Democrats & Liberals Archives

What Liberals Stand For

Republicans and conservatives have a standard chatter: They claim that Democrats are always whining, bereft of ideas, and don’t know what they stand for. Democrats, especially after they lost the presidency to George W Bush, often echo the Republicans on this. I’m here to state that this stereotype is wrong. Democrats have long been welded to liberalism, which, according to Paul Waldman, may be stated in one easily-articulated sentence:

"We are all in it together."

This is in stark contrast to what conservatives say:

"You are responsible for yourself."

While conservatives push the burden and responsibility and risks onto the shoulders of each individual, liberals - or as some call them, progressives - call for each of us to act in a way that is not only good for themselves personally but is also good for the country as a whole. Liberals believe that we are not alone, but part of a big society; that whatever each of us does affects the rest of us; that we are all in the same boat. We are part of a community.

Because liberals believe that "We are all in it together," they favor:

  • A MINIMUM WAGE - Helping poor workers will benefit other workers and improve our economy
  • UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE - Improving the health of each of us improves the health of all of us and of the economy of the country
  • ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT - Cleaning up our environment will improve the health and economic opportunities of each of us
  • ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources by developing sustainable sources of energy will make life easier for all of us and reduce our likelihood of getting involved in a foreign war
  • HELPING KATRINA VICTIMS - The government helps them now and we get into a position where the government may help any one of us (who knows whom or where or when) in the future
Of course, there are many other issues. But you get the picture.

Conservatives who believe in complete self-reliance will find fault with this liberal statement. Independents, however, may want to consider the value of our liberal belief that:

"We are all in it together."

If you are a Democrat, you should trumpet this phrase as your mantra.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 3, 2006 5:08 PM
Comments
Comment #145137

Paul-

You only made one small mistake. Conservatives do espouse the philosophy you have attributed to them as a blanket belief. True Conservatives, of which there are very few in positions of power and influence, believe that we are responsible for our own actions. That we learn from the mistakes and successes of the past and build on the good while rejecting the bad.

True Conservatives also believe we are all in this together, just as you say the Liberals do. The only difference is Conservatives believe help and assistance is from individual to individual, not from government largesse. If you want a mantra for Conservatism, it could be:” Never believe the government should do for you what you can do for yourself, but do expect the government to help do what you can’t do.”

This means a limited, efficient, effective government that gives everyone an opportunity to achieve, but does not guarantee success.

Posted by: John Back at May 3, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #145139

You stop the mantra too soon, Paul. You forgot to add:

whether you like it or not.

After all, remember that when the government uses force to make people do things against their will, that’s a pretty good definition of oppression. No matter if the majority agreed or not.

I think that’s why the Bill of Rights was created, but I guess I could be wrong, in a Democrat America.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 3, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #145140

Oops.. left out a word in the first paragragh..should read…do not espouse….

Posted by: John Back at May 3, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #145150

can anyone tell me what the conservatives are thinking when they cut $70billion in taxes for those who made money in investments and in foreign financial services, while wanting to spend over $106billion for the war and katrina? where do they think this money is coming from? this truely is a case of “we take care of ourselves, and you take care of yourself”

Posted by: judye at May 3, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #145155

conservatives are thinking that if their is no money to fund it, it(social security,health care,education,etc.)will go away and they win.

Posted by: mark at May 3, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #145162

“After all, remember that when the government uses force to make people do things against their will, that’s a pretty good definition of oppression. No matter if the majority agreed or not.”

say what? Please go into details about this - cause from what you written, I’d have to call partisan BS on you for this.

Posted by: tony at May 3, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #145163

Pretty good as far as you chose to go Paul, but Rhinehold points out the part you seem reluctant to utter.

When the collective is paramount, the individual has fewer potential choices. Why can’t the left advocate responsibility for the collective on a voluntary basis instead of resorting to coercive means?

This is the true dividing line.

To say that Liberals stand for being, “in this together,” is deceptive. But then I suspect that there is some self-deception in that as well. You may not even be aware of how the actual policies you propose actually belies this concept of, “being in it together.”

What you stand for, Paul, is monopoly.

Posted by: esimonson at May 3, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #145164

Paul, to put it another way, Democrats believe if we sink as a nation all hands should flounder. Republicans believe if the nation is to sink, the elite should be spared and buoyed by inordinate wealth. Kind of a Titanic metaphor that fits appropriately enough.

However, it’s not what Democrats stood for that bothers me, it’s what they sat for. They sat for lobbying and ethics reform when they had control, refusing the reforms now obviously needed back when it was not yet a crisis. They have sat for election fraud as long as it was fairly balanced in their favor. They sat for entitlement spending that was obviously going to be unsustainable in decades to come. They sat for political corruption of office by wealthy campaign donors and special interests as Republicans do now that they are in power. They sat for attempts to breach our Constitution with their attacks on gun ownership rather than focusing on gun use. They sat for unprecedented escalation of the Viet Nam war which damaged our world relations and foreign policy to this day.

Democrats put power and reelection before all else. They put the money to buy power and reelection before the good of the nation. They put ideology ahead of common sense and pragmatic solutions as in welfare, corporate subisidies, campaign finance lobbying which usurped the voice of the people.

Have the Democrats learned anything from their loss of power? I have yet to see evidence of that as a party, though some individuals appear to have. I still see Democrats following the old paradigm, tell the people what they want to hear and worry about how to deliver afterward. That is not a political party paradigm I can support.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 3, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #145171

David R.

Thank You!

Posted by: Ted at May 3, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #145179

David R. Remer-

Pretty standard way of twisting things around to match what the Republicans say that Democrats stand for. I give you credit, though. You have even attributed some Republican traits to Democrats. Like putting power and reelection before all else. We have seen that this is decidedly a republican trait in the last 12 years. One that has been openly admitted by some of the republican power brokers whom are quoted in the press.

It was both Johnson’s and Nixon’s policies to escalate the Viet Nam war. We all agree, in hindsight, that it was handled badly. Bringing it up now merely obfuscates what is happening currently.

You say that the Democrats were “refusing the reforms now obviously needed back when it was not yet a crisis. ” Well, if it were not yet a crisis, I suppose that it was not high on the priority list. You can also say that the Republicans did the same thing since 1994.

The Democrats have done more for the individuals in this nation than the Republicans, by far. To say that the Democrats have not done that is completely ignoring history. And now, the Republicans want to dismantle as many of the social programs that exist as they can. They favor businesses over individuals, even though this nation was founded on individual rights.

All protections in the constitution are for the individual. There is a profound reason for that. It’s because the individual cannot protect themselves from the collective without them. Democrats realize this and seek to keep that power in the hands of the individual citizen. The Republicans have been usurping that power with nearly every stroke of the pen.

Republicans have been using this tactic of pointing fingers back at Democrats whenever they’ve been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The excuse of “well look at what the democrats did” just doesn’t sell. That dog won’t hunt. The republicans have the power now, and held themselves up to be of high moral standards in order to get it, all the while using every dirty trick in the book to win elections and gain that power.

Sure, I’ll agree that many if not most politicians are corrupt to one degree or another. But I will not accept the principal that, since that is the case, it’s okay for the party in power to reach levels of corruption heretofore unheard of.

If Republican voters actually looked at their party and tried to clean up the act instead of always making excuses, you might actually have a decent political organization. As it is, you’ve got a den of thieves.

Posted by: Cole at May 3, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #145186

Sorry, Remersaurous, but the far reich have had their shot ever since the Contract on America when Rummy was selling ABB heavy water nuclear reactors to North Korea.

What happened to all the 1990s big wind from the NUKE G. crowd about balanced budgets? Compassionate Conservatives? Term Limits? Ethics? And the biggest hypocrisy of all, the self-proclaimed “Moral Majority” which was neither.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum about blaming every thing that’s going on today on the Demos.

Iran wouldn’t have nuclear power now if Reagan, Bush, and Rummy hadn’t handed it to North Korea in 1994 and then used Saddam to go after Khomeini et. al. at the same time. If you want to look back, go further back and you’ll find the recent corruption and cronism is the neocon strategical mantra.

And how has Brazil been abused by forced ethanol back from the 70s embargo? They’re energy dependent after 30 years of “forced oppression” governmental control while we’re hysterical about keeping the Hummers going from the country club to the soccer fields. Their ‘ol Chevvies run on a buck-a-gallon ethanol. They have zero emissions. The air in their lungs is not black.

The US has no limit to how high energy prices will go, how high emissions will go, and no limit on how high CFO exit packages will go.

Siegel’s right: We’re all in this together. Us and the suckers that swallow the phony “paradigm” that has brought us again to the brink of nuclear disaster and energy slavery that has been faced so many times under Eisenhower’s appeasment of Russia in Cuba, Nixon’s idiocy causal in the oil embargo, and the Reagan years of “Sleepwalking through History”. Even John Dean and William F. Buckley have turned their back on the present “paradigm” because it is a complete, unprecendented, and probably irreversible catastrophic consummation of the evils of single party ideologistic intentions.

Remersaursous is just another extinct species like the Hummer of its epoch, a victim of inbreeding of inanity resultant from sanitized clonal idealization.

Buy a new calendar and come back from the twilight zone. We don’t need your “paradigm” today but your children might need a tomorrow free of the mind control presently gripping an evergrowing, ever extinct immoral minority.

Posted by: texex at May 3, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #145195

Paul

The difference is trust of government. It is not goodness or generosity.

Conservatives help their fellows. They give to charities and churches in at least the same numbers as liberals. The difference is government. You cannot be generous with somebody else’s money. Conservatives know this; evidently some liberals do not. We see it on the pages of this blog. People advocate higher taxes for the rich, so that they claim to support a more generous government. In other words, they want someone else to pay. This is not a virtuous position.

You are right that conservatives think they have responsibility for themselves. And responsibility to do good or not.

You know if you DO NOT believe you are mostly responsible for your own life, you are not free. If you are not responsible for your failures, you are not responsible for your success. In fact if you are not responsible you are not free. All our ideas of human dignity depend on the idea of freedom.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #145196

Wow - so the argument “Clinton did it too” has been broadened to encompass entire political parties… it seems to be saying that while the REPs have completely screwed things up, the DEMs didn’t fix things before they were broken. Is that what’s being tossed around?

REP party line: (pointing fingers at DEMs) They did it, too!

How about: “Ohhh, sorry, we’ll try to do things better”

or “F#CK, this all looked a lot better on paper”

or “DOH!”

Posted by: tony at May 3, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #145198

“You know if you DO NOT believe you are mostly responsible for your own life, you are not free. If you are not responsible for your failures, you are not responsible for your success. In fact if you are not responsible you are not free. All our ideas of human dignity depend on the idea of freedom. “

OK - I’ll buy that, but can you please give some examples of where DEMs have forced people NOT to take personal responsibility?

Or are you saying that this is all the result of taxing poor, helpless rich people? (Sorry to sound so sarcastic, but I get tired of people making this argument and completely failing to understand the snow job they’ve been fed.)

Posted by: tony at May 3, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #145200

Lots of incorrect Democratic feedback. I would be curious if history is really on the side of Democtrats. What have they actually done? They talk about their feel good policies but never implement meaningful programs that provide benefit. It was a Republican that signed legistration eliminating slavery and various other key civil rights legistation. It was Democrats that poured billions of dollars down the welfare hole and neither expected nor received any benefits other than to develop a sub-class of dependent people.

It is the Bush administration that is prosecuting and putting behind bars the CEOs that committed fraud against all Americans, while Clinton turned a blind eye as long as they contributed to his treasure box.

It was Bush that decided to put some teeth into 17 UN Resolutions — something that no Democratic wanted to do.

And if you need a lesson on the importance of individual rights — look at the history and human nature. Stealing the populace’s hard earned money at inflationary rates only goes to diminish imcome to the US Treasure and their ability to help the people. We taxed the boat industry as a luxury and put thousands of workers out of a job and onto the welfare roles. Bush, Reagan and JF Kennedy all saw the importance of allowing people to keep more of what they earn. In all cases when tax rates were cut, the government took in more money year after year. But Democrats cannot understand that Bush did not cut taxes — he actually increased them.

Democrats cannot seem to understand that industry and companies do not pay taxes — they collect them from the individuals and pass them along to the government. Their prices are determined to include the cost of doing business and taxes are part of that cost.

Democrats are consistently inconsistent. They claim they are for the individual, but not if they want to chose where to educate their children. They recently approved the taking of people’s property so the govenment could give it to other individuals who would pay more taxes, while Republicans voted against it. And they are all for individual rights, unless that individual does not yet have a voice to speak for themselves.

We see the ignoring of laws to make illegal immigrants legal. But do Democrats realize that they will then demand minimum wages and the prices will go up and hurt the citizens so then we will need to get another source of sub-class workers so the people won’t complain about prices.

Michigan’s Democratic governor complains that we must do something about the evil oil companies while the state’s employee retirement program holds as the number one investment, millions of shares of Exxon/Mobil. Any changes to further tax this industry will require the citizens to further support these state retirees while the state continues to flounder and layoff people because the governor will not allow the state to be attactive to industry. Where is the consistency?????

Posted by: Bob Bremer at May 3, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #145207

Bob -

You are obviously a dedicated Republican. There’s so much hype and cinjecture with very little actual substance… so I can’t really offering up much to counter you beliefs and I know it would be a waste of my time and yours.

You are correct - the end of slavery was Republican. The “civil rights” movement was Democrat.

“It is the Bush administration that is prosecuting and putting behind bars the CEOs that committed fraud against all Americans, while Clinton turned a blind eye as long as they contributed to his treasure box.”

You are aware that ALL of the current hoarde of CEO trash being prosecuted right now were ALL in the top of Bush’s political supporters? Right? Lay was Bush’s #1 contributor in 2000.

“Stealing the populace’s hard earned money at inflationary rates only goes to diminish imcome to the US Treasure and their ability to help the people.”

Is this satire?

“Democrats cannot seem to understand that industry and companies do not pay taxes “

This is a load of crap… sorry, but I own my own business, and I pay a ton of taxes.

The rest is just conjecture and hype - care add specifics to it?

Posted by: tony at May 3, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #145208

tony:

OK - I’ll buy that, but can you please give some examples of where DEMs have forced people NOT to take personal responsibility?

I’d say its not a matter of forcing people to not take responsibility—-its more a matter of allowing them to not take responsibility. I think we all agree that people should take responsibility for their actions, but some are far too willing to accept excuses for poor actions. Actions get blamed on heredity or upbringing or socio-economic status, or on mothers who doted too much or too little, on parents who were too remote, and on and on.

I allow my kids to do or not do their homework. The catch is that they need to get the grades they are capable of getting, and if they fall short, there are consequences. They learn to be responsible for their actions as a result.

I would allow members of society to take actions that are detrimental, as long as they accept the consequences.

No one has advocated total responsibility or total lack of responsibility. There will always be some level of community responsibility—that’s why we have welfare and health care and soup kitchens. We need to help people learn responsible behaviors to allow them to better themselves, not simply give them what they are lacking.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 3, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #145209

Bob Bremer -

Well, Bob; I can certainly see where the INconsistency is. It’s in your statements. Refusing to acknowledge the social programs which were put into place by Democrats is inconsistent with history. Saying that it was a Republican, and not Lyndon Johnson, who fought tirelessly for civil rights is undoubtedly inaccurate. And let’s not forget the Kennedys, as far as that goes.

Social Security and various other programs were begun by a Democrat. But I suppose it would be proper, according to the Republican play book to say that these programs just don’t work. It was Clinton who pushed for welfare reform. But you think that welfare is more of a problem than any kind of a solution.

What you fail to realize is that society will pay for the problems in one way or another. If there is a program that is organized and manageable, then the costs can be anticipated and managed. If you ignore the problems, then the costs will never be managed nor accounted for. It would be much, much worse if we did NOT have social programs to take care of those who cannot care for themselves. Sure there is abuse, and that should be addressed; always. But we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. I, for example, agree with Workfare, for anyone able to work.

You mention individual rights and taxing the boat industry as being analagous. But they are two different things. We can debate tax levels and the appropriate places to apply taxes, but that will have no effect on individual liberties. Your characterization of “stealing” when describing taxation does not add to the debate.

The issue of abortion, which you alluded to, is the constant debate of the rights of the mother versus the right of the unborn child. You describe it one-sidedly, ignoring the other half of the debate. Personally, I (and nearly all Democrats) hate abortion. We also hate the government being involved in those types of personal choices. What we would much rather see is the complete and utter lack of any necessity for abortion. That would mean that birth control of many types would be available to all on a wide-scale basis. Of course, that won’t happen as long as the Republicans can prevent it. So our rolls of unwanted children will increase, and the cost will be passed on to society. Birth control is much, much cheaper. If you want to decrease dependence on welfare, how about making birth control free to everyone below the poverty level? Or do you think that it is not the government’s place to be responsible for the behavior of others? Forget the costs to society. It’s the principal of the thing! Right?

I’ll agree that the Democrats are far from perfect. But they’re several shades closer than the republicans. And as far as corruption, let me say that Congressman Jefferson (D) from Louisiana should go to jail for his accepting bribes. That was easy. So why is it so hard for Republicans to say the same thing when one of their own is caught? Why the excuses and finger-pointing?

Posted by: Cole at May 3, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #145210

A minimum wage raise simply takes away the incentive for a person to move up the latter as well as putting small businesses out of business. Enviromental enhancement is ok as long as it proven to do some good. In most instances it is a waste of money and time.Energy independence would have been achieved long ago if the liberals would have quit opposing continental drilling. Socialized health care is a proven boondoggle. ie canada england ect. where people die of old age long before they are seen by a doctor. Basically liberals are just chickenshit idealists who try to believe in an impossible perfect world, and dont have the balls to live in a world where you have to fight to stay alive. Most of the Katrina “victims” had it coming. they chose to live below sea level. and besides most of them were on wellfare to begin with so they are better off now as they had a year of free rent as well as wellfare payments and a 2000 dollar bonus all paid for by those of us who have enough sense to live above sea level and work for a living. So if you bleeding heart democrats want to help them give them your own money not our tax dollars. Individualism made this country but you do nothing cry babies are about to ruin it.

Posted by: jc at May 3, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #145212

First — I do not consider myself Republican — I do consider myself Conservative — and I am not happy with the rate that Republicans and Democrats have spent all of the additional dollars that the tax rate cuts have generated.

But as a conservative, I know that government cannot do anything well and looking to them for help is a waste of time and money. Tax dollars are spent on the buracracy long before they get to their good intention.

But FACT — 2005 revenue to the US Treasure increased 15% from the year before. Tax Rate Cuts generate more income to the govenerment every time they are applied.

And finally, I am reminded of the different types of people — Open Minded, Closed Minded and Empty Minded. Empty minded are those indivuals that refuse to learn and research and steadfastly maintain their beliefs — like bigots. Open Minded are those that see and learn the truth but refuse to believe or accept it — Liberals. Open Minded are those that see, learn and recognize the truth and accept it — Intellegent, self-reliant individuals.

Every liberal school teacher or administrator I have talked to consistently say the Bush Admin has cut school revenues. But the truth is that Bush has increased education spending every year he has been in office. How do you explain that? How do you explain the increase in US Treasury revenue? And if you are a business owner, does your income not come from the products or services you sell to others??? If so, do you not price it to make a profit? — even after taxes are paid??

Posted by: Bob at May 3, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #145213

Bob, you really should read something besides the Detroit News and the Washington Times. Your “facts” are mostly fiction, full of half-truths at best.
I’m sure you’d vote for the likes of “self-made” men such as Dick DeVos, heir to the “Scamway” fortune.

Posted by: tim at May 3, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #145220

Tim-
Sources please. You claim Bob’s assertions are incorrect. Please provide documentation. Otherwise, don’t criticize.

Posted by: John Back at May 3, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #145221

Paul -

I think what liberals should stand for is best described in a recent piece by Peter Beinart published April 30th in the New York Times Magazine entitled The Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal.

It’s a very compelling article. He provides some insight into liberalism’s roots and urges today’s liberals to revive that spirit. Read it. Practice it. Spread it.

Posted by: gomer at May 3, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #145222

Bob:
Regarding the increase in tax revenues:

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990’s, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst.

But many independent analysts cautioned that the improvement, though notable, could prove ephemeral and that it did little to eliminate much bigger fiscal problems just over the horizon. “Lawmakers who allow themselves to be lulled into thinking that the economy is growing its way out of the deficit,” wrote Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs in New York, “are unlikely to support the painful measures needed to reach a more lasting solution.”

For one thing, analysts note, federal spending has continued to climb rapidly, about 7 percent this year. Despite cutbacks in many domestic programs, spending has surged for the war in Iraq as well as in certain benefit programs providing health coverage.


This excerpted from
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ex=1278907200&pagewanted=print


The rest of your post didn’t deal with facts, and only offered unsubstantiated opinions. So it’s not really worthy of any debate.

Posted by: Cole at May 3, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #145231

Wow. I’ve just become a huge Cole fan. I hope you post in all three columns often.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 3, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #145234

American Heritage Dictionary
liberalism
a.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.

Works for me.

Posted by: BillS at May 3, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #145236


Democrats believe that the rich should help pay for the poor.

Republicans believe that the poor should pay the rich.

Bob B: Corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect the taxes from customers and pass it on to the government. If this is true, then the opposite should be true as well. Under republican rule, we have seen huge tax cuts for corporations and especially for wealthy investors who own those corporations.

Could you please post a list of all the products of corporations that have gone down in price because of these tax cuts.

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #145247

Dispite the gasping prostestation of the Bushco supporters and the garbled nonsense about the two parties being the same there is a change coming to Washington at last. Take heart my liberal brothers and sisters ,but never forget we stand on the backs of giants.


“I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come into their own.

When the mariner,sailing over tropic seas,looks for relief from his weary watch,he turns his eyes toward the southern cross,burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean.As the midnight approaches,the southern cross begins to bend,the whirling worlds change their places,and with starry finger-points the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people take heart of hope,for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing,and joy cometh with the morning.


Eugene Debs 1918

Posted by: BillS at May 3, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #145248

Cole supports what I have been saying — tax rate cuts have generated more revenues from the evil wealthy and businesses and not from the common man. That is what liberals want isn’t it?? But Congree has failed to make the hard choices to either cut or just stop spending more. It is a bad habit to always consider the glass half empty however.

And you have not seen huge tax cuts to corporations — you have seen cuts to tax RATES.
The encourages corps and individuals to work harder because they get to keep more of what they earn.

And the opposite being true that prices of the product should reduce is not a reasonable expectation, the costs of materials and resources, including human resources continues to incease and corps must adjust to that. Have you seen the cost of steel and energy since China has begun absorbing so much of these resources???

Posted by: Bob at May 3, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #145249

I live in the once great state of Ohio. During the last 15 years we have been under republican rule. During those 15 years I have watched as jobs and people have fled the state.

I have also watched as the tax burden has been shifted from wealthy individuals and companies on to the backs of workers. This has been achieved by lowering income taxes (especially in the high income brackets) and by raising user fees.
Ex. 8 years ago it cost 6 dollars to renew my drivers license, 4years ago 9 dollars and this year it cost 29 dollars.

Last night, Ken Blackwell became the republican candidate for governer. In his post election interview he anounced that Ohio ranked 47th amoung the fifty states in job creation and 50th in new business startups. Then he announced that he was the candidate of change. RIGHT!!

Also, Ken Blackwell has always been one of the worst, in the history of this state, dirty tricksters and negative add campaigners. So you can imagine what his campaign will be like this fall. Why have ideas when you can succeed with attack dog tactics.

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #145257


I thought low inflation was a big selling point of this administration.

The republicans got one thing right. Lower taxes. Now, if they had just followed thru and done away with S.S., medicare, medicaid, food stamps and welfare for the lower classes this would be a wonderful country.

Just as in 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century England. We would the upper crust for the rich, the lower crust for the servants and out in the street for the poor.

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #145270

jlw,

I am a proud Ohioan, as well, and I’m glad to have helped J. Kenneth Blackwell become the Republican candidate for governor of this STILL great state. Blackwell was against Taft’s tax increases on the regular guys and Petro was in bed with Taft for eight years. It was an easy decision. Robert Taft has to be the worst governor of any state in our nation’s history, and that’s from a registered Republican. No matter if Blackwell or Strickland win, I’ll be glad to see Taft and his cronies(Petro, Tom Noe) pack up and get out of Columbus for good!!

Posted by: Duano at May 4, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #145279

Duano; I have followed Blackwell’s career for many years. Right out of cincy with Taft. He has always been a part of the corrupt Taft machine. You can choose to believe that or not. Recently he has been posturing to try to put distance between himself and Taft because he has always wanted to be the governor.

I have known Ted Strickland for many years and he has always been a decent, moral and honorable man. Until recently he was my congressman. Then the republicans took my little town out of 06 and put us in 02. Now I am stuck with that lying mean Jean Schmitt one of the worst of the worst in my opinion. We have always had more in common with the people of 06. Cincinnati couldn”t care less about us. the only people in Cincinnati who even know we exist are the Cincinnati Reds.

How about those Reds.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #145285

Just because they’re from the same city doesn’t mean they are clones. Taft fought the gay marriage ban tooth and nail, and Blackwell spoke out loudly against the tax increases. Blackwell doesn’t fit the mold of the classic Ohio Republican. He’s more of a Falwell Rep than a Wall Street Rep. I don’t have any dirt on Strickland, he seems a decent guy (for a Dem… just joking). Strickland doesn’t come across as a Marxist type, so he seems pretty trustworthy. I think I read somewhere that he’s an ordained Methodist minister, which is another plus in my book. I will truly look at the governor’s race with an open mind and vote for the guy who I think can best move the Buckeye State forward.

Posted by: Duano at May 4, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #145290

“But FACT — 2005 revenue to the US Treasure increased 15% from the year before. Tax Rate Cuts generate more income to the govenerment every time they are applied.”

This is half the story - what is quite clear is that even though the US economy grew every single year from 2000 through 2005 after the bush tax cuts it took until 2005 to get above the year 2000’s revenue levels. This is undisputed and the source is the Congressional Budget Office - http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

Along the way, the US chalked up about 1 trillion more in debt than it would have had the tax cuts not been put into place (there would still have been a deficit, just significantly less). That debt must be repaid at a hefty premium over time thereby meaning that the Bush tax cuts will have to be repaid in whole plus interest in addition to the other runaway spending of the Bush administration.

In any event, no serious or intelligent economist is going to argue your point - what grew the economy, finally, was the Federal Reserve taking rates down to 1pct and keeping rates at the lowest levels they’d be at in over 40 years.

The tax cuts simply made the government’s fiscal situation much more precarious and we are now looking at the prospect of combined fiscal and trade deficits that can crush the dollar at the first sign that China and a couple of others decide to dump the dollar.

If you see the dollar drop by 50pct the few hundred bucks the average person kept will not seem like very much money at all.

Besides which, what we *clearly* do know as fact as well is that the growth under Clinton with the Clinton tax increases was many times that with roughly 22 million jobs created and we see that the Bush administration’s tax cuts have not produced the same effect.

So, if Clinton could raise taxes and see huge growth in the economy and jobs, it stands to reason that if it’s even better for economic growth to simply lower taxes, the US economy should have seen far greater performance and job growth than under Clinton - especially when given the additional advantage of historically low interest rates that were not available under Clinton.

The _FACTS_ speak otherwise and taking one figure out of a newspaper somewhere and repeating a party line is no a substitute for reading factual and complete data and learning some basic economics that is something other than repeated ideology.

Posted by: cbp at May 4, 2006 3:27 AM
Comment #145297

Here’s the truth kids. Whether you like it or not ( and I will post this on the Elephant blog too ). REAL liberals and REAL conservatives agree on most issues. REAL liberals and REAL conservatives come to the same conclusions by different ways. Both PARTIES however are also similiar. They both are power hungry and both lie intentionally about their intensions. The Dems will not change anything. They want monopolies just like the Repubs do. The fact is that we have to have campaign-finance reform before we have real change. Until then corporations will line the pockets of our “representatives”. So if you are a REAL liberal or REAL conservative you are for campaign finance reform so we finally have taxation WITH representation !!!! Wake up all of you. By supporting either party you are part of the problem and all of your nitpicking bickering is poinless and useless.

Posted by: Tim at May 4, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #145305

Kudos to Paul, AP, and jlw: Nice.

But, look how easily we use the words “Republicans” and “Democrats” - when the Topic uses the word “Liberal.” I prefer to deal in these terms: Liberal vs. Conservative, since mere Parties are (as the great Bokonon would point out) but Granfalloons in the larger scheme of things.

So let’s deal with one of my favourite subjects, and look at what makes a Liberal a Liberal, and why

You have often heard the phrase, “Bleeding Heart Liberal” used to disparage those of us on the Left - but have you ever wondered where it came from?


Figure 1.


Typical Bleeding-Heart Liberal

Here we see a typical Bleeding-Heart Liberal. Notice that, the Heart is not only Bleeding, it appears to be On Fire - and Tortured - as well. (Which is certainly sufficient to make any heart Bleed!) And here we learn a valuable lesson.

You see, it is On Fire with Righteous Passion, and it is Tortured with the Sins of Man’s Inhumanity Towards Man. So,

Lesson #1: People don’t become Good by becoming Liberals: they become Liberals because they are Good.

When a person’s heart is Tortured by man’s inhumanity towards man to the degree that it burns with the Righteous Passion to set things right, they become Liberal Progressives - because that is the Political Expression of the tortured, passionate, Heart of their soul.


Now, as for the Other Side


Figure 2.


Typical Conservative

Here we see a Typical Conservative. Notice that his heart is Two Sizes Too Small. (In some Conservatives, such as Dick Cheney, the Heart virtually disappears altogether, making Mechanical Substitution necessary.) This is why Conservative Regressives espouse Social Darwinism, and hate and fear Liberal Progressives: their Hearts are simply incapable of Understanding, being so small that they only have room for the Love Of Self. Which brings us to

Lesson #2: Since Ignorance breeds Fear, and Fear breeds Hate, and Hate is a sure sign of a Small Heart, one is likely to grow a smaller and smaller Heart the more Ignorance one embraces. Also, if a person’s Heart is too small for any love but Love Of Self, that person is likely to be a Conservative, no matter how clever they may be.


There, now I hope that clears this issue up for all of you. It’s time for Beddy for Betty now; but please take these Lessons to Heart.

:o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #145312

What you all are describing is the difference between collectivists and individualists.
collectivists are thieves. They always use the same lines. For the good of all and then confiscate. This class envy has been responsible for more deaths than any Ideology in history. It has nothing to do with heart. It has everything to do with jealousy. Allowing government to control anything always results in great waste. You complain on one side how we spend but don’t help (Katrina), but ask for more gov control in other areas (health care). Republicans would get the blame when a universal health care failed anyways. As they do for every failed social program when it is government inefficiency that is to blame. All parties are included.

Posted by: kruser at May 4, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #145313

Betty Burke, your levity is really enjoyable. Thanks. Made my morning.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #145315

What “Levity” - ?

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #145327

Paul?

Do you mind if I opt out? Or am I forced to participate?

Posted by: tim_lebsack at May 4, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #145347

I think the conservatives need to stop bashing Democrats on their political ideas. Democrats are the only ones who are willing to stand up to the major oil companies. Democrats have the right ideas and are willing to implement those ideas. Republicans have ran the country with incompetance and no absolutely no accountability. It’s time for Democrats to win their much deserved suppport from the nation!

Posted by: Anthony Nelson at May 4, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #145351

You da whiz, Betty, great spoof…or truth…or, sometimes I get confused…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 4, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #145398

A couple of points. Both liberals and conservatives must depend on coercion. The difference is that liberals want to coerce the elite and conservatives want to coerce the little guy.

I, as a liberal, believe in self-reliance. I think everybody should do his best to be self-reliant. Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot fend for themselves because of terrible circumstances. They need help and we should provide it since they are part of the community.

Now, about being “generous with other people’s money.” First, we all pay taxes. Second, the government spends it on many things, including helping business; should I object that it is using my money to help rich businesses? Third, the government spends my taxes going to war against Iraq; should I complain that they can’t do this?

This is an example of conservative thinking: I’ll take care of myself; you take care of yourself.

We can’t run a country this way. What happens to me and you affects what happens to the rest of us. We are all part of a big community.

Betty Burke:

Bravo!

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 4, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #145408


Betty Burke: You go girl!


Ah the continuing saga of the internet wars.


The Darwinists vs. the Marxists.

Speaking of Darwin, We didn”t evolve from primates, we are primates. Ask any chimp or gorilla. They call us their cousins with little hair.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #145426

jlw- related to Dr. Doolittle are we?

Seriously. The major difference between Liberals and Conservatives is the concept of the role of government. Liberals believe government has a duty to interfere in the lives of citizens “for their own good.” Conservatives believe government has a very small role to play at most times.

I believe it was Jefferson who said: “That government is best which governs least.”

As to the argument over economic growth versus tax cuts. The difference between the two sides involves the amount of government spending. Given the Bush tax cuts and the increased revenue, we should have been able to increase the surplus left by the Clinton administration. However, as does happen when politicians get involved, we did not hold spending down to reasonable levels, we saw a pot with lots of gold in it and decided to spend just a little..and then a little more..and then a little more. To update Everett Dirksen’s famous line,”A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we’re talking about real money.”

Face it, neither party comes to the table with clean hands. Both are afflicted with the same disease: hunger for power. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is the way they want to use power. Notice I changed from Liberal-Conservative to Democrat-Republican. That’s because there are very few true Liberals in the Democratic Party, and even fewer true Conservatives in the Republican Party.

Posted by: John Back at May 4, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #145441

Having been in the working class all my life my main concern at the Federal level is the economy and the economy seems to do better when a Democrat is in the White House. I do not know if it is policy or good luck but even if it is just good luck I will take good luck over bad luck every time.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 4, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #145457


John Beck: Based on my understanding which could be totally wrong, I would word it a little differently.

Liberals believe we are all in this together and that the government is a necessary instrument to try and keep the game fair.

Conservatives believe in self reliance for each person and that the government should not interfere.

In my opinion, this makes us no better than animals. In the animal kingdom the biggest and toughest do all the mating. The smallest and the weakest die out. In the Human kingdom the smartest and the toughest accumulate as much wealth as they possibly can. The not so bright and the weaker ones can work hard and settle for what little is left over.

But, to the capitalist, self reliance only goes so far and it certainly doesn’t apply to their children.

For a perfect example of this you need look no farther than our President Bush. He is the epitomy of what is wrong with wealth and privelege. Even with the backing of his families wealth and name, he has been a failure at virtually everything he has attempted in his life. I can’t believe that anyone could think that he would have achieved much of anything in his life, especially risen to the Presidency, had he been born into poverty.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #145498

jlw-

I tend to agree with you to a point. Liberals do try to keep a level playing field. However, true Conservatives want the same. The only difference is that Conservatives want a little more of the free market forces to work out inequities. There must be restraints on both capitalism and government regulation. Too much of either distorts the playing field. In today’s USA, the impact of market forces has been thwarted by both Republican and Democratic politicians.

Please do not put our current President in the Conservative camp. He is by no stretch of the imagination a Conservative. I agree with your assessment of his chances of being President had he been born into a less wealthy and influential family.

Posted by: John Back at May 4, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #145499

MarysDude and Paul:

Thank you - an no, there is no Spoof at all in what I posted (well, there is some Humour in it, but without that, dealing the travesties caused by the Regressives would be too much to bear).

As far as the two Lessons: I am entirely in earnest; it is my central thesis in this War between Progress and the Status Quo, between Left and Wrong, indeed, between Good and Evil.

It is time we recognise the sheer amount of Damage possible within a short period of time (4-8 Years, say…) of Conservative Domination. I do not speak either rhetorically or bombastically when I say that very future of Human Society and Life On Earth is in the balance. Which side the scales tip to is up to all of us: and Hard Choices are in the offing. Will we fight? Have we become Cowards, unwilling to Fight for such important things? Only time will tell.

And if we must hazard our Freedom, our Flesh, indeed our very Lives, in this battle for the soul of America and the World, then shall we not rather die in Freedom than live in Tyranny? For my part, the choice is clear, and was never really a Choice at all; I say give me Liberty, or give me Death.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #145530

>>For my part, the choice is clear, and was never really a Choice at all; I say give me Liberty, or give me Death.


Posted by: Betty Burke at May 4, 2006 09:39 PM

You are a tough act to follow, Betty. What is a fat old man to do…??? Death is already too fast for me to outrun…as long as I have to use a seat-belt, I have no liberty…if I had a gun I’d probably shoot myself in the foot…toooo late for me…but, you go girl!

Posted by: Marysdude at May 4, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #145536

Another way of looking at regulation.

Seldom does the Congress pass undeserved regulation on their main source of campaign finances. Only occasionally will they interrupt their fact-finding trips to the finest golf courses, campaign fund-raisers or other duties, the sole purpose of which is to keep them in office, to pass some dreary legislation. Especially if that legislation may offend one of their major contributors. It is only when they finally notice the growing crowd of angry voters waving torches and ropes storming the gates will they finally get out of bed, leaving their corporate johns behind, to save their job.

All laws should regularly come up for review and be eliminated when no longer needed. But most laws regulating the actions of others were in response to some irresponsible person or business doing something truly irresponsible and harmful. Those citizens and businesses that are considerate of others and mindful of the consequences of their actions are self-regulated. The rest force us to put locks on the doors.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 4, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #145559

Marysdude: the Fight is presently with Words, and I pray God it may be won with them. Revolution begins in the Heart and in the Mind.

Have you seen this photo before?


or this one?


or this one?


All were Freedom Fighters; some paid with their Lives - some didn’t.

The important thing is that they Fought.

What can a Fat Old Man do?

Benjamin Franklin was a Fat Old Man.

You do what you can, `dude - you do whatever you can

:o)

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 5, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #145564


John B. I think that if you take a look you will find that the stock market has for the most part done better when the democrats are in power than it has when the republicans are in power.

I think Bush and the republicans in Washington are conservatives, they just ran into a brick wall of harsh reality. It happened with social security. They found out that S.S. is probably the most popular program that the government has ever developed. They found out that the people don’t want it done away with, they don’t want it privatized, they want it fixed and they don’t want the surplus squandered by the politicians for I.O.U’s. Then they did the medicare drug give away to the drug companies and thats when they began loosing their conservative base. Add in the pork barrel spending and 3 years of inepitude in Iraq and they have lost virtually the whole country including conservatives.

Posted by: jlw at May 5, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #145572

jlw

I think that if you take a look you will find that the stock market has for the most part done better when the democrats are in power than it has when the republicans are in power.

You are correct, but not just the stock market, also GDP, National Debt, Employment, Unemployment and Wages.

Since Truman the economy has consistently performed better when a Democrat was in the White House.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at May 5, 2006 2:59 AM
Comment #145584


Tin soldiers and Nixons coming
were finally on our own
this summer I here the drumming
four dead in Ohio
four dead in Ohio CSNY

Posted by: jlw at May 5, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #267647

conservtives and liberals are the same thing in fact they are almost yin and yang, when one is in canada the other in the united states.so what can you do they balence out the good and bad of eachother. can any here say that they truly belive that liberal argee with there own ideas or the conseritives for that matter. my quote for the liberal and conservitives
“we are an indvidel whole”

Posted by: private at October 20, 2008 11:41 PM
Comment #267767

This blog Is very informative , I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog . It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really belive you will do much better in the future . Good job web master .

Posted by: John Beck Land at October 21, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #292461

WHEN YOU SAY DEMOCRATS ARE ABOUT “We are all in it together.” IT sounds like nice and heart warming tale and i like to jump aboard but realistically people who vote democrat dont even believe that. In fact that statement means let the people who work hard and want to get some where in life support people who don’t put into the pot. If democrats really wanted to help the poor they could teach a man to fish instead on relying on others to give him a fish. We all know if you keep giving a man fish he will keep asking for a fish and never find his truth worth because he doesnt need to learn to fish. If a person never learns to fish he never contributes to society instead he just takes from the people who do. Now tell me whats fair about that?

Posted by: C.P. at December 11, 2009 10:52 AM
Comment #367893

To everybody,
I have read most of these post from 2006 to our current state. Allot has changed, and allot will change if this thread ever continues. I am not so informative in politics, but I have seen the difference in peoples political beliefs just by living my daily life. And I honestly do not understand the mindset of one who is progressive or “liberal”. Both parties want to spend tax dollars on the “lower society” or ones who are “unfortunate”, by giving them food, health insurance, money, communication, and housing all together for free. I do not have written evidence for it but all the comments shown above pretty much sums up my case. College level education trains the average educated american to be liberal, for most of the professors on the political specter
are in fact progressive liberals. I have learned this from conversations from my friends whom have attended universities. My point is thus, the word “freedom”. Freedom is something that is not supposed to be free or taught. It is something that is obtain by struggling through hardships, blood sweat and tears, and years of hard work. Freedom is the fact that in any conditions or circumstances, individuals are able to go or do anything necessary to achieve success in a way that will set the individual up for better future goals. A proper education, and an environment full of job opportunities of any kind will gradually end the lower class and merge it with the middle. But if “we the people” continue to feed the lower class they will not have the knowledge or the will to break out of this vast circle of excused behavior. Which is one of the many reasons why I call myself a Conservative!

Posted by: Some Guy at July 5, 2013 3:18 AM
Post a comment