Liberals, why do you want a bigger government

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 12 Apr 2006 12:57

I consider myself liberal, but not wanting bigger government. What I want is a social situation in which the community at large is educated enough to understand their influences on the world and how to gain the most benefit for the greater whole.

I think government, especially conservative government, seeks to squash the greater good because it runs on money rather than social values. The conservative government in the US right now has put more "government" into our lives than any other administration in 20 years. Consider the Patriot Act and all the work the current administration has done to cover up amount to which they spy into the lives of Americans. Concurrently, they reject the Morality which Bush ran on in '04. They also instill plans such as "No Child Left Behind" which leaves behind thousands of children each year and puts a clamp on the freedom to educate children according to their individual needs.

mtoolan · Post by **mtoolan** » 12 Apr 2006 14:41

BainbridgeShred wrote:Actually, conservatives don't define freedom that way, so I think you're a bit out of your leauge on this one. Not that I would know anyways, because I wouldn't exactly call myself a conservative, per say.

I believe it's spelled "per se".

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Apr 2006 14:48

I consider myself liberal, but not wanting bigger government.

So you're a liberal, but you want a smaller government? Or the level it's at right now is fine? What do you mean?

I think government, especially conservative government, seeks to squash the greater good because it runs on money rather than social values

How would a government run on social values? I'm not sure what that means? Happiness and love don't pay police officers. Do you mean, run as like, run on a platform? Tha tstill doesn't make sense.

The conservative government in the US right now has put more "government" into our lives than any other administration in 20 years

The government in place right now is not a conservative government, but a neo-conservative government, and the differences are endless. Neo-conservativism is a code word for facism, and no one is talking about neo-conservatism in this thread. Don't try and tie Bush to the conservative movement.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 12 Apr 2006 15:49

Splint said:
----------------------------------------------------------

(.......)What I want is a social situation in which the community at large is educated enough to understand their influences on the world and how to gain the most benefit for the greater whole.
(..........)
---------------------------------------------------------

How do we do that? Public education is in shambles. States are spending like, $15,000 per student ,per year (maybe more).
We should be able to pay every teacher $100,000 a year, at least, AND pay for every book, and supplies, and maintain the buildings.

Giant new bureaucracies, like prescription drug programs, and "In Every Child's Behind" , are not conservative, no matter what un-intelligible speeches Bush gives about them.

-n

jbalexdarkelf · Post by **jbalexdarkelf** » 12 Apr 2006 18:23

Some how Bush is dragged into every political argument.( SOme would argue that because most of the arguments are caused by somthing Bush did). If you think you could do a better job of bieng president, try it.

Wait, no,, I take that back. I dont think I want anyone on here to be president (no offence), thats including me.

But seriously, can we leave the president out of this. The discussion of liberal/coservative views covers so much more ground than which polititians we do/dont like, or which president fucked up what. I mean come on, NOT EVERY THING REVOLVES AROUND BUSH.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Apr 2006 18:29

ROFL OKAY MAYBE U R RITE BUT LET THE GROWN UPZ DEBATE THE BIG ISSUEZ LOL

dp · Post by dp » 14 Apr 2006 19:06

John, that post may possibly be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard in my life.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 Apr 2006 21:06

Really?

I tend to agree that political debate should be about the policies rather than the politicians. Although I have to say Bush is a bit strange since he appears to not have much charisma (so hard to believe people would vote for him as a person) or have particularly strong policies. I guess it shows that running fear campaigns and "dirty" campaigns is the way to win elections these days. Don't prove that you're a better politician - prove that your opponents are worse.

Anyway I don't think it's a true at all that liberals want bigger govenerments or more government control - which I think is really what Dan is talking about. However I would say that socialists and the left in general (which is different to being "liberal") do think that more services should be in the hands of the government (or to be more precise - the people) and that the government has an obligation to make sure particular services are available to all people - rather than just those who can afford to pay for them. I'm obviously talking about the privitisation debate and basically I think the left generally is opposed to privitisation while the right supports it.

However I don't think it would be at all accurate to label somebody who is opposed to privitisation a "liberal" - they may or may not have liberal views in other areas but I don't think that that is one.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 17 Apr 2006 01:12

Scary, how much I agree with jeremy on right here. With this exception:

I guess it shows that running fear campaigns and "dirty" campaigns is the way to win elections these days.

The dirty campaign will ALWAYS be the way it works. In the U.S. at least, our gelded politicians need to throw mud, to avoid being completely passive, androgynous ,drones.

------------------

Leftist, perhaps is the better term to describe some of the "big government" crowd.

I don't think having the government control something, is equal to the "people" having it.

The Government will make you think it's yours, but then they start adding restrictions , and requirements, for you to get what's "yours".

I don't know exactly your definition of "privitisation"?

I think privitisation means the selling off, or delegation of a government function, to private industry.

Except I suspect, here, they will do it the way of the Soviet Union.

The elites will sell off the Jewels of our country's economy, and military/technological secrets , for a tiny fraction of their worth.

A tiny number of people of people will profit huge, while 99% of have our entire country outsourced, while we watch.

-n

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 17 Apr 2006 09:40

you know what I love about Dan's threads? They turn Nathan into an intelligent, well articulated dude. I feel like maybe because their opinions used to seem to be sort of in sync, Nathan has to distance himself from Dan's wierd, rambling nitpicky non-arguments by making well thought out relevent posts.

Nathan, I think we come at most of these arguments from opposite sides, but I like the fact that most of your opinions come from a fairly cohesive set of opinions. A lot of people blindly attatch meanings to their wierd semi-opinions (Dan, I'm looking at your with your wierd party-line "liberals love big government" thing).

Anyway, just wanted to interject that I'm enjoying reading this thread, but that you have to keep in mind that when people yell foul and say "you can't say the republicans are conservatives, blah blah blah, they don't espouse true conservative values etc etc" you have to call bullshit on them.

When the governing party says "we are Republicans and we embody the true spirit of Conservatism, not pussy Liberalism, and we're going to spend six trillion dollars creating three new government bureaucracies and increase government spending, inflate the debt, come into your homes and regulate what you do in private" then by definition THOSE are the values that "conservatism" stands for.

If you want to say you like small government and a government that doesn't regulate what you are alowed to do then you have to find a political party that ACTUALLY stands for those values and runs on that platform - and it's called a Libertarian if you're too lazy to check for yourself.

You can't seperate the actions of a government that's elected on a 'conservative' platform, and say they are not conservatives. Bush IS conservatism - that's the whole point. If you don't like it, don't call yourself a conservative. he doesn't call himself a "neo-con" and so you can't be all up in that. If you want to get into political philosophy and talk about liberals and conservatives you have to be a LOT more specific. If you want to talk about "liberalism" and "conservatism" as idealogoies were getting into Jean Jacque Rousseu and John Locke territory. Suddenly we're talking about neo-classical liberals and all those subcatgories.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but it's a lot easier if you talk about the policies the parties that call themselves something actually represent. If you can't agree that the republicans are "conservative" then something is definitely wrong.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Apr 2006 11:06

you know what I love about Dan's threads?

You love my threads? Thanks!

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Apr 2006 11:11

Your post=Garbage because you kept trying to tie Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism together. Just because a dictator in Africa calls his country "The Pacifistic Democratic Republic of Wherever" doesn't make it pacifistic, democratic, or republican; and just because Neo-Conservatives call themselves Conservatives, duelly, doesn't make it so.

And yeah, I am to lazy to look into libertarianism, maybe you can post a linkz0r or something? LOL ROFL.

And what party lines am I touting? I very well might vote for a Democrat in 08 as opposed to a Republican. Party lines? You saying that I'm reiterating party lines is really just you reiterating party lines.

I'll reiterate, your post=garbage.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 17 Apr 2006 18:12

I'll reiterate, your post=garbage.

Thanks for the line Dan, I'll borrow it , right now, it exactly captures my response.

-n

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Apr 2006 18:25

i didnt say you could borrow it.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 17 Apr 2006 18:29

junkyardjew wrote:Anyway, I'm rambling, but it's a lot easier if you talk about the policies the parties that call themselves something actually represent. If you can't agree that the republicans are "conservative" then something is definitely wrong.

Where as the Conservative party of Canada is made up of those who actually espouse conservative values(mind you, in a very liberal way, this IS Canada!) of lower taxes, reduced government spending and small government. I'm not saying I support them, but at least they are what they say, instead of the "conservative" Republicans, who seem to love spending money faster than Paris Hilton in a Bentley dealership. Tax and spend liberal is just a term used to scare the population into not noticing that the Republicans tax and spend just as much, but instead of spending it on social programs, they are spending it on bombs to kill people.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Apr 2006 20:28

Tax and spend liberal is just a term used to scare the population into not noticing that the Republicans tax and spend just as much, but instead of spending it on social programs, they are spending it on bombs to kill people.

Saying Republican's use government money to buy bombs to kill people is just as much of a scare tactic as the term "tax and spend liberal". It's funny how all liberals are blatant hypocrits.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 Apr 2006 00:27

BainbridgeShred wrote:
Tax and spend liberal is just a term used to scare the population into not noticing that the Republicans tax and spend just as much, but instead of spending it on social programs, they are spending it on bombs to kill people.
Saying Republican's use government money to buy bombs to kill people is just as much of a scare tactic as the term "tax and spend liberal". It's funny how all liberals are blatant hypocrits.

That's ridiculous. You can't possible generalise like that - statements like "All liberals are blatent hypocrits" only demonstrates your general ignorance towards politics and probably life in general as well.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 18 Apr 2006 06:28

BainbridgeShred wrote:
Tax and spend liberal is just a term used to scare the population into not noticing that the Republicans tax and spend just as much, but instead of spending it on social programs, they are spending it on bombs to kill people.
Saying Republican's use government money to buy bombs to kill people is just as much of a scare tactic as the term "tax and spend liberal". It's funny how all liberals are blatant hypocrits.

Its not a scare tactic.....it's 100% true.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php ... Itemid=182

274 Billion dollars when I checked, thats scary isn't it?

So what if I am trying to scare people? People need to be scared of the worlds biggest arms producer, polluter and jailer, instead of being afraid that their tax dollars are going to the (gasp) POOR!!!!

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 18 Apr 2006 06:31

Saying Republican's use government money to buy bombs to kill people is just as much of a scare tactic as the term "tax and spend liberal".

No it's not. That my dear friend is what is known in the business as a 'fact'. Have you seen the budget breakdown in America lately?

Now, I'm not saying that Democrats in America don't bomb people - look at clinton for the most recent example - but the Republicans just seem to really enjoy it.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 18 Apr 2006 06:32

Hey Jared....our posts are strangly similar.