I am a (relative) liberal - ask me anything

[patriot45]

Welcome to CU lib! Boy they wont even let you wander around for a minute! Fresh meat is rare!

Go start some threads of your own and then fight for your life!

[Rockntractor]

Welcome to CU lib! Boy they wont even let you wander around for a minute! Fresh meat is rare!

Go start some threads of your own and then fight for your life!

[NJCardFan]

I am indeed pro-choice, and I'm willing to go into that if people would like - not sure I would call it a 'simple' issue, however. I genuinely don't know what you're referencing with the second part - I personally have no love of convicted murderers

[txradioguy]

Sorry - having trouble coming up with a response to this one. Could you be more specific about the political philosophy (I'm assuming we're talking about liberalism, but in what sense) and an example or two of where it's failed?

Of course you are.


Russia...China...North Korea...the European Union....specifically Spain...Greece Italy and Cyprus.

[Rockntractor]

I hope E. P. Meth hasn't run off, he has quite a stack of questions to answer.

[Epimetheus]

People are rational economically, but that is in terms of their own frame of reference, and has nothing to do with values, aspirations, etc. in any direct way. For instance, if 99 weeks of UE comp are available instead of 13, people will tend to stay on it longer looking for the 'Best' job (By their own measure); food stamps, HUD rent supplements, free cell phones the same way...everything that takes the pain out of being low on the totem pole makes it easier for more people to stay low on the totem pole, and over time more tend to do it. The programs work as intended - a temporary leg up - for only the well-socialized of beneficiaries, but as an expected premium for going nowhere by an ever-growing entitlement-dependent class. Same kind of thing with disability - if you can qualify for it by any stretch (And there are plenty of lawyers specializing in entitlement law who will be glad to take and groom your case), getting the payments and staying home is a better deal than earning the same after-tax amount (Or less) by getting off your ass to work 40-plus hours a week...and a lot of people who aren't keen on working at all have realized that.

I think this is all accurate. I believe one of the more important jobs of government is to minimize the amount of rent-seeking behavior taking place in the economy. To me, despite this inefficiencies I think it is worthwhile to have these programs in place, but there is a lot of room to consider how we might have the same positive impact using less money.

I can see why this issue upsets people, and it would probably be even more upsetting to me if I'd ever met someone who was purposely choosing to work less or not at all due to these programs, while I'm working into the evenings at my firm.

Presidents really have Jack to do with the economy, outside of very major executive branch actions like imposing CA emissions standards nationwide by regulatory fiat. The housing bubble had virtually nothing to do with G. W. Bush's policies, and everything to do with institutionalized Leftist race-related policies in DOJ's Civil Rights branch bureaucracy and a politically-neutral SEC that was asleep at the switch on the issue of derivative trading. Clinton's rep for having a fantastic economy was due to two things, the dot-com boom that he had nothing whatsoever to do with, and the fact that he had an opposition Congress for six years that wouldn't let him do any major expensive social programs. There was the little thing about the Cold War ending and some significant economic benefits from that which took a couple of years to mature.

I have never heard of these 'institutionalized Leftist race-related policies in DOJ's Civil Rights branch bureaucracy', but everything else here sounds about right to me.

Not that keen on the household analogy myself; after all, governments can do two things households can't - deficit spending and printing money. Both can be most useful in an emergency, unfortunately they have become institutionalized to the point that they are propping up the current fake recovery, such as it is. There have been ugly demonstrations of worst-case events when this happens, in post WW1 Germany and more recently Zimbabwe, though we aren't in immediate danger of ending up that way...we are, however, starting down the same roads they took.

I'll touch on this at the end of this post - somewhat related to another question.

Keep going Epi... not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but you do have guts. I admire that in an opponent...

It's mostly a learning experience for me, getting better at articulating my views and seeing which parts of my arguments are weakest.

I've a question: *What do you see as the appropriate level of government involvement in the day-to-day lives of the citizens?

Should the federal government have a string to pull for every facet of life that can be construed to impact the well-being the general population?

Or should we move closer to the strict limitations of the Tenth Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What would be your 'compass' that shapes your opinion on this?

Whew, good question.. I doubt I will be perfectly consistent on this topic on an issue-by-issue basis. The policy wonk in me sees the appeal in all sorts of government initiatives to influence behavior, and my libertarian streak pushes back. Two examples:

I can totally see where the soda cup ban came from - while there are certainly massive gains we can get by reforming the healthcare system, if Americans simply took better care of their health in general this would save a lot of money as well. But even if this policy wasn't hopelessly poorly implemented, you'll have no trouble convincing me that this crosses the line of gov't interference in our lives.

On the other hand:

The DOMA case at the Supreme Court has recently reminded us just how many rights and benefits are afforded to married couples (something like 1100, I believe). I don't doubt the value of incentivizing marriage and families and support the policy, but what gives the government the right to do this? How different is this really from the soda cup ban?

These are the sorts of questions I ask myself about these kinds of topics in general - am happy to discuss specific issues as well.

So you are one of these spend your way out of burdens type person. You agree with the tax more and spend more? Never cut back, if you need more money, just print it and tax it? Yeah, you are a liberal all right. People like you are the reason this country is in 16 trillion of debt. Soon to be 20 trillion.

I wouldn't go that far. Firstly, I'm only a proponent of smart spending - you show me valueless spending and I'll argue it should be cut.

The time to pay down the debt is when our economy is rolling. This is why I wish Clinton had cut spending and Bush had not cut taxes. I'm sure I'm stepping on a land mine here, but I wish we had not spent trillions on the two wars in the middle east. Regardless, the position we're in is the position we're in, and I don't think austerity starting today is the correct solution (see Europe).

If the economy begins to recover and I continue to see no efforts to intelligently reform entitlements and health care spending and begin to bring down the deficits, I will be worried. But for now, I don't fear us going the way of post-WW1 Germany, modern Greece, Zimbabwe, etc.

[Odysseus]

Good question. I am going to struggle with this, as I've never really identified with any one group in particular and haven't spend significant time researching the full meaning behind the terms that can get thrown around pretty casually. Let me get back to you within the next day or so - don't want to hold up the rest of the thread.

Interesting. You call yourself a liberal, but are unable to define the term, especially in the context of other ideologies of the left. Doesn't it bother you that you may be carrying water for radical ideologies with a history of horrific atrocities on their records?

[JB]

Interesting. You call yourself a liberal, but are unable to define the term, especially in the context of other ideologies of the left. Doesn't it bother you that you may be carrying water for radical ideologies with a history of horrific atrocities on their records?

Well, all my friends are liberals and my Alternative History and America Sucks professor said that Conservatives hate America and Republicans have a war on women or Christmas or Barney or someone...I forget who exactly and Sarah Palin thinks we should all hunt baby seals and eat their faces and pour their blood into the streets and shotguns and people that own machine guns and assault revolvers have killed more people than all the plagues, wars and communist governments ever have and you're an idiotic poopy-head if you believe in God and how does this Chee tshirt look on me.

[Odysseus]

Well, all my friends are liberals and my Alternative History and America Sucks professor said that Conservatives hate America and Republicans have a war on women or Christmas or Barney or someone...I forget who exactly and Sarah Palin thinks we should all hunt baby seals and eat their faces and pour their blood into the streets and shotguns and people that own machine guns and assault revolvers have killed more people than all the plagues, wars and communist governments ever have and you're an idiotic poopy-head if you believe in God and how does this Chee tshirt look on me.

So much for keeping it civil. I'm quite serious. The term "liberal" was co-opted by communists in the 1930s and 40s when the evidence of communism rendered that term toxic. They began referring to themselves as "liberals in a hurry" and eventually dropped the last part. Before that, leftists called themselves Progressives, socialists and even fascists. The first fascist party was founded by Mussolini, who was a socialist who never abandoned the collectivist economics of that movement, but imposed a nationalist aspect which was later adopted by other fascist parties, most infamously the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany (you may have heard of them). However, my point that you don't know the difference between what you call yourself and the various other movements on the left tells me that you have not reflected much about what you believe, much less why.

BTW, we had a professor of America Sucks Studies who used to post here under the name Wei Wu Wei. If he's the same one that you're studying under, please give him my regards.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I kinda liked JB's post, myself...it summed up pretty well the mental state, worldview, and knowledge of Conservatism of the typical twenty-something self-styled Liberal.