What is your reason for being liberal?

[Divinus Arma]

Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do?

[KukriKhan]

Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do?

Because, if I have no personal property, and your property was obtained on the backs of me and my brothers - either by design or by result, then my options are: take (some of) your so-called property myself through force (revolution), or work within the existing system, and garner the agreement of other like-minded or sympathetic citizens. Option #2 gets me less dead. So I am lib'ral.

[Big_John]

That's a damned good question. What compels people to be liberal?

a moment of clarity? just a guess.

[KukriKhan]

I dunno, you impute freeloader-ism and can't-think-ism to an entire political dynamic... sounds like your mind is made up, rather than seeking understanding, as your first post in thread seemed to indicate.

edit: BTW a reminder: I'm only another poster here, subject to forum rules, same as everyone

[KukriKhan]

To answer the second question:

GCWhat compels people to be liberal?

Oppression... or the perception of oppression, or sympathy for the plight of the perceived oppressed. Any or all makes one a Lib'rul.

[Divinus Arma]

Because, if I have no personal property, and your property was obtained on the backs of me and my brothers - either by design or by result,

What if your (and I mean you, not a random evil guy who you imagine) property was obtained by hard work?

then my options are: take (some of) your so-called property myself through force (revolution), or work within the existing system, and garner the agreement of other like-minded or sympathetic citizens. Option #2 gets me less dead. So I am lib'ral.

What about option #3?

[KukriKhan]

What if your (and I mean you, not a random evil guy who you imagine) property was obtained by (your personal) hard work?

My edit added.

Then you recognize that your hard work resulted in actual property, as it should - because the system worked for you and your inherent advantages... and that other's hard work, folks without your inherent advantages, resulted in their hard-scrabble existance(s). And you try to figure out ways to equalize that treatment.

What about option #3?

Which is... ?

[KukriKhan]

Riddle me this then: What entitles you to take something of mine, and distribute it amongst the so-called need?

The very question the Sheriff of Nottingham must have asked Robin Hood.

Not to get all mythological, but it's the "something of mine' and how it was obtained (whether by you or your father, or grandfather... or any of their compatriots) - and how the same options to 'obtain' are not open to all, that's the issue.

And maybe we ought to take "Lipstick Liberals" ( = opportunists who use Liberalism as a campaign promise they'll never champion in reality; Ms. Clinton, for example) off the table so we don't confuse them with Lib'ruls.

[Beirut]

Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do?

Your thread title and your post question don't jibe. I'm a die hard liberal and a believer in private property and the rights of the individual. To confuse being liberal with being a communist is to confuse being conservative with being a nazi.

I am a liberal because I see the function of the government as being for the good of the people, not merely a business and military center of operations. A government, by its nature, exists to facilitate the collective good of the people; to represent their interests, economic and political, as well as having the authority to enact and enforce laws that reflect the values of the people.

Those values change from country to country. In Canadaland, we see the government as having not only the economic and technical clout to provide health care for the public, but indeed see it as the highest responsibility of government.

If you look at the government as parents, which is a fair analogy, why would your parents only spank you, take part of what you make selling lemonade on the corner to help pay the bills, stop the kid next door from beating you up, but then refuse to tuck you in or give you medicine when you're sick? "Sorry son, you're on your own. Goodnight."

The government should not only be interested in the gross national product, but in the gross national happiness. A country is a team. A team leader needs to be more than a banker and a cop, he needs to be someone who the players can go to for help, someone who is understanding. If this isn't true, then why not just make the head of the Federal Reserve the president? I mean, if we're true capitalists isn't it all about the money?

[Xiahou]

If you look at the government as parents, which is a fair analogy

You're a liberal all right.

Then you recognize that your hard work resulted in actual property, as it should - because the system worked for you and your inherent advantages... and that other's hard work, folks without your inherent advantages, resulted in their hard-scrabble existance(s). And you try to figure out ways to equalize that treatment.

Charity? That's what I dont get. Why libs think that the government, something inherently ineffecient, corrupt and wasteful, is the best and only choice to help the disadvantage... If you think 50% of your income should go to help those less fortunate, then donate it.

[Beirut]

You're a liberal all right.

Thanks.

Mind you, if you don't see the government as having any "parental" responsibilities, then do you agree that they should stay out of all arguments concerning values?

Like abortion, drug use, patriotism, and religion, to name a few.

Or is the government juuuuust a little bit pregnant?

[KukriKhan]

You're a liberal all right.

Charity? That's what I dont get. Why libs think that the government, something inherently ineffecient, corrupt and wasteful, is the best and only choice to help the disadvantage... If you think 50% of your income should go to help those less fortunate, then donate it.

I'm with you, but:

government = force, the use of, to achieve the needs of the entire population. Wasteful, inefficient... no argument, Democracy is like that; noisy... all those 'masses, clamoring to be free', and all.

But when all is said and done, force, sadly, enforces all. And the control button of that force (the custody of which) is what we argue about.

[Major Robert Dump]

Nice sentence to start a thread with, guy.

The idea of liberalism that i uphold to has less to do than the outright redistribution of wealth, and more to do with the fact that a successful government can and should have the means to help the lesser people within its society. The fact that the government is inefficient, the fact that the government cant police its own spending, the fact that generally good ideas like social security are ruined thanks to mismanagement and outright theft (IOUs) does little to make me believe any less that people in need should be helped.

Of course this will breed people who work the system, and it has the potential to implode and ruin an entire system due to lackeys who refuse to make their own way. The sheer abuse the welfare system recieved in the 70s and 80s with paper food stamps is still shocking, not just from the people who cheated, but from the grocers who let them and the DHS who wouldn't hold anyone accountable (and still doesn't). What happened with cash welfare in regards to "breeding" is IMO a shameful part of our modern history. Sometimes I wonder if the system was desigend to fail, or perhaps if someone had a bright idea that pumping more money to welfare moms meant we would always have a solid working class to build industry on. Either way, it failed, and entire families and communities have been tainted. Look at it now, it still doesn't work or we wouldn't be having illegal immigrants whining that their free money is about to be taken away. The bigger something gets the harder it is to manage.

I could tell you my tough-love idea of what would make certain types of welfare work, but of course it would offend many liberals and you probably wouldn't listen anyway, since you are ever so convinced that anyone with money/property/success obviously worked their way up from a minimum wage job in a one-room shack in kentucky and by god anyone else can too, and no buttf****** ever goes on anywhere in the name of making a buck

The correlation of welfare=higher taxation just isn't there like it used to be. The whole "my tax dollars" argument is as stale as the idea of small government in 2006.

All other ideas typically associated with liberalism aside, just because a premise won't work thanks to percieved or proven inefficiency doesn't mean the initial premise is bad. Will socialized medicine in the US work? No, it would be a financial train wreck. But that DOESN'T mean the idea is wrong, its just not workable.

Other than that, I don't know what you mean about the government having more right to my property. If you are talking about the Supreme Court ruling, those weren't liberal opinions, they were opinions of old people suffering from dimentia

[Divinus Arma]

KK, that's a false analogy.

I work well over 70 hrs a week and go to grad school full time. When I was 18, I was picking cans from trash to recycle them for food. Now I own a home, and I estimate that with 80 hours a week between two jobs, I can make nearly $200k US a year within the next five years.

The system is- those who work hard get rewarded. I have worked hard and I am getting rewarded. I did not take property from anyone to earn this. In fact, I work now, and will continue to work, in public service.

I dont understand why you think that you should be entitled to my property. I have been at the bottom of the barrel, with no family help or inheritance, and I chose option #3: work your butt off and earn your living.


Beirut, I know you as a huge fan of social medicine. Fine, I will agree with you that medicine may become a function of government, similar to the post office. I believe that research proves competition is the most effective stimulant for growth in any sector, and America's world-class hospitals are proof of that. Do we need a solution for the issue of expense for the masses? Yes. But that is another topic for another thread.

Liberalism and expanded government are one in the same. The liberal interpretation of the constitution means to allow for every possibility that the constitution may have meant in order to expand the power of the government. The problem with this is that liberals are inconsistent, and this is why I equate liberal theory to redistribution theory: Liberals would consolidate power into the hands of the federal administration, and have done so through the commerce clause and supremacy clause (Raiche Vs. Ashcroft). Liberal interpretation also made it so "emminent domain" for the public good included taking property from one person and giving it to another so that they can make the government more money with taxes (Kelo Vs. New London). But yet, liberal interpretation stops there. What about the 2nd amendment? What about the absolute and total errosion of the 9th amendment with rulings like Kelo and Raiche which expand government power beyond that which is enumerated? What about the same issue with the 10th amendment?

Liberal interpretation is about expanding government power. Liberals are autocrats and believe (Benevolently or malevolently I know not) that the government knows best and that power should be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Liberals believe that the common people are too stupid and too lazy to work hard for themselves and so they must be cared for.

[Lemur]

Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do?

DA, you've been smoking too much Rush Limbaugh again. Somebody has socialism and liberalism mixed up. Also, last time I checked, the "conservatives" currently in power are doing more wealth re-distribution than Lyndon Johnson or FDR did in their day. If you want to find the people who want to spend your money, look at the mooks you voted for.

Go ahead. Look at them.

[Divinus Arma]

DA, you've been smoking too much Rush Limbaugh again. Somebody has socialism and liberalism mixed up. Also, last time I checked, the "conservatives" currently in power are doing more wealth re-distribution than Lyndon Johnson or FDR did in their day. If you want to find the people who want to spend your money, look at the mooks you voted for.

Go ahead. Look at them.

I am very clear on the errors of the current administration. "Social Conservatism" is a code word for religios liberalism. Instead of endeavoring to strictly interpret the constitution, these people promote culture restrictions under the banner of conservatism. They are NOT conservatives. They desire to expand government power to instill their brand of autocracy just like constituional liberals.

I hate them even more because they pretend to be sheep when they are wolves.


The concept of "conservative" and "liberal" applies ONLY to constitutional interpretation.

WE HAVE ALL BEEN DECIEVED! THE DEBATE CHANGE TO "SOCIAL" INTERPRETATION AND RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM US EVER SINCE!!!!!

[lars573]

Thank you. I'm in the same boat as DA here. I've been at the bottom of the rung my entire life--even homeless at one point. I don't have a Highschool Diploma and I just recently got my GED. Does that mean I need government help? Maybe. But I don't need Handouts consisting of other peoples' hard-earned coin. I begin Community College in the summer, and from there I'm taking a 2-year assosiative arts degree that will synchronize me with the local 4-year university. After that, who knows? I fancy the idea of Law School, personally. How will I do it? Hard work. Something that still counts for more than any stolen government handout. At worst I'll take advantage of Student Loans, with every intention of paying them back. But I'd rather not even do that.

So if people like DA and myself can do it.. where are the so-called needy? Is it the "gangstahs" in the Ghettos? With their culture of crime and general lack of respect? I don't want my money going towards those ingrates. The ones that are worth it get out of there ASAP anyway. Is it the homeless, then? I've been there, and let me tell you most of them have mental defects to the degree that you can't help them anyway. Who is it then? Where? I don't see it.

Your pride prevents you from seeing them. Plus your "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps why can't you" attitude that makes me gag every time someone expsouses it. The very idea that everyone can do what you did, the way you did it, is stupid and ignorant in the extreme.

The needy take many forms, me for example. I never had a real job (real job being one that wasn't handed to you by a family member) until November 05 at the age of 24. Why? lots of reasons. All of them in my personality. I graduated from high school, went to the community colledge, had some work experience handed to me by my dad. But I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will. Plus I'm a wired twitchy high anxiety level guy who had trouble maintaining eye contact at the best of times. Add the pressure (real or mental) of a job interview and I make autistic people look normal. I needed help getting my life moving in a more meaningful direction. I got it in the form a program run by the local municipal fire department. It got me my current job placement at a computer wholesaler.

So now you've heard of someone in need who benefited from a government handout program. Just not you government.

[Tachikaze]

Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do?

I don't work and develop wealth only for myself. That would be selfish and greedy. Part of my income is for me to spend where I see fit; part is for distribution in my society.

At election time, I vote for the people who I feel will best distribute the portion taken from my paycheck.

I think this is a perfectly good system. It echos the village system of people taking care of each other for mutual benefit, not selfish people who compete for ever-greater luxury against their fellow citizens.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@div and gc:

Why do we have a duty to answer the draft but not help the poor? You're willing to fight but not pay?

[Divinus Arma]

But I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will.

GC has got you libs pegged. This is the worst of the breed. "I dont want to work. give me your money". Hmmm, I've heard that before? Oh yes, from criminals. So liberal economic theory is just institutioanlized theft by the mob of lazy? Hardly qualifies as a logical argument, my friend.

I don't work and develop wealth only for myself. That would be selfish and greedy. Part of my income is for me to spend where I see fit; part is for distribution in my society.

At election time, I vote for the people who I feel will best distribute the portion taken from my paycheck.

I think this is a perfectly good system. It echos the village system of people taking care of each other for mutual benefit, not selfish people who compete for ever-greater luxury against their fellow citizens.

Excellent! So donate to charity! Or do you believe that people are naturally greedy and will not give to charity? I assume this is your perception. SO, you believe that YOUR values of "charity" and "community" should be forced on others by law? Sounds like somebody else I know: "Religious Liberals". Also know as the Christain Right, those liberal bastards disguised as social conservatives! Thank you for being smarter than me and telling me how to live and thank you for stealing my property to meet your moral agenda! Yay! Let's make tithing law, too! That goes to a good cause! Yay! /sarcasm

Why do we have a duty to answer the draft but not help the poor? You're willing to fight but not pay?

That is not an answer to the question. That is a redirect. I will answer your question and ASSUME that you will still come back and answer mine instead of staying on your little topic.

We need some government. But just a smidge. And we have a duty to pay into this system. But the system should only exist to faciliate the ability to pursue our own ambitions within the law. All the extra crup is just to meet the agenda of freeloaders like Lars and moral elitists like Tachikaze.



So lets recap the best answers so far to get a good sense of the liberals out there shall we?

my options are: take (some of) your so-called property myself through force (revolution), or work within the existing system, and garner the agreement of other like-minded or sympathetic citizens.

In other words: "I want what you have and you will give it to me. I will either take it through violence or I will join a large group of people who also want your stuff and we will take it togther using the law as a figleaf".

and that other's hard work, folks without your inherent advantages, resulted in their hard-scrabble existance(s). And you try to figure out ways to equalize that treatment.

Or in other words, "nobody should be rewarded for having greater ability, vision, or commitment".

the same options to 'obtain' are not open to all, that's the issue

So in other words, "nobody should be rewarded for having greater ability, vision, or commitment".

If you look at the government as parents.

Or in other words, "The government knows right from wrong better than you do. You should rely on them to care for you."

I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will.

In other words: "I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will. "


I love when liberals talk about their ideals. This is why the Democratic party is getting destroyed. Whenever liberals start explaining why they are liberals, they begin to make these really proufoundly absurd statements. These statements are all shockingly self-sefeating. I dont really even have to do anything. You guys dig your own darn grave. Its awesome! I love it! I think we should let the liberals talk all day and all night, as long as they talk about "liberal values". But is this the kind of honesty that our citizens get? No. We get spin, half-truths, and political posturing. The reason for this is clear: Liberals can't sell liberalism. They have to paint it as something else "oh... we're progressive". Liberals are terrified by their own situation because they realize that no freedom-loving citizen would ever vote for them after making statements about what they really stand for. Liberalism is a self-defeating, elitist, autocratic movement of individuals who refuse to accept personal repsonsibility for their lot in life and instead rely on the more capable and intelligent members to do their work for them.

[Lemur]

The concept of "conservative" and "liberal" applies ONLY to constitutional interpretation.

That's rather selective on your part. Bah, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless slogans tossed around for petty gain by politicians and demagouges. Both are good words that have been perverted for partisan profit.

You want to talk about liberalism? America is the most liberal experiment in world history. We're the offspring of the Enlightenment, we're a liberal wet dream. Let everybody vote? Divide state powers to limit corruption and autocracy? Give states their own rights? Ban state-sponsored religion? Allow the citizens to be armed? Freedom of speech, assembly and worship? There wasn't a more liberal concept at the time. To equate liberalism with socialism is to slander our nation.

And conservatism? That's a beautiful tradition in which we measure twice and cut once, if at all. Careful, cautious, with a healthy regard for tradition, conservative. It's supposed to mean the opposite of revolutionary. It's got jack-all to do with promoting a public cartoon version of Christian values, or spending the nation into a black hole with pork and corporate handouts, or creating vast new entitlements for the elderly. How is a fire-breathing blow-hard like Rush Limbaugh "conservative"? How is a corrupt fake Christian like Ralph Reed "conservative"? How is a bribe-taking, pork-pushing slimebag like Tom DeLay "conservative"? And how is an incompetent idealogue like Bush "conservative"?

Both words have been warped and perverted beyond meaning. As far as this lemur is concerned, people who want to push vast social programs are "socialists," and people who want to push vast right-wing social agendas (coupled with insane spending) are ... hmm, there isn't a very good word for them. I've heard "Christianists" tossed around, but that doesn't do justice to their fiscal insanity. Suggestions?

[Lemur]

The nature of this argument is Government Redistribution of Wealth vs. Government Staying the Duece Out of My Money.

If you look at post #1 in the thread, DA was specifically using the word "liberal." And he's been off about "liberals" multiple times, when he means "socialist." And again, the current administration is doing just fine spending our money. It doesn't make it any better that they're doing it with a credit card rather than cash. The bills have to be paid someday, and I'd argue it's more irresponsible to do it on credit.

I don't see a party talking seriously about spending less. The Republicans have demonstrated that they're even bigger pigs at the feed trough than the Democrats were. So are you gents advocating the concept of smaller government in the abstract?

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's rather selective on your part. Bah, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless slogans tossed around for petty gain by politicians and demagouges. Both are good words that have been perverted for partisan profit.

You want to talk about liberalism? America is the most liberal experiment in world history. We're the offspring of the Enlightenment, we're a liberal wet dream. Let everybody vote? Divide state powers to limit corruption and autocracy? Give states their own rights? There wasn't a more liberal concept at the time. To equate liberalism with socialism is to slander our nation.

You're right. What we call liberals in the US should be called leftists. Calling them liberals is an insult to true liberals.

The funny thing is, right now I'm a lowly worker, the kind the leftists say they're helping. And I don't want a d*** thing to do with them. I don't want to join a union and pay dues to work somewhere, I don't want to pay social security to the government so they can keep it until they think I'm ready to have my money paid back to me.

I think this is a perfectly good system. It echos the village system of people taking care of each other for mutual benefit, not selfish people who compete for ever-greater luxury against their fellow citizens.

I'm sick of people claiming that the gov't taking my money to give to other people is akin to 'charity'. It is not, in any way, shape, or form. Nothing is charity when it is taken. Don't dare try and claim this is similar to kind hearted people helping each other out; it is akin to the mob demanding money. Nothing more.

Crazed Rabbit

[Divinus Arma]

Your entire post refered only to social conservatism and socia liberalism... At least until the end their.

That's rather selective on your part. Bah, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless slogans tossed around for petty gain by politicians and demagouges. Both are good words that have been perverted for partisan profit.

And YOU are rather selecrtive for your comments directly below, which all relate to the social perspective rather than the constituional perspective.

You want to talk about liberalism? America is the most liberal experiment in world history. We're the offspring of the Enlightenment, we're a liberal wet dream. Let everybody vote? Divide state powers to limit corruption and autocracy? Give states their own rights? Ban state-sponsored religion? Allow the citizens to be armed? Freedom of speech, assembly and worship? There wasn't a more liberal concept at the time. To equate liberalism with socialism is to slander our nation.

I don't give a damn about what history came before us. You can take your historicism and leave it at the door, bud. I care about right now. The only thing that matters is constitutional interpretation.

And conservatism? That's a beautiful tradition in which we measure twice and cut once, if at all. Careful, cautious, with a healthy regard for tradition, conservative. It's supposed to mean the opposite of revolutionary.

Social perspective. I hate religious liberals just as much.

It's got jack-all to do with promoting a public cartoon version of Christian values, or spending the nation into a black hole with pork and corporate handouts, or creating vast new entitlements for the elderly.

Christian values are a social perspective issue. Spending is a fiscal issue, and I concur with you. Vast new entitlements and corporate handouts are fiscal policy and I agree with you. No restraint. A complete lack of control. Disgusting.

How is a fire-breathing blow-hard like Rush Limbaugh "conservative"?

Most of his comments are that of a constitutional conservative. These comments I agree with. You should listen. He is pretty pissed about spending, sounds a little like you sometimes on the spending.

How is a corrupt fake Christian like Ralph Reed "conservative"?

Religious liberal who wants to expand government power and enforce morality. "banner of conservatism". He can go pound sand.

How is a bribe-taking, pork-pushing slimebag like Tom DeLay "conservative"?

And if he is guilty he will go to jail. I do not agree with his fake religious liberalism and overspending either.

And how is an incompetent idealogue like Bush "conservative"?

He isn't. He is a religious liberal who spend money like water.

Both words have been warped and perverted beyond meaning. As far as this lemur is concerned, people who want to push vast social programs are "socialists," and people who want to push vast right-wing social agendas (coupled with insane spending) are ... hmm, there isn't a very good word for them. I've heard "Christianists" tossed around, but that doesn't do justice to their fiscal insanity. Suggestions?

None of that really made a lot of sense, you know.

If you see the picture through the frame of the constitution, I promise you will be changed forever. I am sure that we agree on many more points, as well.

[Lemur]

I guess I would just like to see "liberal" and "conservative" mean something real again. I take DA's point about Constitutionalism, but frankly, both parties are liberal in their interpretation of the founding document.

Neither party is truly liberal, for neither party supports individual liberty in any meaningful sense. And neither party is conservative.

We need to get back to the sort of thing that makes this country work -- divided government. I was arguing for it in '04, and I'm arguing for it in '06. Letting any one party get a deadlock on the government is a bad, bad, bad idea. Want to see lower taxes? Then you need to see less spending. Want to see less spending? Get a divided government back in place. Remember the glory days of Clinton/Gingrich? Remember the balanced budget? That was divided government at work.

[Divinus Arma]

I guess I would just like to see "liberal" and "conservative" mean something real again. I take DA's point about Constitutionalism, but frankly, both parties are liberal in their interpretation of the founding document.

Neither party is truly liberal, for neither party supports individual liberty in any meaningful sense. And neither party is conservative.

We need to get back to the sort of thing that makes this country work -- divided government. I was arguing for it in '04, and I'm arguing for it in '06. Letting any one party get a deadlock on the government is a bad, bad, bad idea. Want to see lower taxes? Then you need to see less spending. Want to see less spending? Get a divided government back in place. Remember the glory days of Clinton/Gingrich? Remember the balanced budget? That was divided government at work.

Ahhhhh. I KNEW IT!


That is just it, my friend! It all comes down to constitutional interpretation. A narrow interpretation of the constitution ensures that enumerated powers are followed, that 9th and 10th amendment are not eroded to worthlessness, and that power will return to the states.

Nothing else matters.

[Major Robert Dump]

And one could easily argue that more police, better highways and grants to state colleges is redistribution of wealth based on percieved need.

I didn't reralize this was going to turn into a "look what I overcame thread" and "all people on welfare are ghetto bangers" thread, but okay, I'll take my turn.

For those of you who made good from foul circumstances, congratulations, but please don't dub you "public service" imto my face because it has feck all to do with anything. Furthermore, the idea of "donating to charity" instead of having our precious "tax dollars" used is an entirely different animal because you can't control what your charity spends its money on, although you can control (control used very loosely here, jokingly in fact) what your government spends money on through votes and feedback. Of course this is all a pipe dream in fact since government is now sold to the highest bidders and the pacs with the cash (why else do you think mccain was sympathizing with the illegals?), but the original idea still remains, a government controlled by the people should mean that if welfare is being spent on undeserving people then the voters and john q public put an end to it.

And the idea of "helping out your neighbor" and "community charity" is nothing but a farce. It doesn't happen. Americans are tightwads, and they want compensation for their pizza having onions on it, even though they didn't ask for no onions. You have no idea how many people I know who used pre-paid legal services, then get pissed because it doens't get them out of a ticket when they get caught doing 70 in 35 zone. FFS.

You guys who overcame harsh situations have a lot more in common with me than either of us would like to admit, and oddly enough I or my family have never used in any way shape or form any of the welfare system, with the notable exception of social security for the old folks; and please take note that only recently has social security been coined as "welfare", perhaps due to fiscal concerns, whereas its remained a sacred cow for generations and none of our conservative leaders prior to now have ever considered demonizing it, yet all of the sudden its "welfare", and its all the fault of the liberals

For every guy who overcomes the odds and makes good for himself, theres some little bitch whose mommy and daddy pays for his college and credit cards so he gets out of school with perfect credit and no job history and can buy a house, a dependable car and score a sweet job with his phat C average (a lot of those turn out to be liberals btw). And for every one of those little bitches, theres someone in a meduim sized town with no mass transit, who doesnt have a car and who has to walk to his minumum wage job, then gets fired because he shows up late on a rainy day. God forbid we toss that person some foodstamps.

Conservatives like to imagine that every tax dollar taken from them is spent on welfare and programs they don't agree with. Not a cent of it went to anything else, right?

Stop demonizing the idea and instead demonize the system that grew to reward no-gooders. Believe it or not, unions were actually good at one point, and they did what the federal government wouldnt do amidst the 1920s manufacturing scumbags like Henry Ford who put the dollar above liberty and dignity. Now look at unions, they are a sham. It's the same with welfare.

Liberalism and expanded government are one in the same. The liberal interpretation of the constitution means to allow for every possibility that the constitution may have meant in order to expand the power of the government. The problem with this is that liberals are inconsistent, and this is why I equate liberal theory to redistribution theory: Liberals would consolidate power into the hands of the federal administration, and have done so through the commerce clause and supremacy clause (Raiche Vs. Ashcroft). Liberal interpretation also made it so "emminent domain" for the public good included taking property from one person and giving it to another so that they can make the government more money with taxes (Kelo Vs. New London). But yet, liberal interpretation stops there. What about the 2nd amendment? What about the absolute and total errosion of the 9th amendment with rulings like Kelo and Raiche which expand government power beyond that which is enumerated? What about the same issue with the 10th amendment?

Liberal interpretation is about expanding government power. Liberals are autocrats and believe (Benevolently or malevolently I know not) that the government knows best and that power should be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Liberals believe that the common people are too stupid and too lazy to work hard for themselves and so they must be cared for.

You are thinking more about liberalism than liberals do. I'm not going to argue that what you said there is untrue, because its not. There are plenty of liberals in high level government and universities who genuinley want what you say, be it for their own personal gain or their percieved good of the nation. But for the 45 year old guy who loses his job at thr jeans factory and needs some food stamps to get by for the month, consolidated power and a socialist movement are likely the farhtest things from his mind.

You guys are taking broad political labels and applying them to society that is based on money, money, money, votes and more money, thanks to a government made up of careerists and opportunists. We have had a conservative administration and congress now for a good while, yet welfare remains virtually unchanged. why is that? could the same taint that affects their inaction also affect the actions of the liberals in office? $$$$$$$$$????

[Tribesman]

Wow this thread has got me really confused .
What exactly is one of these liberals , how do you be a liberal ?

The real difference in American politics these days seems to be whether or not you want abortions.

Hmmm.. so lets try this . If someone doesn't like abortion , that means they are generally conservative , right . If they also think that the government should not be allowed to tell people what they can do with their own bodies then they are conservative , right . Yet if they are against the government telling people what they can do with their own bodies and that people have freewill and the right to choice then they are liberals .

Soooo.....What exactly is one of these liberals ?

[Major Robert Dump]

Don't ask me, I'm a liberal with a gun, a job, no gay friends and a subscription to the National Review. Apparently I don't know

[Divinus Arma]

MRD, you're an articulate guy and most of the time you come across as joe sixpack with a chip on his shoulder. That's a good thing. Because when it all come down to it, the one who all this really matters too is joe sixpack. Or, the one who it really effects but never cares, that is...

But there is a serious problem with your logic, hero. You oversimplify everything and overglorify your perspective. You champion the right of the little guy, who, what... Who gets fired for walking to work in the rain and is late once? Great arguments for your avergae guy, but try and think outside of that box. Either you have been watching too much mainstream news or you had some bad experiences. Point being- why not shoot straight across the board? Got a problem with inheritance? I'll bet you leave whatever you have to your kids when you kick the bucket. I'll bet you hope they succeed and your grandkids are the ones with the car, the C ave, and the house with no credit, huh? You knock the system, all the while benefitting from it and following the same rules of the game.

When I posted my comments did you see me knocking social security? Did I tear down welfare? Did I make any specific comment about any specific government institution whatsoever? (aside from health care speculation)

No. I din't. And guess what, most of what you through down makes great sense. I agree that a compassionate society should have safety nets for unforeseen circumsatnces. Of course we need infrastructure. As I said before, the government's sole reason for existence should be to empower the citizens to succeed at their own hands.


The problem that I have is not with welfare or with socialized medicine or social security. I dont give two turds about student grants, low interest government loans, or the post office.

I care about one thing, my man, and that is the constituion of the US of A. Every year, our rights have been eroded further and further due to constituional liberlaism. And these were mostly Republican justices! If you think I am some watery-eyed Republican hack, then you failed to read the rest of my posts in this thread.

Liberal constituitional interpretation coupled with a "government knows best" phiosophy spells disaster across the board. Do you have any clue what the supreme court has done to our liberties? Screw the kid in the rain. How about the old folks who had their beautiful Riverside home stolen by Pfizer so the company could build a parking lot?

That ios the trasj I am primarily concerned about. Liberal interpretation, meaning, "however we can make the constitution bend", is destroying this country. The GOP is a crock and so are the Dems. But parties scuk nuts, but at least the GOP dont try to fool us with lies about what they stand for. You see a republican candidate you know what the hell is in that snake oil: Religious influence, reduction of regulation, privitization, big military, etc. When you see a Dem, who knows what the hell they try to cram through the system. Worse yet is their motives. They want your stuff, mrd. They want your stuff and they will take it, as was evidenced so clearly in this thread.