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.

 

Conservatives are the true "liberals"

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Are liberals truly liberal?
Liberal as a politcal defintion has usually been associated with those who lean heavly to the democrtic left, those who portray themselves as tolerant, freedom loving, the compassionate party, But is this true?
In this post I will attempt t show that the main planks of the liberal left are anything but liberal, rather that they are opressive, anti freedom, and anything but liberal.

1) Todays liberals are very heavily in support of taxpayer funded economic assitance prgrams such as welfare. However does support for welfare equal liberal?

Under todays welfare system a portion of your taxes is taken to support current socal assistance programs such as welfare. It is not important what that percentage is. What is important is that you have no choice as to whether or not you participate.

To me forcing someone to participate in a program whether they wish to or not is far from liberal. It is IMO facist. By forcing you to help the less advantaged not only are your rights to determine what you do with your money being denied, your abiliity to choose to help out the poor is also being removed. A more "liberal" solution IMHO would be to end all social assistance programs, and the tax burden of such, and give everyone a 1 for 1 tax deducton on all chartibale donations which are sent to approved charities, approval being given on the basis of how large a percentage of donations actually go to those in need and how fairly the recipients are chosen. In this way no ones rights are infringed and the needy recieve help. However even broach the subject of a rational alternative to welfare and social assstance, and "liberals" call you a cold hearted corporate facist.

2) Todays liberals are heavily in favor of the Social secrity system and heavily opposed to private accounts.

Under todays Social security system, part of your wages are "withheld" by the government to be invested for your benefit with the promise of an income when you retire.

First off the term withheld is misleadng this is not money which is withheld it is money which is taken out of your pocket. Second and not even adressing the problems of government waste and whether or not you could or will get a better return from a private acount as they are not important to this discusson. The question we must ask is why are "liberals" so against peple having the option of choosing not to participate in this program? The most common objecton I hear is "well the only people this will help is stockbrokers who will make commissions by losing people money." This is IMO indicitive of the "liberal" mindset. The Idea that people are too stupid, ignoarant or lazy, to take responsibility for thier own finances and that as such the government must do it for them. If ctizens were allowed to "opt out" of social security it would of course mean that the brokerage industry would as a whole recieve a boost, and some people could loose thier money. But as it is thier money, shouldnt they have the right to make that decision for themselves? Arent Americans smart enough, and responsible enough to make thier own decisions? Do we as a people really need the federal gvernment to tell us what to do with our own money?
Is it liberal to believe that people are too stupid, or ignorant, or immature, or shortsighted, to have control of thier own money?

3) AA
Liberals today are very big on tolerance, government mandated equality, and Affirmitive Action but is this truly lberal?

Again we are faced with a problem of image VS reality. The image of Affirmitive action is that it helps to level the playing field. However fail to see how telling minorities that they are unable to compete with white males helps anyone. Yes there was a time when rasicsm was so integral to the fabric of Amercan society that it truly was necessary to have programs like this in place. But is it still necessary? More to the point, does ending one form of supressive racism and replacing it with a form of beneficial racism really help to change things? Does it matter if the fact that a job applicant is black hurts or helps him get a job? If the fact that he is black or mexican or female or any other minority is taken into consideraton is that not what we should be fighting against? Liberals will tell you that we must contnue these practices to "give minorties a chance" But shouldn't the real aim to be to create a society where race, religon, and sex , aren't factors in the frst place? And, by ensuring through AA, that those factors will, in fact are required by law, to be weghed, isn't that counterproductive to creating a colorblind society? Doesnt giving people a job, or a place in university, based on thier ethncity actually support the mindset that ethmnicity is important?

So far, we have managed to show, by the programs most lberals support, that the lberal mindset, and liberal endorsed poicies, far from being the tolerant freedom loving stance it s portrayed as, in actulity is predicated on the idea that
People are too stupid, uncaring, lazy, ignorant, selfish, uninformed, and unenlightened to either be trusted wth taking care of thier fellow man without the government forcing them to or to be entusted wth the abllity to handle thier own money for retirement, as well as being to bigoted, based etc. to look beyond a persons ethnicity and be fair in thier hiring or admissons practices to be trusted to fairly and equally determine who is best qualified to recieve said job or enrollment.

Contrast this with the "conservative" stance on said ssues and it becomes readily apparent who has more fath in America and Americans, conservatives trust you to be intelligent enough to manage your own money, generous enough to give of your own free will, fair enough to see people as people rather than as minorities, and smart enough to mke your own decisions, While liberals seem to believe you are too selfsh to give, to dumb to be trusted with your own money, and too bigoted to see people as anything other than a skin tone which is why the government must make your decisions for you.

Hmmmm Not a very tolerant or "liberal" mindset now is it?

[edit on 7-3-2005 by mwm1331]




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Wow six hours and not one reply?
I guess the Liberals know tht I am right.
afterall one who is silent is assumed to assent.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
afterall one who is silent is assumed to assent.


I know what they call people that bump their own threads, but what do they call people that talk to themselves?


I read it earlier. Sorry I wasn't properly "sucked in" by it.

It just seems like you mean "compassionate" by "liberals" or something. Like you're saying Conservsatives are the truly compassionate. I don't know, maybe not. It's just kind of a hodge podge of awkward analogy. I can't accurately get at your overarching concept linking this or that to "liberalism", so it's hard to discuss accordingly.

I can take it in pieces though, but don't have time to do it justice. Shall I be dismissive? Does a cursory "harrumph" adequately rise to the "challenge?"

K.

1). Welfare.

Bush increased welfare. Loves it. The "conservatives" on TV can't get enough. Open borders. Come on in. The Republicans will take care of you.

That enough of an answer?

2) Yeah, social secuity debate. K.


Is it liberal to believe that people are too stupid, or ignorant, or immature, or shortsighted, to have control of thier own money?


Is it conservative to put words in people's mouths? That enough of an answer?

3) AA debate. (This really is quite a selective hodge podge isn't it?)

Yeah, I don't think you speak for the "conservative perspective" like you think you do. Unless all those corporations and politicians that bend over backwards to support affirmative action are liberal.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Unfortunately Rant, talking to myself is the only way I can be part of an intelligent conversation around here.


My point was that Lberalism, is usually used to denote those who are pro-freedom, those who wish to remove as many of the barriers as possible and who want to help others have the most freedom rght?

But it seems to me, that todays liberals are anything but.

At every turn it seems as if "liberals" are pushing for a state which is in total control of everones choices, whether t be in retirement, healthcare, or whatever.
It also seems that those called "conservatives are the only ones fighting for persoanal freedoms anymore.
In the healthcare arena most liberals want socialised healthcare, am I the only one scared by the idea of the government providing for my health?

What I am saying is that the only ones who seem concerned with equality, persoanal choice, and freedom are conservatives.

Yes bush has done many things I disagree with some of which do seem decidedly liberal, however the last two alternatves would have IMO been even worse.

Tell me Rant why do you object to persaonal retirement accounts?
Why do you feel Government run/funded healtcare is a good thing?
Why do you feel "beneficial discrimination" is preferable to equal protection under law?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Tell me Rant why do you object to persaonal retirement accounts?
Why do you feel Government run/funded healtcare is a good thing?
Why do you feel "beneficial discrimination" is preferable to equal protection under law?


I can probably answer the first two as integral elements to my own experience. And the last just from observation.

I was a pretty conservative Democrat in the 90's. Very pro-Clinton. Pro-welfare reform. Pro-free trade. Pro-business. As much into the stock market as I was my own business. Clinton was doing everything right for the economy as far as I was concerned without sacrificing education, equal access, our infrastructure, our environment, the budget. A very nice balance. In matters of Hillarycare, I barely paid attention to the debate. Pffft. Insurance was something that came from your employer, or some free clinic if you were poor (or so I thought). Bottom line though, I thought I was really set. Like I had something. And though I never noticed any difference in one pay check to the next based on who was President in matters of taxes (it's really a trivial difference unless you're making more than $200,000), I thought for sure Social Security was something nobody in my position would ever need. Remember? I was set. And when some politicians (both Dem and Rep) in the 90's started talking about moving SS into the stock market, I was like sure...why not. I make a couple grand a day just playing on the Internet at lunch. Do it.

Well, just like 9/11 pushed alot of people right, it pushed me left. Hard. If a boy scout troop with boxcutters can do what they did to my 401K, my personal holdings, my company, my industry, my clients, my entire future... you know what? I'm not set. And neither are you. No matter how good I may be, or hard I work... I'll never be "set" and nobody else is either (unless already born set). Especially when it comes to healthcare. After losing everything and a couple years of buying private insurance at nearly $500 a month (I never used), then once I couldn't afford it anymore getting catastrophically sick... it just gels in you. Kerry's compromise to offer up to an additional $2K per family as a tax rebate strictly for private health insurance, didn't sound like a bad idea (or "Hillarycare") at all.

Like they say.. 9/11 changed everything, right? Sure did for me. I don't think people know how unsolvent or unset (to use my term) 98% of us really are... Especially families. Thank God for abortion, or I'd have one of those too.


As for AA... all I can say is it works. I've seen it. I've seen no hard proof it hurts anyone, but I've seen hard proof of the positive results in all my dealings. Women heads of companies. Minorities getting equal chances. The changes just in my life have been astounding. I'm not that old, but I've seen "Whites Only" signs in restaurants growing up. We aren't "there yet" as far as not needing to be proactive in these matters. But really it's not an issue I feel I need to defend much. It's not in any jeopardy whatsoever, as long as public relations minded corporations like money.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Rant I too remeber the 98-01 bubble. I was working as a retail broker at the time. The problem is that you, like most of america, were (and I truly mean this without attempting to offend) ignorant of the true nature of the markets. Fine you learned a valuable lesson, even in the stock market, there is no such thng as money for nothing. However Thats is also not to say that the market is as risky as going down to the local track and putting your retirement on the #4 horse either.
My point is a lot of americans lost a lot of money in when the buble burst, and most deserved it, probably including you. I dont say this to be offensive or cruel, but there is a reason why ttradng is one of the highest stress professions in the world. There is a reason that the market created mutual funds, hedge funds, UIT's etc.
Under the personal retirement accounts plan, If I am not mistaken you would have the abillity to invest in such securities but not indivdual stocks.
Why is this important? Simple indivdual stocks are at the greatest risk of both iraational infalton as well as crashes. Mutual funds etc. while not risk free are far less risky.
Now the best rate of return I can find for social security is 1.23% per annum.
Keep in mind that that rate is substansially lower than even government treasury bonds.
Also keep in mind that according to a study done by the london school of business, over the last 50 years every major stockmarket has outperformed bond rates by a substansial margin.
Now assuming you plan starts with 1000 USD and you contribute only an additional 600 USD per year (50 per month over 20 years the difference is
Current ss system 14,954
basic index fund stock index at only 3% per year 18,412
Thats a differnce of 23% at only three percent. Now when you compare it to the historical average of ndex funds whch do nothing more than track the broader market based on thier average rate of return over the last 35 years the differences are even starker
S&P 500 (dflcx) 35 yr average -11.12%
US large value (dflvx) 35 yr average - 14.14%
US microcap (dfscx) 35 yr average -12>81%
Now lets see what the diffence is
current ss system - 14,954
S&P - 51,637
Over three times as much.

The point I am making is that for the average indivdual investor like yourself rant, as long as you dont get greedy and attempt to "beat the markets" even if you simply stick your persoanl retirement account into the DJIA, NASDAQ SPYders, or the S&P 500, and most importantly as long as you take a long term outlook (remember these are average figure, which means some years better, some years worse) And stick to a long term plan, you will make more. You will have more to retire on, and you will be better off.

Now on to healthcare. Rant the simple fact is, that anything the government touches becmes more expensive, wanna know the real reason why healthcare has shot up in price over the last 30 or so years?
1) Malpractice insurance, ask your local GP how much he pays in insurance alone, it'll surprise you.
2) Back in the seventies, (you may remeber this rant) Doctors used to, if you needed X-rays, bloodwork etc, send you to a clinic which they owned all or part of. It was a way of increasing thier offices revenue's and due to the competition between doctors the prices were reasonable. Enter the federal governemnt who passed a law outlawing the practce, all of a sudden doctors lose about 40-60% of thier revenues. (yes it really was that big of a percentage) at the same time, the government gets involved in insurance, so the doctors are making less overall and now because of the bargaining power of the insurance industry, they are also making less per procedure. The result is "insurance consultants" who doctors employ for the sole purpose of showing them how to bill the insurance company for more (also the reason you or your insurance gets charged for gauze, syringes etc, which no doctors did in the 70's) So what does the insurance company do? Raise premiums, again and again and again.
Now considering that the federal government started this chain of expense, how do you expect them to fix it.

AA-
Rant agree that AA was effective. n the sxties it was necessary, but as the former hiipy turned stockbroker said to hs old sit in buddies,"this aint the sixties no more man"

The fact is that equality, based on percentages has been reached. AA was never meant to be a permanent solution, it was meant to kick start things, and it did. FOr christ sakjes we have a female, black , secretary of state and a hispanic AG. Now you can say that it was done for political reasons, and I am sure there was a political dimension to it, but the fact is America itself has changed. Being black is no longer a stigma, nor is being mexican (unless illegal for which there is good reason) cuban, haitan etc. How many black mayors, senators etc are there?

AA was necessary for a time that time has passed. There is no reason any minority can not through hard work succeed, not anymore. The KKK is a joke, the Neo Nazi's are irelevant, the Black Panthers are no longer necessary, and though racism still exists on all sides, it is no longer a major factor in American life. In fact keeping AA around now can nly make things worse, there is no longer a division between "races" in the minds of the average americans, why put one there by government mandate?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Wow six hours and not one reply?
I guess the Liberals know tht I am right.
afterall one who is silent is assumed to assent.


I think it's because you come across as a very angry, very insecure man. If people aren't answering you, maybe it's because they don't want to feed into it. I say this not to be mean, and not to be sarcastic, but have you ever thought about counseling?

I've read your posts for a long time, and you don't strike me as a very happy person. Seriously, as one complete stranger to another complete stranger, you would behoove yourself to talk to somebody. I can honestly say that I don't hate anyone. I don't hate you. I don't hate Christians or conservatives or republicans or King George II. I like giving them a hard time, and I'll more than happily throw our sardonic comments.

But, real hate? No.

I would rather spend my time loving my family and friends, then spend it hating anyone. Because of that, I enjoy my life and I cherish my time.

Maybe you don't realize how your posts are perceived by others, but they do come across as very angry. And not a healthy, righteous anger either. But, the kind of anger that comes from insecurity and fear. And, I've never met anyone, ever, who has ever been content with their life when they have those feelings.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll bash me, blah, blah, blah, and that's fine. But, I did my good deed for the day. So, cheers. Good on you.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
mwm1331 this thread debunks your theroy
You didnt mention abortion how conventent.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Brimstone -
Uh OK thanks I guess, but I have no need of counseling, as for how my posts come across thats your perception, and you are welcome to it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
mwm1331 this thread debunks your theroy
You didnt mention abortion how conventent.


Yes because we all know the slaughter of 32 million Americans over the last 20 years is something to be proud of.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Yes because we all know the slaughter of 32 million Americans over the last 20 years is something to be proud of.


What on earth are you rambling on about?
mwm1331 some of your threads have merit but so far logic will kill this thread. On the one hand you claim liberals dont support "freedoms" and in the next breath you dont support a womens choice. See the problem?
Consertives are against gay marriage shouldnt gays have the oppuntity to get married?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
32 miilion, the number of "choices" made by women in the last 20 years.
Far far more than were killed in Hitler's holocaust.
No I dont support a womans right to choose murder anymore than I support a bankrobbers right to rob banks.
Murder is not a freedom.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Mwm: Conservatives are liberals, in practice at least.

They will never try to get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Dept of Education, The Federal Reserve, the income tax (without replacing it with something comperable, which really is the same thing), reducing the size of government, cutting spending, etc.

What has this "bold action" taking president support? Some lame-duck Social Security reform.

The funny thing is, is that he and the GOP have conservatives TALKING about it like they like paying tens of thousands of dollars to something they might never get, and could certainly invest better themselves.

Ignorance and avoiding issues are the policies the GOP banks on.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I see the SS reform package as a first step, not a last one.
And it is telling that it is a conservative that wants to give people the rght to invest thier own money while the lberals want to insure the government keeps taking it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
That step is paltry and of little merit. In addition, George "Bi-Partisan" Bush will only serve to further weaken the already baby step.

If they had any gumption whatsoever, they would propose something of value.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
32 miilion, the number of "choices" made by women in the last 20 years.
Far far more than were killed in Hitler's holocaust.
No I dont support a womans right to choose murder anymore than I support a bankrobbers right to rob banks.
Murder is not a freedom.


I dont argree with your views on abortion funny how with consertives personal freedoms go out window pretty quickly its a womens right to choose not the state. So much for "personal freedoms."



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Xpert11 how do you consider abortion a personal freedom when the one making the choice isn't the one affected by it?
I support peoples right to die becuase they are choosing to end thier own life, A woman who has an abortion isn't, she is choosing to end the life of another. You have the right to do anything you want to yourself, you do not have the right to do anything you want to others.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Women should then have the right to choose if any child of theirs lives or not, whether the father wants them to live or not whether the grandparents want them to live or not. Please, All you liberal women go out and show us you have the right to do with your body as you wish. If raising a child causes you stress providing for that child causes your muscles to ache, then butcher them and sell the body parts off like you do the unborn. Choice is yours. Consequences are yours also. Why will no one talk about how abortion has long term damaging effects on women. We hear about how birth control can have an effect, main line journalists have whole segments to womens health but not this why?

Truth hurts does it not?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Truth hurts does it not?

Nope not when you post like that a pile of dog crap makes more sense then
the statment you made.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm hurt. How could you sy such a mean thing. Do not you care about others? Are you not worried about my feelings snif snif.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join