The United States Was Born Liberal

[AVG-JOE]

I've heard the arguments and most of the time it's just semantics. They are very, very close. Regardless, the United States was not born Liberal if you use the modern-day America Liberal as a guide.

I think the point of the article is to point out that it was born of what was liberal thinking at the time. Any similarities to the liberal movement of today, by design or by luck are just that: similarities.... then again, one can't deny that in spite of the differences, there are still similarities.

Same can be said of conservative thinking then and now.

Also of note: Some conservative ideas then are liberal now, and visa versa.

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

thanks for answering the question chicken shit. Wanna try again?

Don't worry buddy, I'm putting something together for you.

 

[sealybobo]

thank you for making your list of faulty assumptions nice and neat for me to pick apart. We'll start with the one above; there not the same thing convenient as you would like that to be



They work for me just fine. What 2% am I in? Tax cuts have worked everytime they are tried. An overall conservative economic policy would be one of small government which by extension should allow taxes to go down which would put more money in people's pockets. Now would that not work for people?



I think most people including the Republicans are fairly capable of understanding basic socio-economic statistics.



You are speaking the non-existant religous right of course. Yet another term that is not a synonym for Republican. Just as their are extremist peacniks do not define the entirety of the democratic party, the religious right does not define the Republican party or conservatism.



Wrong. Free market capitalism does not have predefined groups. It let's the group define themselves. One succeeds or fails by their own ingenuity and motivation in a free market. the free market does not predestine anyone to a certain station in life.



It is not in your financial interest to attain wealth by simply haveing it taken from someone and given to you.



WHOA! Make up your mind Sealy. You said before (and in the very first line of this post) that they are the same thing.



Definately not more conservative than Reagan. I don't recall any tax cuts under Clinton just 'liberal' use of the oval office.



Barely warrants comment, as whatever you think that agenda is most likely incorrect and the equivalent of me saying the democrat agenda is to push us into communism.



What income bracket you are in does not define the state of the economy for an individual. Higher income simply better insulates you from the downturns in an economy.



No the GOP is against OVER regulation. There is a fine line between be watchful for the citizenry and hampering a companies productivity.



Kinda like democrats are pro big government so they can keep people poor and dependant?



The faulty premise being of course one should be able to raise a family on one income. It isn't a businesses job to provide for your standard of living. If your job isn't facilitating, find one that does.



true, because 3 out of 4 people are financially illiterate



What about our wonderful government makes you think a tax increase would go toward paying down the debt?



Explain how corporations have less money to pay people with and hire will work.



Again companies don't owe American's a standard of living. It is not their role or duty to provide jobs to American's. if a company does not utilize competetive advantages the entire company potentially fails, which leads to many more peopel out of work than just the jobs that got sent overseas.



Where are you going with this? What is it that I am trying to keep you from taking that is ultimatly going to hurt me?



What freedoms did you lose under the Bush administration. The same could be said about many leftist issues and your nanny state agenda.

1. This economy works just fine for you? Wow, you are the exception. Congrats. If you aren’t in the top 2% ,chances are you are either lying or don’t know what you are saying.
2. No, Bush’s tax breaks didn’t work.
3. Yes, taxes should go down if/when either party spends less. It was the GOP’s chance to show they could cut spending and then cut taxes. But they cut taxes and increased spending. So if spending must occur, and it seems that it does, then it makes sense that we pay for that spending. You clearly enjoy seeing the debt double, because you don’t want to be real about paying it down/off.
4. A smaller government that lets companies pollute and has no power? No thanks. How small do you want the government? And the GOP grow government.
5. Check out Reagan’s deficit and Clinton’s surplus and tell me who’s the conservative.
6. I don’t think you understand when I said that the middle class is not a creation of capitalism. What I am saying is that if the GOVERNMENT doesn’t protect the middle class, it will disappear, and a small rich class and small merchantile class will exist along with the masses being the working poor. Is that what you want? Darwinism? Every man for himself?
7. Yes, take from the guy who made $20 million at AIG or FORD and give it to the workers. Yes, that’s what I’m for. We deserve it. They don’t. Or do you prefer it when they take from us so they can have more. You’re a house slave.
8. Our country is founded on socialism. The poor don’t pay taxes, right? What is that?
9. Conservative to me, NOW? After the last 8 years? Is a dirty word, just like liberal is to you.
10. Everything you say are things the GOP said in the 90’s to convince people to vote for them. It works. Sounds good. And in time people will forget you sucked. Chaney & Rumsfeld worked for Nixon and Bush 1 sucked yet you voted for Bush 2. And you will vote for Jeb in 2012.
11. The GOP is against over regulations. Yea, like Pesticides and protecting salmon. LOL.
12. Clinton brought millions of people out of poverty. Why would the Dems be for keeping people poor? Bush put more people in poverty. What’s wrong with you?
13. No, business’ job is only to maximize profits. That’s why it is a bad thing when Business’ buy our politicians. Yes they buy dems too, but they give 75% of their lobby money to the GOP
14. Clinton at least balanced his budget when Bush doubled the debt. Lesser of two evils.
15. Corporations won’t have less money. When Business is good, they make more money. That requires us making more money, not less. That requires a strong middle class, not 80% of us being working poor. That’s the way the GOP were heading us. Thank god enough of us woke up.
16. If a company in America is not pro American labor and doesn’t pay a good middle class wage, we should not be buying their products. We have the right to boycott them too and put them out of business.
17. Don’t threaten us that you will send jobs overseas if and you will not hire if. You already are not hiring and you are sending jobs overseas. We’re done being scared by your threats. You’ve terrorized us long enough.
18. Freedom of speech. If I said something he didn’t like, I got put on a terror watch list. Good luck getting a good job if your name is on that list. Taking away Habius Corpus. See Jose Padilla.

 

[DiamondDave]

Clown... you keep spewing the same slogans and the same myths...

No use even reading after you put forth the the doozy of the "Clinton Surplus".... that fully shows your complete partisanship and ignorance to the truth

 

[Andrew2382]

Clinton’s $3 Trillion Raid on Social Security -- FreedomWorks.org
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[AVG-JOE]

You said my perception was off that liberals are louder. I said go to a college campus and you will see otherwise.




This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. Do you honeslty not care that the premise your argument rests on is wrong? BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE YOU IDIOT. Thus it can not be stated that he is representative of how conservative would govern. Someone like Ron Paul would be a better indicator of that. Listen to a conservative on talk radio some time. They aren't fawning over Bush. Everything, every single word in that paragraph is untrue.



How the **** does everyone haveing less money to put into the economy help the economy genius?



Where did your cost of living go up?



he can call himself whatever the hell he wants. calling yourself something doesn't mean that's what you are.

I have to agree with Sealy on this one... In reality, there are only two viable political choices in this neck of the woods at this time in history - Republican/Conservative and Democrat/Liberal and Bush Jr is the republican (Conservative) poster boy, just as Carter was poster boy for the democrats (Liberals) until Clinton came along.

As an independent who voted for Bush Jr in 2000, I will add that if Sarah Palin becomes the voice of the republicans (Conservatives), I will most likely stick with the democrats (Liberals), as there are damn few viable alternatives in this system.

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

Clown... you keep spewing the same slogans and the same myths...

No use even reading after you put forth the the doozy of the "Clinton Surplus".... that fully shows your complete partisanship and ignorance to the truth

You keep saying that over and over and over again Dave. Here are the facts ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU moron.

They judged Clinton, Bush, Bush2 and Reagan the exact same way. Look up what Reagan's deficit was, both Bush's and then Clinton's.

Clinton did better than all three of them as far as budget and deficits go.

So don't call it a surplus. I accept that he didn't really have a surplus, because he tapped into Social security/borrowed, etc.

In other words, Clinton may have used the same fuzzy math that Reagan & the 2 bush's used. But guess what? He still did better than the other 3 GOP clowns.

So of the last 4 presidents, Clinton was the most conservative. And it burns you up.

 

[sealybobo]

thanks for answering the question chicken shit. Wanna try again?

Here’s what’s wrong with your arguments.

If we give oil companies tax breaks, they’ll lower our gas prices and invest in alternative fuels.
A. they still gouged us and the GOP protected them.
B. They didn’t invest in alternative energy like they said they would. They just bought a lot of their own stocks and gave their ceo’s insane raises.

If we give corporations tax breaks, they’ll hire more people. Or the cost of their product will go up if we raise their taxes, or they won’t hire.
a. They’ll still only hire as many people as they need as maximizing profits will always be the goal.
b. Unless their product is a necessity, they can only raise the price so much.
c. They’ll hire as many people as they need to be profitable, regardless of taxes
d. People made money and companies hired in the 90’s.

If taxes are stopping a company from being successful, then they’re not successful at all.

If a company is doing really well, I suspect they pay more in taxes than a struggling company because they have to pay taxes on all the sales they made. No?

 

[Ravi]

If taxes are stopping a company from being successful, then they’re not successful at all.

So very true. If they can't compete it isn't because of taxes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ah so because this group you have lumped me in had a bad President I have therefore lost my right to have an opinion of or speak my mind about the current President. Got it.

It is unfortunate, but our current political power split forces us to choose blueberry or raspberry as the only options when most of us consider neither as a favorite. Sucks when we're forced choose a label or not participate.

The best we can do is remember that labels do not define us as individuals and shop for candidates who are moderate in their thinking - sucks though that independent flavor of moderate thinking must be packaged in either raspberry or in blueberry before being counted. It tends to dilute and mask the thinking.

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

I have to agree with Sealy on this one... In reality, there are only two viable political choices in this neck of the woods at this time in history - Republican/Conservative and Democrat/Liberal and Bush Jr is the republican (Conservative) poster boy, just as Carter was poster boy for the democrats (Liberals) until Clinton came along.

As an independent who voted for Bush Jr in 2000, I will add that if Sarah Palin becomes the voice of the republicans (Conservatives), I will most likely stick with the democrats (Liberals), as there are damn few viable alternatives in this system.

-Joe

And as for Democrats being louder. I can't find where Bern said that but I read it in your reply to Bern.

I can only think back to how the "conservatives" started calling the FCC to get Howard stern kicked off the air. It was only a handful of pricks that called, but they spoke LOUD and got Howard booted from FM morning radio.

And this is what they call less obtrusive/smaller government?

This is government leaving us alone?

Let's states decide, but only after we tell Florida who they have to give their electoral votes to?

So Oprah described giving a blowjob on the air and Howard had us all call the FCC and make a complaint. Was she fined? No.

Could Howard have said what she said on the air? No.

So not only are the GOP Big government who want to legislate morality, they're also hypocrites.

And they end up being the biggest perverts. Larry Craig and Mark Foley!

 

[sealybobo]

It is unfortunate, but our current political power split forces us to choose blueberry or raspberry as the only options when most of us consider neither as a favorite. Sucks when we're forced choose a label or not participate.

The best we can do is remember that labels do not define us as individuals and shop for candidates who are moderate in their thinking - sucks though that independent flavor of moderate thinking must be packaged in either raspberry or in blueberry before being counted. It tends to dilute and mask the thinking.

-Joe

That's true Joe.

But also, in the future these so called "conservatives" will do much better if they stop pretending blueberry sucks when it really isn't that bad and stop telling us raspberries are great when they have clearly gone bad.

 

[DiamondDave]

You keep saying that over and over and over again Dave. Here are the facts ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU moron.

They judged Clinton, Bush, Bush2 and Reagan the exact same way. Look up what Reagan's deficit was, both Bush's and then Clinton's.

Clinton did better than all three of them as far as budget and deficits go.

So don't call it a surplus. I accept that he didn't really have a surplus, because he tapped into Social security/borrowed, etc.

In other words, Clinton may have used the same fuzzy math that Reagan & the 2 bush's used. But guess what? He still did better than the other 3 GOP clowns.

So of the last 4 presidents, Clinton was the most conservative. And it burns you up.

No clown.... it was not "the same fuzzy math"... it was Clinton dipping into soc sec and bankrupting it.... it was Clinton hiding the spending and what was being taken.... it was and IS a complete lie that he balanced anything, or that he had ANY sort of surplus

Clinton was not as liberal as an Obama, Carter, etc... but he was FAR from a conservative.... and not even close to as conservative as a Reagan... actually, quite comparable to Bush II, who you inherently try and demonize

try looking at what andrew has showed you and go back thru the posts where we have thoroughly debunked your clinton surplus myth

but no... you, the clown, will continue with your slogans and myths... for it is not truth you are after or are about.... it is portraying your myth for the big-government, government control, and redistribution values you hold dear

 

[AVG-JOE]

The private sector generates wealth, not the government. I absolutely agree that we need to balance our budget and pay off our deficit. But raising taxes is not the solution. Cutting taxes and cutting government spending is the way to go.

Spending for the sake of spending is not a solution.

Higher taxes in America are no more the answer than lower taxes.

The answer is fair taxes. If everyone felt that their taxes were fair no one would mind if they went up to keep us from deficit spending or to pay for a particular project and no one would mind if they went down when The People had a surplus.

Until taxes and the tax code is perceived as fair by more than half the people, at least 50% of us will *****. The more unfairly perceived, the louder the bitchin'.

Part of that perception of 'fairness' has got to be a perception that those fairly collected taxes are not being spent on stupidity, favoritism or entitlement.

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

No clown.... it was not "the same fuzzy math"... it was Clinton dipping into soc sec and bankrupting it.... it was Clinton hiding the spending and what was being taken.... it was and IS a complete lie that he balanced anything, or that he had ANY sort of surplus

Clinton was not as liberal as an Obama, Carter, etc... but he was FAR from a conservative.... and not even close to as conservative as a Reagan... actually, quite comparable to Bush II, who you inherently try and demonize

try looking at what andrew has showed you and go back thru the posts where we have thoroughly debunked your clinton surplus myth

but no... you, the clown, will continue with your slogans and myths... for it is not truth you are after or are about.... it is portraying your myth for the big-government, government control, and redistribution values you hold dear

Bush used fuzzy math and still doubled the debt. Why don't you show me a real comparison between Reagan, Bush 1&2 and Clinton? Did Clinton spend more?

Oh, so you are still sticking with the story that Obama is a far left liberal?

I guess he'll have to prove you wrong like Clinton did. Not that you'll ever admit if he's doing a good job.

And Reagan was an actor. Governor of California. He was a moderate. So is Obama. Watch, Obama will be better than Clinton & Reagan.

You know what dude? You have yet to see me defend the Dems when they sucked like you have defended the GOP for the past 8 years. You are the hack.

Or are you too now distancing yourself from Bush and trying to put it all on him? Don't forget Delay.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It might make sense to you, but it isn't supported by the facts. There American Colonists were supported by the arch-conservative Edmund Burke.



That hardly sounds like it was the Tories the Americans were fighting against. Rather, as expected, it was the lot that loves taxes more than life itself.

Who, in the late 1700's loved taxes more than the British royal family and the elite nobility they supported with those taxes, except maybe the French royal family and the elite noble snobs in their self described 'politically conservative' inner circle?

Don't focus on the label, look at the ideas and thinking that received the label of 'liberal' or 'conservative' in those days, and then compare it to today's definitions and your own feelings... I can't honestly label myself either 'liberal' or 'conservative'. By today's sub-pigeon holes and definitions, I'm a bit of both.

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

Higher taxes in America are no more the answer than lower taxes.

The answer is fair taxes. If everyone felt that their taxes were fair no one would mind if they went up to keep us from deficit spending or to pay for a particular project and no one would mind if they went down when The People had a surplus.

Until taxes and the tax code is perceived as fair by more than half the people, at least 50% of us will *****. The more unfairly perceived, the louder the bitchin'.

Part of that perception of 'fairness' has got to be a perception that those fairly collected taxes are not being spent on stupidity, favoritism or entitlement.

-Joe

-Joe

I don't mind taxes paying for social programs that help poor people.

And these conservatives don't mind our taxes being wasted, as long as they are wasted in the name of defense.

So we'll never all be happy.

My hope is that Obama really guts the government of reduculous pork projects. Stops the buddy contracts that Bush buddies have with the pentagon.

I also hope he doesn't allow able people to get on welfare. I doubt he will turn the clock back on that one.

Say, notice you never hear republicans give Clinton credit for signing welfare reform? That was a pretty "conservative" thing to do.

 

[sealybobo]

No clown.... it was not "the same fuzzy math"... it was Clinton dipping into soc sec and bankrupting it.... it was Clinton hiding the spending and what was being taken.... it was and IS a complete lie that he balanced anything, or that he had ANY sort of surplus

Clinton was not as liberal as an Obama, Carter, etc... but he was FAR from a conservative.... and not even close to as conservative as a Reagan... actually, quite comparable to Bush II, who you inherently try and demonize

try looking at what andrew has showed you and go back thru the posts where we have thoroughly debunked your clinton surplus myth

but no... you, the clown, will continue with your slogans and myths... for it is not truth you are after or are about.... it is portraying your myth for the big-government, government control, and redistribution values you hold dear

Everything I found said Clinton did a better job with the debt/budget/deficit/debt than the last 3 republicans.

And I found this. A perfect example of fuzzy math. Bush's number don't even count war spending? Those are considered "supplimental". Democrats for years have wanted that spending to be included in his budget.

So he more than doubled the debt, you dumb monkey.

* $453 billion - the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
* $377 billion - the average annual defense budget during Clinton's time in office, a 16.7% decrease.
* $496 billion - the average annual defense budget during Bush's time in office, a whopping 31% increase not even including the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are largely funded through supplementals not included in the official defense budget.
Daily Kos: Defense Spending: Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton vs. Bush II

And these numbers were already adjusted for inflation, so dont' even try it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bush used fuzzy math and still doubled the debt. Why don't you show me a real comparison between Reagan, Bush 1&2 and Clinton? Did Clinton spend more?

Oh, so you are still sticking with the story that Obama is a far left liberal?

I guess he'll have to prove you wrong like Clinton did. Not that you'll ever admit if he's doing a good job.

And Reagan was an actor. Governor of California. He was a moderate. So is Obama. Watch, Obama will be better than Clinton & Reagan.

You know what dude? You have yet to see me defend the Dems when they sucked like you have defended the GOP for the past 8 years. You are the hack.

Or are you too now distancing yourself from Bush and trying to put it all on him? Don't forget Delay.

Reagan moved from his prior more liberal or moderate past.... try living in the real world, clown

Obama is NOT a moderate.. there is nothing in his history or voting record that even comes CLOSE to supporting him being a moderate... but nice try with your myths once again

What you and other blinded libs fail to grasp or want to acknowledge is the fact of Clinton's use of intergovernmental funds, which were NOT used in the calculation on the public debt (which you try and use as proof of a surplus... though that even shows that the debt NEVER decreased even $0.01)....

Clinton played a shell game, in the typical DEM ploy to fool the public.... and ones like you fell for it hook, line, and sinker

 

[AVG-JOE]

Say it ain't so Joe!

Comparing American Conservatism to European Monarchies is simply foolish and shows a complete lack of reasonable understanding. The liberals I debate with often who live in the UK don't see it this way and if anyone should be able to draw a correlation, it is them. You offered nothing but your opinion supported by two very bias commentary articles.

Yep, there ya go again Joe!

It is not foolish to compare anything!

Some conclusions, like "political power, as wielded by corporate power in America as being similar to power wielded by European Monarchies and their noble class elite" can be successfully drawn, and other conclusions, like "all liberals of today are revolutionaries" are foolish, but comparing things is what we do when we discuss ideas.

-Joe