Politics Liberals and economics

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Infrastructure doesn't know the difference between a rich and poor person.

I don't advocate anarchy. The right amount of minimal government is fine.

Government's best role is in providing infrastructure like roads or post office or printing money.

Government's worst role is playing robin hood (stealing from the rich to give to the poor).
Click to expand...

Is it a big leap of thought to consider health care and education to be infrastructure for our population?
 
Denny Crane said:
Infrastructure doesn't know the difference between a rich and poor person.

I don't advocate anarchy. The right amount of minimal government is fine.

Government's best role is in providing infrastructure like roads or post office or printing money.

Government's worst role is playing robin hood (stealing from the rich to give to the poor).
Click to expand...


Denny, I agree.:cheers: Well said.
 
riverman said:
I've asked this before but I'll ask it again..mags will you accept medicare and social security benefits when you are eligible even if it hurts the economy?
Click to expand...

That sir is a bogus question. I take the SS and the VA benefits. But I will tell you, I would swap it for all the taxes I have paid, one year it hit 67% federal, 11% state, 8% sales and a $4000 in property tax. I think it comes out even for me when I reach 107 years. I am not sure though, 6 years in the Navy and the big deal in the pay in those day was getting max credit for SS payments
instead of pay.
 
donkiez said:
Is it a big leap of thought to consider health care and education to be infrastructure for our population?
Click to expand...

Yes. You are taking someone's labor, effectively making them slaves. For the (so called) "benefit" of someone else.

It's not right any way you look at it.

By taking someone's labor, I mean the government telling a worker (doctor, nurse, hospital) what they can charge.
 
Denny Crane said:
Infrastructure doesn't know the difference between a rich and poor person.

I don't advocate anarchy. The right amount of minimal government is fine.

Government's best role is in providing infrastructure like roads or post office or printing money.

Government's worst role is playing robin hood (stealing from the rich to give to the poor).
Click to expand...
Great post!
 
magnifier661 said:
I support capitalism, but nice try.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

Its relationship with other ideologies of its day were complex, often at once adversarial and focused on co-opting their more popular aspects. Fascists supported private property rights and the profit motive of capitalism, but sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by consolidating power with the state; they shared many goals with and often allied with the conservatives of their day, and often recruited from disaffected conservative ranks, but presented themselves as holding a more modern ideology, with less focus on things like traditional religion. Fascism opposed the egalitarian and international character of mainstreamsocialism, but sometimes sought to establish itself as an alternative "national" socialism; it strongly opposed liberalism, communism, and democratic socialism.
Click to expand...
 
Marzy -- you got it easy. Don't know if many of us will ever see any return on our investment. I don't begrudge you from taking the benefits you helped to financially support even if you don't support them. You paid, you should get every penny coming your way.
 
Denny Crane said:
Yes. You are taking someone's labor, effectively making them slaves. For the (so called) "benefit" of someone else.

It's not right any way you look at it.

By taking someone's labor, I mean the government telling a worker (doctor, nurse, hospital) what they can charge.
Click to expand...
You are on a roll! I'll shut up and just agree with you on these debates! LOL
 
Denny Crane said:
Yes. You are taking someone's labor, effectively making them slaves. For the (so called) "benefit" of someone else.

It's not right any way you look at it.

By taking someone's labor, I mean the government telling a worker (doctor, nurse, hospital) what they can charge.
Click to expand...

How is this different than hiring people to build roads?
 
donkiez said:
How is this different than hiring people to build roads?
Click to expand...

There's an implicit contract between hired person and the government in your hypothetical. The worker can refuse the job. He doesn't have to stop being a construction worker.
 
Denny Crane said:
"but sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by consolidating power with the state"

Sounds like regulation to me. Effectively socialism. If not shared ownership, make the owners obey your demands. Same effect.
Click to expand...
That's the only thing I disagreed with in his description.
 
Merriam-Webster

upload_2015-10-23_13-0-8.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-10-23_13-0-8.png
    upload_2015-10-23_13-0-8.png
    38.8 KB · Views: 59
MarAzul said:
That sir is a bogus question. I take the SS and the VA benefits. But I will tell you, I would swap it for all the taxes I have paid, one year it hit 67% federal, 11% state, 8% sales and a $4000 in property tax. I think it comes out even for me when I reach 107 years. I am not sure though, 6 years in the Navy and the big deal in the pay in those day was getting max credit for SS payments
instead of pay.
Click to expand...
No it's not...I've been stamped as a communist, a democrat, all kinds of things and mags vehement hatred of socialism begs the question..he answered it by the way and I commend him for his answer..it wasn't directed at you. I'm taking mine for the same reason you took yours but I did not milk my VA benefits for my own reasons..not that it's a bad thing to do. What I attempt here is to crumble away at the definitions that draw these lines in the sand.
 
Conservatism[edit]
Conservatives and fascists in Europe have held similar positions on many issues, including anti-communism and support of national pride.[179] Conservatives and fascists both reject the liberal and Marxist emphasis on linear progressive evolution in history.[180] Fascism's emphasis on order, discipline, hierarchy, martial (military) virtues, and preservation of private property appealed to conservatives.[179] Fascists' promotion of "healthy", "uncontaminated" elements of national tradition such as chivalric culture and glorifying a nation's historical golden age have similarities with conservative aims.[181] Fascists also made pragmatic tactical alliances with traditional conservative forces in order to achieve and maintain power.[181]

Unlike conservatism, fascism specifically presents itself as a modern ideology that is willing to break free from moral and political constraints of traditional society.[182] The conservative authoritarian right is distinguished from fascism in that such conservatives utilized traditional religion as the basis for their views while fascists focused based their views on more complex issues such as vitalism, nonrationalism, or secular neo-idealism.[183]

Many of fascism's recruits were disaffected right-wing conservatives who were dissatisfied with the traditional right's inability to achieve national unity and its inability to respond to socialism, feminism, economic crisis, and international difficulties.[184] With traditional conservative parties in Europe severely weakened in the aftermath of World War I, there was a political vacuum on the right which fascism filled.[185]

Liberalism[edit]
Fascism is strongly opposed to liberalism. Fascists accuse liberalism as being the cause of despiritualization of human beings and transforming them into materialistic beings in which the highest ideal is moneymaking.[186] In particular, fascism opposes liberalism for its materialism, rationalism, individualism, and utilitarianism.[46] Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness.[186] Fascists and Nazis, however, support a type of hierarchical individualism in the form of Social Darwinism, as they believe it promotes "superior individuals" and weeds out "the weak".[187]

One issue where fascism is in accord with liberalism is in its support of private property rights and the existence of a market economy.[46]

Socialism[edit]
Fascism opposed the international character of mainstream socialism; but in opposing this international character, it sometimes defined itself as a "nationalist" socialism, an alternative to the mainstream socialism that it regarded as its bitter enemy.[188] Mainstream socialists have typically rejected and opposed fascism in turn.[188] Beyond its opposition to mainstream socialism's international character, Fascism also opposed mainstream socialism for its universalism, egalitarianism, anti-nationalism, horizontal collectivism and cosmopolitanism.[188] Benito Mussolini considered Fascism as opposed to Socialism,"Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism..."[189] Adolf Hitler at times attempted to redefine the word socialism, such as saying, "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[190]
Click to expand...
 
You add Socialist to that and shazam! It = Nazi or National Socialist Party.
 
Here's where you lost me in this group...

"Fascists and Nazis, however, support a type of hierarchical individualism in the form of Social Darwinism, as they believe it promotes "superior individuals" and weeds out "the weak".[187]"
 
riverman said:
I did not milk my VA benefits
Click to expand...

I did not use my either although I signed up. But Obama forced my hand, his ACA eliminated my healthcare provided by my former employer by putting a tax on the employer providing the healthcare. We probably needed assistance to keep the employer to continue. but ... At least we could have sued when they dropped us, but no way after the ACA. Their legal options became continue providing the healthcare and pay a whopping tax or drop the retiree healthcare. No way to buy insurance like I had, just not available. So now I use the VA.
 

upload_2015-10-23_13-28-2.png

You do realize "Liberalism" means "Libertarianism," right?

EDIT:

Also, Progressivism is about "making things better," and they were a big part of the Eugenics movement in the early 1900s.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-10-23_13-28-2.png
    upload_2015-10-23_13-28-2.png
    101.2 KB · Views: 54
Denny Crane said:
View attachment 6408

You do realize "Liberalism" means "Libertarianism," right?

EDIT:

Also, Progressivism is about "making things better," and they were a big part of the Eugenics movement in the early 1900s.
Click to expand...

That one was there just for you DC. For the record I dont think Mags is a fascist either, but its fun throwing around terms with reckless accusatory abandon. Im warming up to this style of debate.
 
donkiez said:
That one was there just for you DC. For the record I dont think Mags is a fascist either, but its fun throwing around terms with reckless accusatory abandon. Im warming up to this style of debate.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of conservatism's challenges vs most liberals/progressives/democrats. Frustrating isn't it? See this is how they toss out racist, bigot, and all other slander technique they use to deflect debates and discussions. Finally, someone sees the elephant in the room. I was losing hope.
 
magnifier661 said:
Welcome to the world of conservatism's challenges vs most liberals/progressives/democrats. Frustrating isn't it? See this is how they toss out racist, bigot, and all other slander technique they use to deflect debates and discussions. Finally, someone sees the elephant in the room. I was losing hope.
Click to expand...

Didn't you start this thread by calling liberals racist and illiterate?

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top