It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are you a liberal?

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: theMediator
I`m a liberal socialist because...



Stop right there. Socialism is a great, well meaning idea. I wish it worked. But, in reality, it does not work. You can't distribute the wealth evenly and hope to "progress". The competitive nature of capitalism is what drives progression. If you distribute the wealth evenly, you effectively make competition unnecessary. No one will ever try to be better because no matter what they become, they'll be making the same amount of money. Might as well do as little as possible. As an economic system, socialism is a death sentence. There's no reward for excellence.

(...)

The competitive nature of capitalism is what drives economic progression. Competition is what is going to make you go the extra mile to make something of yourself and to do great things for your country. In capitalism, you are allowed to determine your own wealth. So, there is a reward for excellence.

Socialism just does not work as an economic system. Sorry.


As a whole I do of course agree with you, we have seen socialist nations (Eastern Germany, Soviet Union etc.) tumble and certainly none of them was a prime example for a "working system".

But whether a system "works" is a matter of perspective!

Let's take the example of a typical socialist/communist nation where overall production is low, luxury goods etc. are un-obtainable.

Every person, HOWEVER, has some unspectacular place to live and every person at some point can also have a car, although a ridiculous ugly one that gets you from A to B, nothing more.

You also have access to your basic essentials like foods etc. so no-one has to starve.

Obviously, you will never have the opportunity to get yourself (or work towards) a Ferrari...or to buy a mansion in Beverly Hills or in Ibiza. Instead you live in some sh!thole apartment complex as do 1000s of your socialist brothers & sister.

I COULD argue...that no-one needs a Ferrari and no-one needs a mansion in Beverly Hills!

In theory, a society where everyone is guaranteed a (free) roof over their head, education and basic foods etc.. COULD be seen as far "better" than a society with a big gap in it where on one end people struggle while on the other end of the spectrum people people get paid 7M *a day* like some Hedge Funds CEOs today.

What is "better"...which system "works"?

When I see that we have a massive gap with poor on one side and ridiculous rich at the other, I simply state that a system where EVERYONE has the basics is "better", even if they cannot at some point buy a Ferrari or a mansion.

But obviously, the "system" here is not the problem...it's HUMAN NATURE and greed. And if human nature/greed/aspirations etc. define "what is better"...then the system where you could potentially buy a Ferrarri one day is considered "better". (The system where human nature/greed can be satisfied, at least in theory).
edit on 5/24/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

If you want your way of life to be determined by the government, and you don't want the freedom to create your own way of life, more power to you. If you don't want the opportunity to see how great you can be, but only see yourself as great as you're told you have to be, do you. Its all a matter of perspective, as you say. Personally, I prefer opportunity over security.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit




I'll tell you what you see - you see much more support for the bill from Republicans than you do for Democrats and much more opposition from democrats, yet you claim it a victory for yourselves. Why is that?

Revisionist history.

Oh, but you are going to tell me that MORE democrats voted in favor than did Republicans. You are going to use that old liberal trick, the same way you use it for claiming that rich people pay no taxes.


I didn't "claim any victory" for anyone nor did I claim "democrats" did anything. My exact quote was:

"Please. Elucidate your protest? Which of those things didn't conservatives fight against?"

Notice that I said conservatives, I didn't say Republicans. Keep reading the wikipedia source. See the breakdown by region? Here's what I said back on page 4 in response to Semicollegiate:



How many of the nays were from Southern Democrats? Hardly a progressive bunch even into the Reagan years ("Reagan Democrats").

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb


It's called the MLR, or Medical Loss Ratio. It is part of the ACA that requires that only 80% of insurance premiums be spent on medical care. The other 20% is profit. If you're using a government ran insurance exchange, those profits are the government's.


Wrong, wrong, wrong....just so wrong on so many levels.

A government ran insurance EXCHANGE does not mean the policies you buy in those exchanges are government insurance.

There are no government run insurance plans besides Medicare.

So no, the government is not getting 20% of insurance premiums as profit from the exchanges....just wrong wrong wrong information.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Actually the government made the cartelist companies that dumped all that pollution, and the government had no problem with the pollution until nongovernmental citizen action was applied. Also, without government intrusion, those large companies would not have existed, and several smaller and more dispersed companies that would have been more sensitive to their communities and would have provided a more versatile product would have been.


We're unlikely to find common ground. These are the type of purely speculative assertions that are popular among modern American libertarians, largely based on unprecedented, untested, heterodox Austrian economic theory à la von Mises and Rothbard. Praxeology does not provide a useful model of real world human behavior.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Socialism just does not work as an economic system. Sorry.


In your mind it doesn't.

I, for one, don't feel that monetary wealth is the only goal in life. If you feel it is, I'm quite sad for you.

In life, I wanna do music...my goal isn't getting a guitar.
In life, I want a family...my goal isn't a house.
In life, I want freedom...my goal isn't money.
Money is just a tool.

If you feel that people won't do anything other than work towards that tool, you clearly aren't thinking like I am.
We should stop limiting the freedom of everyone that doesn't have money instead of thinking that money is the only way to achieve freedom.

Capitalism, just isn't a sustainable system and we will sadly live to see this fact in our lifetime. Sorry.
edit on 24-5-2014 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
In capitalism, all of those companies would have gone out of business.


Free or not, eventually in capitalism, pirates and corporations rule the world.
It's 100% inevitable.

Especially with a debt system like we have now, you need to stop lying to yourself and see the evident truth :
Capitalism just isn't sustainable without firm rules set in place by a government which would be 100% people represented.

I'm curious, since conservatives are afraid of "big government", would you feel just has threatened if the government would be directly represented and voted by everyone?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xtrozero

"pull their own weight" "achievements" "earned" "hindrance to achievement" "takes over with subsistence" "not all jobs should be a single income living wage" "underachieving slugs"

Seven of your eleven points could basically be summed up as a view that people at the bottom of the economic scale are underachieving "takers" living off other people's taxes. #1, #2, #3 (first one), #4, #6, #9, #10

I'd say that roughly 20% American workers right now are either unemployed or "underemployed" and that's probably a conservative estimate. There are a finite number of jobs to fill at any given moment. Increasingly, newly created jobs are low wage and less than full-time — there are less "good jobs" year after year. Recent job growth in particular has been in low wage and often part-time professions. Simply put, year inflation-adjusted median income peaked in 1999 because the middle class has been shrinking (and the bottom growing).



You are assuming I'm talking about any given moment in time, and I'm not. I'm talking about a life time. When I was in my 20s I worked hard jobs that took low skill and no education to master and I made crap. As I progressed though my 30s 40s 50s my skills, experience and education all got better and so did my jobs/pay and that is a normal progression. If though your life choices you do not do this then so be it...





Income inequality is at an all time high.

What's interesting is to match that graph up with CEO pay:



Why is CEO pay important to you. Most of it comes from stock due to the company doing well. I work for Boeing and if the CEOs 15 mil was spread across the employees we would all get a whopping 125 dollars a year raise...YES! If the company made really bad decisions the CEO doesn't get his 15 mil then I'm out of a job. I think I like the scenario better of the company doing good, CEO gets 15 mil and I get my pay that is 88 times less his.





It's easy to say "oh, if you don't like your life, change it!" but what this type of statement doesn't take into account is that's there's only so much room on each rung of the ladder so generally speaking, as a person moves up the ladder, he's displacing a person who moves down the ladder.


Well a good chunk of America hardly lifts a foot to place on the ladder in the first place. I agree there are examples of people who try really hard and just do not get anywhere, the world is hard, sorry, but for everyone of those there are 1000s who just do not care much.

To get to the next rung it takes skill, experience and education...If a person spends 20 years doing something that can be trained in a very short period of time then they will never advance up that ladder of success.

In the end what will reducing CEO pay and providing subsistence to everyone do for you? Do you think you will magically make 100k per year flipping burgers? You will make 10 bucks an hour at best and get your Government Cheese.... So no matter what, it all comes back to YOU in any scenario that may happen.

I do not care who is president...it doesn't affect me, and I do not care if a CEO gets 50 mil....it doesn't affect me. I'll tell you this, all the screw-ups from Obama in the last 6 years that has held back the economy has been great for me because I have put myself in a position where I do well no matter what others may do or not do.

In the end if you think that CEO pay is holding you back, think again.....



edit on 24-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator


In life, I wanna do music...my goal isn't getting a guitar.
In life, I want a family...my goal isn't a house.
In life, I want freedom...my goal isn't money.
Money is just a tool.



It is a hard sell to suggest that everyone should work for the collective, so that everyone reaps the benefits together. We see this in a situation where most of your income goes to taxes that come back to you in benefits. In a perfect world the average person would need very little money and live a nice life, but we have those nasty humans in charge of it all that and they tend to screw it up for everyone.

We humans corrupt any system.. In this case I would fake an injury, and still get all the benefits while never working another day in my life, steal a few guitars and sit on my porch making music and making kids (more bennies) with all the freedom and time in the world as you work away to pay for it all. Add a few million of my best friends doing the same and you will really need to work harder to over come our faults....seems like we would become the better off and you would become the provider as you do all the labor for not only yourself but many others too...Doesn't sound like you would achieve your desires, but you sure would help me achieve mine...THANKS!

I think I like your system... you are starting to turn me from taking advantages in a capitalistic system to take advantages in the socialized system, much easier BTW... But then if I direct my evil human nature to work harder than everyone else to become the better off in a capitalistic system then my success is all up to me.



edit on 24-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I don't know why people are liberal. Libertarians are a much better version of liberalism.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Socialism is a damn failure. The idea of someone giving up their property for the collective is stupid. U would have to kill them to take their property that's why socialism always turns into authoritarianism, that's the tragedy that liberals refuse to address.

Capitalism, now that is the best system we have, u have competing forces who always takes a bite out of your wealth. It's too difficult to be usurped by one person because there are too many variables and competition.

Unless u merge crony capitalism with socialism to get statism. Now that's the system we have which the progressives have brought upon us.
edit on 24-5-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
In capitalism, all of those companies would have gone out of business.


Free or not, eventually in capitalism, pirates and corporations rule the world.
It's 100% inevitable.


That is a belief on your part. You are a dogmatic true believer of socialism.




Especially with a debt system like we have now, you need to stop lying to yourself and see the evident truth :
Capitalism just isn't sustainable without firm rules set in place by a government which would be 100% people represented.


The debt system we have now is not capitalism. The Fed is socialism. A central bank is one of the platforms of the communist party, as is the income tax, and government mandated education. The debt system we have now is socialism.

The government can not make the rules. No group of people are smart enough to make an economy as good as a free market would. The price system in a free market tells everyone what things and activities are worth. The human mind needs good information to make good choices, only the free market can supply the information.




I'm curious, since conservatives are afraid of "big government", would you feel just has threatened if the government would be directly represented and voted by everyone?


Yes, pure democracies are capricious, and government has ultimate power. Law is a good thing, government is not needed to live by the law. Only the free market can give a real view of the world to everyone.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You and I know that the banks will be looking for another bailout eventually. Should we do it again? Are the american people ready for a depression? I know we read about The Depression, but I have met people in nursing homes who still seem traumatized by it, at an advanced age.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

The banks have a lot of leverage over us. Like some science fiction movie where the aliens take over everyone's mind or body.

There was a Mission Impossible movie where the hero had to die, for a second or two, in order to deactivate an electronic device in his head. Our liberal system seems to be in that hero's situation.

I don't know if the banks will need another bailout. Right now the banks have control of the all of the money, and no one owns anything. The banks can issue enough "money" to keep the status quo, which is a steady diminution of the quality of life, until we die or accept whatever they want.

But I didn't know the Berlin Wall would come down, even though I saw a lot of evidence that way.




edit on 24-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix


There are no government run insurance plans besides Medicare.


Except for Medicaid, the VA and (maybe) Tricare.

And there are some local County level programs in some States.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

THIS is why I'm not a conservative. Or, at least a certain kind of conservative:

I'd rather the economy collapse.


There does seem to be a real effort underway to cut off some noses. Many faces spited - left and right

I was about to give you a genuine, heartfelt reply - about why I lean more left than right

But then I read this and it saved me some time on a reply I'm not sure you'd appreciate anyhow



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

We in Scotland are classed as liberal because we believe in a free socialist society, we are just as free as the rest of the world but we have social programs funded by taxes that provide for the needy in our society. We have free healthcare, free prescriptions, free bus passes for the over 65's and we believe that if people fall on hard times for any reason that they will have whatever resource they need to get better and get working again.
Our government employs 51% of the country and we have social services for every need whether drug rehabilitation, free schools and free university education.
We are leaders around the world for oil and gas extraction technologies, in IT & electronics and when we get our independence could have the highest GDP per populace of any country in the world.

So we are proud liberals and we believe in helping others without profit.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: smithjustinb

We in Scotland are classed as liberal because we believe in a free socialist society, we are just as free as the rest of the world but we have social programs funded by taxes that provide for the needy in our society. We have free healthcare, free prescriptions, free bus passes for the over 65's and we believe that if people fall on hard times for any reason that they will have whatever resource they need to get better and get working again.
Our government employs 51% of the country and we have social services for every need whether drug rehabilitation, free schools and free university education.
We are leaders around the world for oil and gas extraction technologies, in IT & electronics and when we get our independence could have the highest GDP per populace of any country in the world.

So we are proud liberals and we believe in helping others without profit.


So who pays the taxes to run the government if 51% of the work force is being paid for by taxes? Be carful...don't become a Greece scenario.

BTW mister population 5 mil, your style of socialism is not linear with larger populations. Your country might be a good size city here. Right now you have about 80% of your population in the employment age group, but your +65 group will double in the next 20 years and eat up a chunk of that 80% you enjoy today, so what seems to work good today may not be so good in 20 years...

In the US with about 310 million our age workgroup is only 59% and if 51% of that worked in Government that would mean 90 mil (30%) would be footing the bill for the other 70%.

So right now Scotland has 40% of its workforce in the private sector generating taxes even with 50% of the total workforce working for the Government. If the US adopted the same we would have 30% of our workforce generating taxes. You guys don't have very many kids either, so your non-workforce due to age (old and young) is small. When that doubles in 20 years and your 40% population tax generators become 30% or less let us know how well that works for you.....


edit on 24-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: smithjustinb

THIS is why I'm not a conservative. Or, at least a certain kind of conservative:

I'd rather the economy collapse.


There does seem to be a real effort underway to cut off some noses. Many faces spited - left and right

I was about to give you a genuine, heartfelt reply - about why I lean more left than right

But then I read this and it saved me some time on a reply I'm not sure you'd appreciate anyhow


I call it the game reset scenario. Its an attitude of today's younger gamer population. Its not fair to them to see a 50 year old living well, when they make crap wages. What they do not think about is that 50 year old was making crap wages too in their 20s.

It is easier to just reset the game then to work to catch up. This is why I'm rather against redistribution of wealth even though we need to fix our tax system, AND the very rich most likely should pay more taxes. It is all too easy to attack another group that you are not a part of, or reset the game because you have not been working long/hard/smart enough to have anything yet to lose.

I wonder what they would say if they had just as much to lose. Let them work for 40 years and succeed in that time and then say "hey lets reset the game"....



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

It's no different from the likes of Germany, France, Holland etc.. in fact most of Europe is inherently socialist and we could have the highest GDP per populace if we started an oil fund similar to the Norwegians who have used this for when times are hard and works successfully.

So if we enforce our laws and make sure that corporations actually pay their tax burden then we would have no problem. Scotland is a very highly technical country so our economy is driven by high quality goods and services which is why we have moved away from a strong manufacturing base to a more technology and engineering base which has allowed us to be world leaders in the likes of ROV, oil extraction and Scottish software runs most of wells around the world.
So when you have a high level working force that earn very good wages, we don't mind paying high taxes because we believe in building a better future for everyone. We want a better future for humanity and it's why we are now leading the way in renewable energy and will be energy independent by 2020 without nuclear.

So stick to your old 19th & 20th centuries ideals of as long as me & my family are ok then screw the rest of you because we are never going to come together as a species until we get rid of this selfish mindset.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join