.

LOL! Revisionist history at its best...folks.

LOL, you can't even refute it because the facts are not on your side!

 

[Pheonixops]

"Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?"

The few get a lot. The many get little. Each single person in the small group the receives the 80% would normally pay more than each individual in the large group that gets little.

Let's take it to this level. You and I both start separate businesses selling potatoes, my potatoes and service providing them is not as good as yours. Therefore because you made more money than me, you have to be taxed at a 50% rate and I am taxed at 25% rate. Is that "fair"?

First, define "fair". I'm frankly getting so sick and tired of hearing that word "fair" I could puke. What the fuck is "fair" and, since when has anything in life been "fair"?

Second, if the guy selling the better potatoes and service providing than you and is making more money than you? No, it wouldn't be "fair" that the guy selling the better potatoes and better services is being taxed at a 50% rate while you're being taxed at a 25% rate. You should both be charged the same rate and pay according to how much it was you earned. However, if the guy selling the better potatoes and better services had to buy trucks, better irrigation systems, had to buy environmental devices of which you didn't have to buy, etc., etc., etc.? Then, he should be given a break on his taxes due to these purchases. And, if you have to buy all these things, you should get a break as well. If he has to buy trucks, which are part of the reason for which is services are better than yours, because you're still driving your worn out trucks of which you got ten years ago, he should be a break on his taxes for those new trucks. My brother works as a maintenance man and he has to buy his own tools for his job. He gets a tax break on those tools of which he has to buy. Now, however, the janitor doesn't require the same kind of tools my brother does and most of his supplies and tools are provided by the company. Should my brother NOT get those tax breaks it is he gets for buying his own tools, because the janitor doesn't get tax breaks for buying his tools and, the same kind of tools? The janitor doesn't have to take money out of his paycheck to buy tools which are required for him to do his job. My brother, however, does. So, he should get a tax break.

So you actually agree with me regarding the flat tax on net income.

 

[Pheonixops]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

As a Liberal, my main focus is one Civil Liberties, a Foreign Policy that is more neutral and friendly than that of the republicans and democrats, energy independence, a fair or flat income/consumption tax, I have no problem with gay marriage, or Colorado's recent decision, I think that welfare and food stamps should be a temporary measure and a sort of loan that should be paid back at a very low percentage rate and payment.

That description reads more libertarian than liberal.

They both have the same roots. What's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Definition is important. The definition of liberal and conservative has evolved and continues to change. For example, todays' conservative is now a Reactionary. Notice how many self defined conservatives want to return to the past, some even want to try Nullification and Secession again?

Today's liberal or progressive is now a radical, seeking change with alacrity. Pushing for same sex marriage, green and renewable energy, universal health care and a single payer system.

In fact labels change as do definitions, but, like a river of shit is always different, it is always the same, as is the great political divide.

We're lucky, most Amerians fall between the great divide and they vote too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

Conservatives are for the most part ideologues, reactionaries, authoritarian, and fear change and diversity.

Liberals are for the most part pragmatists, opposed to dogma, and embrace the future, change, and diversity.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As a Liberal, my main focus is one Civil Liberties, a Foreign Policy that is more neutral and friendly than that of the republicans and democrats, energy independence, a fair or flat income/consumption tax, I have no problem with gay marriage, or Colorado's recent decision, I think that welfare and food stamps should be a temporary measure and a sort of loan that should be paid back at a very low percentage rate and payment.

That description reads more libertarian than liberal.

They both have the same roots. What's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian?

Your definition of a "classic liberal" is not the definition most people give to modern day, self-identified "liberals". Perhaps we might agree that your "classic liberal" is identified as modern "libertarian" by me, and others like me. Funny, but every thing you mentioned in your post, except the taxes, I fully agree with. I actually identify myself as an independent, though. Oh, and I'm not sure which recent decision made by CO you are referring to, though.

 

[Contumacious]

Considering how much vitriol gets thrown around on this board towards these two words and labels, I thought it would be fascinating to hear peoples' definitions for both words. Please explain to the board what your perception of a liberal and a conservative is.

The "liberals" want to fuck the citizens in the name of socialism/parasitism.

The conservatives want to do exactly the same thing but in the name of god.

'nuff said.

.

 

[Toro]

Liberals want government in your economic life but out of your social life. Conservatives want the government out of your economic life but in your social life.

 

[emilynghiem]

Taxing the rich according to the amount they have benefited from the collective structure that all contribute to could be called a tax on increased social and political influence (just to be honest).

Compare it, for example, to a pizza. One group gets 80% of it and the other the rest, but there are far fewer in that 80% group and the whole pizza would not be there if it weren't for the remaining 20% group that is composed of far more individuals. Wouldn't the individuals in the 80% group pay more each than the other group's members?

I think what people are complaining about is lack of accountability of fraud/abuse/overspending on welfare, where instead of reducing the waste the proposal is to increase taxes. And then the talk was for higher % tax on the rich (instead of already considering that the same % taken out of higher salaries is already a larger amount). And overall, the complaint that the people being affected by this increased tax do not feel REPRESENTED by the policies of this administration.

Why not allow large businesses, investors and owners to direct how they pay taxes into programs that would TEACH people to become financially independent and PAY BACK any welfare, student loans or business loans, so it isn't an endless system of HANDOUTS that are unsustainable and will keep growing larger govt bureaucracy and debts?

Maybe if the money invested in govt could be guaranteed to grow and REDUCE the debts and dependency, people might be willing to contribute either by taxes, donations or loans.