A question for the liberals.

A question for the liberals. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:02:32 AM)
Fiscal liberals. Those who favor government solutions to problems. What are the reasons you want to see new programs or see an expansion of existing programs? I have a strong bias towards using the private sector whenever possible. Obviously, a publicly supported police system is vital. (Although security companies compete.) Also, and armed forces could not be sustained by private industry. I like the SBIR program, which funds small businesses to meet government's needs. What are some other instances where private industry cannot or will not get the job done as well as government? Conservatives, please post in the thread created for you. Anyone who has feelings both ways on the matter, feel free to post in both threads.

Real0ne -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:07:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Those who favor government solutions to problems. ha! that leaves me out. The important thing is if you do not want to live with mommy taking care of you to insure you make money off of those who do along the way. <wink>

DarkSteven -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:14:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Those who favor government solutions to problems. ha! that leaves me out. The important thing is if you do not want to live with mommy taking care of you to insure you make money off of those who do along the way. <wink> This is a good example of what I asked conservatives to post in the other thread. Would you mind posting it there? I was hoping to avoid pissing matches in the threads.

Real0ne -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:15:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Those who favor government solutions to problems. ha! that leaves me out. The important thing is if you do not want to live with mommy taking care of you to insure you make money off of those who do along the way. <wink> This is a good example of what I asked conservatives to post in the other thread. Would you mind posting it there? I was hoping to avoid pissing matches in the threads. I did but this applies to boths sides of the leftee rightee rail. People seem to think there is really a difference.

juliaoceania -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:28:59 AM)
quote: Fiscal liberals. Those who favor government solutions to problems. What are the reasons you want to see new programs or see an expansion of existing programs? Historically speaking, in our own history that is, government has been the only entity large enough to affect a change from status quo. Without government you have no infrastructure... that infrastructure requires a government to oversee it. Government is an effective mechanism to getting things done. We are using the infrastructure that our grandparents and great grandparents built. It is beginning to crumble. We need to improve and modernize it. Other countries are doing this through their governments. The profit motive to do these sorts of things does not work because people are shortsighted looking at what will be good for the bottom line next quarter, very few look at what will be good 20 years from now... why should they? They will be gone and retired, and fuck everyone else. Governments should be looking at least 20 years ahead, and when you have yahoos that try to sell tax cuts for the people who could give a shit less how we fare as a country, and they're in it for their bottom line, well that government is going to be stripped of the ability to be responsive to the needs our kids have... We have lived off the largess of our great grandparents and our parents, and those that are making the money that the infrastructure of yesterday made want to steal from our children.... really it is disgraceful

Musicmystery -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:32:34 AM)
Steven, I'm moderate, fiscally conservative, progressive socially. I'm neither for nor against government--I'm for solving problems. I'd slightly raise SS taxes and slightly delay retirement age (while keeping disability as is). This is actually a simple fix if we do it now, while SS still runs a surplus. After the baby boomers, this program will exist just fine. Continue to offer and promote 401k/403b and IRA/Roth IRA to encourage retirement savings. Medicare/Medicaid, along with a few problems, do a good job of solving a previous need. They need more help, though, especially as health care costs rise and and state government budgets are in crisis. I've no problem with increasing these taxes, as they're already pretty low. Commissions of doctors to oversee costs is important. But this also links to.... Health care reform. This is a crisis, getting worse all the time. We are the only industrial nation left with it unaddressed. We spend more than any other nation, but don't have universal coverage, and can be dropped or excluded for new conditions, existing conditions, or rapidly increasing rates. This is money we are already ill-spending as a nation, and we can't afford to continue this way. I'm absolutely in favor of the government stepping in. If we continue to do nothing, the day will come when we BEG for a "government take-over." We blow a fortune on defense, bizarrely exceeding all other nations. We can't afford it. We're spending billions on Homeland Security to essentially put on a show. Stop it. It's a silly and expensive over-reaction. Spend the money on intelligence. Invest in education. Make college free or at least provide much more aid. This should be within everyone's reach financially. It will pay back many, many times over. Federal government is smaller than it was as a percentage of the population. State and local governments have ballooned. Federal taxes are actually quite low, both as a percentage of income/GDP and compared to other nations. Every time we cut them further, state and local taxes grow more than the cut to make up the loss. It's inefficient. Some things are simply best handled at the federal level. I'm all for free markets, but we know from the past 150 years that unregulated markets do not work, as they produce externalities that give flawed feedback and mis-reward to participants. Polluting, for example, is not a cost to the polluter (w/o regulation). Honey producers are not rewarded for the beneficial effects of pollination. I'm not anti-corporation either, but large producers shut out small local operations, making us dependent on costly shipping. Markets also don't reward looking down the road--like more renewable energy, or local production to alleviate transmission difficulties. For this reason, ALL economies in the world today are mixed economies, with both private and government initiatives (with different nations at different points along that continuum). No, government is not THE solution, but neither is government the problem. At times, we need government solutions. More troubling is the hard line partisanship that has arisen over the past three decades. Democrats and Republicans used to meet "after hours" and hammer out solutions. Now, it seems all about slamming the other party and getting back into or holding onto power, whatever the cost. We need to elect an army of Independents who caucus separately. We need to invest/contract in good times. Instead, we always follow expansionary policies, no matter what. Right now, OK, we have to spend to avoid halting the economic recovery. But then we have to contract. That means raising taxes. That means trimming programs. That means being sensible. Incidentally, building our exports further is a good idea. We already export a trillion dollars worth of goods, yet still have a trade deficit. We've ignored that too long. Build a trade deal with Africa--markets markets markets. Get back to deficit reduction. I had hope in the 90s. Keep the troops for real emergencies, not neo-con war games. Send special ops after single targets. And stop the ridiculous banter slamming left/right over whatever hit the news that week. The majority of people are moderate. Let's face THAT reality.

TheHeretic -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I was hoping to avoid pissing matches in the threads. Dreamer. [:D]

DarkSteven -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:53:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I was hoping to avoid pissing matches in the threads. Dreamer. [:D] /Flames Rich/ [:)]

LadyEllen -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 7:57:18 AM)
The private sector is vital - it generates the wealth to support the nation, in terms of salaries paid to workers and tax incomes. Also, it is generally far more efficient than government at delivering products and services of a wide variety, to the greatest proportion of the population possible - which it is driven to do by its own self interest and strong competitors. But the private sector is limited by these same factors in that if there is no profit to be made then the product or service will not be delivered. Equally, the private sector may not serve the greater part of the population because the product or service is unaffordable to most even with strong competition and/or there is a monopoly situation driving that exclusivity. Latterly, the self interest motive of private business has seen the wealth previously generated domestically in salaries and taxes paid to support the nation, being exported overseas with an accompanying reduction in the benefit to the wider society and increase in the benefit to a small population of owners and directors. The private sector must also be prohibited from becoming associated with the state framework which provides the legislative and administrative environment for itself and more importantly the people. Thus it is impossible for the private sector to operate for instance the justice system, the armed forces et al, for by doing so the collective interest of the people and the constitutional interest of the state must inevitably be subjugated to the self interest of the private sector. And when it comes to those aspects of the state framework into which the private sector has already intruded - the prison system for instance - there must be questions as to how it is possible for the private sector to administer prisons at a profit whilst adhering to the law, at a lower cost than the state itself could and should. From here it is then apparent that state programmes can be restricted to those aspects of organising and administering the state apparatus and the private sector excluded from such involvement. But there is also a need for state programmes in those instances where the private sector cannot or will not deliver products and services which are vital to the people as a whole and/or which are in the wider national interest - healthcare being a prime example currently lacking in the US. And of course the state must also be present and effective in regulating and limiting the private sector such that the exercise of its self interest does not become harmful to the people, the state and the national interest - which includes offshoring wealth generation. It is my view that as corporate citizens, the private sector has a duty arising under its citizenship to preferably support the national interest, the state and people and at least to not harm them. Ultimately however it must be recognised that governmental programmes and the state apparatus has to be paid for; and the money to do so comes from the taxes derived variously from the private sector. In this it is vital to ensure the public sector is made highly efficient such that its delivery is optimal and its costs minimal so that the burden on the private sector is minimised and it is thereby motivated to increase the general wealth. This is no apology to tax on business and private wealth or even to increases to them where these are necessary to provide for the public sector - but we must recognise that the state cannot and should not attempt to provide everything to everyone when they have ability and opportunity to provide it for themself. E

juliaoceania -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:08:48 AM)
You were much more thorough in pointing out why government is necessary than I was... In this country before the government built our infrastructure for some of the reasons you pointed out (economically no profit motive) we had no electricity through broad swaths of the country, we had very few roads and bridges. To think that we build an infrastructure once and we never have to build it again and depend on corporations to do so, well we will be waiting a long time while those corporations go to places that have existing infrastructure. We need high speed rail, for example, and renewable energy.. Edited to add, our government gave huge land grants to railroads and helped pay for building them with the knowledge that we had to connect this nation in order to make it one... we are in the same situation today

cuckoldmepls -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:11:14 AM)
Has everyone seen this video of Rep Maxine Waters lecturing oil company executives during a Congressional hearing? She lets it slip out that liberals want to socialize the entire nation and take over the oil companies. When she catches herself, she can't figure out how to backtrack, and basically, she just keeps on sticking her foot in the mouth. Look closely at the 2 panel members behind her. One of them has to even put her hand over her mouth to keep from showing her reaction. http://protectourborder.net/catsoutofthebag.wmv By the way, democrats have prevented us from becoming energy independent by blocking all new nuclear power plants, allowing almost unlimited immigration, and blocked all drilling in pristine areas. Coming from a oil, and gas producing state myself where drilling has been going on for about a 100 years. I can honestly tell you that it does not harm the environment. The only polluted river we have is on the Arkansas border, and that's from too many chicken farms, which is the result of democratic induced overpopulation.

Real0ne -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:14:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Fiscal liberals. Those who favor government solutions to problems. What are the reasons you want to see new programs or see an expansion of existing programs? Historically speaking, in our own history that is, government has been the only entity large enough to affect a change from status quo. Who or what is government Julia? Without government you have no infrastructure...that infrastructure requires a government to oversee it. Government is a word, its a corporation, nothing more than a word that is meaningless until the corpus is identified. The corpus being the members of the said corporation we call government. The government therefore is nothing but a fictional character that can produce no energy. Government is an effective mechanism to getting things done. We are using the infrastructure that our grandparents and great grandparents built. It is beginning to crumble. We need to improve and modernize it. Other countries are doing this through their governments. With what money? The government does not have even one red cent! The profit motive to do these sorts of things does not work because people are shortsighted looking at what will be good for the bottom line next quarter, very few look at what will be good 20 years from now... why should they? They will be gone and retired, and fuck everyone else. Governments should be looking at least 20 years ahead, and when you have yahoos that try to sell tax cuts for the people who could give a shit less how we fare as a country, and they're in it for their bottom line, well that government is going to be stripped of the ability to be responsive to the needs our kids have... Tax the way it is used today is really wealth redistribution, and a great way to control the poor and uninformed, by offering "privileges and immunities" by contract for handouts. We have lived off the largess of our great grandparents and our parents, and those that are making the money that the infrastructure of yesterday made want to steal from our children.... really it is disgraceful Thats ancient history. your mom and dad did that when they sold you to the state. Scream and holler if you and others like but go to state vital records in the state you were born or the county you were born and pay the 20 bucks for a copy of your birth certificate. The key here is "certificate", it will be on pretty bond paper complete with a bond number for sec tracking. Cheers!

kdsub -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:24:53 AM)
Musicmystery I would add just a few things I think or Government should be doing more of and would be better at than States. One is promoting, regulating, and demanding alternate fuel and power sources. We must become independent of foreign powers that now influence our world policies. The second is the falsehood of the need for a global economy. I feel that all countries on this earth must first produce, promote, and maintain a national economy. Then with a healthy economy compete on the world stage. We here in The United States in my opinion have let business push the working American from a healthy industrial based to a service based economy all in the name of bottom line. I think this is dangerous to our long-term security and living standards. Many of our competitors subsidize their industries, use tariffs, and ignore patents for an unfair advantage in trade with our consumer society. Business takes advantage of cheap labor, low operating cost, and a lack of regulations in developing countries to produce goods with enormous profits while taking good paying jobs from Americans. I think this should be discouraged by our government…something States would have no control over. Butch

cuckoldmepls -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:26:57 AM)
There's at least two flaws in your arguments that government should build a high speed rail system all across this country, and that renewable energy is the answer. 1) The existing railroads make a profit. As far as I know the government does not subsidize traditional railroads. Sure, they financed the original network, since no one company had the resources to do it. It's easy to finance something when all you have to do is print up money. The big question though, is it a sustainable financial operation. You can't just keep printing up money for ever, or that destroys your economy. Germany and I believe Argentina tried that and they had runaway inflation. In one of the most highly populated areas of the country Amtrak is a complete financial failure. The reason they keep it is because without it, they would have to expand the highway and bridge system in the northeast which may even cost more money. However, the rest of the country does not face the problem yet of overpopulation requiring massive expansions of the highway system, but they will if democrats have their way. If you think Amtrak is a huge financial failure, just imagine how enormous a financial liability a high speed rail network over the country would be. It would be Amtrak times 100. Generally, it's a huge mistake to subsidize an operation that does not pay for itself. 2) Wind and solar is not the answer either. The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. You must have enough power available to meet peak demands. I'm not saying wind and solar is not to be used as supplemental energy. I'm just saying that large scale expenditures by the federal government would ultimately be a waste of money since we would still have to build nuclear, coal or gas fired power plants. People are not going to tolerate blackouts on days when the wind doesnt blow or the sun doesn't shine.

kdsub -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:31:07 AM)
I forgot to add Musicmystery…We often disagree on issues but I must say we match almost exactly on this issue as you stated it. You did an excellent job of expressing your position on Government. Butch

NorthernGent -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:33:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Fiscal liberals. Those who favor government solutions to problems. First off - there's a popular misconception that the private sector is some well oiled machine devoid of waste - the sycophants help to ensure this isn't the case. Secondly - horses for course. The government - as a mechanism for resolving individual disputes - has a role to play in resolving an imbalance that occurs between economic development and a reasonable share of the spoils among the people (after all it makes sense to have as many people as possible contributing toward the economy). The most important thing for me is investment. Just as you'd expect a business to invest in its staff - I'd expect a country to invest in its people. No real judgements made on who is and isn't worthy - more an acknowledgement in a practical sense that you need to invest in your people to get the best out of them (and it follows thus the best for wider society). Everything in life is a balance - and holding rigidly to ideals is a recipe for chaos. England has been a pretty successful country over the years and punched well in excess of our weight in population terms. And the reason is that while we like to keep things reasonably tight - we accept that you need to take a risk to earn a return - and this includes investment which demands borrowing at times. The English are probably the most creative people in the world - when you consider what we've produced and exported - and yet we've had government playing a role in our lives - the government have won some/lost some by the way which is as to be expected. I think it's wise to have a balance - accept that the private sector will by (extension of its nature) operate more efficiently than government but will lead to haves and have nots which isn't a remedy for a reasonably harmonious society - and accept that the government can help maintain a balance between the economy and society (after all surely we're all looking for a peaceful existence?).

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:39:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven What are the reasons you want to see new programs or see an expansion of existing programs? I have a strong bias towards using the private sector whenever possible. Obviously, a publicly supported police system is vital. (Although security companies compete.) Also, and armed forces could not be sustained by private industry. As you say it depends on the system when making the judgement, I ask myself two things: 1) Is it required for the functionality of society as a whole 2) Can this thing that is required for the functionality of society do so whilst also slicing profits off the top for shareholders? An example here is Network Rail which used to be Railtrack. I think of this as something that we need for the functionality of society but it doesn't really easily generate much profit for shareholders, unless they are cutting corners or passing on costs to people that use the system. My view is that if we are paying for it and subsidising it in anyway then it may as well be publically owned. If the system can exist as a profit making entity and provide an adequate level of service in terms of safety and reliability, without the need for government subsidies, then it should. Otherwise the line is being blurred in terms of judging if shareholder profit is directly coming from government subsidies or the people paying for the service. Often this line gets blurred through regulatory reward frameworks i.e. if you meet a certain target you get public money. If you don’t meet the target then you don’t get the money required for future improvements. The viability of the company shouldn’t be based on public funding rewards. If it is then cut out the shareholder profit and you'll still get the same service. People that don't recognise the vital role of the public sector are destined to live in a world similar to that depicted in the film 'War Inc.'

cuckoldmepls -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 8:43:00 AM)
"When the government creates jobs with more spending, they have to take more and more of your paycheck in taxes or pass the debt on to our children which means they are giving billions in interest payments to wealthy people here and abroad and to other countries, not to mention still owing the debt. When private industry creates jobs, you actually receive a product or a service when they take your money. Now which would you rather have?" All these government programs liberals support, start out small but they become massive, economic liabilities. If liberals have their way, half the country will be on social security, 25% will be on government freebies, and 25% will be working for the government. Who does that leave to pay the bills? We are 10 Trillion in debt, and liberals still can't figure out how that happened. It happened because the federal government ignored the 10th amendment and created all these agencies, and programs, 90% of which are unconstitutional. Even the national park system is unconstitutional. 90% of the time it is a local person driving into their local park which does not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Health care is obviously a state issue, since it is a local person walking into their local hospital. http://babelishere.webs.com/liberals.html

DarlingSavage -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 9:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls "When the government creates jobs with more spending, they have to take more and more of your paycheck in taxes or pass the debt on to our children which means they are giving billions in interest payments to wealthy people here and abroad and to other countries, not to mention still owing the debt. When private industry creates jobs, you actually receive a product or a service when they take your money. Now which would you rather have?" All these government programs liberals support, start out small but they become massive, economic liabilities. If liberals have their way, half the country will be on social security, 25% will be on government freebies, and 25% will be working for the government. Who does that leave to pay the bills? We are 10 Trillion in debt, and liberals still can't figure out how that happened. It happened because the federal government ignored the 10th amendment and created all these agencies, and programs, 90% of which are unconstitutional. Even the national park system is unconstitutional. 90% of the time it is a local person driving into their local park which does not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Health care is obviously a state issue, since it is a local person walking into their local hospital. http://babelishere.webs.com/liberals.html I'm sorry, weren't there expllicit instructions left for neocons not to post here?

Arpig -> RE: A question for the liberals. (2/13/2010 9:01:15 AM)
In Canada we don't really need much more in the way of social programs (an increase in the amount welfare pays is essential) and that is the best example of why Government is required. Private charity, while a wonderful thing, just doesn't cut it. People simply do NOT donate enough to cover the bill...never have, never will. Only government (through taxation) has the resources to implement such an essential social support system, and it is essential. That is part of the function of a society, to work together for the betterment of all, that includes the destitute as well as the wealthy. Health care is another area that requires government intervention to work. Only a single-payer system can spread the risk wide enough to lower costs and at the same time make sure that everybody gets the care they need. Security companies, while useful for private uses, are no replacement for a publicly funded police (just look at the wonderful job Blackwater...sorry Xe, does). Also fire departments as well...even volunteer fire departments require public funding for the very expensive equipment. Transportation and infrastructure are another area where Government is required, especially in continent-spanning countries like ours. The distances are just too vast and the expense too great for any private entity to do the job. The private sector would be putting tolls up on all the roads, thereby making it even more difficult for the underprivileged to travel...again with the worrying about the poor...I know I have a soft spot for them. Local Gvt is required for things such as building & health codes to ensure that our homes and restaurants are safe, and that the sewers actually work...just imagine a system where one had to pay-to-flush...a lovely thought now isn't it. Basically the Gvt is required to ensure a certain minimum standard of safety & health and wellbeing is enjoyed by all. The only real point worth discussing is what that minimum is...and I believe it is much higher than many on here do (no surprise).

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625