Why liberals hate values

[rtwngAvngr]

Howdy Pardner.........Good point, and may I add that conservativism is about limited government, not no government. But there is a vast difference between the two, and right now the US is really going too far in the direction of over regulation. Once you put laws into place it's very hard to go back the other way. For many years now the Leftists have inched their way to more and more laws in such a subtle way that most people who are working don't have the time to know every single law that is passed, and so most go unnoticed, until one day you wake up to a socialistic type government, at that point it's very hard to swing the pendulum the other way. Reagan was one who did manage to get to move the country back in the right direction (pun intended) and the economy exploded with commerce. :tng:

Yes. It was beautiful. Nothing pisses me off more than the libs denying what happened during Reagan's years at the helm of this great ship called America.

 

[MrMarbles]

The other side of the coin which you ignore is that socialist economies grind to a halt as innovations in servicing market needs (human needs) are disincentivized through conficatory tax rates. The economy slowly comes to a halt as new investment, innovation, construction, and hiring simply cease to occur. While morally corrupted environmentalists, bent on genocide against humanity, don't see this as a negative, normal people do.

Ohhh! Big words. Don't make them right though. Canada is a very Liberal country, especially compared to the States, and we are just doing fine thank you.

Have you guys learnt about the Depression in school yet? Basically when the ultra-capitalist econonmies failed and screwed everyone, it was large, forward-thinking, liberal ideas that brought America and most other countries back from the brink of collapse. If it wasn't for the gov't providing a safety net, people would have starved. It took massive public work projects to bring the economy back in line. With out those LIBERAL ideas america, and many other countries would have crumbled away.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Liberalism must exist to some degree. Capitalism without checks and balances and some degree of social support turns out social disasters like Industrial England before the labour, education and social reforms.

Capitalism exists as method to distribute wealth, nothing more. While it's the best system out there, it is inherintly a postive feedback system. Getting richer, allows the rich, to get richer, faster. While the trickle down effect works, it rarely outpaces inflation and creates a wider wealth gap.

Social reforms in government exist to slow down that effect. It stops the exponential growth of capitalism. While it makes it more ineffecient to overall economic growth, that's the point. To cool of an ecnomic system that has the potential to boil-over either economically or politically.

There are two extremes to the equation. Too much social programs in government and you completely stop growth and overall income falls to a point that is unsustainable. If left unchecked, a rich class is created at the expense of a much much larger poor class.

Liberalism is not inherintly evil, to suggest so is as absurd as saying capitalism is inherintly evil.

 

[Avatar4321]

The fact is: real jobs are ONLY and always created by businesses--investments, profits!Gov't jobs are just tax and spend. Anything else is just plain silly economics. Jolly numbers.

Great post. Just wanted to say that if you think about it Real jobs dont ultimately come from businesses. They come from people. People come up with ideas and create businesses which do create jobs. But without people out there willing to take a chance and start a business there would be no businesses and no jobs whatsoever.

This is why communism/socialism doesnt work. When the government tries to dominate the Economy, it opresses people and keeps them from being free to create businesses and jobs.

This is also why i cant understand some liberals. I mean we can see immigrants come from the global south, poorer than dirt, and they can create their own business and become quite wealthy in America, yet home born Americans cant according to the left. Particularly minorities. for some reason despite being born in a nation with the greatest opportunities in the world, the left tells minorities they cant do it on their own, yet immigrants of the same ethnic group come here and do succeed on their own. We dont need government programs to regulate the economy or to "help" minorities. We dont need the government to give us health care. We can do it without it. We just need the government to stay out of our lives and allow men to choose their own destiny.

Ok im off my soap box now.

 

[MrMarbles]

Liberalism must exist to some degree. Capitalism without checks and balances and some degree of social support turns out social disasters like Industrial England before the labour, education and social reforms.

Capitalism exists as method to distribute wealth, nothing more. While it's the best system out there, it is inherintly a postive feedback system. Getting richer, allows the rich, to get richer, faster. While the trickle down effect works, it rarely outpaces inflation and creates a wider wealth gap.

Social reforms in government exist to slow down that effect. It stops the exponential growth of capitalism. While it makes it more ineffecient to overall economic growth, that's the point. To cool of an ecnomic system that has the potential to boil-over either economically or politically.

There are two extremes to the equation. Too much social programs in government and you completely stop growth and overall income falls to a point that is unsustainable. If left unchecked, a rich class is created at the expense of a much much larger poor class.

Liberalism is not inherintly evil, to suggest so is as absurd as saying capitalism is inherintly evil.

It's so simple. Extemes are always dangerous. Unfortunatley there seems to be a push in the US towards the extreme.

 

[MrMarbles]

Liberalism must exist to some degree. Capitalism without checks and balances and some degree of social support turns out social disasters like Industrial England before the labour, education and social reforms.

Capitalism exists as method to distribute wealth, nothing more. While it's the best system out there, it is inherintly a postive feedback system. Getting richer, allows the rich, to get richer, faster. While the trickle down effect works, it rarely outpaces inflation and creates a wider wealth gap.

Social reforms in government exist to slow down that effect. It stops the exponential growth of capitalism. While it makes it more ineffecient to overall economic growth, that's the point. To cool of an ecnomic system that has the potential to boil-over either economically or politically.

There are two extremes to the equation. Too much social programs in government and you completely stop growth and overall income falls to a point that is unsustainable. If left unchecked, a rich class is created at the expense of a much much larger poor class.

Liberalism is not inherintly evil, to suggest so is as absurd as saying capitalism is inherintly evil.

It's so simple, extremes are dangerous. Unfortunatley, there seems to be a push in the US towards the extreme.

 

[Avatar4321]

Still why not make America the best it can be, then lead by example, instead of force.

Why dont liberals do that? Why have the federal government force people who earn money give it up? Why not lead by example. Start charities, hit Edwards and Kerry up they are pretty rich. How about we stop all the social experiments with the government and if you think some way is better just show them its better. Like smoking. If you are against smoking dont simply have the government ban it lead by example. I dont think liberals will ever do this though.

Shitty? Our system has problems, yes. But our care is up to par, I have never waited long or had any problems with it. Our system tends to be admired and copyes around the world, except for the States.

If you are happy with your health care in Canada thats fine. Enjoy it. Ours is better and we will continue to do it the way we think we should.

If they are paid good wages, go ahead give them the work. But sweat shops are a different story. And i was refering to corporations will to use them instead of quality NA workers.

People in the global south jump at the chance to work for corporations because corporations pay significantly hirer for workers there then average jobs and can still make a profit off it because they can pay employees more and they wont have to pay as much as they do in the US. contrary to popular belief on the left, Corporations are not evil. In the long term Evil doesnt really pay.

I'm a realist. These arguements tend to make me alot more polarized then my usual self. You guys have that effect on people.

You are a realist? hardly. Dont take this the wrong way you might think you are but if you were a realist youd abandon socialist ideas because in the real world, they dont work. If you were a realist you would realize that we are at war with fundamentalist muslim terrorists. Youd also realize that if they win, we will either be dead or in bondage to them. These people cannot be reasoned with. They can only be defeated. Yeah people are going to die. Unfortunately that tragedy is part of the real world. But we have to defeat these terrorists exactly like we had to defeat the Nazis and had to defeat the Soviets. Because if we dont win, we wont be around to be a realist or idealist.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Some basic programs are ok. But nothing is ever enough for libs. Here you guys go again with your staw man argument:No one here is arguing for completely unregulated markets.

We have a graduated income tax, medicaid, medicare, on and on, but it's still not enough; libs still villify the engine of capitalism, apparently ignorant that the capitalist system of rewarding WORK and INNOVATION is what drives mankind forward. All you socialist types live in a fairy tale world which allows you to ignore the benefits to mankind due to the global capitalist system the U.S. and our blanket of protective stability has allowed to flourish.

You guys only see half of the world; you want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, though all your lofty programs depend on those golden eggs. Get a clue, Isaac, and Marbles, and anyone else who has their head in a hole.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's so simple. Extemes are always dangerous. Unfortunatley there seems to be a push in the US towards the extreme.

Yes. Label people as extremists and dismiss them with no logical merit. You guys just seek to transform government into a jobs program for liberals. It's inherently a selfish act, because you apparently don't care about the effects of socialism on economies as a whole.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Some basic programs are ok. But nothing is ever enough for libs. Here you guys go again with your staw man argument:No one here is arguing for completely unregulated markets.

We have a graduated income tax, medicaid, medicare, on and on, but it's still not enough; libs still villify the engine of capitalism, apparently ignorant that the capitalist system of rewarding WORK and INNOVATION is what drives mankind forward. All you socialist types live in a fairy tale world which allows you to ignore the benefits to mankind due to the global capitalist system the U.S. and our blanket of protective stability has allowed to flourish.

You guys only see half of the world; you want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, though all your lofty programs depend on those golden eggs. Get a clue, Isaac, and Marbles, and anyone else who has their head in a hole.

You couldn't be further from the truth. I don't desipise capitalism at all and I certainly am not calling for its head. I think it's the best system out there. You attack Liberalism as if the most logical outcome is communism or socialist economy. Even the most staunch left wing supporters do not call for revolutionary change to the degree of which you speak.

So if you are not vilinizing regulated markets, then where do you want to draw the line? At which point does it suddenly become okay to have regulation and some social programs and at what point do you decry it as communism when it is just an increase in social programs. This is where the black and white logic fails, because there is no exact point.

Conservatism wants shifts to shift that line more towards deregulation, while liberalism shifts the line line towards more. Without both sides you end up failed system either due to complete social breakdown and inequity or economic failure.

You can speak of goose eggs an rose coloured glasses all you want, for whatever agenda you want, but that assertion of evilness of liberalism is still absurd. Like all things in life, economics requires a balance.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You couldn't be further from the truth. I don't desipise capitalism at all and I certainly am not calling for its head. I think it's the best system out there. You attack Liberalism as if the most logical outcome is communism or socialist economy. Even the most staunch left wing supporters do not call for revolutionary change to the degree of which you speak.


So if you are not vilinizing regulated markets, then where do you want to draw the line? At which point does it suddenly become okay to have regulation and some social programs and at what point do you decry it as communism when it is just an increase in social programs. This is where the black and white logic fails, because there is no exact point.

There's no black white logic here. Didn't you read it when I wrote "some programs are ok"? Quit it with your strawman arguments. Why don't you go look that one up. "Strawman argument", google it. The only people who can't get jobs are the ones who refuse to speak and dress in a professional way.

Conservatism wants shifts to shift that line more towards deregulation, while liberalism shifts the line line towards more. Without both sides you end up failed system either due to complete social breakdown and inequity or economic failure.

Yes. IT's a balance. The balance we have now is great, but the libs still want more government and less freedom. Why do you fear competition?

You can speak of goose eggs an rose coloured glasses all you want, for whatever agenda you want, but that assertion of evilness of liberalism is still absurd. Like all things in life, economics requires a balance.

My analogies are accurate if you read and think. It's not just random words.
Liberalism is evil, it devalues values themselves, preferring to teach people that stealing from others for their own personal success is A. OK. Consider yourself vanquished.

 

[softwaremama]

Great post. Just wanted to say that if you think about it Real jobs dont ultimately come from businesses. They come from people. ...We can do it without it. We just need the government to stay out of our lives and allow men to choose their own destiny.

Ok im off my soap box now.

I like what you're saying--it is about people--the men and women of America who are willing to take risks. Many people don't realize how risky it is to be a businessperson; many people mortgage their futures on the chance they'll succeed. Only in America!

 

[freeandfun1]

many people mortgage their futures on the chance they'll succeed. Only in America!

exactly. how many stories have you heard of the guy/gal that started their company on credit cards? A lot. And if they failed, it is them that would have their credit ruined.

 

[Bonnie]

I like what you're saying--it is about people--the men and women of America who are willing to take risks. Many people don't realize how risky it is to be a businessperson; many people mortgage their futures on the chance they'll succeed. Only in America!

Amen to that...............

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Lots of real good points being made here. To add to the pot:

Liberals have no values because they are basically leeches.

Liberalism involves large groups of people sucking up resources that individual capitalist citizens provide through their hard work and creativity. Without these hard-working capitalists the leeching liberals would die off. They really don't want to kill the golden goose of capitalism so they will allow it to exist as long as they can take a big cut. However, the more greedy they get, the more socialistic they get and they start thinking they must control the economic means of production which eventually turns into control of the working individual and freedom is destroyed.

When the leeching becomes too much, many companies die a financial death and people are put out of work. This is what has been happening in Europe. The Eurosocialists have taken over and the results are becoming disastrous. Why can't the Democrats get a clue? Europe has much higher unemployment rates. Their costs are higher and their standard of living is lower. They have been killing off the producers and are now facing a dearth of individuals to work to provide for the leeches.

Today those who work in the U.S. must already give away MONTHS (101 days in 2004) of their labor (some states more than others) to provide the spending money for the liberals. Liberals really really hate Bush because he is reducing this amount and Tax Freedom Day now comes earlier than before. (But not early enough IMO) And instead of our economy suffering from Bush's tax cuts, it leaps ahead. Why would anyone vote Democrat today?

""Despite the dramatically lower tax burden in 2004, Americans will still spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and medical care combined," said Hodge."

Isn't that waaaay more than enough leeching?

For a look at the graphs: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good post screamingEagle. The world will hear our shriek of freedom. It's a siren song for the competent.

 

[Bonnie]

It's so simple, extremes are dangerous. Unfortunatley, there seems to be a push in the US towards the extreme.

Here's a problem with that thought......Something has happened in this country little by little over time.

That is the notion that mainstream Americans or Conservative Americans, that beleive in and want to teach morality to their kids, a strong work ethic, a desire of nice things (home, cars etc), freedom to put religious christmas decorations in a public area, have a problem with marriage (a centuries old isntitution) based on religious beliefs to keep the fabric of society together, and to create new life being redifined, who don't want too much government intrusion, would like to keep most of the money they earn, after all it is their money, beleive in the sanctity of life, go to church every week.......... This very large group, the back bone of our society Have now been branded as Extreme Righ Wing kooks, by liberals in govt, media, and public life,

to the point that you now have Liberals way out on the other side proclaiming Bush is a terroroist, wanting total govt control over healthcare, any kind of marriage any old way with anyone, more unborn babies being killed than all the wars put together, higher taxes that strangle any prospect for new businesses and jobs, the desire to- rather than defend our country agianst terrorism they wish to sit and have coffee with them, maybe try and reason with the lunatics, cripple our military, make political correctness the way of the land for everyone but themselves, and much more......... Are now being hailed as the moderates, middle of the road common sense voting block by the same Liberals in Govt, media, and entertainment industry.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Totally, Bonnie. Libs try to define ideas and people such that libs are "normal" and conservatives are "extreme", when actually, 41% of the population claims to conservative and only 18% will claim the liberal label. Many moderates are actually liberals too ashamed to admit it, or too afraid to defend their positions.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Totally, Bonnie. Libs try to define ideas and people such that libs are "normal" and conservatives are "extreme", when actually, 41% of the population claims to conservative and only 18% will claim the liberal label. Many moderates are actually liberals too ashamed to admit it, or too afraid to defend their positions.

I agree with the statement about some moderates being too ashamed or something to admit to being liberal.

There's liberal and then there's extreme left.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree with the statement about some moderates being too ashamed or something to admit to being liberal.

There's liberal and then there's extreme left.

There's also "thinks america is good" vs. "thinks america is evil".