Democrats & Liberals: Archives

You can read whole books on the subject. Let me hit the high points.

You mischaracterize conservatism. It is interesting to see what liberals think of us. You have many of the words right, but you put them together wrong.

People – conservatives don’t think people are bad. People have the capacity for both bad and good. They will also act from their own interest. This is not a bad or a good thing. People doing this tend to make better decision. Good intuitions and competition help keep them from behaving badly and encourage them to do what is right.

Economic competition is NOT as in a game where one person wins the prize. This is a liberal view. Conservatives know that completion leads everyone to think of new and better solutions to problems. The total prize gets bigger and everyone in the end gets more than he/she would have absent competition. And the game doesn’t end. The next good idea might be yours. The most competitive places in the world are also among the richest, freest, cleanest and most well governed. Look at the competitive index over on the other side. If you don’t like competition, visit North Korea or Zimbabwe.

Conservative international vision is for free trade, which is the opposite of conquest. That is how we get in trouble with liberals. We want everyone to bring their best ideas and their best products to our markets and we want to take ours freely to theirs. We put them all together and come up with even better products and ideas. This has been our history. This will be our future. And that is why the future is bright.

Siegel “the flying” Socialist is at it again. Only this time, he’s not trying to hide it.

I applaud his boast, but not his post.

Paul,

1) The ‘Old Liberalism’ should be renamed to the ‘Current Liberalism’. Until it is abandoned it shouldn’t be considered old.

2) You missed ‘Classic Liberalism’ which is now embraced by the Libertarian party.

HTH.

I think you mischaracterized conservatism. The Current Conservatism does not glorify competition, it glorifies lying, cheating and stealing. That’s different than competition.

Jack:

You say “conservatives don’t think people are bad. People have the capacity for both bad and good. They will also act from their own interest. This is not a bad or a good thing. People doing this tend to make better decision. Good intuitions and competition help keep them from behaving badly and encourage them to do what is right.”

What you are saying is that selfishness is not bad or good. I’m saying that too much selfishness without regard to other people IS a bad thing.

Then you say “Economic competition is NOT as in a game where one person wins the prize. This is a liberal view.”

It does not have to be a zero-sum game. However, too many conservatives play it this way. They behave this way especially with regard to employees. Recently they have destroyed unions,and cut health care and other benefits.

The so-called free trade is conquest. We, the rich nations lay down the rules and the poor nations follow. Would we ever think of cutting back subsidies to agriculture so that poor countries could indulge in free trade with us?

Discerner:

Give me an argument, not a name.

Anon o Mouse:

The reason there is so much lying, cheating and stealing is that people have this competitive attitude. They must win at any cost. If they can’t do it ethically they do it another way. After all, winning is the most important goal.

Paul, I like it!

Paul:

There are some difficulties with Liberalism.

1. Economic Growth. It is hard to liberal countries that lead the world in economic growth. Europe is a mess ecnomically. Counties such as China and India that are definitly moving toward capitalism are seeing tremdous growth.

2. Demographics. Liberals produce fewer children. Birth rates are lower in liberal communities than conservative communities.

In the “New Liberalism” unless economic growth can be addressed, as well as lower birthrates, I see the future of liberalism on a worldwide scale as declining as a percentage of market share.

I think that Liberalism needs to moderate in order to grow. It needs to embrace religion, and become the trendsetter for families with children. It needs to not be seen as the enemy of business.

There are many great causes that need to be addressed. Medical is a huge one. Corporate welfare another. I have little patience for Walmart paying such low wages that many workers are on state aid for medical. That is secondary corporate welfare. It is also fighting for families.

The problem with your markers for new liberalism is that it connects us with delining economies (Europe) and disconnects us with the wave of the future (China and India for starters).

Of course I may not understand your thoughts. How does your new liberalism embrace changes seen in India and China?

Craig

The differences in our experiences are amazing. I don’t recognize the conservatives you are talking about. Zero sum is not the way of the free market. It was not what I learned in B-school; it is not what people I know an respect practice; it is not the way the world works except in fictional TV series or the dreams of leftists.

I didn’t use the term selfishness for a specific reason. What I said is that people make decisions based on their interests, which may or may not be selfish. It is a distinction that some people just do not get, but it is a key to understanding motivation. A person gives to charity because of his interests. I choose to give to the Nature Conservancy because of my specific interest. It is not selfish, as you probably define it. When people make decisions based on their interests, they make better decisions. That is why the free market works so much better than socialism or similar.

BTW - It is impossible NOT to make decisions based on your interests. The most harmful people are those who think they are above such things.

I don’t know how to explain free trade to you. I don’t know where to start. All I can show you is that the results of free trade are generally expanding wealth. Empires practiced the previous variations of mercantilism. Empires acquired markets by conquest and then prevented others from trading. You need either to find a new definition for free trade or a new definition for conquest, but you can’t use them together in the way you do and still describe anything in the real world.

Of course, you know that we don’t deal with pure systems in the real world. All we have is corruptions of the ideal and that is what we need to judge. The real world free market has problems, but it is much, much better than the real world versions of anything else. I

suspect you fall into the trap of comparing the free market in its reality with some academic ideal much discussed by never actually manifest.

Here here Jack

I CONCUR!

Jack, pitting cooperation against competition is a simply cartoonish way of explaing the left-right divide.

The left’s idea of cooperation is highly competitive in the way it seeks to divide up the spoils amongst different interest groups. It’s basically, “Cooperate with us by giving us your money, and then we’ll fight over it.” The idea that those looking for government perks don’t have selfish motives is nonsense.

Corporations are competive by nature, but this very competitiveness is what provides us with goods, services and incomes. And the amount of cooperation needed to run a successful business is enormous. That holds not only within and between companies, but with the consumers and clients which companies seek to serve.

Craig:

I’m not sure where you or anyone gets this idea:

It needs to embrace religion

This is a cry that is getting rather old. Unless, of course, you are speaking of yourself.

Jack:

All I can show you is that the results of free trade are generally expanding wealth.

The only problem I have with this, or your other thoughts is, whose wealth? I have no problem with business, I know they are in business to make money and be successful. I didn’t even need to go to business school to know that. My biggest problem is the disparity in growth between corporate salaries, profits, etc, and the people on the wage end of the scale. Not to mention the Enrons, etc.

Do I believe it should be redistributed through some system? No. But some of it indicates to me that there is a lot of selfishness inherent in what is happening now. I would rather see these corporations pay a decent wage and benefits, from the top to the bottom, than have them give to charity to show how unselfish they are. Perhaps they could give the money they contribute to the political parties to charities instead.

I believe we have lost a lot of what made us a great country, a great community with these disparities. My thoughts on all this are still fragmented, perhaps I can jell them better later.

Womanmarine

I don’t give to charity to show how unselfish I am. I give because I want to further the cause. I consider it my interest.

What the managers at ENRON did was illegal. Both the market and the law punished them. There are always criminals. We deal with them. Nobody defends ENRON. Consider ENRON’s business, however. They bought and sold energy futures and made money in arbitrage in a market largely created by government regulations.

The market produces a lot of trouble. But the alternatives to the market are worse. In the long or medium run you can see the results. We used to have the example of East and West Germany and we still have the examples of North and South Korea. These places started at the same place around 1945, but the system produced very different results. I lived in E. Europe when freedom was reestablished in the 1990s. It was like the end of a war and truly amazing how fast people bounced back when the burden of socialism was lifted.

I don’t quibble about little differences. Market economies are on a continuum. You can have some regulation and some regulation is required. But it has to be reasonable and it has to change with the changing circumstances. The market is like an ecology. You have lots of options, but if you stray too far from the natural capacities, you crash.

My problem was with how Paul characterizes conservatism. I am conservative. Many of my friends are too. I just don’t know anyone who thinks along the lines he describes. It is not the conservative thought.

Womanmarine (cool name, by the way), I’ve met a lot of selfish people in my time, conservative and liberal, but I’ve never met anybody who is happy that there are still members of our society who have trouble making ends meet.

It’s simply not true that I run my business to get into poor people’s pockets and enrich myself at their expense. Heck, I’d like to be in a position to hire a hundred thousand of them and see them provided wih security, healthcare, and everything their hearts desire.

The fact is that every dollar the goverment takes from me to waste on some stupid pork project or inefficient entitlement program is one less dollar I’m able to invest and grow into even more dollars —something which would benefit me, yes, but a whole host of others as well.

My point isn’t that cooperations—esp. huge multinationals—don’t do harm. Because they often do. Sometimes a welfare check does harm too, however, and the solution to the problem isn’t as simple as accusing people of greed and punishing them for it.

From my point of view, as far as the American economy is concerned, we could do ourselves a huge amount of good from top to bottom if we refused to do business with firms and countries that have parasitic and illegal relationships with our own economy. That would be a tremendous first step.

Start with a crackdown on Chinese and Indian companies that use pirated software (as more than half do) in their manufacturing plants. This pracice cuts their overhead down to a fraction of what an American company following licensing laws entails. Huge amounts of cheap foreign goods pour into this country every day which have been illegaly produced. Crack down on that, and we’ll be more competive on the global market, create jobs, expand our tax base, and make—in Bush’s words—the “pie higher.”

Womanmarine:

Craig:

I’m not sure where you or anyone gets this idea:

It needs to embrace religion

This is a cry that is getting rather old. Unless, of course, you are speaking of yourself.

I was thinking of that fact that the vast majority of whites who attend church in this country are Repubican. In order to grow, liberalism needs to attract these people. African Americans are a notible example of liberals who attend church!!

Craig

Paul et al

Here is what is wrong with the old liberals,new liberals,enlightened liberals,or for that matter anything that has a pre-fix “liberal to it:

The majority of Americans have rejected the philosophy.

The will of the majority still is dispositive,I presume,and if that is so,then “liberalism” and all its progeny have now taken its place in history’s dust bin.

Not that the conservative view has succeded in convincing the majority that its philosophy is the most beneficial.

Quite the opposite.

Conservative thought has won by default in America.

In other words,liberalism pretty much killed itself.

The interesting question is “why?”

I mean the central thesis of liberalism is sound:help the needy,the infirmed,educate the masses,heal them and the like…however the sub- set of spokesman for the philosophy these last 6 years have done what no partisean opponent could possibly do……reduce the philosophy to scorn and a butt of joke for mainstream America.

Think about the list of spokesman for “liberalism” that have bombarded American airwaves for years now…Whoopi Goldberg,Michelal Moore,the old dinoseaur-hynea Kennedy,the screamer Al Gore,the friend of the people John Kerry.our newest addition Cindy Sheehan…..calculate the harm they and countless others have done..probably irrepairably thru the next election…as a result.

Frankly,guys like Americian Pundit,David Reamer,Stephen Daughty…all terrific and gifted liberal thinkers plus you as well…had you guys somehow been the spokesman for your views all these years…well perhaps the caricturitures of your philosophy would not be where it is today.

Most of the downfall I think has been self-inflicted compounded by a take no prisioner approach approach from the right who has no compulsion against kicking you when you are down and piling on.

Character assassination is now an artform….anyone with one ioata of intelligence and wants to enter the public areana is scared silly because “reachers” on both sides immedialeyl scour the personal history and drudge up and exploit the slightest flaw…even creating them in a vicious cycle that now cannot be stopped.

America is now at the threshold of ancient Rome before the Republic fell.The patrician class and the plebian class.

Ceasra destroyed the Republic when he crossed the Rubicon though.

Hopefully intellect on both sides will prevent that from happenning now.

Religion? Why does anybody need to acknowledge religion. Religion belongs in three places, your heart, your home, your church. Did you notice I didn’t say your brain? Religion is not for the thinking. Religion does not belong in politics.

Paul,
Good article and I’m inspired by the comments of everyone who has posted here. However, IMO your New Liberalism (A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.) or even Conservatism (A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order ) is not what is in the inherent best interest of All Americans. No, in the 21st Century our Children’s Children need to have a political party represent their well-being as Consumers who need to live in an environment that adds positively to Humanity’s Civilization. A place where Business Owners and Workers come together to combat the Powers-to-Be of Society that wish to keep our citizens oppressed by only appeasing them. Call it a party of American Idiom ( a manner of speaking that is natural to native speakers of a language).

By using straight talk so that the average citizen can understand and learn that while Employers and Employees may look at the world we live a little bit different. Our goals as Consumers are the same. For example; Jack owns a small business and requires that our elected officials works to remove barriers that keeps him from making a decent profit. He does these in exchange for paying his employees a “Livable Wage†and paying his equal and fair share of taxes. However, as pointed out by Sanger some multi-national corporations (parasitic and illegal) and even American Companies pay their workers (usually hourly wage earners) less than a “Livable Wage.†Thus, causing Jack and his employees/stockholders to pay more than their equal and fair share of taxes and lining the pockets of those who wish to line their own pockets regardless of who gets hurt. Therefore, a New Political Party must find a way to get around this loophole used by some business owners/managers and can be easily done through enforcing the present laws.

Companies that hire Illegal Workers need to be brought up on charges of Treason for undermining our economy. Corporations that sell pirated goods need to brought on charges of Treason for using the illegal material to avoid our safety standards put in place to protect our citizens (Common Defense), Corporations that pay their employees below the Local Livable Wage will pay Corporate Taxes in the amount of the Social Service Programs that their employees are entitled to plus a 15% interest for causing more work of our elected officials and raising our taxes. Considering that these taxes are write offs for the corporations, they have a choose. Pay their employees a “Livable Wage†or pay our Society so that we can provide them with a “Livable Wage.†It is a game of pay to play.

Additionally, the New Political Party can use Congress to establish Personal Social Insurance Programs for all employees. Considering the vast difference individuals have on defining what exactly is “A Simple Productive Life†with full benefits (Health Care, Disability Insurance, etc.), a federal program that would allow the purchase of U.S. Federal Reserve Treasury Notes through payroll taxes would do the trick. By creating a PSIP, our citizens could work on investing in their future without the risk of losing their shirts along the way.
No, cooperation between Employers and Employees to build a better community is ok; however, Economic competition and the idea that it is the duty of every American to help every Human on Earth to acquire the freedoms that we have. Americans working together so that we all can have the ability to “Have It All†should be what motivates the American Idiom Party of the future for a Wealthiest Business Person can’t make a dime of profit if the Poorest Consumer can not afford to spare it.

Did you notice I didn’t say your brain? Religion is not for the thinking. Religion does not belong in politics.

Is there such a thing as a Liberal inner monologue? :-)

I personally completely agree that religion should not be in politics. Particularly when it comes to making policy that is based off of one religions ideals. But it is comments like this that further cement why Liberals (whatever you want to call them… new, old, or my new favorite “Progressives”) will continue to have difficulty winning elections.

Blurting out things like this with no apparent goal other than to offend people who consider their religion a HUGE part of their lives serves no purpose politically. While I agree with the basis of your argument it’s the harshness of statements like this that will make many religous people run to the ballot boxes to vote straight ticket Republicans, even if they have a lot of Liberal ideals and may have voted otherwise… Because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they must at all costs make sure that someone that thinks this way must NOT be elected.

“Embracing religion” as someone put it above does not mean following the current Republicans lead and pandering to it completely. What they are saying is that demeaning it and alienating those that base their lives around it does not exactly help the Liberal cause. If it is really the “Thinkers” that make up the Liberal party as you assert, then you would wonder why they can’t seem to grasp that.

BradM,
I would settle for a political party supporting that which is Unalienable Right Regardless since not only does it take in consideration of a person’s personal beliefs, but establishes the fact they they support Laws and Policies that are right for Every American.

I would settle for a political party supporting that which is Unalienable Right Regardless since not only does it take in consideration of a person’s personal beliefs, but establishes the fact they they support Laws and Policies that are right for Every American.

Henry, I would agree…

BradM,

I’m not a liberal.

History Guy,
Religion needs to stay out of politics because the two have different objectives. While Religion seeks to allow a person to come to terms with their problems, The Founding Fathers of America gave “We the People” the Constitutional Right to use our Freewill in the Political areana to attack and solve the problems.

Given the fact that NO RELIGION would allow such a thing and the history of certain people exploiting their religion to oppress their fellow man, I have no problem keeping the two seperate. Besides could you see a leaders of a church motivating his flock to go out and take the Denil by the Horns? For that is what our (American) Politics is suppose to do.

A few comments.

Craig:

You say liberalism is tied to Europe, which is declining. I don’t think Europe is declining. It is starting to build a healthy society.

With regards to India, in this country people are more concerned with other people than people are in U.S. Liberalism will thrive there. China is authoritarian, something neither conservatives nor liberals like.

Jack:

I am not against the free market. I only think it needs regulation to assure it does not hurt the common good.

Sicilian Eagle:

You may be right that liberals have hurt their cause. But we can now spring back to action in order to make a better society. After seeing how conservatives have ruined our government, we MUST do so.

“After seeing how conservatives have ruined our government, we MUST do so”

When does it all end though?
After seeing how liberals ruined our govt throughout the 90’s, the people chose the conservatives.
Soon, it will be the liberals turn to further the destruction.
Its nothing but a vicious cycle that hopefully will soon come to an end.
Neo-Conservatism, New Liberalism or Progressives, call them whatever you want. Not one of them stands for what America was founded on.

You say liberalism is tied to Europe, which is declining. I don’t think Europe is declining. It is starting to build a healthy society.

More specifically, Europe is declining in market share of global GDP because it is a laggard in economic growth.

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.

Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

Liberalism is destine to decline in world infuluence if it looses world economic market share. To prosper Liberalism needs to morph into something that can compete with conservativism in economics. I am not saying Liberalism is good or bad per sae, only that countries that are “liberal” tend to have lower GDP growth and birth rates that conservative or moderate ones.

Craig

Craig said….

“I was thinking of that fact that the vast majority of whites who attend church in this country are Repubican. In order to grow, liberalism needs to attract these people. African Americans are a notible example of liberals who attend church!!”

Maybe with your view you have created a new buzzword, “RELACIAL”.

How in the world did you come up with that conclusion. Liberalism will grow if white Republican churchgoers join the cause and/or will lose numbers if African Americans stop going or don’t go to church.

I would love to have a link to the analysis that determined the vast majority of whites attending church are Republicans and that African American churchgoers are Liberals.

“Religion? Why does anybody need to acknowledge religion. Religion belongs in three places, your heart, your home, your church. Did you notice I didn’t say your brain? Religion is not for the thinking. Religion does not belong in politics.”

This mentality is what has given the right wing their religious voting block, which I find not always very Christian in reality, but very beneficial to the Republican Party. The GOP has done a great job of courting religious people and painting the Dems as a bunch of secularists.

Believe it or not, there are those of us who are progressive and religious. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a separation of church and state, but religion helped many progressive movements… i.e. the end of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights etc…

Jim Wallis, author of “God’s Politics”, does a great job of explaining how animosity towards religion from the left has only helped the GOP exploit Christianity for power (and yes, those Christians deserve the blame for mindlessly going along for the ride). But there are religious people who are “thinking” individuals as you put it, and if you are saying there is no room for them in the parties of the left, surely you must see you are basically giving them no alternatives should they want to keep their faith as well.

I would love to have a link to the analysis that determined the vast majority of whites attending church are Republicans and that African American churchgoers are Liberals.

There is lots of info in this subject.

Churchgoing closely tied to voting patterns By Susan Page, USA TODAY Where will you spend Sunday morning? Will you go to church or Home Depot? Sing in the choir or play golf? Answer that question and you’ve given the most reliable demographic clue about your vote on Election Day. Voters who say they go to church every week usually vote for Republicans. Those who go to church less often or not at all tend to vote Democratic.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm

As Anne Coulter said, “If you are white and attend church you are probably Republican”.

Actually it’s a fact not an opinion. African Americans who attend church regularly vote more for Democrats.

If Liberalism wants to grow it needs to address this gap.

Craig

Yes, Susan Page of USA Today and Ann Coulter saying “probably” are facts enough for me.

We can only hope that Liberalism fails to address the alleged gap of which you speak.

As hard as I try it is difficult to accept the reality that when Liberals say something is fact then it is. I will catch on sooner or later.

Steve:

Well there are multiples of links on the subject. If you want further information I would google “pewresearch church attendance vote.” It is a well established fact that white church goers overwelmingly vote Republican.

I think liberalism is going to struggle in the next fifty years. Low birthrates and low economic growth numbers are not the way to increase market share!!

Craig

Craig,
Did you know that Republicans only 20 years ago were crying the same thing. Why do you think they attacked Black Women for having Babies. Do you think that the Liberals should attack the White Women for having more babies today? Won’t that destory the world and our limited resources?

No, what the Left and Right don’t want to admit to is that Independents are growing more and more everyday. Soon they will find a Leader among them and both the Democrat and Republican parties will go by the way. Because it is not about religion, it is about finding a political group that is going to do what is Right for America regardless of Race, Color, or Creed.

Henry:

Did you know that Republicans only 20 years ago were crying the same thing. Why do you think they attacked Black Women for having Babies. Do you think that the Liberals should attack the White Women for having more babies today? Won’t that destory the world and our limited resources?

No I think that Liberals should reach out to those who are having babies, (families?), and try embrace them and make them feel welcome in the Democratic party. That’s what I would do.

Craig

Craig,
Yes, 20-30 years ago the Republican party and the Religious Right was arguing over the fact that Low-income families couldn’t get welfare unless the Mother and Father did not live together. These same group also cried that while they opposed abortion on moral grounds that they would not support any policy or Law that would provide for the unwanted children.

In fact, the Religious Right fought tooth and nail over removing all religion out of the schools because the Democrats would argee on teaching The Laws of Nature and God’s Nature in school, but would not stand for the teaching of Judeo Christian standard of God in school.

It is for these reasons and the Nixon Era that they lost political power in the late 60’s and early 70’s. And the Democrats are no better. Faced with a social program that they knew would not work, they have played the political game of “We don’t know how to solve the problems America faces.”

No, Americans deserve a political party that is willing to look at the issues on the merits only and use their brain to find out how and what is Unalienable Right Regardless of Race, Color, or Creed. Now that means pushing “The Rich” and “The Poor” to change. Not an easy task, but a path that America must travel if we are going to leave a Legacy to our Great Grandchildren of the 22nd Century.

Henry:

This thread is about a new liberalism. I stand by my statement that for new liberalism to grow, it needs to do two things:

1. Produce a GDP growth rate equal or better than conservatives. Liberal countries continue to under perform economically.

2. It needs to increase it’s birthrate or make it’s tent bigger to include those who do produce more babies.

Without those to steps, Liberals can feel good about their beliefs, but will continue to decline in influence in our nation, and the world as a whole.

I would be interested in seeing information on the impact of abortion and gay rights on birth rates. That may be one explaination for the different birth rates.

Craig

Craig,
GDP is the product of America, now using your logic, the Liberals need to start a Naton inside a Nation and that is the problem. Why I understand that is the current thinking of the Republican Leadership, they are quickly realizing that because of Katrina and Rita they need those Liberal Workers so that they can do their job.

Governor Perry of Texas put it best last week when he openly admitted that he didn’t think that the people who work in gas staions and grocery stores “Essentail Personal.” However, after two days of straving to death, I guess he came to his senses. And I would like to see your data on how abortion has cost the Liberals their base. Because I have meet more Conservatives that have gotten abortions than Liberals.

Henry:

Sorry for not being clearer. In previous posts I had made the point that liberal countries like Europe underperform in GDP growth rates. When thinking of Liberalism, I was thinking worldwide.
Birthrates, and GDP growth rates are lower in these countries.

My point is that for Liberalism to flourish it needs to address these two issues.

Craig

Liberalism IS against religion as a form of rebellion against GOD? Just try to deny it?

Thus making it Anti American. How can you support the country you claim to love yet hate the very core of what it stands for, doesn’t jive.
Ever been to the Capital and seen the BIBLE INSCRIPTIONS ON THE BUILDINGS. You (liberals) can’t stand having someone tell you (you can’t do that) yet liberalism tries to force it down the countries throat in the court system, because your ideas can’t pass muster with society at large. Your hypocritcal PC is crap wrapped up in rags.

Liberalism and great strides. Like Al Gores father voting for segregation A Democrat. civil rights amendment of 64 opposed by Democrat’s. Or maybe the Democrat’s embrace of the KKK bird still in your mist and no one ever askes him to retract what he says or does. Democrat’s great strides are divide divide divide one class against another. Let’s talk about Charley Rangle and civil rights (most enduring images of the Civil Rights Movement is that of Birmingham firemen and policemen using water hoses and police dogs against African-American demonstrators in 1963 Birmingham. The episode came during the first week of May, following a month of peaceful demonstrations by Birmingham’s African-American community against their city’s segregation ordinances. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., who described Birmingham as “the most segregated city in America,” organized the demonstrations with the help of local civil rights leader Fred L. Shuttlesworth and others. “Bull” Connor tried to stop the growing demonstrations, and gained lasting infamy when he resorted to using the water hoses and dogs. Televised reports of police dogs lunging at African-American citizens and people being washed down the streets by water from powerful fire hoses dramatized the plight of African-Americans in segregated areas. The events in Birmingham helped mobilize the administration of President John Kennedy to begin efforts leading to the most far-reaching civil rights legislation in history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The name “Bull” Connor thus came to symbolize hard-line Southern racism. Ironically, Connor’s heavy-handed defense of segregation in 1963 Birmingham actually hastened the passage of America’s Civil Rights Act.) Peaceful protesters, water cannon, DEMOCRAT!

Equating a current sitting president to this man. What a stretch. Liberalism silently keeps blacks in there grasp by deception at best.
Your ideas are dead and election after election are the fruit of what I speak. The Current presidency has now placed more minorities in positions of power than any presidency in history. So much for Democrat’s and diversity,just one guys thoughts! It was and is Republicans giving minorities a greater stake in the future of this country!

Reach out to those having BABIES the Liberal way offer hurricane survivors free Abortions in Arkansas, (Rebellion against God) of course FORCING tax payers to pay for them that’s real compassionate.

LIBERALISM IS FLAWED THINKING! IT DOES NOT SEEK TO ELEVATE IT SEEKS TO CONTROL AND MANIPULATE.

CAD:

Liberalism IS against religion as a form of rebellion against GOD? Just try to deny it?

Thus making it Anti American.

Actually well no liberalism insn’t any more anti american than most other “isms”. Remember the first Amendment? That is the neat part about living here. There is even room for “wacko” right wings who believe if you don’t think exactly they way they do, you are anti american!!

Craig

Seems to me the core definition of just what is a Liberal and what is a Conservative has been lost in a frenzy of mudslinging since the Regan years. A Liberal is one who believes in total Goverment through programs, oversite, compensation and the like. Not a Homosexual, communist, axe murdering, fanatic, who has no God other than trees and perhaps the Moon.
A conservative is one who has no faith in Government and does believe in capitalism unabated. Not a closet nazi who champions genocide to the poor (with the exception of Bill Bennet perhaps) and worships a malevolent God who will “get them all someday”. I suspect most who read this are somewhere in the middle of all this, but please keep the mudslinging up as I find it all most entertaining.

Seems to me the core definition of just what is a Liberal and what is a Conservative has been lost in a frenzy of mudslinging since the Regan years. A Liberal is one who believes in total Goverment through programs, oversite, compensation and the like. Not a Homosexual, communist, axe murdering, fanatic, who has no God other than trees and perhaps the Moon.
A conservative is one who has no faith in Government and does believe in capitalism unabated. Not a closet nazi who champions genocide to the poor (with the exception of Bill Bennet perhaps) and worships a malevolent God who will “get them all someday”. I suspect most who read this are somewhere in the middle of all this, but please keep the mudslinging up as I find it all most entertaining.

Madman8852,
I couldn’t agree with you more; however, neither political party has shown that their Ideology of Government works. Nevertheless, they both do not want to change because there is not a political third party that has been able to grap the attention of the American Public.

While more and more Americans are registring as Independents, their voice has been lost over the political spin machines driven by years (140) of corporation and lobby connections. Thus, a third political party is going to have to start at the Grassroots and make a stand on what is in the inherent best interest of All Americans. Do we want a government that controls everything? No! Do we want a government that turns a blind eye to what Rapitalism is doing to our Nation? No!

So what kind of government is most Americans looking for in the 21st Century of Humanity’s Civilization? What stances on the “Issues” would bring out the best of The American Spirit? And more important, how does a political party bride the gap of what is possible and that which is known to be a pipe dream of the Left and Right?

Finding those answers and a serious clear Vision for America and the World that will produce a Legacy for future Generations to follow will make a great platform for a third party. Have any good ideas that you want to share?

Capitalism is the process of finding a need in the market and putting together resources such that a person or group can gain a profit.

Service is the primary concept here.

How can I service my community to gain a profit. That profit can be in money or in just educating my children.

Revenue - Costs = Profits

Within the concept of Socialism the equation is thus:

Costs = Revenue

Thus we eliminate the profit motive.

Why?

The concept of removing the profit motive eliminates those people that utilize monoploy powers for their own gain. Such that they put
pressue on people to work as SLAVES.

Thus those people that have had a problem with capitalism have some how experienced the use of capitialism in a bad manner. Or their perception is changed to percieve their employers were taking advantage of them.

If the Democratic party is to survive this attack of ideas they clearly cannot win since
concepts such as:
Costs = Revenue
With the distribution of wealth among the working is fundamentally flawed.

Thus the question for the Democratic party is this:

How can we utilize the profit motive to most assist those that have the most need?

How can we change the BUSINESS climate such that the lesser can profit?

How can we change the Tax laws to encourage people to create service?

Currently the business climate favors large businesses, the tax laws favor large businesses, and the need to instill the ability for the people that are not well off to be able to create profit and wealth should be the call.

The concept of take from the rich and give to the poor, though full of sympathy, only gives power and wealth to those that are voted into office.

Look around, who can afford housing, who can afford to start a business?

With over a 50% of a tax burden (State, Local and Sales Taxes and etc.) the problem of wealth generation is becoming more and more an issue of being over taxed NOT an issue of being taxed enough.

Revenue - Costs = Profit (Earning Before Int & Tax)

Help those that are less fortunate help themselves. Yes?

The reality is that the very Wealthy that have had the fortune to create their own business buys into the dual role of Democrates and Republicans. The Democrates keep the people on the plantation and the Republicans keep the big business in business to fund the democrates.

If the Democrates wake up, and apply the profit motive to legislation and business prosperity at the lowest of levels the “competition” will be significant for big business.

Though it is my opinion that this will help big business in the end, the big business types do not thrive on a volitile markets. Keeping the Democrates in place and paying the tax burnden keeps this cycle in play.

My opinion is that this was not a “concious” effort just like a child will bother a parent when they need money, the democrates have spent the past 100 years bothering the businesses to pay them more money.

Only now do we understand that the tax burden is too extream and the Republicans have woken up to better understand they cannot continue at the same pace and must move from this dynamic.

The Democrats have not woken up yet.

When the Democrats wake up and cast off the disturbed concepts of Socialism and over regulation the world will see a new day.

When will they?

Greg,
Having just watched a little bit of the DMC Presidential Nomination Committee(sp) on C-Span, I don’t think that they get it even now. However, I do agree with your points and before 1980 both parties put the tax burden heavily on the corporations to the point that they broke. Now, both political parties want to keep putting more and more tax burden on the American Citizen until we will break.

What I want from a political party is an agenda that will work on not only lessening the tax burden of regular citizens, but on using our powers to regulate businesses in a manner that will bring about the changes most Americans want and need. Katrina showed America and the World that our current “Establishment” is ran by a bunch of people who are more worried about CYA than grabbing the Horns of the Devil of Civilization and putting him to the ground. For when an American Political Party is willing to stand up and do that Humanity’s Civilization will see the End of the World as we know it. Governments and Societies should create a place of Growth for All Humans, not just to those who kiss the butts of the Kings and Queens of the World.

I love having people tell me what I believe and what I stand for. Thanks, conservatives and liberals. FWIW, I’d be classified as a liberal by most people. Frankly, I don’t care if conservatives starve little children and make them work 60 hours a week in a mine because that is most profitable, OR care if liberals seize all resources and dole it out by committee thus squandering any efficiencies and killing any incentive to do a good job.

Until we realize that idealogues get us nowhere except into terrible fixes such as the current idealogues in power have now gotten us, will we solve the problems as a community.

I simply do not understand… I must be simple-minded. I live and work with people who earn a lot of money - people who push papers and make bad business decisions with little or no consequences, people who own two homes, people who live like princes - and all I hear from them is how unfair the system is and how much a drain poor people are on our system.

Do you people not look at our National Budget? Conservative LIVE on and FEED at the TROUGH of our national government. Wake up.

If I hear one more whine about how unfair life is in America for wealthy white people (which I suppose I qualify to be called) and how the government is trying to keep them from earning a living, I’m gonna puke.

Rick

The question here is sometimes less ideological than practical.

One reason the free market works is price. Price not only regulates supply and demand, it also communicates to everyone up and down the supply chain the relative abundance or scarcity of various inputs.

When government or a monopoly or corruption interferes with that mechanism, it becomes impossible to correctly communicate various needs. Socialists and Communists make elaborate police mechanisms to try to replace pricing. They cost a lot and don’t work well. The result is wasteful surpluses and painful shortages and long lines to get anything.

An unexpected results of lack of accurate pricing is greater environmental destruction. Anyone who has been to E. Europe or any other country where the government controls the economy can attest to this. These countries produced much more pollution per unit of GNP.

We can see how this works in the U.S. with regard to subsidies. For example, our government subsidizes and regulates water in the arid west. As a result, a gallon of city water can cost less in bone-dry Phoenix than in Milwaukee sitting on one of the biggest lakes in the world. People have little incentive to figure out ways to use less or use more efficiently, since the resource is distributed based on political – not market – power.

Meanwhile, we get all kinds of plans to have the government solve the problem that it continues to create through its policies.

Things are messed up not in spite of but BECAUSE of its best efforts.

So, you can be a liberal or a conservative in your goals, but you have to use market mechanisms to accomplish them. And some things you just can’t have, no matter how much everyone agrees you should.

I wasn’t looking for core definitions I was working from facts based in actions by a certain party affiliation.

Call me right wing kook nutjob whatever!!!

The fact is DEMOCRAT’s are loosing election after election because they can’t figure out who the hell they are? They have nothing to offer, we suffer right now because of there faulty thinking!

Oil processing is a monopoly because they created it! You can’t build that refinery it will wreck the planet B.S. If the USA would have developed it’s own reserves thirty years ago I believe OPEC would not be the cartel it is today.
America would be in a much better fiscal state due to better utilization of natural resources within our grasp as a nation. To much regulatory crap to hurtle.

We have witnessed this first hand with Katrina. Look at the FEMA response slow because of regulatory crap and hurtles. That’s just one example. Just what the hell does this have to do with Liberalism.

LIBERALISM, SOCIALISM ARE FLAWED WAYS OF THINKING.

Conservatism doesn’t have all the answers either. Yet it is a far better model to work from to find a solutions to societies problems.We have had almost forty years of this liberalism disease. We still have not wiped out poverty, because you never will there will always be poor people among us. Some people don’t want to be helped, others do. Doesn’t mean you stop trying just find the ones that want help my church will help them better themselves, change there lives. This is conservatism people helping people one at a time. No one wants a hand out it only lasts for a day teach a man to take care of himself and he’ll be happy for life.

Countries come and countries go no matter how hard you try religion lives on and on. Deny it you cannot?

Some of us wacko right wing nutjobs well most of us live to be happy and satisfied not wealthy and greedy. Maybe I’m the stupid one because I know if wanted to I could hurt a lot of people and make a lot of money but then that won’t help me with my religion now will it! Nor will it help my fellow citizen who can’t find a decent job because he has no skills to ply or is to lazy to learn one.

So Basically Henry

You want to scrap the US tax code and start over right!

CAD,
I just don’t want to scrap the US tax code, but rewrite the way our government and society deals with the problems that faces All Americans. Why tax a person when “We the People” can use the Payroll Taxes to purchase U.S. Treasury Notes to build schools, bridges, and even renewable energy plants. Are they not collected under the Law as a Social Insurance Program? What better Social Insurance Program can you think than making so “The HillBilly” and the “Penthouse Diva” both can be Economicallt Viable and Financially Independent?

By using our Power of a Nation and EDUCATING our citizens on how to make MONEY WITH MONEY we can make it so that 99.9% of our population can get out of poverty. And while “The Poor” will always be among us, nowhere is it written that “The Poor” can be defined as those citizens who are just Economically Viable & Financially Independent. Is not Donald Trump “Poor” compared to Bill Gates? Yet as a Society and Nation would we say Mr. Trump was not Self-Sufficient?

No, both sides of the Political “Coin of Life” figured out long ago that if they wanted to keep power in America that they had to limit the Wealth in America. After all if every America was a Millionaire who would you get to pick up the trash, clean your home, and take care of your children? That is why if Americans are serious about changing things here in America and around the World than a new political party has to be formed.

BTW, DO YOU KNOW THE ONE SUBJECT THAT HAS NEVER EVER BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOL? INVESTMENT & THE USE OF CREDIT. In the Mid 90’s I asked some Local and State School Boards why they didn’t require at least four years of this subject be taught to our children. None of these elected officials would even commit to looking into the idea because their Peers would laugh at them and the “Community Leaders” would shout fowl. Republican and Democrats both took that stance so tell me why after Katrina they are going to change.?

Jack, the early 1900’s in America saw horrible pollution, and the cause was not socialism or communism, it was capitalism. The clean up came from regulation of capitalism. A little history goes a long way to debunk stuff like this.

E. Europe is entering an industrialization growth stream. That is where the pollution comes from and it has little if anything to do with political system. It has to do with coal and oil for energy without forced regulation of contaminant output. Something only found in democratic well off nations where the mix of government regulation overseeing capitalism mandates the will of the people to have a cleaner environment. Social policy, not capitalism keeps America as clean as it is.

Jack,

I agree that a system based on supply and demand is in theory the best method of distributing products and services and setting a fair market value for those goods and services… BUT…

We don’t have that. Government regulations abound. Many of these regulations were put into place to protect the community from unscrupulous business practices - think child labor laws, the USDA, laws that prohibit the dumping of raw toxic chemicals into public drinking water, etc.

Many of the regulations ended up protecting businesses from competition as a result. Now these companies operate without much in the way of free market pricing - think of the oil companies, insurance companies, airlines, agriculture. These industries are so highly regulated or price supported by the government, that there is no effective free market and the businesses are either protected from competition by the regulations or are so firmly attached to the government teat that the runts die out while they suckle.

Here’s just one example in my own family. I have three brother-in-laws who are physicians. They are all very Republican, very conservative, and all espouse extreme capitalism. Yet, every one of them receive a substantial amount of income from the public trough and through socialist/cooperative policies put in place by the government such as the highly regulated health insurance companies. Without these government supported payments, many of their patients would not be able to pay for the services from these men. Where’s the free market pricing there. They all earned an excellent education going to publicly supported schools, and some received government money while they earned their degrees. Don’t tell me that these physicians paid the actual cost of their education themselves. They did not. You and I supported them with our tax dollars and we are relatively happy to do so if that’s what it takes to have physicians.

Look around you. Begin to analyze how our system works. Who benefits from public monies the most? The poor? The middle class? NO. It is the wealthy. The ones who whine the most about it. They really don’t want this to end.

Shall we let the arid west worry about their own water? Should government even pay for levee work on the Mississippi River? Road work? Why should I pay for roads in Montana? I don’t live there.

All I’m saying to conservatives is this. Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

BTW, everyone should look at our Federal Budget and see just where the money is going. Follow the money. It’s not being dumped in the pockets of the middle class or poor. I can tell you that.

Rick

The government distorts the market and many times this is necessary. But we where we still retain some market pricing, we are better off.

Oil, BTW, is a very competitive market. My only compliant is that the prices are too low and do not include enough of the externalities involved. That is a different story.

“Shall we let the arid west worry about their own water? Should government even pay for levee work on the Mississippi River? Road work? Why should I pay for roads in Montana? I don’t live there”

There are some big projects the government must undertake, such as dams and waterworks. Once done, however, we should allow market forces to work. With water in the SW, the solution is relatively easy. Just price water at what people are willing to pay. It will be painful to someone growing cotton in the desert, but maybe he shouldn’t be doing that. It is very bad for the environment and his cotton is costing everyone very much (but the cost is hidden in water subsidies)

The government should be careful about paying for levees. There is also a great deal of wasted money and environmental destruction here. The parts of New Orleans that are still under water, for example, are not suitable places for people to live. This disaster is man-made and subsized by the government that made it possible to build below sea level.

Roads in Montana are probably a different story. Roads help move goods we all use. Some of the sparsely populated parts of our county cannot afford to build them and we all benefit from what is moving on them. For example, your house is built from lumber that came from a long ways away. It would not have been economical for the local guys to build a road to move a product that is harvested once every 40 years. But if you didn’t have the roads, you wouldn’t have your house.

David

All human activities produce pollution. In 1900, our processes were less efficient and made more pollution per unit of GNP - much more. But most people were not concerned about it yet. It had not become a priority. We can’t have zero pollution, but we need to get the most good from the least pollution and to do that we need market incentives.

E. Europe is an amazing case study in the free market. In 1989, the air in E. Germany, Czech Republic and S. Poland was almost unbreathable. They called it the black triangle, because it was so bad. Rivers were so polluted that some streams ran - literally like molasses. After the fall of communism, but before regulations started to take effect, the market began to clean up the pollution, for the simple profit motive. The Lenin Steel mill, which famously destroyed the monuments of Krakow with its horrendous acid air pollution, reduced its output by about 80%. Its dirty old technology was just not profitable, but under communism nobody could tell. This happened in thousands of other places and within a couple of years, there was an easily noticeable improvement in the environment.

The single most important event in the improvement of the world environment was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in Europe.

Jack,
Zero Pollution is possible with today’s technology. Check out the biosphere technology web sites for just a peak at the possibilties and challanges that face our generation.

From Solar built schools that actual make money for the community to a waste management system that actually recycles approx 99.9% of the materail collected without producing a cloud of smog, the technology exist to replace alomosy everything made of fossil fuel. Yet, President Bush and Congress will not promote the businesses in expanding these products.

No, just like the Whaling Industry held our political leaders at bay in the 1900’s so are the Oil companies today holding our elected officials from moving away from these fuels that pollute our air and water. And until the scream of the American People become loud enough to force our government to do something to change it than America and the World will have to suffer. Higher gas prices it not the answer though. All that is going to do is the same thing it did in the 70’s and 80’s.

An Energy Bill out of Congress that provides the funds necessary to build off shore Tidal Wave Generator farms, factories for building solar panels, and large Wind Mill farms in flood pron areas would be a good start. Yet, considering the Energy & Oil Companies have lobbiests that are willing to pay the Tom Delay’s of Congress millions that isn’t going to happen.

Jack,

My point is that there is very little that is actual fair market price. Subsidies and government supports abound. And they are not necessarily equitably distributed. I live in the South and I think of agricultural subsidies and price supports that wealthy and middle class whites historically received but small black farmers did not. After all, their neighbors often ran the local agricultural offices. My wife works in the pulp industry. Her company uses cotton linter fibers for pulp. Cotton prices are often inflated due to price supports. One of the competitors is wood pulp. The government takes our tax dollars to build roads into public lands so that the lumber industry can take out timber at fire-sale prices. Nothing free market about those scenarios. Check it out.

How about tax breaks for homeownership? Why is this fair to renters? What is fair market about that? Or go the other way, why is it fair to levee special taxes on liquor or firearms? This happens over and over and over. From spending on defense to housing, tax breaks, subsidies, and price supports ruin whatever ‘free market’ argument there is from those in America who espouse that ideology. Let’s see real free markets in action before touting it as the end-all-be-all solution to our problems.

“Oil, BTW, is a very competitive market. My only complaint is that the prices are too low and do not include enough of the externalities involved. That is a different story.” (BTW, I fixed the typo in the word ‘complaint’)

REALLY?? Can you get a permit to build a refinery? Are there not special tax breaks and incentives for oil exploration? Do you not have to have permission to explore and drill for oil from the government? Heck, with prices the way they are, I expect we will see many new oil fields and refineries due to market forces.

No, I’m afraid, we have our fingers in the pie too deeply. And sometimes, rightly so. Let’s just be honest about it.

Speaking of free market forces, the government spends about equal amounts on defense versus all the rest of discretionary spending combined. Doesn’t all that government contract money affect the market? Why on earth would a person living below the poverty line give a dime to the government for military protection? For what? What could they possibly care about whose regime they are poor under? Wouldn’t free market advocates be more satisfied if those who wanted military protection the most (demand) pay for those services themselves (supply)?

Just a thought.

A person living below the poverty line actually doesn’t give a dime for defense. The poor pay almost nothing in taxes. Of course it does matter to them what regime they live under. It can get a lot worse for the poor than to be living in the U.S. Defense is a legitimate part of the government’s portfolio.

I am in favor or limiting market distortions. In our complex society of course we don’ have the option of a completely free market. But we can still use market forces and still take advantage of market information.

BTW - I would be in favor of eliminating most agricultural subsidies.

You mention to fiber industry. I own a loblolly pine forest. I don’t need the competition of free lumber from national forests, but I recognize that good forestry practices in our national forests will provide all Americans with better supplies of lumber. Building infrastructure is a legitimate government function.

Collecting reasonable taxes is a legitimate government function. The tax codes should work toward efficiency. Home ownership tax breaks, are useful policy since they encourage something that is good for society. It helps stabilize property values and is one of the reasons most Americans live in homes they (at least nominally) own. I don’t care if it is fair to renters, since renters have the option of becoming owners and most eventually do.

The poor also have the option of becoming not poor. In the U.S. pretty much all that you have to do is hold a job, avoid having illegitimate children, get married and stay faithful and keep away from drugs and alcohol. These options are available to most people.

What is not a legitimate government function is managing the economy. I have seen places where the market is not respected. They were horrible places, destructive of almost everything people value.

So government is involved in all parts of our economy. If we let it, it will expand into others. We must constantly be on our guard. Just giving up will make things worse.

Just a thought.

Jack,
On your remark “The Poor pay almost nothing is taxes,” I understand that you are figuring Income Tax only; however, payroll taxes is an other thing. For example; a quick reference to Payroll-taxes.com and the use of their payroll calculator shows that a person making only $7.00 an hour is required to pay $18.25 in Federal Withholding Tax; $17.36 in Social Security; $4.06 in Medicare; and $13.00 in State Taxes or $52.67 each week. That totals $2,738.84 a year. And while that is not alot compared to someone making $70,000.00 dollars a year, considering that they both have the same cost of living expenses ($2-5,000/mth) you can quickly see that it is a huge chunk of change to the person making $14,560.00/yr.

An easier way to understand the problem people living in poverty have is to look at in Spendable Cash per year. Lets say the average “Livable Standard” is calculated at $2,500.00/mth. Than compare the person making $14,560.00/yr to the person making $70,000.00/yr. With the annual “Livable Standard” being $30,000.00, the person making $14,560.00 is already $15,440.00 in the hole. Now add the $2738.84 payroll taxes witheld that year and the individual is now $18,178.84 in debt and is providing a job that is (according to Gov. Perry)essentail to the function of the community.

Compared that senerio with the person making $70,000.00/yr and a “Livable Standard” of $30,000.00/yr and you quickly find that while he/she may pay more in Payroll Taxes ($12,795.00 Ferdeal Withholding; $4,340.00 in Social Security; $1,015.00 in Medicare; and $4,615.00 in State Taxes) they still have a whopping $17,235.00 dollars/yr in Spendable Cash. And while their job may be needed by only a few in the community, the end effect in being able to support oneselve in the community where they work is apparent.

Almost a 200% difference in the outcome of what a person chooses to do for a living, yet our society would not function unless those who choose to work at $7.00/hr do their jobs. Yet, by finding a way in your community to offset the cost of a “Living Standard” for those folks is actually in the best interest of all citizens. Building Affordable Housing that require little to no electricity, deverting taxes to the elected purchase of US Treasury Notes/State Bonds, and the making of Coop’s that can provide a wide range of goods and services to offset the nearly $20,000.00 needed by the “Working Poor.”

And the worse part of all of this is that the person making $14,560.00/yr does not qualify for any Federal Assistance because they live above the poverty line. Yes, they all have the opportunity to go to school and get a job paying $70,000.00/yr, but all that is going to do in the long run is to make the job paying the higher wage pay less because more and more people are qualified to do the job. However, the drawback to that idea is that our society won’t have the essentail jobs being done is our society.

Education alone will not solve the problem of society. Rasing wages alone will not solve them either. What is required to solve the problems of our society is a comprehensive personal plan that will teach and help individuals work in the field of their choose. Thus, by working over the next 20-40 years so that the Working People of America can become Financially Independent and Economically Viable through a Federal Savings Plan that also helps build and maintains the strentgh of our dollar is not only doable, but the easiest way to deal with the problem.

Jack, your last reply completely left the topic of the thread. Capitalism is production to fill consumer demand at the lowest cost. That dictates pollution. Since cleaner production is more expensive.

You argument completely left basic principles and went off to Mars to make up new definitions having no relevance to Earth. On Mars no would debate you. But here, your argument is absurd by definition.