Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

unicar15

Ask yourself if Liberals really wanted Bush to succeed?

33 posts in this topic

That's not even close to true.

lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

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

Origin:

1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

Liberalism is about the ends, not the means. Feminism is a liberal concept, and we did not have to invent a "Department of Women". Equality for minorities required changes in the law, which required government to monitor but not a "Secretary of Minorities". You are confusing liberalism and socialism or more to the point, communism. Your analogy is like me saying that all conservatives want more war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes or no, do you think the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor?

I don't think anyone would suggest the poor should pay a higher percentage. Conservatives think we should all pay the same percentage. It's called Fair Play. Liberals want Fair Share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that he meant that all Dems want a larger more involved government.

The problem is, pubs are wanting the exact same thing.

Many of us, myself included, want smaller central government and more states rights. Our voice is trampled on by the shouts about stem cell research and abortion BS.

Many of the issues that we debate about and bitch over are not even the issues that many of us care the most about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the rich should pay a higher share than the poor. The government has agreed with this approach for over a century, and falls in with the economic idea that lower income people spend more on goods so their money is more needed to keep the retail economy going, while the rich tend to put more of their money into savings.

I am not in love with the idea, but it seems to make the most sense for people who are not selfish greedy bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes or no, do you think the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor?

I don't think anyone would suggest the poor should pay a higher percentage. Conservatives think we should all pay the same percentage. It's called Fair Play. Liberals want Fair Share.

Unfortunately, the rich have so many loopholes right now they pay less of a % than middle class/lower class does. If that was fixed, I'd like to see how it works. I think people SHOULD pay more depending on what they make, HOWEVER the tax system is flawed. I think it needs more brackets, it's stupid to go from 250,000+ then there is a big difference between 250k and 2 million. It needs fixed, the brackets need to be more gradual. Everyone just wants to point fingers instead of FIXING the issue. It's either destroy and recreate or keep it the way it is, not let's adjust or fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the rich should pay a higher share than the poor. The government has agreed with this approach for over a century, and falls in with the economic idea that lower income people spend more on goods so their money is more needed to keep the retail economy going, while the rich tend to put more of their money into savings.

I am not in love with the idea, but it seems to make the most sense for people who are not selfish greedy bastards.

I am sorry, but I do not agree that anyone should pay a higher % than anyone else.

I am surrounded by people who pay very little, own no property, and use far more of the public goods than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine, like I said, I'm not in love with the idea. I can see why people are not keen on the concept. It really has nothing to do, however, with my basic outlook on human rights and stuff like that. Liberals are just as opposed to things like welfare fraud as anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes or no, do you think the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor?

I don't think anyone would suggest the poor should pay a higher percentage. Conservatives think we should all pay the same percentage. It's called Fair Play. Liberals want Fair Share.

Where were you guys when the rich were paying 40% of their income during the Bush years while the middle class and poor paid much less? Are you saying we should all pay 40%? Then we could get healthcare for everyone...good idea. I like this Fair Play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting Bush to fail was wanting the United States to fail and the same goes for Obama.

you are only 50% correct. bush stood for the founding principles of this country. so if bush failed, this country's ideals failed.

on the other hand, obama stands for socialism. if obama fails, socialism in this country fails, and logically...that is a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites