 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why We're Liberals
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Donuel Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:21 AM You gotta tell the story like before you sing the song, so the young can learn and the old don't forget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: katlaughing Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:21 AM Excellent post, Donuel. Thanks for the NYT's piece, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Donuel Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:16 AM There is no such thing as liberals. Perhaps the northern founding fathers were liberals but the coinage of the words Commie, traitor, trouble maker, and now today "Liberal" has been completely forced on people by robber barons, rip off artists and meglomaniacs. When Mine owners abused miners to death, the workers and wives organized, only to have Bosses hire Pinkerton Guards who shot them dead. Some of those abused miners wore red bandanas and were later called red necks. When farmers lost farms and prices for their crops they organized and marched on the Capitol steps and were shot dead. When Martin Luther King...you get the idea. Whoever is getting the short end of the stick through no cause of their own, except for needing work, they get red baited, gooned, spied on or killed. What ever we are being called, you can bet the name callers have a financial reason for making us their enemy. If ya keep half the people distracted at church and the other half bein spit on and lied about, you stand a pretty good chance of exploiting the whole lot. I don't hold to that kind of bullying, stealing and killing. It takes more than guns to kill a man. I hada friend named Joe Hill. I had a dream about him last night... I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: olddude Date: 10 Sep 08 - 09:42 AM Funny thing everyone seems to want the same things. It is the far right and far left that somehow turns them into dirty words. I had a person call me a tree hugging liberal because I support Obama. I asked him what do you want as a "conservative" funny it is pretty much the same things I want, most simply cannot see that. It is the approach that differs. So if a conservative or a liberal fails miserably in their policies, then try something different for a change or at least have the common sense to let people exercise their right of choice. The battling solves nothing, the problems continue. Whoever wins better learn to reach out to all Americans and to our International community that we have isolated for so many years. No nation can stand alone anymore I think, not in a global economy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 08 - 12:29 AM Hold Your Heads Up By BOB HERBERT Published: September 8, 2008, NYT Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal? Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don't you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination. Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they've taken from the right that they've tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever. So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don't even involve a homicide. Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn't content to insist that he personally knows that "liberals don't have a clue." He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal. "We need change, all right," he said. "Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington." Why liberals don't stand up to this garbage, I don't know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today. There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it. Civil rights? Women's rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud. The liberals who didn't have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression. "In the procedural motions that preceded final passage," wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, "FDR," "House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against." Liberals who didn't have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as "the advance wave of socialism," while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane. When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: "No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine." Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, "predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their 'sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free.' " Scary. Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today's young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination. Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire). Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children's clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier. It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned. Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas. Liberals need to get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Aug 08 - 10:21 AM So,if George Washington was a liberal, and most all the founding fathers were liberals..does that make today's 'liberals' conservatives?? ...Because they sure like to change the amendments, where as the conservatives today are more like the Tory party, and just want to over ride them..actually I think they'd just as soon see them disappear. They just seem to get in the way of both party's agendas! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Aug 08 - 01:07 PM George Washington was a self-proclaimed "liberal". He said so very clearly. He even thought that the best role for the US was a liberal one. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 08 - 01:18 PM Sigh. Let me know when you want to stop dicking around. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM I probably should have re-phrased that, to read:.."Now, WHO IS IT, that thinks like that???" Hint: Look at the common thread of those three quotes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 08 - 02:46 AM GfS: That post is pretty obscure. What are you saying? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Aug 08 - 02:17 AM Sorry, forgot to post my name again This..... "I had an ex-wife like that. I told her what I thought about something, and she'd say, "No, that's not what you think at all." To this... The neocons say the same thing. We tell them what we think, and they say, "No, that's not it. What you REALLY think is far more ridiculous." To this..... 'I think he (Churchill) was using the word conservative in a sense only rarely found today.' Now,WHO thinks like that??????????????? Busted! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:24 PM I think e was using the word conservative in a sense only rarely found today. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:21 PM Most people are both liberal and conservative in various respects. That's because most people have both a heart and a brain. Churchill, however, was an opinionated, bellicose, bloody-minded old bastard with a penchant for making really major errors in grand strategy, and he would have been in a very sorry pickle if he'd had the bad luck to end up on the losing side instead of the winning side in a major war. (in my opinion) On the plus side, he was a great orator with the ability to move and inspire millions, and he was a very determined man who wouldn't back down. So were Hitler and Mussolini. Such men do well when their side wins. They are remembered as monsters when their side loses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Aug 08 - 10:44 PM Joe has been fair by me, even when he corrected a post on a McCain thread, that took exception to one of my posts. Winston Churchill: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Peace Date: 04 Aug 08 - 10:16 PM Like, shmike. You're a damned good moderator, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:41 PM "Human ego in its natural state"???? "Where egos can run free and wild"??????? In honor of the "distinctly Jewish favour to the site" (Mudcat), let me say this about that: Oy!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:35 PM I don't look for moderation on the Internet. The internet is where I go to observe the human ego in its natural state. Its where egos can run free and wild! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:31 PM The neocons say the same thing. We tell them what we think, and they say, "No, that's not it. What you REALLY think is far more ridiculous." Joe, that is the funniest line I've heard all day. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM Well, I have to say that being a pacifist and a moderate is a tough thing to do on an Internet forum. Internet discussions often seem to be the antithesis of pacifism and moderate thinking. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 04:10 PM I like you Joe. I don't agree with many of your decisions, but I like you, respect you and have enjoyed the "face time" we have had. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Aug 08 - 04:09 PM I had an ex-wife like that. I told her what I thought about something, and she'd say, "No, that's not what you think at all." The neocons say the same thing. We tell them what we think, and they say, "No, that's not it. What you REALLY think is far more ridiculous." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:55 PM ,Guest from Sanity I think there is an assumption that liberal means somehow that there is no clear cut position on issues such as the interpretation of the Constitution. No Bush is not a liberal here. His motive is to bend the Constitution to support his ideology. The Constitution DOES imply that people have inalienable rights and that these rights are to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The government DOES have a role in this. "God", BTW, is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. (And for good reason). The government DOES support these rights otherwise why have a Constitution at all? Jefferson was specific on this. Todays Neo-cons and erstwhile conservatives would like to force the opinion on the rest of us that somehow government is the enemy of the people because it restricts their rights. (See Reagan's "Worst ten words") This is ideological mythology. The purpose of our government ("if we can keep it") is to protect individual rights and the Bill of Rights was written to amend the Constitution to protect these rights further. There was a comment earlier that there was not a definable liberal view expressed here and that is nonsense. It's funny how so many who call themselves conservatives are unable or unwilling to receive information or definitions when they disagree with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:50 PM GfS, If you are saying what I think you are saying. Then I agree in principle. Workers rights need protection. Even in the best of systems and I'm not necessarily saying that ours is, managers can make mistakes and workers need redress. Even if we assume that Susu's hubby is right and employers have a right to treat employers as they will, its bad for everyone when people are treated unjustly. It destroys motivation and undermines incentives. To that degree, labour laws, minimum standards and a form of redress are simply good for business. If people don't trust the system you may have productivity issues of Soviet proportions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Big Mick Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:48 PM Given the choice between "like" or "respect", I would take the respect and hope for the like. You are far beyond OK in both categories. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:47 PM ...or why most people do, Joe. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:43 PM I call myself a "radical moderate" since I insist on listening to all sides of an argument, and don't end up agreeing with anybody completely. I guess that's why nobody likes me. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM That may be the way it is now...but do you think, that at the rate this administration is going, that it will stay that way????....."I agree, the constitution is a wonderfully 'liberal' document,....makes me wonder who really is bent on changing it and why??...We all need to think that through.." "1 a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition" tyr·an·ny Audio Help /ˈtɪrəni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tir-uh-nee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM >>Now, if the government is your employer, to whom do you redress grievances? Are you kidding? US government employees are quite well represented. Many are unionize, they are covered by all applicable laws and many special rules. I will say that the military was mistreated under stop loss. Their only redress was public opinion and the Democrats in Congress. (along with a couple of sane Republicans like Chuck Hagel) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Aug 08 - 02:10 PM "Now, if the government is your employer, to whom do you redress grievances??" You redress grievances through whatever normal channels of redress exist in any given system, and those channels vary tremendously from one system to another. You would have to look at each unique case according to the particular nature of each system. It's when the government is itself completely beyond the power of its own citizenry to petition or alter in any way and when it is using force and the threat of force to stifle all forms of popular dissent that you have a tyrrany. I have suggested not a system where the government employs everybody, but a system where the government helps provide some employment and career training to the unemployed who have for whatever reason been unable to secure work in the private sector. I am NOT advising abolition of the private sector nor its replacement by government managed sectors. I am proposing a mixed system of both capitalism and socialism...something that we already have in every western democracy...and I am proposing that the government extend a bit more assistance to the unemployed and underemployed than it is presently doing...not by providing welfare, but by providing career training and government jobs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:52 AM Sorry, I forgot to post my name(Note: The first sentence, and the last.) 1. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition tyr·an·ny Audio Help /ˈtɪrəni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tir-uh-nee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler. 3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler. 4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. 5. undue severity or harshness. 6. a tyrannical act or proceeding. 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. 3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson). 4. 1. Use of absolute power. 2. A tyrannical act. 5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor. noun 1. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) 2. dominance through threat of punishment and violence [syn: absolutism] 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler. 3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler. 4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. 5. undue severity or harshness. 6. a tyrannical act or proceeding. Now, if the government is your employer, to whom do you redress grievances?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Lox Date: 02 Aug 08 - 09:44 PM My point being that one can't (seemingly) blame FDR for Guthries poverty. FDR would have ... ameliorated it ... good word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: robomatic Date: 02 Aug 08 - 09:09 PM Lox - The admittedly common wisdom is that FDR didn't so much end the depression as ameliorate it. WWII ended the depression (for the USA anyway). We are currently facing the international effects that the rest of the World has overcome its post WWII destitution and is building several large modern economies and we no longer have the cookie dough bowl all to ourselves. Some leaders of a liberal background such as Clinton saw the truth (and inevitability) of this and pretty much have gone along with it. Some leaders of a conservative nature such as 'W' are more 'America First' in orientation and don't really understand that in the world today there are things that can be influenced but not stopped, such as that thing called Globalization. So there are liberal and conservative approaches to the same issues which will be all over the map depending on whether folks are pre-Millenial or post-Millenial in outlook. By comparison, there was a time when racism was considered a liberal versus conservative issue, with liberals in the US being for the end of miscegenation laws, the end of 'separate but equal' in schools and public places and conveyances, the end of voter registration laws, and the promotion of activist 'entitlement' programs in post secondary education. Conservatives were linked with opposition to most of these things. NOW, the ground has shifted and American Conservatives are by-and-large anti-racist and seeking to have more black and hispanic members among their ranks. The new frontier is gay rights. This little war on terror business has some important issues going on, but we spend a lot of time not with our eye on the ball, The mega issue is one of globalization: The masters of mega markets and job distribution over the internet versus primarilly the pre-millenial anti-globalization efforts of reactionary mullahs (some of whom are Muslim), who can see the end of their tyranical control over the minds of tens of millions of people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Lox Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:57 PM "And soon to be replaced by another?" Not in Iraq ... the commercial hooks are in there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:55 PM Who ever said anything about the government giving everyone a job? ;-) Gimme a break. I was just suggesting that the government provide jobs for the unemployed people who want work, not for everyone. This would take pressure off the most disadvantaged and poverty-stricken sectors in society, and it could be combined with job training for the unemployed and underemployed. When people learn useuful job skills it empowers them and its strengthens the whole society. That's what I'm recommending. Now, to call that "tyrrany" is just absurd. I'll tell you what tyrrany is. Tyrrany is rule by a dictator...or by a criminally selfish elite...people who are above the law and who seek and practice absolute power in a totally immoral and ruthless fashion, and who cannot be removed from office except by violent revolution. That's tyrrany. It can occur in concert with either capitalism or socialism...or a combination of the two. You can also have a temporary tyrrany in an elected and theoretically democratic system. All it takes to do that is to have people similarly deficient in good character to those I described above...people who milk the system for all it is worth as long as they're in office, and who never get charged with the great crimes they have committed. As, for example...the present US executive branch under George W. Bush...a temporary tyrrany. And soon to be replaced by another? Well, let's hope not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:46 PM The so called "conservatives" in today's society don't seem to realize that they are largest beneficiaries of the social "safety net" or the "welfare state" as they like to call it. It keeps the poor from getting so poor that their property values drop or their shares in consumer goods companies drop or the poor don't vote out the political system that benefits them or that the poor don't just rise up and take what they have. We learned this lesson in the first half of the last century. Do we have to learn it again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Lox Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:03 PM Guthrie sang about the depression. FDR ended the depression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Big Mick Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:00 PM John, re: your 3:50 PM post, that isn't a definition, it is a declarative statement about why, in your opinion, a liberal is a liberal. I need you to tell me what you consider a liberal to be so I can match it against that statement. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Lox Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:00 PM Underlinign everything doesn't result in the hoped for emphasis, it makes your post harder to read and gives the reader a headache. Can you rephrase that in a more reader friendly way :-)
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:58 PM It's NOT the role of the government to be everyone's employer....an even FURTHER EROSION of our rights. The Franklin Roosevel Depression-era government created work in every sector out of necessity brought about by the fact that the free market had been so corrupted that it was collapsing. It is a difficult thing when a government has to bypass a sociey to set it right after it has gone off the rails. It smacks of interference and meddling even when it is motivated by compassion. Roosevelt was hated for it, too, by capitalists everywhere. But it was effective in setting up the playground for the largest expansion of middle class prosperity thew world has ever seen. There have been other instances that were less effective: bailing out Chrysler, and saving the banks during the current bad-credit crisis, are examples that come to mind. Jack has a very good point: there's a clear distinction between handing out dough and organizing productive resources and tasks when society is too broken to do so. For decades, the two places a man could turn when he had no employment available were the United States Post Office and the U.S. Armed Forces. They have been hierers of last resort for the nation time and again. No-one seems to think this is tyrannical. It just keeps the wheels of society ticking over a bit better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:11 PM Its NOT the role of the government to be everyone's employer....an even FURTHER EROSION of our rights. Look up the definition of 'tyranny', It's not the governments role to give other people money to be employers either. Nor does either erode your rights. Eroding your rights is Bush's job. I know the definition of tyranny. It doesn't include giving someone money to paint a mural, dig a ditch or write a song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: robomatic Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM I often think it comical, fa-la-la, fa-la-la How nature always doth contrive, fa-la-la-la That every boy And every gal That's born into the world alive, Is either a little liberal Or else a little conservative! -W S Gilbert Iolanthe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM "That idea is silly. But it is very common. If the government is going to give people jobs, why not just do it directly? It would be way cheaper and easier to track. FDR did it in the 1930's. He even employed folk singers"....yeah like Woody Guthrie, and Pete Seeger???????? And to answer your question....Its NOT the role of the government to be everyone's employer....an even FURTHER EROSION of our rights. Look up the definition of 'tyranny' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:02 PM For a society, through its government, to give a job to every unemployed person who wants a job would be brilliant! It would tremendously benefit and stabilize any society that did it. It is exactly what should be done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:01 PM "Human rights in any society derive from a community's general sense of what is proper and what isn't. A government responds to that general sense that exists in the community by officially enshrining various of those "rights" in legal documents. The police and courts then enforce those laws accordingly." Little Hawk, though I agree with you, do you think that the present lot of politicians, are: "Responding to that general sense"? Through propaganda in the media, introducing and exploiting their agendas? or just so corrupt that they've become 'the best lawmakers money can buy'?...and/or, changing our form of government and borders, without the consent of the people?? And the answer to your question, from another thread(EI, if you remember), is Emotional Immaturity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:52 PM >>On the other hand, I personally think, that when large corporations are given tax breaks, that those might be conditional, as to the hiring, and expansion of new jobs. << That idea is silly. But it is very common. If the government is going to give people jobs, why not just do it directly? It would be way cheaper and easier to track. FDR did it in the 1930's. He even employed folk singers. Tax breaks are OK if they further some public good but that is not necessarily new jobs. Either the Tax break is good public policy or it is not. They should always be conditional. On the other hand if you are for tax breaks for corporations why be against any government handout which has a clear public policy goal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:50 PM Human rights in any society derive from a community's general sense of what is proper and what isn't. A government responds to that general sense that exists in the community by officially enshrining various of those "rights" in legal documents. The police and courts then enforce those laws accordingly. So it isn't that the government grants rights. It's that it confirms them in a legal fashion...which, after all, is the job of the government. It didn't invent the rights, it gave them official recognition. The source of human rights is the collective mind and conscience of a given society, and is usually most clearly enunciated by the most noted founding social philosophers of that society...who may have been writers, religious figures, political theorists, whotever...at any right, they are those who are best at putting into words the collective mind and conscience of their own time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:43 PM Amos, An example of what I said, is sharing 'wealth' according to redistribution of money earned, to fund government programs of 'entitlements'. On the other hand, I personally think, that when large corporations are given tax breaks, that those might be conditional, as to the hiring, and expansion of new jobs. The way it is now, that money is being used to make 'lawmakers', employees of the corporations!(So I guess on could say they are expanding with new employees....). Also, there are impeachment hearings going on now, in the judiciary committees. One thing that was brought out, during the hearings, is that with all the unconstitutional powers the current president, unconstitutionally heaped upon himself, that this be wrapped up, and undone,...before the next president took office. The war powers, is one topic that is really 'under the gun' so to speak. If the next president, let's say Obama, if he should win, for example, wishes to impose his views on the 2nd amendment on the people, and moves to implement those..has anyone considered the national bloodbath that would ensue?? ...Just things to consider.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Amos Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:28 PM GfS: The notion that the Government grants rights is anathema to me and most liberals I know. I don't hold with the God-given aspect except in the loosest possible sense. One of my biggest complaints about the Federal government, especially over the last eight years, is the degree to which it has intruded on issues that it should have absolutely no business meddling in. Terry Schiavo, marriage laws, and gawd-knows-what-all else. So I really don't understand your notion that liberals thing government is the source of rights. By gum, this one don't. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: CarolC Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:24 PM I should correct that... he said they self identified as liberal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why We're Liberals From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:24 PM "Keep them doggies rollin', RAWHIDE!!!!!!!!!!!" |
