Liberalism and why I despise it

25

Ooooohhhh here we go with the conspiracy theories

Ohhh noooo yet more conspiracy

By who and when?

[FONT=&quot]However I should warn you that this forum is here to discuss politics not conspiracy which has its own forum.

[/FONT]

 

25

You believe it is ‘just common sense’ because you have been taught to think of it that way.

Why should the public get burdened with the unprofitable while the private reap the profit? Lets say you have a publicly owned postal system, some sections and routes are profitable and others not. Well the profits from those bits can be used to subsidise the unprofitable parts – which is good for the tax payer.

But if you privatise the profitable bits and only leaves the unprofitable rump for the tax payer to subsidise, that doesn’t sound like a very good for the tax payer (something like that happened in the UK)

(And I’ve read that FedEx paid less than 5 percent in federal taxes while relying on the publicly-funded Post Office to deliver thirty percent of its ground packages.)

A few examples of the many corporations that paid far less in federal income taxes than the average American in 2012 and/or over the past five years http://ctj.org/images/2013/10reasonshq.jpg Fedex s there

Also if a company is profitable and nationalised then why shouldn’t the public benefit from the profits directly?

If a company is making money and the profits go into government coffers meaning it can keep taxes down why shouldn’t it?

The French car company Renault was nationalised after WWII (and partly privatised in 1996) it was and still is a successful company (incidentally owning the American Motors Corporation between 1979-87 during the time when it was a completely nationalised company, which means the French people actually owned a slice of the US car industry).

The French power company EDF that’s largely owned by the French people has a large stake in the British energy market. And the rail company Deutsche Bahn which is largely owned by the German people has a big stake in Britain’s rail market. In my view why should the French and German public profit from this rather than the British who got little out of it when the power and railways were privatised.

The thing is that nationalisation and public ownership can be a useful tool; it can protect industries and business that are fundamentally viable but have got into financial difficulties or when a sudden collapse (rather than a later controlled wind up) could have a domino effect on the larger economy.

To me public ownership can be useful just as private ownership can be useful the problem is that some people seem to be so driven by dogmatic ideology that to them private is always good and public is always bad, because they have been taught by wealth sponsored propaganda to see that as ‘just common sense’.

*

Also the whole argument about government only losing money and government always being a failure often misses out the many cases where ‘government’ promotes prosperity.

Remember that the prosperity of the US was in part built on easy access to previously untouched resources but a lot of the problem in the early period was a lack of infrastructure by which it could be tapped. This was often realised by governance which often used public money or enacted ways of raising money to construct the roads bridges, canals and later railways that were needed to bring prosperity for example the Erie Canal that brought such economic benefits to New York and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

The railways opened up the Midwest and allowed goods and materials access to the Pacific and Atlantic and the roads carried that on, I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History".

Then there is the thing we are talking on - the internet and the World Wide Web, both begun with public assistance.

Also public works are about spreading the benefits of prosperity, infrastructure does not just help businesses but also families and individuals. For example sewage system have done a great deal to improve the lives of people in 1950’s America (some 50% in rural areas) had no plumbing or flushing toilets while today only a few go without those things.

 

25

I’m sorry to say but I think you have fallen for a con, it’s a clever con that makes you think you fight against the corporations and the 1% while what you preach with such unquestioning fervour would just increase the power and influence of wealth.

Look ask yourself this question – why are you unable to address the many outstanding criticisms other than to just tell us we are wrong and you are right or by telling us that it’s ‘just common sense’ or to hint darkly at conspiracy?

Why can’t you produce any coherent or rational counter agreements?

 

good thread but cant read at the time. posting this so it goes into my "your posts". you people are a bit too long winded.

 

Over 60% of the country believes the murder of JFK was a conspiracy, so it seems the official story is quite a bit harder to believe.

The Bilderberg meetings are totally real, and Obama left a plane full of all different members of the press, to ditch out to a Bilderberg meeting with Hillary Clinton. So Again, there's no conspiracy there...

I've not been 'taught' to think anyway, I follow what I know to be right, and what is common sense. I take everything with a grain of salt- that's why eventually, I turned against Liberalism. There was just too many issues that Liberalism didn't begin to touch, and the fact that most of them vote democrat did it for me.

It doesn't work that way. The government almost always uses money. The post office can't turn a profit, because they're losing too much money. Corporations make money cause they run these things like a business, and they are obligated to make money.

That's not what I'm endorsing. I'd rather private businesses just take the post office over totally, so it doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime, and whichever company could turn a profit from a previously failing taxpayer funded business.

What do you mean? Like communism?

I don't endorse the Bush Tax cuts, (like fraggle was accusing me of.) I def don't think the rich should pay less than the middle class.

I think it should be up to the company where they want to put their money and profits. They have no obligation to put their money away, and I dont think they should either. I'm not rich, but, I wouldn't like government forcing me to use my money a certain way, or give it to them to "hold"

The thing is though, that most US government programs don't turn a profit. Secondly the only way the french and german profit from this, is the taxes- But, if it's anything like America, the Middle/working class isn't entitled to any benefits, and pay a lot out.

Actually, it is common sense. The government almost never turns a profit. The only thing I know they turn a profit on, is college loans, which again, is an expense to the taxpayer all the way around.

Private businesses have to make money. If you're saying public ownership is important to keep businesses in business- it still comes at the expense of the taxpayer to keep the businesses going.

Not only does private ownership turn a profit where government fails, but they also do more to take care of their consumer.

They do lose money. What do they do to promote prosperity? Liberals like to use excuses like they built the interstate highways, (in the 1950's,) but the very small amount we get from government, isn't near worth what we're spending every year.

.
Everything you mentioned was decades ago, and could've been done 20X over, without having a 17 trillion dollar debt.

Besides, government isn't the only one who can build roads; Private corporations have built roads, that move much faster and safer than government roads. The first subway was also built by a private company.

Not only does privatization allow for better care on their products, it also lowers prices due to competition. With the trillions of dollars we've spent on government, we get very, very little back.

Id like to see some proof of that. But if it is true, it doesn't make much of a difference. The government has also supported businesses like Green Energy, that still went bankrupt. I don't think it's right that government wastes our money, period. The few things they've done that's "good," doesn't near outweigh all the bad they've done, nor is it worth the billions we spend each year.

Running water has been around since Ancient Rome. Again, I don't attribute this stuff to government as much as you do- they have to do some beneficial stuff with our money, or the people would be up in arms. But, all this happened decades ago, and have little to do with whether the government is wasting our money or benefitting the people. I mean, so you've pointed out a few 'pros' of government, all of which could've been done by private corporations and, would've ended up cheaper than paying for 200 years of government.

The government spends 100K per roll of toilet paper at the White House. They also send trillions of dollars to rich people overseas, while the middle class is struggling. They perpetually waste our money, and we hardly get anything back in comparison.

That, coupled with them starting wars, violating our Constitution and, spying on peaceful citizens, should make it common sense, that they cause much more damages than benefits.

 

I'm on my phone so I'll respond to this in more detail later but I did want to say a couple of things really quickly.

There are quite a few factors that have contributed to the rise in healthcare costs over the years but I'll expound on that later

The point I really want to make right now is that Medicare is a really horrible example of government ran healthcare. You should do some research into the French healthcare system. They spend much less of their GDP than we do to cover all of their citizens, their doctors are paid a wage comparable to American doctors, and they have one of the best healthcare systems in the world as rated by the WHO

 

I've not fallen for anything- I used to be a brainwashed Liberal, but I broke out of the two-party matrix.

The people behind the Military-industrial Complex and, the Bilderbergs, use government bribery, fraud and, wars in order to push their agenda.If they were subject to the laws that were already in place, they wouldn't be able to utilize the government, as a tool to make money.

Liberals like to claim that my "increase the power and wealth," but, they're failing to realize to the current problems we're facing. The government has become a tool for the top elite industries to make substantial profits, at the expense of the taxpayer, and in some cases their lives.

Liberalism relies soley on government, to fix this issue they've created. It's not coincidence that this time period after 2001 had massive government spending, and we've seen the largest transfer of wealth to the 1%- Infact, I'd say they tie in together. We give all this money to government, and they use it to pay back the campaign contributors with benefits and wars that boost their profits.

If you think their was a real "choice" between Obama and Romney, you're not looking at who contributed to their candidacy. Goldman Sach and JP Morgan we're the top spenders for both candidates, then, you turn around and tell me my beliefs are in the interest of the wealthy?

Huge corporations don't give a rats ass if Liberals Raise taxes. Not only do they benefit from that tax money, but, it also makes it more difficult for competitors to come up, and compete with them. It costs $7,000-$14,000 just to comply with all the new government regulations. Most companies need a lawyer just to skim through the 170,000 pages of business laws imposed by government.

I am able to address your criticisms. I don't say you're wrong, I merely express how more government will likely cause more problems, because that's the world we've been living in the past 40 years. Total Government is a logical fallacy, because, more government power = less individual freedom. My idea is to transition that power back to the people.

Liberals are just so stuck on this idea that government is going to make everything better, when they are the one's destroying this country, sinking our economy and, doing anything possible to keep wages low, while raising prices on basic essentials. That's destroying the middle class and focusing power and wealth.

We need politicians who follow the Constitution, and, a government that doesn't give out corporate benefits. Not more taxes, more government programs or, more government intervention- this will only continue that status quo, and do exactly what you accuse my views of doing.

My views are totally coherent. The US corporate government has costs us far too much money, far too many problems and, all for slight miniscule "benefits." Liberals and leftist are just too brainwashed against anyone that leans to the Right, that my views are automatically labeled as Republican or "redneck," without even the slightest consideration of all the damages government does. Most Liberals don't even stand up for Human Rights anymore.

Most of the Liberals/leftist of today, have given up on their fight for human rights, their fight against infinite warfare and, their fight for the life of innocent individuals-- and for what? Merely to "tax the rich more."

Idk many Liberals of today who actually oppose Obama (even if alot claim they don't 'support' him, they're also doing nothing to stop his Constitutional abuses.)

In conclusion, I'm not the one that has been indoctrinated with rhetoric. The corporations would prefer that I vote Dem or Rep, after all, they both endorse the military-industrial complex and the status quo...

 

Agreed.


Did anybody watch that Frontline documentary movie I linked here that talked about what other countries do for their healthcare,

It covered (Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Taiwan, and Japan.

 

i'If you don't thin LBJ had anything to do with the murder of JFK, you're lying to yourself. '

What percentage think LBJ had something to do with it?

Have you been watching 'JFK' recently?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

And?

I think he was referring to what you may think goes on at the meetings...

Which 'rich people' ...have you some evidence for that?

 

Any chance of this thread returning and remaining on the original topic?

 

25

Again this shows your way of thinking – but remember, just because something is believed does not make it correct. I mean it seems that a third of Americans don’t believe in evolution, many think the moon landings were faked and lots of Americans think aliens have put probes right up their…well I think you get my point.

You mean you follow what you believe to be right and what you believe makes sense BUT you seem unable to defend if from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

Just because something is believed does not make it correct, it a rule of thumb that if an idea cannot be defended from criticism in any rational and reasonable way then if is probably a bad idea.

I mean this statement just typifies your approach – First you don’t seem to care about researching anything and Second it doesn’t seem to matter to you anyway if some information doesn’t fit in with your viewpoint you’ll just ignore it.

You claim that you are able to address our criticisms and that you views are “totally coherent” yet all we ever get are rants full of ill informed assertion and unsubstantiated accusations with the only back up that it’s all just common sense and what you believe to be true.

Yes we all know you believe private is always better than public but just shouting it repeatedly does not address the many outstanding criticisms of your views.

Yes we all know you claim to want to lessen the power and influence of wealth but just shouting it repeatedly does not address the many outstanding criticisms of your views.

People can claim anything – that the earth is flat – that some god created humans – that all our politicians are seven foot tall shape shifting space lizards from the planet Zorg - but believing such things does not make it so.

So can you please stop repeating your beliefs and claims and start actually addressing the outstanding criticisms?

(PS and don’t use the old evasion tactic of asking us to yet again repeat the criticisms you know what they are perfectly well, and don’t claim you have without some evidence)

 

monkir

Seems that PBS video is restricted viewing here, can you give me the conclusions?

 

That also holds true for your claims as well.

Just because you like to claim STP's views "give power to wealth" without ever explaining why, doesn't mean that's true.

I have seen STP back up his claims a fuck of a lot more than you have. All you do is make the same accusations over and over again, but you never explain yourself. You have the audacity to make claims against other people which you yourself are guilty of. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

 

Indie

LOL any chance you will ever address the outstanding criticisms of right wing views?

 

Rat

You know there are many long and detailed explanations - this is just the same old evasion tactic I pointed out at the end of my post –

(PS and don’t use the old evasion tactic of asking us to yet again repeat the criticisms you know what they are perfectly well, and don’t claim you have [addressed them]without some evidence)

And here is the other evasion tactic - AGAIN I ask produce the evidence I mean if you have seen it then you should be able to produce it

 

But do they have the entitlement system that America has? France is also much smaller than the US.

 

Rat

What entitlement system are we talking about here?

What has size to do with it?

 

13 million undocumented workers that some of the people in this country want to also give full medical coverage to. does france have 13 million undocumented workers?

 

There you go, Balbus.

 

Rat

There i go what - that doesn't answer my questions