Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[candycorn]

I have noted a central theme in this thread, from our liberal counterparts, that they somehow believe that the federal government is necessary and, at this point in time, too small.

We read about FEMA, EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet federal monstrosities, as if they are shining examples of the necessity of having the federal government interfere in our lives. No one talks about the damage they do, or the alternatives to them.

For conversation's sake, let's do a little drill ----

If we assume that all federal dollars that support a particular program are redirected to the state level, name an alphabet organization that can't be done at the state level. Show us an economy of scale as a result of centralization at the federal level. Surely, it's not education, or disaster response, or even environmental control. So, what is it? Besides the obvious federal functions (provide for the general defense, etc.), just what advantage does the federal government bring to the table?

We all recognize the necessity for a federal government, but they seem to have forgotten one important thing - they exist because we create them. Without our permission, the federal government couldn't tax us, couldn't regulate us, couldn't pass onerous laws and regulations. In short, (he,he) they screw us because we bend over and ask them to.

Test for liberals - name a federal function that can't be performed at the state level (with the obvious exceptions), and done more closely aligned to the wishes of those people.

FAA
FDA
FBI
CIA
NSA
DOJ
DOS
CG
NTSB
USDA
EPA
SSA
CINS

Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

We all recognize the necessity of military, law enforcement, and intelligence organizations -

However, I adamantly disagree with FAA, DOJ (surely, you didn't think that one thru), USDA, EPA, SSA, and CINS. All those functions can be performed at the local level. You COULD make a case for the FAA managing interfaces between state organizations, but I'm not convinced that is necessary. The same could be said for DOJ, if we ignore the political hammer and sickle it's become over the past 6 years.

Yeah, the local mayor of the city that has a US Steel plant is going to run an investigation into the plant polluting the local lake? This is why the federal level involvement is needed.

 

[Spare_change]

I have noted a central theme in this thread, from our liberal counterparts, that they somehow believe that the federal government is necessary and, at this point in time, too small.

We read about FEMA, EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet federal monstrosities, as if they are shining examples of the necessity of having the federal government interfere in our lives. No one talks about the damage they do, or the alternatives to them.

For conversation's sake, let's do a little drill ----

If we assume that all federal dollars that support a particular program are redirected to the state level, name an alphabet organization that can't be done at the state level. Show us an economy of scale as a result of centralization at the federal level. Surely, it's not education, or disaster response, or even environmental control. So, what is it? Besides the obvious federal functions (provide for the general defense, etc.), just what advantage does the federal government bring to the table?

We all recognize the necessity for a federal government, but they seem to have forgotten one important thing - they exist because we create them. Without our permission, the federal government couldn't tax us, couldn't regulate us, couldn't pass onerous laws and regulations. In short, (he,he) they screw us because we bend over and ask them to.

Test for liberals - name a federal function that can't be performed at the state level (with the obvious exceptions), and done more closely aligned to the wishes of those people.

FAA
FDA
FBI
CIA
NSA
DOJ
DOS
CG
NTSB
USDA
EPA
SSA
CINS

Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

We all recognize the necessity of military, law enforcement, and intelligence organizations -

However, I adamantly disagree with FAA, DOJ (surely, you didn't think that one thru), USDA, EPA, SSA, and CINS. All those functions can be performed at the local level. You COULD make a case for the FAA managing interfaces between state organizations, but I'm not convinced that is necessary. The same could be said for DOJ, if we ignore the political hammer and sickle it's become over the past 6 years.

Yeah, the local mayor of the city that has a US Steel plant is going to run an investigation into the plant polluting the local lake? This is why the federal level involvement is needed.

Fancy how you just managed to skip right over the state ...... at least, TRY to be intellectually honest.

 

[candycorn]

I have noted a central theme in this thread, from our liberal counterparts, that they somehow believe that the federal government is necessary and, at this point in time, too small.

We read about FEMA, EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet federal monstrosities, as if they are shining examples of the necessity of having the federal government interfere in our lives. No one talks about the damage they do, or the alternatives to them.

For conversation's sake, let's do a little drill ----

If we assume that all federal dollars that support a particular program are redirected to the state level, name an alphabet organization that can't be done at the state level. Show us an economy of scale as a result of centralization at the federal level. Surely, it's not education, or disaster response, or even environmental control. So, what is it? Besides the obvious federal functions (provide for the general defense, etc.), just what advantage does the federal government bring to the table?

We all recognize the necessity for a federal government, but they seem to have forgotten one important thing - they exist because we create them. Without our permission, the federal government couldn't tax us, couldn't regulate us, couldn't pass onerous laws and regulations. In short, (he,he) they screw us because we bend over and ask them to.

Test for liberals - name a federal function that can't be performed at the state level (with the obvious exceptions), and done more closely aligned to the wishes of those people.

FAA
FDA
FBI
CIA
NSA
DOJ
DOS
CG
NTSB
USDA
EPA
SSA
CINS

Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

We all recognize the necessity of military, law enforcement, and intelligence organizations -

However, I adamantly disagree with FAA, DOJ (surely, you didn't think that one thru), USDA, EPA, SSA, and CINS. All those functions can be performed at the local level. You COULD make a case for the FAA managing interfaces between state organizations, but I'm not convinced that is necessary. The same could be said for DOJ, if we ignore the political hammer and sickle it's become over the past 6 years.

Yeah, the local mayor of the city that has a US Steel plant is going to run an investigation into the plant polluting the local lake? This is why the federal level involvement is needed.

Fancy how you just managed to skip right over the state ...... at least, TRY to be intellectually honest.

My bad; yeah, Rick Perry is going to tell the Koch Brothers to clean up their act...in your dreams. This is how Blue Bell got away with selling their poisonous ice cream; lax regulations.

 

[Foxfyre]

A reminder to all that this thread is a structured debate with specific rules and a specific topic. I will ask all to please respect those rules and stay on that topic which is intended to be philosophical and not to bash any person, group, entity, etc:

:Rules for this debate:
:
1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:
Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

 

[Foxfyre]

And moving right along. . .I believe Goldberg was dealing with the wakeup call that some 'former' liberals have experienced when they shake off the doctrines that serve as blinders long enough to look at the realities:

An article in the Dec. 9 New York Times, of all places, gleams in the darkness of the present political moment as the Obama administration works to rub away resistance to its vision of an all-encompassing federal government.

"This is painful for a liberal to admit," admits Nicholas D. Kristof, a Times columnist who, oddly, doesn't see his job as requiring regular trashing of conservatives, "but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America's safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire."

Do tell. Kristof's careful examination of anti-poverty programs in Appalachia presents a viewpoint far more nuanced than, say, a Barack Obama speech urging the overhaul of capitalism. He finds that giving people too much free money for too long can create disincentives to live non-dependent lives. He talks about parents who pull illiterate kids out of literacy programs to avoid forfeiting a $698 monthly Supplement Security Income check meant to "help" the intellectually disabled. . . .
Why Liberalism Doesn t Work - Bill Murchison - Page full​

It is because of the human ability to work through the sometimes fog of custom or the politically correct version of things and begin to understand and acknowledge truths that really do stand up under scrutiny that is whittling away at modern day liberalism in America.

As Goldberg pointed out, liberalism isn't dead by a long shot. It is far too powerful a tool to use and too lucrative for some to abandon in entirety. But for now it is failing to attract converts and is losing advocates to more 'conservative' concepts that simply stand up better to honest scrutiny.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And moving right along. . .I believe Goldberg was dealing with the wakeup call that some 'former' liberals have experienced when they shake off the doctrines that serve as blinders long enough to look at the realities:

An article in the Dec. 9 New York Times, of all places, gleams in the darkness of the present political moment as the Obama administration works to rub away resistance to its vision of an all-encompassing federal government.

"This is painful for a liberal to admit," admits Nicholas D. Kristof, a Times columnist who, oddly, doesn't see his job as requiring regular trashing of conservatives, "but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America's safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire."

Do tell. Kristof's careful examination of anti-poverty programs in Appalachia presents a viewpoint far more nuanced than, say, a Barack Obama speech urging the overhaul of capitalism. He finds that giving people too much free money for too long can create disincentives to live non-dependent lives. He talks about parents who pull illiterate kids out of literacy programs to avoid forfeiting a $698 monthly Supplement Security Income check meant to "help" the intellectually disabled. . . .
Why Liberalism Doesn t Work - Bill Murchison - Page full​

It is because of the human ability to work through the sometimes fog of custom or the politically correct version of things and begin to understand and acknowledge truths that really do stand up under scrutiny that is whittling away at modern day liberalism in America.

As Goldberg pointed out, liberalism isn't dead by a long shot. It is far too powerful a tool to use and too lucrative for some to abandon in entirety. But for now it is failing to attract converts and is losing advocates to more 'conservative' concepts that simply stand up better to honest scrutiny.

Needless to say the OP doesn't know that Kristoff is a vocal critic of liberals not doing enough to remediate the dire problems facing the least fortunate here in the USA and around the world. That Murchison chooses to deliberately take Kristoff out of context and the OP is completely ignorant of Kristoff's style further exposes the fallacy that the OP is based upon.

Kristoff has won 2 Pullitzer Prizes for his journalism while neither Murchison nor Goldberg can scrape up even one between the both of them.

And since the OP opened the door to taking things out of context how about we quote Goldberg during one of his sane moments instead?

Regarding Fox News, Goldberg said, "Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it's worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloidy network."​

 

[Foxfyre]

What Goldberg thinks of Fox News or any other subject is irrelevant to the thread topic. His thesis re liberalism is the topic.

Who or what Kristoff is in the eye of the beholder is irrelevant to the point made unless one has evidence that the context has hidden meaning.

1. Rules for this debate:
   :
   1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.
   
   2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.
   
   3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.
   
   THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:
   Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

 

[Spare_change]

Liberalism will continue to exist, albeit at a much lower and less impactful level than the last 7 years, only because it has created its own constituency through its cultivation of a class dependent on government assistance for its survival. Liberalism has become the cause of the very situations they so nobly claim to want to eliminate, but can't, because doing so threatens their very existence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism will continue to exist, albeit at a much lower and less impactful level than the last 7 years, only because it has created its own constituency through its cultivation of a class dependent on government assistance for its survival. Liberalism has become the cause of the very situations they so nobly claim to want to eliminate, but can't, because doing so threatens their very existence.

Yes, dependencies develop very quickly and become very entrenched quickly. Even the most staunch libertarian, free market, Constitutional originalist isn't immune to the syndrome. It takes a very great deal of personal courage and maybe a bit of fatalistic point of view to give up a government benefit you are receiving with no assurance or real belief that doing so will make any kind of positive difference.

And who wants to be the sucker who stands on principle and gives up what he believes he contributed to and paid for while everybody else continues to reap that benefit?

It is not unlike a conservative legislator who votes again and again to eliminate pork barrel spending and earmarks, but, when he is on the losing side, continues to include his request for that pork barrel spending and earmarks. Why? Not because he is a hypocrite. But because they will spend the money anyway and he wants to make sure the tax payers in his district or state get at least some of their fair share of that money.

It becomes a vicious cycle with no solution unless government is stripped of its power to use our money to buy votes, influence, power, personal wealth etc. And it is very difficult to get lawmakers who are reaping all those goodies to vote all that away.

But after all is said and done, it still remains that I believe more and more people are beginning to do the math. They are seeing how all the gimmicks and vague promises and noble sounding labels on government programs are not delivering as advertised. And they are beginning to realize that many are doing as much damage as good. And they are rejecting the liberal mindset that once had them turning a blind eye to the world of unintended bad consequences.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberalism will continue to exist, albeit at a much lower and less impactful level than the last 7 years, only because it has created its own constituency through its cultivation of a class dependent on government assistance for its survival. Liberalism has become the cause of the very situations they so nobly claim to want to eliminate, but can't, because doing so threatens their very existence.

As opposed to those corporations that are entirely dependent upon government tax breaks just to survive? But because they are a conservative sacred cow they can't be mentioned even though they are just as dependent upon government assistance for their survival?

New Report May Reveal Over 1 Trillion In Corporate Welfare

New Report May Reveal Over $1 Trillion In Corporate Welfare

Corporate welfare
Corporate welfare in the U.S. has exceeded social welfare by a factor of nearly 2-1. According to a February study from Washington-based Good Jobs First, just 965 corporations received $3 out of every $4 of state and local governments’ economic development funds. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway received 310 subsidies totaling $1.06 billion, while Boeing received more than $13 billion — roughly $20 million on every jet Boeing makes.

Alcoa, formerly the Aluminum Company of America, received 91 subsidies totaling $5.6 billion. This is roughly equivalent to 17 years of expected pretax American profit for the company.

Fortune 500 companies account for more than 16,000 subsidies, worth approximately $63 billion. The database tracked subsidies from all years that were reported — typically starting in 1995.

On the federal side, the federal Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that special corporate tax breaks will add up to $154 billion for 2013. For many of the nation’s major companies, these tax breaks bring their effective corporate tax rate to below zero.

Political hypocrisy
While the acceptance of government money — particularly for a company that would likely fail otherwise — is a no-brainer for the corporations, it represents a certain level of hypocrisy and moral ambiguity for the government. An example of this is the case of Wal-Mart. Since 1994, Wal-Mart Stores have received $150 million in subsidies from local and state governments.

Despite already benefiting from government handouts, Wal-Mart admitted in its 2013 annual report that the company’s financial performance was “materially affected” by changes to the amount of payments made to SNAP and other social safety net programs. As the company receives more than half of its sales from grocery operations, and as its clientele largely depend on public assistance, social welfare cuts will create a situation in which Wal-Mart is likely to seek more local and state government assistance in tax credits.

Mod Edit - no political parties.​

And that is nowhere near the full story;

The True Costs of Corporate Welfare The Smirking Chimp


And yes, those same corporations donate to conservative campaigns because those politicians need those donations for their own survival.

Liberalism is alive because of the mendacity and malfeasance of conservatives. True story!

 

[Coyote]

No ad homs folks. Try to get your message across within the construct of the rules. You're clever, and it's not rocket science - you can do it!

 

[Spare_change]

Liberalism will continue to exist, albeit at a much lower and less impactful level than the last 7 years, only because it has created its own constituency through its cultivation of a class dependent on government assistance for its survival. Liberalism has become the cause of the very situations they so nobly claim to want to eliminate, but can't, because doing so threatens their very existence.

As opposed to those corporations that are entirely dependent upon government tax breaks just to survive? But because they are a conservative sacred cow they can't be mentioned even though they are just as dependent upon government assistance for their survival?

New Report May Reveal Over 1 Trillion In Corporate Welfare

New Report May Reveal Over $1 Trillion In Corporate Welfare

Corporate welfare
Corporate welfare in the U.S. has exceeded social welfare by a factor of nearly 2-1. According to a February study from Washington-based Good Jobs First, just 965 corporations received $3 out of every $4 of state and local governments’ economic development funds. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway received 310 subsidies totaling $1.06 billion, while Boeing received more than $13 billion — roughly $20 million on every jet Boeing makes.

Alcoa, formerly the Aluminum Company of America, received 91 subsidies totaling $5.6 billion. This is roughly equivalent to 17 years of expected pretax American profit for the company.

Fortune 500 companies account for more than 16,000 subsidies, worth approximately $63 billion. The database tracked subsidies from all years that were reported — typically starting in 1995.

On the federal side, the federal Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that special corporate tax breaks will add up to $154 billion for 2013. For many of the nation’s major companies, these tax breaks bring their effective corporate tax rate to below zero.

Political hypocrisy
While the acceptance of government money — particularly for a company that would likely fail otherwise — is a no-brainer for the corporations, it represents a certain level of hypocrisy and moral ambiguity for the government. An example of this is the case of Wal-Mart. Since 1994, Wal-Mart Stores have received $150 million in subsidies from local and state governments.

Despite already benefiting from government handouts, Wal-Mart admitted in its 2013 annual report that the company’s financial performance was “materially affected” by changes to the amount of payments made to SNAP and other social safety net programs. As the company receives more than half of its sales from grocery operations, and as its clientele largely depend on public assistance, social welfare cuts will create a situation in which Wal-Mart is likely to seek more local and state government assistance in tax credits.

Mod Edit - no political parties.​

And that is nowhere near the full story;

The True Costs of Corporate Welfare The Smirking Chimp


And yes, those same corporations donate to conservative campaigns because those politicians need those donations for their own survival.

Liberalism is alive because of the mendacity and malfeasance of conservatives. True story!

Perversion of the truth, at its finest ....

You talk of 'corporate welfare', and how it keeps companies in business ... ridiculous, of course, and ludicrous in its sympathy.

Explain to me why New York is offering 10 year tax breaks for companies who move to New York. Corporate welfare? Or enticement to bring tax generators to New York?

For every dollar of 'corporate welfare' (a ridiculous label created by the ignorant), there is a corresponding less cost to the consumer. Raise the cost of do business, and the company will NOT go out of business ... rather, they will simply pass on the increased cost to the consumer. You didn't help the company - you helped the consumer.

You need to expand your thinking, to consider the alternative consequences ... in short, you need to get business smart, not just regurgitate half truths and misstatements from liberal politicians whose sole interest is getting money out of your pocket.