What do YOU think a liberal is?

[BuckNaked]

I support having a welfare program, but I do agree that we need to re-examine the program, and do modifications. I believe in giving people a helping hand, but we should not encourage people to want to live off the government.

As do I. I would be more than happy to have someone receiving double or triple in day care subsidies what they are receiving in welfare and foodstamps just to get them out and working, where they at least have a chance to move out of poverty.

I have tons to say on Social Security, but I'll keep it simple. I know we all pay in, but I do believe that if you are able to retire with enough financial security for your retirement, you should not be able to collect SS. If, your situation changes and you need it, then okay you can collect.

Sorry, but to me, that's just another income redistribution program. If we pay into it, there should be no means testing when it comes to taking it out. If there's going to be means testing, then people should be able to opt out of paying into the system.

***edited for using wrong word

 

[MassJester]

I think you're late to the game - wasn't that already posted in this thread?

No, don't think it was -- but a good read, don't you think?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

No, don't think it was -- but a good read, don't you think?

Yes post #40, and obviously I don't think it was a good read as indicated by my responses on posts #41 and #43.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Overly simplistic, as usual.

I think liberals want what they see as best for America, but what they see as best, I see as a disaster.

Liberals want equal outcomes, regardless of level of effort.

Liberals want as much income redistribution as possible, since the people at the top of the income ladder really don't "deserve" to have so much (we're not supposed to notice that the people at the top are paying for the people at the bottom).

Liberals aren't as concerned with national defense as they are with being liked by other nations.

Liberals care more about "groups" than individuals within those groups.

Liberals, for all of their crying about the poor, want programs that keep the poor dependent on government so that they'll have a steady flow of votes.

I'm fairy liberal, and I have many liberal friends. Your characterization of liberals is way off base from the "actual" liberals I know personally.

For example, equal outcome regardless of effort. I don't support this notion, and I never have. What are some of your examples of this?

I think liberals support individual rights more than conservatives. Just look at organizations such as the ACLU.

I addressed the poor and social programs in a separate issue.

I support the US militarily. But I also recognize that we are in a global economy and world. We need allies, and we need to consider the effects of our decisions on others, and also protect ourselves. If your comments relate to Iraq, I never saw them as a threat to the US, but I've always considered North Korea and Iran as threats. I support keeping a military presence in South Korea, and I support strong sanctions against Iran. Regarding Iraq, we're already there, so we need to stabilize the country, and then leave. We cannot just walk away from the current situation. The middle east is a very volatile area, and we should use diplomacy as much as possible, because I truly believe that WW III could easily start in that neck of woods and have a devistating affect of all of us.

 

[LuvDuke]

I think you're late to the game - wasn't that already posted in this thread?

I don't know if it was or wasn't. After the first couple of pages, the thread was starting to get redundant and I figured no new ideas were forthcoming.

Whatever, "A Day In the LIfe" is worth repeating whenever someone starts kicking up their heels of how they're a victim of the liberals.

 

[MassJester]

Yes post #40, and obviously I don't think it was a good read as indicated by my responses on posts #41 and #43.

Ahh yes, now I see them.

I'm not sure the post suggests that liberals have all the answers--but the general tone of the "I know what Liberals think, and thank God I'm not one of them-crowd" has been pretty caustic, pejorative, and sloganistic.

A post like that is the most appropriate response--save for patting them on the head and telling them to run along.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I don't know if it was or wasn't. After the first couple of pages, the thread was starting to get redundant and I figured no new ideas were forthcoming.

Whatever, "A Day In the LIfe" is worth repeating whenever someone starts kicking up their heels of how they're a victim of the liberals.

Well then I don't think you're giving people enough credit because there actually were some insightful posts made within the past 13 pages and the overall general tone was quite civil.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I think Liberal and Conservative both carry connotations of stereotypes (many of which are mentioned on this thread) that actually describe very few people. I think most people are actually a lot farther towards the middle than towards the extremes, or they hold ideas on both sides of the spectrum depending on the issue.

I think it is disrespectful of anyone to think they can summarize a person's being by the political party they are registered with or by their feelings on one issue. Sure, there are some people that just follow a party line, but most people can think for themselves on each individual issue. There are good and bad, moral and immoral, intelligent and ignorant people affiliated with every political party.

To me, a liberal is someone who spews vitriol about conservatives and a conservative is someone who spews vitriol about liberals. I think there are very few people who fit the stereotypes put forth by either side, and those who generalize according to those stereotypes just make themselves look uninformed.

My favorite definition, which I believe to be true (forgive me if it's inaccurate, but you'll get the jist), is a quote from Winston Churchill (or at least that's been attributed to him):

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Then I guess I have no heart or brains, because, although I've always been more moderate than anything else, I find myself continuing to move a little more to the left of center as I get older.

 

[Fitswimmer]

To me, a liberal is someone who spews vitriol about conservatives and a conservative is someone who spews vitriol about liberals. I think there are very few people who fit the stereotypes put forth by either side, and those who generalize according to those stereotypes just make themselves look uninformed.

Excellent. I think putting people into boxes is a BIG mistake. Yes, there are those that fit the stereotypes, otherwise the stereotypes wouldn't exist, but they are in the minority. I really believe that most people land more in the middle of the two extremes.

 

[jodifla]

As do I. I would be more than happy to have someone receiving double or triple in day care subsidies what they are receiving in welfare and foodstamps just to get them out and working, where they at least have a chance to move out of poverty.




.

I think most liberals would agree with this!

There are always people who abuse the system. But I'd rather take some of them along for the ride than starve their kids.

The elderly, the young, the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill....I put a high value on helping these people. My life WILL NOT be better if I have a couple hundred more dollars in my pocket, but the cost is I have to watch people begging on street corners.

There's always waste. Heck, I'm about to go throw out a bunch of money I wasted in my fridge in the form of science projects masquerading as leftovers. But I think overall I do get a lot for my taxes: roads, schools, libraries, firefighters, police, etc. etc.

Not sure how any ONE of us would fund all those services alone.

 

[LuvDuke]

Well then I don't think you're giving people enough credit because there actually were some insightful posts made within the past 13 pages and the overall general tone was quite civil.

I'm sure there were some insightful, and inciteful, posts made.

Unfortunately, my eyes glaze over after 3rd or 4th post expressing sentiments along the lines of "liberals want to surrender to Osama Bin Laden" or "liberals want to take the bread out of my children's mouths".

Btw, everything in "A Day In the Life" was fought for by liberals and fought against by most conservatives. So, yes, whatever you see there was accomplished by liberals, and NOT conservatives. Hell, the conservatives are still fighting that radical new-fangled idea, minimum wage. Like the jury is still out on that one after 70 years.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I think most liberals would agree with this!

There are always people who abuse the system. But I'd rather take some of them along for the ride than starve their kids.

The elderly, the young, the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill....I put a high value on helping these people. My life WILL NOT be better if I have a couple hundred more dollars in my pocket, but the cost is I have to watch people begging on street corners.

There's always waste. Heck, I'm about to go throw out a bunch of money I wasted in my fridge in the form of science projects masquerading as leftovers. But I think overall I do get a lot for my taxes: roads, schools, libraries, firefighters, police, etc. etc.

I agree with you, but where I get frustrated is when anyone says they want stricter controls on government programs to reduce that fraud and waste they get accused of hating poor people. Can't we have the programs and try and control the waste? If we do a better job of controlling the waste, we have MORE money available for folks that actually need it. How is that not better for everyone??

I work with a federal program that funds schools for internet service. We have 2.5 billion dollars to give out each year. When we toughen up and catch people who are goldplating and ripping off the system, we have more money to help the schools that truly deserve it.

 

[BuckNaked]

I agree with you, but where I get frustrated is when anyone says they want stricter controls on government programs to reduce that fraud and waste they get accused of hating poor people.

Yep. And don't forget, we're also told that we want to see people starving on the streets or dying from exposure.

I work with a federal program that funds schools for internet service. We have 2.5 billion dollars to give out each year. When we toughen up and catch people who are goldplating and ripping off the system, we have more money to help the schools that truly deserve it.

Not to denigrate your job, because I'm sure you're great at it, but why in the hell is it the responsibility of the federal government to fund internet service for schools? To me, that's $2.5 billion that should be spent elsewhere.

 

[jodifla]

Yep. And don't forget, we're also told that we want to see people starving on the streets or dying from exposure.



Not to denigrate your job, because I'm sure you're great at it, but why in the hell is it the responsibility of the federal government to fund internet service for schools? To me, that's $2.5 billion that should be spent elsewhere.

Like the war in Iraq?

 

[BuckNaked]

Like the war in Iraq?

Here's an even better idea - cut the $2.5 billion completely OUT of the budget and don't spend it all. How does that sound?

 

[TheDoctor]

I wish I could properly cite the original source of this, but I think it speaks volumes and sums up the debate in this thread pefectly....

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our
lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

I like this piece

 

[jodifla]

Here's an even better idea - cut the $2.5 billion completely OUT of the budget and don't spend it all. How does that sound?

I think the federal government has a vested interest in making sure all students have computer access and are computer savvy. That's how business is done in the world.

Yeah, you could leave it to the states, and then you'd have lots of kids in poorer states not having computer access at all.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Not to denigrate your job, because I'm sure you're great at it, but why in the hell is it the responsibility of the federal government to fund internet service for schools? To me, that's $2.5 billion that should be spent elsewhere.

The money comes from the Universal Service Fund on the phone bill. Out of that money, we fund internet access for schools based on poverty level, we help rural health care centers have access to the internet and pay for phone service. It's done on a percentage basis, nobody gets 100% of their bills paid. A school in a very poor district would probably get a 90% discount on their bill, a wealthier district would only get a 40% or 20% discount. The hope is, that with the discount schools will use the savings to purchase textbooks, lower class sizes or something else to help defray school costs. It's the communities responsibility to keep the district honest. If you know that your school district is saving "x" dollars with this program, find out what they're doing what that money. If your district doesn't participate, find out why not, because it's affecting your taxes. I'm happier paying $1.05 a month on my phone bill because it's a LOT less than what my school district is asking for in my property taxes.

I used to work for DOD funding "anti-personnell devices". I like this better.

 

[BuckNaked]

Yeah, you could leave it to the states, and then you'd have lots of kids in poorer states not having computer access at all.

Then the people in those states would need to do something to fix the problem, if they think it is important. I don't agree that school internet access is a federal issue. Not to mention the fact that there is no Constitutional guarantee that citizens in different states will have access to the same services and educational opportunities.

Unless of course, internet access is now a Constitutional right...

 

[User Name]

Thanks, I think, but my inlaws who are very consertative Republicans who follow GWB to the firey depths of hell think I'm so far the other side I need to keep my maiden name. They stare at me like they see two heads but I just think they have hair envy. it happens alot

I'm pretty conservative. I don't believe GWB is conservative, except with regards to national defense and perhaps on some social issues. He is certainly not fiscally conservative. Dick Cheney fits the label of conservative much more than Bush - either of them. I actually supported Alan Keys over Bush. (Yep, I was a keyster!)

When I think conservative, I think Reagan. Today, I'd say that Newt Gingrich is probably the most well known person that fits the definition.