Can someone show me ONE liberal ideal that has actually worked?

[Foxfyre]

My family was pretty grateful for the New Deal, which prevented people in our part of the world from losing their farms and starving to death.

Other than that, sorry to contribute to an otherwise trollish thread.

Doesn't have to be a trollish thread. It is an excellent topic, and has generated some good discussion among the non trolls.

There is of course something to be said for government initiatives that actually do accomplish just what you describe. As one who believes strongly in conservative ideals, I prefer that the government avoid temptation for corruption by providing incentives for the private sector to do the job, but I don't really have any problem with short term, low interest loans or certain subsidies that contribute to the general welfare and are applied without prejudice.

The problem is, that the temptation for corruption too often takes over and once it becomes a 'permanent' initiative, it is not sustainable without doing more harm than good. The liberal ideal that more and bigger government is the solution to most human problems simply has not worked out in practice.

 

[geauxtohell]

My family was pretty grateful for the New Deal, which prevented people in our part of the world from losing their farms and starving to death.

Other than that, sorry to contribute to an otherwise trollish thread.

Doesn't have to be a trollish thread. It is an excellent topic, and has generated some good discussion among the non trolls.

There is of course something to be said for government initiatives that actually do accomplish just what you describe. As one who believes strongly in conservative ideals, I prefer that the government avoid temptation for corruption by providing incentives for the private sector to do the job, but I don't really have any problem with short term, low interest loans or certain subsidies that contribute to the general welfare and are applied without prejudice.

The problem is, that the temptation for corruption too often takes over and once it becomes a 'permanent' initiative, it is not sustainable without doing more harm than good. The liberal ideal that more and bigger government is the solution to most human problems simply has not worked out in practice.

Suffice to say, I didn't read through all 240 posts before making mine and assumed this was the usual "bickering".

The New Deal was a drastic measure that was implemented during drastic times. People are ignorant of history, but there were true socialistic platforms (i.e. Huey Long) and outright communistic ideas that were gaining traction as people got desperate.

Political idealism is a luxury for those who have enough to eat.

In that light, the New Deal was tremendously successful. Who knows what our country would have looked like had FDR not been elected.

I can only speculate how bad it would have been if Huey Long won.

 

[rightwinger]

My family was pretty grateful for the New Deal, which prevented people in our part of the world from losing their farms and starving to death.

Other than that, sorry to contribute to an otherwise trollish thread.

Yes....Helping fellow Americans is Socialism

The Conservatives support Darwinism, let those who fail suffer and die....its the only way they will learn

 

[Foxfyre]

My family was pretty grateful for the New Deal, which prevented people in our part of the world from losing their farms and starving to death.

Other than that, sorry to contribute to an otherwise trollish thread.

Doesn't have to be a trollish thread. It is an excellent topic, and has generated some good discussion among the non trolls.

There is of course something to be said for government initiatives that actually do accomplish just what you describe. As one who believes strongly in conservative ideals, I prefer that the government avoid temptation for corruption by providing incentives for the private sector to do the job, but I don't really have any problem with short term, low interest loans or certain subsidies that contribute to the general welfare and are applied without prejudice.

The problem is, that the temptation for corruption too often takes over and once it becomes a 'permanent' initiative, it is not sustainable without doing more harm than good. The liberal ideal that more and bigger government is the solution to most human problems simply has not worked out in practice.

Suffice to say, I didn't read through all 240 posts before making mine and assumed this was the usual "bickering".

The New Deal was a drastic measure that was implemented during drastic times. People are ignorant of history, but there were true socialistic platforms (i.e. Huey Long) and outright communistic ideas that were gaining traction as people got desperate.

Political idealism is a luxury for those who have enough to eat.

In that light, the New Deal was tremendously successful. Who knows what our country would have looked like had FDR not been elected.

I can only speculate how bad it would have been if Huey Long won.

Well since history hasn't been as kind to many of the New Deal initiatives as your personal experience would suggest, we can't know what our country would have ooked like had FDR not been elected. We know now that some of both Roosevelt and Hoover policies almost surely deepened and lengthened the great depression and though short term gaps to ensure that people did not starve were commendable and cannot be faulted, these were intended to be temporary stopgap measures. It is the ones that were extended into perpetuity, and that gave license and instruction to politicians to use the people's money increase their own fortune, power, prestige, and influence. That had been previously mostly unheard of.

I think that it can be argued that had we retained the conservatism of the Roosevelt years and rejected the liberalism, the country would be in much better shape today than it is.

 

[Mr Natural]

Public libraries are a good idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

Public libraries are a good idea.

Yes. Conservatives are very big on libraries since people can actually learn there. Liberal public education however apparently makes learning much more difficult.

 

[The Rabbi]

Public libraries are a good idea.

I dont recall which liberal pushed for them in the 1960s however.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't have to be a trollish thread. It is an excellent topic, and has generated some good discussion among the non trolls.

There is of course something to be said for government initiatives that actually do accomplish just what you describe. As one who believes strongly in conservative ideals, I prefer that the government avoid temptation for corruption by providing incentives for the private sector to do the job, but I don't really have any problem with short term, low interest loans or certain subsidies that contribute to the general welfare and are applied without prejudice.

The problem is, that the temptation for corruption too often takes over and once it becomes a 'permanent' initiative, it is not sustainable without doing more harm than good. The liberal ideal that more and bigger government is the solution to most human problems simply has not worked out in practice.

Suffice to say, I didn't read through all 240 posts before making mine and assumed this was the usual "bickering".

The New Deal was a drastic measure that was implemented during drastic times. People are ignorant of history, but there were true socialistic platforms (i.e. Huey Long) and outright communistic ideas that were gaining traction as people got desperate.

Political idealism is a luxury for those who have enough to eat.

In that light, the New Deal was tremendously successful. Who knows what our country would have looked like had FDR not been elected.

I can only speculate how bad it would have been if Huey Long won.

Well since history hasn't been as kind to many of the New Deal initiatives as your personal experience would suggest, we can't know what our country would have ooked like had FDR not been elected. We know now that some of both Roosevelt and Hoover policies almost surely deepened and lengthened the great depression and though short term gaps to ensure that people did not starve were commendable and cannot be faulted, these were intended to be temporary stopgap measures. It is the ones that were extended into perpetuity, and that gave license and instruction to politicians to use the people's money increase their own fortune, power, prestige, and influence. That had been previously mostly unheard of.

I think that it can be argued that had we retained the conservatism of the Roosevelt years and rejected the liberalism, the country would be in much better shape today than it is.

Since government does not have any money of its own, only that which it takes from others, we do not know how many people were worse off so that Geauxtohell's family could be better off. But obviously someone had to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

Suffice to say, I didn't read through all 240 posts before making mine and assumed this was the usual "bickering".

The New Deal was a drastic measure that was implemented during drastic times. People are ignorant of history, but there were true socialistic platforms (i.e. Huey Long) and outright communistic ideas that were gaining traction as people got desperate.

Political idealism is a luxury for those who have enough to eat.

In that light, the New Deal was tremendously successful. Who knows what our country would have looked like had FDR not been elected.

I can only speculate how bad it would have been if Huey Long won.

Well since history hasn't been as kind to many of the New Deal initiatives as your personal experience would suggest, we can't know what our country would have ooked like had FDR not been elected. We know now that some of both Roosevelt and Hoover policies almost surely deepened and lengthened the great depression and though short term gaps to ensure that people did not starve were commendable and cannot be faulted, these were intended to be temporary stopgap measures. It is the ones that were extended into perpetuity, and that gave license and instruction to politicians to use the people's money increase their own fortune, power, prestige, and influence. That had been previously mostly unheard of.

I think that it can be argued that had we retained the conservatism of the Roosevelt years and rejected the liberalism, the country would be in much better shape today than it is.

Since government does not have any money of its own, only that which it takes from others, we do not know how many people were worse off so that Geauxtohell's family could be better off. But obviously someone had to be.

The thing is that the U.S. Government was NEVER intended to take care of individuals. The whole philosophy behind it was to create a nation in which people would have their rights secured and the power to take care of themselves and each other and NOT assign the power to government to do that for them. The rationale is that a government who can take care of you can exercise that power any time it wishes and define it in any way that it chooses. They intended our Federal government to not have such power.

Nevertheless, there has probably never been a liberal ideal put into policy or programs that has not produced at least some anecdotal evidence of benefit to somebody. So on a case by case basis, sure you can find people who have been personally benefitted or helped by liberalism.

I took the OP, however, to see the big picture and the far reaching consequences for the greater good. And it is there that I see liberalism failing in almost all respects.

 

[rightwinger]

Since government does not have any money of its own, only that which it takes from others, we do not know how many people were worse off so that Geauxtohell's family could be better off. But obviously someone had to be.

Yes, those poor Rockefellers

 

[The Rabbi]

Since government does not have any money of its own, only that which it takes from others, we do not know how many people were worse off so that Geauxtohell's family could be better off. But obviously someone had to be.

Yes, those poor Rockefellers

Because we know that the entire New Deal was financed by taxes on the Rockefellers, right?

Actually more like people who worked for the Rockefellers in their oil industries finding themselves out of a job because of excessive taxation.
Not that I would expect a sewer worker like yourself to understand the concept.

 

[rightwinger]

Since government does not have any money of its own, only that which it takes from others, we do not know how many people were worse off so that Geauxtohell's family could be better off. But obviously someone had to be.

Yes, those poor Rockefellers

Because we know that the entire New Deal was financed by taxes on the Rockefellers, right?

Actually more like people who worked for the Rockefellers in their oil industries finding themselves out of a job because of excessive taxation.
Not that I would expect a sewer worker like yourself to understand the concept.

Now you are starting to understand. See? If you pay attention, you may learn something.

You see Rabbi, we belong to what is called a modern society. You will find them throughout the industrialized world. Modern societies look after the less fortunate like Geauxtohell's family. Everyone pays in....and are you ready for this?
Rich folks pay in more than poor folks.
People like the Rabbi are willing to let people starve and suffer if they can't keep up. In modern societies we look after those who are less fortunate

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, thanks for the history lesson, Leftwinger. I guess before the advent of Big Government people were just dying in the streets like flies. There was no Salvation Army. There were no free hospitals. There were no mutual aid societies. No one ever made a charitable contribution and no one was ever supported by charitable contributions. It was pretty much law of the jungle.
Wow, glad you cleared that up for me. How did I ever get along without your misinformation?

 

[Patriot214]

Unfortunetly, the one thing liberalism has been able to do is directly connect to mass amounts of people. Liberal politicians have been very successful convincing Americans that things like small government, the private sector, and corporations are evil. There are millions of citizens in this country who do not pay attention. They hear a politician tell them that the Federal Government is going to take care of all of their problems. They will create every program they can with all of the money they can tax, print or borrow and as long as these people feel taken care of, who cares if it actually works on not.

Although my trust in our leaders has fallen in the past few years, I honestly feel there is hope. With conservative movements in place, such as the Tea Party and the 9-12 Project, more and more Americans are becoming informed. Citizens are turning to the conservative principles this country was founded upon by brilliant men over 200 years ago. Americans are actively holding their elected officals accountable for their actions. That is exactly how our Republic is suppose to work. If this movement continues, I believe we will see the continued rejection of Presidnt Obama's far left agenda and a gradual pull back to smaller government and more liberty. Stay in the game, America.

Matt

 

[Foxfyre]

No, its simpler than that.

The US Society was founded on a principle that it would be different and better than other modern societies. And until we tried so hard to be like all those other societies, we were.

Conservatives know that it is the rich who create jobs, who provide the money to build great university departments and hospital wings and museum exhibits and library extensions and fund great research foundations and help other companies grow by investing in them and provide the money for others to borrow. Without the rich, there would be much less opportunity for the poor.

Conservatives don't despise the rich. They understand their contribution to our society and appreciate a society in which everybody can aspire to become rich.

Liberals too often show their class envy when it comes to the rich. They rarely understand how anybody becomes rich, assume all did so unethically and dishonestly, and take a great deal of satisfaction in making the rich less rich. They also operate under the delusion that if we could somehow confiscate all the wealth of the rich, then everybody would be rich or at least richer.

It's really sad.

I blame the liberal education system.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Left would have everyone believe that if it were not for BIG GOVERNMENT nothing would get done: no free healthcare, no free meals, no assistence to the poor of any sort, no research and no cultural activities.
In fact the opposite is the case: without government there would be much more.

 

[rdean]

We all know you want a one party state like the good little fascist you are. But, no need to demonstrate your lack of understanding of one of this country's fundamental founding principles at the same time. You end up looking like a stupid fascist.

Like I said before. It's the Republicans that are "one" party. One race, one religion.

I don't understand how you can accuse the Democrats of being "one" party.

Republicans:

White
Christian

Democrats:

White
Black
Gay
Straight
Hispanic
Educated
Uneducated
young
old
conservative
liberal
feminist

Now, which party seems the most likely to be "Fascists"? This isn't an argument you can win.

Dear Rdean: I am a progressive Democrat in a historic African American district with a long history of abuse and corruption by Democrat leaders and officials
* What about the gay Log Cabin Republicans? Dick Cheney even spoke out in defense of gay marriage as an issue of Constitutional equality.
* Or Republicans like Guiliana and Hutchison who openly acknowledge Constitutional protections of beliefs in prochoice without government interfering in private decisions
* Or the black Republicans like my neighbor Gladys House whom I work with and support financially (while I also work with my fellow Democrats and also independent Greens).
Colin Powell was my number one pick for President. Second would have been McCain for Prez and Obama as Vice Prez so he could develop all these experimental social programs for reform "voluntarily" through his statewide networks instead of relying on government

In general I find the Republicans to be the stronger Constitutionalists, while the Democrats seem to take this for granted. Under the Constitution, you can protect the equal interests of all other groups instead of fighting individual battles.

Ralph Nader and the Greens, and other independent Libertarians, probably have the best approach to integrating Constitutional values in with Democratic and liberal issues; but they still don't have as strong and centralized stance on Constitutional authority as the Republicans who put God and country first. All the other diversity can follow from there.

We need both parties working together, not divided against each other, which weakens the fabric of the nation.

It doesn't matter what Party you affiliate with, as long as you stand on Constitutional principles first before personal or political agenda. I thought McCain was the stronger Constitutionalist, though my views/ideas aligned most with Nader, and Obama was the weakest and talked the talk but did not do enough to enforce and implement Constitutional principles on an equally accessible level (as lawyers, he and his wife would probably alienate their professional legal and financial base if they went against the legal monopoly and promoted equal access, education, and enforcement of legal protections by mediation)

I think it's sickening when conservatives hide behind the constitution to push a conservative agenda. There was no mention of an Air Force in the constitution. Should we disband ours? It mentions the Army and the Navy.

The country evolves. When the Constitution was written, there was slavery, which conservatives have always supported. Women couldn't vote. Which conservatives also supported.

When Log Cabin members try to send money to Republican candidates, they nearly always send it back.

Cheney has a gay daughter. Any thinking person knows no one raises children to be gay, some just "are". Does anyone believe that he would have supported gay rights if it didn't affect his daughter? Besides, I remember the 2000 and 2004 campaigns when the entire Cheney family was on stage minus Mary and her girlfriend. Pitiful.

"Strict constitutionalists" is a myth. People use that to push an agenda. You can always "interpret" written words to mean whatever agenda you want to push. The current conservative Supreme Court just made corporations "citizens". How is that even possible?

 

[Ravi]

History proves the idea of Conservative Fiscal Prolicies is a fraud.

Depends what you define as "conservative." What is a fraud is this supply side nonsense that has permeated the Republican Party and some conservative thinking over the past 30 years. Cutting income taxes in America does not raise total revenues. Republicans and conservatives have sold a bill of goods to Americans that you can cut taxes and not cut spending. That is an outright fraud. This is what I rail against. It drives me nuts because it is so ******* stupid.

"Conservative" used to mean less government, i.e. less taxes AND less spending. I rarely criticize this type of conservatism, except in technical details and at certain times and in certain situations. It is logically consistent. But conservatives in this country, at least in politics, have basically abandoned this idea and are now champions of tax cuts only, which is intellectually bankrupt and politically and economically dangerous. Oh sure, they are saying all the right things now when they have lost every single branch of government and it is politically convenient. But when they were in office, they did absolutely nothing. By not targeting vast entitlements most Americans receive, they are essentially conceding that they have lost the intellectual argument that Americans don't want social security or Medicare.

Are you sure you aren't a dirty hippie?

That really is the Republican party in a nutshell. There are very few actual conservatives in office and that is a shame.

 

[Ravi]

No, its simpler than that.

The US Society was founded on a principle that it would be different and better than other modern societies. And until we tried so hard to be like all those other societies, we were.

Conservatives know that it is the rich who create jobs, who provide the money to build great university departments and hospital wings and museum exhibits and library extensions and fund great research foundations and help other companies grow by investing in them and provide the money for others to borrow. Without the rich, there would be much less opportunity for the poor.

Conservatives don't despise the rich. They understand their contribution to our society and appreciate a society in which everybody can aspire to become rich.

Liberals too often show their class envy when it comes to the rich. They rarely understand how anybody becomes rich, assume all did so unethically and dishonestly, and take a great deal of satisfaction in making the rich less rich. They also operate under the delusion that if we could somehow confiscate all the wealth of the rich, then everybody would be rich or at least richer.

It's really sad.

I blame the liberal education system.

It apparently short circuited your head.

 

[Ravi]

btw did anyone watch anything of the Republican whine fest in New Orleans?

This was their platform: Obama sucks, Democrats suck, Liberals suck...and that was IT.

And Mitten won the straw poll.