MyDD :: Why I hope liberalism wins

Why I hope liberalism wins

by Freedom Fighter, Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 02:27:51 PM EST

I have tried to maintain conservative values because I once believed that a system of government where individuals and families were primarily responsible for meeting their needs and where local communities, not federal bureacracies, were primarily responsible for those that were incapable of taking care of those needs, was the best system since it gives the individual the greatest amount of control over the decisions that effect one's life and directed people towards the best decisions for themselves and society. But since today has been particularly bad I've decided I was wrong.
I'm sick of working hard so that I can pay for health insurance for me, my wife and my daughter. I'm sick of working hard so that I can put a roof over my families head. I sick of doing the 'right things' to create a stable environment for others. Which is why I hope you liberals pass all your legislation so that I can let the government take care of my wife and daughter's housing, healthcare, food and everything else so that I can roam the country and do whatever the hell I want while collecting unemployment. So good luck you guys, I'm counting on you.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment

Is that what liberalism entails? (none / 0)

Hmmm. I'm not sure "do whatever the hell I want while collecting unemployment" is liberalism. Liberalism is about opportunity for all, not just the sons of the powerful and the well connected. It means pooling our resources and efforts to make the world a better place (ie the DARPA Grand Challenge). It means strong schools and good jobs, even if the governemnt (gasp!!) has to intervene.

Above all liberalism is freedom from fear. That is why we have society, to escape the jungle.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:31:28 PM EST

Re: Is that what liberalism entails? (none / 0)

I suppose that's fine, but my point is how do you do that without giving incentives to behave badly? How do you give tons of help to unemployed and at the same time get them to really try to find a job, how do you take care of single mothers without making the mother and father feel more responsible for providing for their children's care, how do you make the government create good jobs without forcing people to pay for some service that they really don't want, how do you give people free healthcare and expect them to use those services responsibly to take into consideration the immense costs those services impose. In short how do you expect to create 'collective responsibility' and maintain 'individual responsibility'?

by Freedom Fighter on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 06:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since we have to have a government and private (none / 0)

property, we need to make sure they work to do what their primary purpose is. Which is to 1.) protect the interests of all of us, while 2.)incentivizing people to excel and 3.)contribute to themselves and society in such a way that 4.)does not encourage extreme inequities or 5.) encourage the creation of unsafe situations - like toxics and global warming, which effect - and endanger - us all.

Our system is in a crisis, yes, but the solution is NOT either fascism (totalitarianism of the right) or communism (totalitarianism of the left) it is DEMOCRACY. Studies have shown that flexible, democratic societies with transparency are best suited to adapt to a rapidly changing world. When you do what we have, which is let one group (corporations) have ALL the power, actual people lose out, and eventually, people like us find it difficult to survive in the independent way you describe. On the other hand, if we encourage a good deal of interdependency and sharing, we build community and we build a lot of resiliency into the system.

The corporate world doesnt liek sharing because it means less consumption.. But its the only way for us to survive in the 21st century. Sharing isn't comunism.. because its VOLUNTARY.. But its a good thing. Plus, we all get to learn about each others goals, dreams and values, and gain from them.

by ultraworld on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 01:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton put it pretty well (none / 0)

The key phrase from Clinton's farewell address was, "opportunity for all, responsibility from all, a community of all Americans." Doesn't trip off the tongue like "avoid entangling alliances" or "military-industrial complex", but I think it sums up liberalism pretty well.

Conservatives have been pushing several lies about liberalism, so hard, and for so long, that people like Freedom Fighter believe them without question:

Liberals want to take all your money and give it to some lazy slob who's never worked a day in his life.
Poor people are poor because they're lazy.

Not only are these not true, they're the opposite of the truth. I grew up in Buffalo, where a lot of people were unemployed, and a lot of people were working jobs they were vastly overqualified for because they were the only jobs out there. No one I ever met wanted a handout; people wanted back their jobs that had been sent overseas by big business.

Everyone I know who's poor is poor because they didn't have access to (A) a decent education, and (B) job opportunities. Liberals aren't trying to give out handouts; they're trying to make sure everyone in America has (A) and (B).

If you want to talk about handouts, look at conservatives. The oil industry is the most profitable sector in the country right now, yet Bush gave them millions in "incentives". Meanwhile, gas prices keep climbing, and they keep raking it in.

And if you want to talk about lazy, look at conservatives. I can tell you from experience that people who work for $6 an hour work their asses off. Does a millionaire like George Bush? That guy never held a full-time job before taking the oath of office, and now he spends all his time on bike rides and 6-week vacations. I guarantee you if any of the blue collar folks I grew up with had 1/100th of the advantages Bush has had - inherited wealth, legacy admissions to top schools, family friends who bailed him out of failed business after failed business - they'd work their asses off to give their families a better life.

And that's what liberalism is about - giving everyone the access and the opportunity to provide for their families. Where people get into top schools because they're smart and hardworking, not because they're a C- student with connections and money. Where the government pushes companies to create jobs in this country, not ship them overseas. And where basic neccesities like health care and a comfortable retirement aren't the exclusive province of the rich, which is the direction we're heading in fast.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:58:01 PM EST

Re: Clinton put it pretty well (none / 0)

I like your point. The only problem is all I seem to hear about is 'handouts'. From my perspective, it seems the Democratic party always emphasizes things like universal healthcare, stronger Social Security, and the creation of more government services instead of helping people get opportunities and being able to choose the kind of service they want with their income.
My concern is similar to yours in that I am mostly concerned with those willing to work hard and save that can't ever seem to get ahead. However, I see the government impeading people's opportunities to get ahead (even though it may be indirectly). I also agree that Bush and many other Republicans' handouts to big business is shameful and widens the gap between rich and poor but I also feel that many well-intentioned regulations have created barriers to entry that have protected the profit and wages of a select few while blocking opportunities for others.

by Freedom Fighter on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 06:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton put it pretty well (none / 0)

If all you hear about are handouts, you need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. And as for creating more government services, would you rather see the Democrats spend 100 million to build affordable housing, or the Republicans spend 100 billion to build lasers in space that won't work?

The GOP talks a lot about being the party of small government, but only one President has actually shrunk federal spending - not adjusted for inflation, not increased by less, but straight up shrunk - and he was a Democrat.

It's not about how much money the gov't spends; it's about how wisely the gov't spends it. Is paying an extra $2,000 a year in taxes worthwhile if you no longer have to pay $15,000 a year in health insurance costs?

We know it's possible to build efficient, effective government programs that help vast numbers of people, because the Democrats did exactly that during the New Deal. Social Security pays over 99% of its revenues out again in benefits. Less than 1% go to administrative costs. Contrast that to the privatized program they have in the UK - exactly what Bush is pushing for - where over 20% goes to administrative costs. Bush doesn't give a shit if you can retire comfortably; he wants to hand that 20% to his buddies on Wall St. When the Democrats want to preserve Social Security, it's not so the gov't can rake in lots of dough; it's because they don't want to see the country go back to the pre-FDR "good old days" when most of the elderly lived in abject poverty.

"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."

by schroeder on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 02:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton put it pretty well (none / 0)

I just wanted to add, I know a lot about 'hard luck'. My dad had two master's degrees and lost his job when I was 13. He never found anything good after that and finally found a steady job that only paid $10 an hour(which wasn't horrible, but with 2 master's degrees and a large family to take care of it was not what he was hoping for) when I was about 18 and even then his paycheck often bounced because the company was unstable. I am not telling this to say anyone should feel sorry for me, just to show that I don't believe that people are poor just because they are lazy and that I've experienced that personally, but I think that a government that is in charge of over 300 million people that tries to rectify the individual problems that occur will do it in about the worst way possible. And as I mentioned in my last post I think that a lot of time these problems occur because of bureacratic tape and rules that stops opportunities from being available.

by Freedom Fighter on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 07:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.