## Liberalism

Post by jonson000001 » Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:01 am

Liberal of the world, united!
Any liberal out here?

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jan 02, 2015 9:13 am

Liberal moderate, here.
I've got an idea. Why not do a poll rating our liberalism on a scale of 1 to 10; 1 being a reactionary like a tea partyer and 10 a radical?
On that scale, I figure I'd rate about a 7 or 8; depending on the issue involved. Most people here would likely rate at least a 6, though I can think of one or two members here who'd rate only a 1 or at most 2 despite being into TUGs.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by jonson000001 » Fri Jan 02, 2015 9:56 am

let be more spesific
say yes or no (myself)
same sex marriage (yes)
abortion (yes)
Legalization of Marijuana (yes)
Carrying a weapon (no)
small government (yes)
Government intervention in the economy (no)
feel free to add more

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:51 pm

> jonson000001 wrote:let be more spesific
> feel free to add more

That's a bit TOO specific while at the same time not specific enough.
Too specific in that there are other issues, such as belief in climate change, religious leanings, evolution vs. creationism, and many more.
Not specific enough in that many of these are not purely either-or black and white topics but run a spectrum with various shades of gray in between; hence my suggestion of a rating scale.
referring to the ones you brought up:
say yes or no (myself): spectrum; 7 out if 10 as i said
same sex marriage (yes); this is either/or enough
abortion - only if necessary; if people don't want kids they should either abstain or use condoms; exception for rape or health concerns
Legalization of Marijuana: yes but not in public places; i don't want to smell that garbage it effing stinks. And keep it away from kids.
Carrying a weapon: yes but require training and safety classes and psych exams first and careful background checks. Get rid of stand your ground laws, which make idiots too cocky and trigger happy ala George Zimmerman
small government: depends on what you mean by that; that's usually a conservative talking point not a liberal one.
Government intervention in the economy: depends on what you mean by that too. Strictly speaking that's impossible; especially if you includes taxes.
Without government oversight of banks and big businesses, we'd soon return to the good old days of sharecropping and feudalism. And no more social safety nets and social security? No effing thank you!!!
Religious belief: Agnostic/deist
Science: more needs to be done about global warming but don't break the economy; creationism is not science and does not belong in the classroom except as a mention that some believe in it; boost NASA's budget from 0.5% of the fed budget to 5.0%; reduce the military budget (much of which is pure waste anyway)
Politics: No more Bushes OR Clintons in the White House
Misc: Rush Limbaugh is a bum. But so is Al Sharpton.
How's that?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by jonson000001 » Fri Jan 02, 2015 5:05 pm

I know there is no black or whit, i talked generaly.
more spesific thoughts
same sex marriage: yes!
abortion: well I belive that in cases of rape or health concerns you must allow abortion.
Legalization of Marijuana : over 21
Carrying a weapon: generaly no, people with the right traning may get a lisence.
small government: nevermind
Government intervention in the economy: as small as it can be, the country should care only for basic things to the people like education or health.
I think I'm 8 out of 10

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jan 02, 2015 6:50 pm

> Kimmi wrote:Yes, I am against abortion and am even rethinking THAT because I am becoming more pro citizen and pro rights of the people. If that day ever happens, this government is in trouble!

Abortion in my opinion is the biggest example of a topic that has no single correct answer. I used to be considerably more pro choice in the matter, but lately it seems to me that if people would simply act responsibly around the matter of sex and either abstain (fat chance of that with most people) or engage in contraception and condoms and so on that abortions would be far rarer than they are. It's mainly because people are so self-centered and so short-range minded these days that it's become such a controversial subject in the first place.
But I have to take into account the fact that I'm not a woman nor have never been intimate with one and therefore have always been personally unaffected by the question. Even so, I can't help but feel that giving up for adoption is always preferable when possible; even if the pregnancy has to be fully subsided in the process so that the mother faces no financial burden because of it (one major reason abortions are desired in all too many cases is because they're usually cheaper than carrying the infant to term). Something like this should be covered by health insurance.
It's one issue where many good people can disagree. Such complex issues have no single right answer and likely never will have a unified consensus unlike, say, the undesirability of letting children get drunk, laid or stoned (almost no one in our culture disagrees how wrong those are except maybe other children).
That said however, I'm not one of those who supports shutting down abortion clinics or putting women who want abortions through red-tape or procedural hell like some states are doing or trying to do. Ultimately, the decision must rest with those who have to live with the consequences of their own decisions.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by sarobah » Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:02 pm

You're talking about US liberals, of course.
It's funny how we label things often irrespective of their conventional meaning. Here in Australia the Liberal Party is right-wing (standing approximately between where the US Republican and Tea Parties are). In the UK, the Liberal Democrats are aligned with the Conservatives (and facing electoral destruction as a result). In Denmark the Liberals occupy the centre-right. Etcetera.
As we all know, liberalism began as a small-government ideology; but that was in an age when the government interfered tyrannically in every aspect of life. Even the British parliamentary government in the early nineteenth century would be the equivalent of Generalissimo Franco's fascist regime. In that sense, the current US Republicans would be classed as liberal. And that is what is silly. In the US, "liberal" is a label applied (by conservatives *) as if non-interference in people's private lives (regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) were a bad thing. Of course, by today's standards, Eisenhower's attitude towards the military-industrial complex, Nixon's views on health care, Reagan's and George W. Bush's views on immigration would identify them as liberals. (All were policies to the left of Obama's, and I do not think any of those four would be elected today.)
In other words, "liberalism" is just a label. The problem with politics (in all eras) is that most people elevate labels and personalities above policies. It is easier to think in terms of labels, slogans and stereotypes.
* "Conservative" is the second most misused term. Whatever you think of them, parties like the US Republicans and Australian Liberals are not conservative, they are radical. The US Democrats and Australian Labor Party (these are the only national examples I know well enough to comment on confidently) are the parties fighting to preserve what is best in "liberal" society, things like equality and tolerance and non-state interference in private life (on issues like the right to marry a partner of one's own choosing and not from the government's approved list). What knows? Maybe these are bad things; but to oppose the standards of liberty that have been built up over 250 years of democratic evolution is not what a reasonable person would call "conservative".
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:07 pm

Same sex marriage: I don't care. What you do in the privacy of your own home, is none of my business, and I don't want to know.
Abortion: Limited to cases of rape and incest, or to protect the life of the mother.
Legalization of Marijuana: Not only "No," but "Hell No."
Carrying a weapon: Yes. I have a Concealed Carry Permit, but do not usually carry either of my weapons outside the home.
Small government: Yes. Unless there is a valid reason for doing so, the government should stay the hell out of our lives, businesses, and bedrooms.
Government intervention in the economy: Limited. Apply a light hand or an easy touch, not the ham handed approach some politicians favor. Also, the 10th amendment was put there for a reason, and it would be nice if the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government would remember that.
Contraception: Buy your own. If you folks of the female persuasion want to go out and bang like bunnies, I could care less. But don't expect me to pay for your indiscretions with my tax money.
Religion: Non practicing Christian. I believe, but I haven't been to church in years.
Politics: Consider the political spectrum as the flat face of a clock:
6 . . . 7 . . . 8 . . . 9 . . . 10 . . . 11 . . . 12 . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . 6
At either end (6) there is anarchy. At 7. there is communism; at 5, there is Naziism. At 8 to 9 on the left, and 3 to 4 on the right, we have the lunatic fringes. 10 and 2 would be hard left. and hard right. Most people are scattered between 11 and 1, with the bulk between 11:30 and 12:30. And me? Probably around 12:30-12:45.
Of course, there will be others that will say I belong closer to 3 or 4, and those same folks who think themselves to be between 11 and 12, would, in my mind, be closer to 8 or 9, so let's just leave it alone, and we'll all avoid bruised egos and angry posts.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by NemesisPrime » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:21 am

Just gonna copy drawscore's cause I'm lazy
Same sex marriage: All for it.
Abortion: Left up to the woman. If she wants to then fine, if not that's fine too but after the 3rd trimester it's the baby's right.
Legalization of Marijuana: All for it just do it at home. Not everyone wants to smoke it speaking as someone who doesn't smoke in general.
Carrying a weapon: Fine with me but get rid of incentives i.e. laws like "Stand Your Ground" to encourage "trigger happy" individuals and make sure they're well in the head. Before you say I want to trample over the 2nd Amendment I should note that in the framework of the US Constitution it was a well-armed militia i.e. a STATE-APPOINTED one but also we have right-wingers in office who wanted to give guns to EVERYONE regardless of mental health or standing including ex-cons. Think about that.
Small government: Agree like on the issue of surveillance and I purpose that we should shrink it so it would be less appealing to corporate intreats to capture it via regulatory capture but still have strong enough regulations so that everyone plays on the same field with no one company having a leg-up over the others.
Government intervention in the economy: Needed like we need more public sector jobs and upgrades to our crumbling infrastructure with such a massive amount of unemployed people this makes alot of logical sense. That "D" is only gonna be true for so long.
Contraception: Should be provided.
Religion: Atheist
Politics: Socially liberal ; fiscally conservative
Everyone speaks in multiple languages...But gag talk is universal and a sock in your mouth is the perfect translator!

### Re: Liberalism

Post by xtc » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:16 am

I'm glad Jason approves of "psych" tests before a weapons certificate is granted; presumably you only get one if you're "psycho" enough.
I think Sarobah beat me to the other points, which is just as well, she is FAR more moderate than I.
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:33 am

I quite like Drawscore's clock analogy. I think he makes the 'normal' spectrum a tad too narrow while making the extremes a tad too distinct, but that's just my opinion and not something I feel is worth arguing about.
And no I wouldn't rate him a 3 or 4 on his scale but i think maybe around 2 would be about right. I myself would be around 11 I suppose.
I'm definitely left leaning but there are still many liberal viewpoints I definitely do not agree with (reparations to blacks for slavery of their ancestors, eliminating all religion, a unified world government to cite some extreme examples I view with horror, outright bans of internal-combustion engines).
On the other hand I feel we need a strong and compassionate enough government to rein in the excesses of corporations, which threaten to return our economy into a reversion of feudalism and further divide society into two distinct classes; rich and poor.
Conservatives talk all about entitlements for the poor but seem to see nothing wrong with entitlements for the rich (multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs regardless of performance and increased profits for shareholders at the expense of workers are especially widespread and notorious examples), who furthermore hoard their money in overseas accounts to avoid paying taxes and keep that money effectively out of the US economy, whereas other people would have spent it and helped boost the economy).
It's that economic policy (and my disdain for corporations disputing science for their own selfish ends) that makes me seem more leftward than i am on other topics, I think. On most other subjects - even in politics - I consider myself rather more moderate.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:39 pm

>>>Conservatives talk all about entitlements for the poor but seem to see nothing wrong with entitlements for the rich (multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs regardless of performance and increased profits for shareholders at the expense of workers are especially widespread and notorious examples), who furthermore hoard their money in overseas accounts to avoid paying taxes and keep that money effectively out of the US economy, whereas other people would have spent it and helped boost the economy). <<<
The big difference, is that the CEOs' bonuses do not come directly from the government. If they did, I'd be screeching like a banshee to end them. However, that CEO bonus could be reduced, with the savings going to research and development, and/or to fund raises to lower level employees. But the shareholder have risked their own money, in effect, gambling that the company will be successful. When it is, they deserve to share in the profits made by that company. Of course, if the company goes in the tank, the shareholders lose their money. Chances are, they will not be bailed out by the government.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:56 pm

> drawscore wrote:Of course, if the company goes in the tank, the shareholders lose their money. Chances are, they will not be bailed out by the government.
> Drawscore

I agree that they shouldn't be, but a lot of them (especially banks and investment companies) were bailed out back in 2008, and taxpayer dollars were used to fund the businesses 'too big to fail' - and many of those execs of the bailed out companies got huge bonuses anyway - out of taxpayer dollars! Were you hollering then?
Meanwhile, people who were tricked into mortgages whose rates suddenly ballooned on them lost their homes and the money they'd already invested in them.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:15 am

> Jason Toddman wrote:

> > drawscore wrote:Of course, if the company goes in the tank, the shareholders lose their money. Chances are, they will not be bailed out by the government.
> > Drawscore

> I agree that they shouldn't be, but a lot of them (especially banks and investment companies) were bailed out back in 2008, and taxpayer dollars were used to fund the businesses 'too big to fail' - and many of those execs of the bailed out companies got huge bonuses anyway - out of taxpayer dollars! Were you hollering then?
> Meanwhile, people who were tricked into mortgages whose rates suddenly ballooned on them lost their homes and the money they'd already invested in them.

Which is why the government should stay the hell out of our lives, unless there is a valid reason to intervene. If the banks had been allowed to fall victim to the market, the people "tricked into mortgages" might not have been hurt as they were. And let's not forget who made it possible. Dodd-Frank ring a bell? And Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are members of what party? And what wing of that party?
The other argument, is that the banks failing was a direct result of an act congress (Dodd-Frank), and therefore, the government was obligated to bail them out. Still, screwing the borrowers was not a particularly good idea, and gave many banks and other lending institutions a big black eye, from which they have still not recovered. And, contrary to what many on the left would have us believe, Bush did not bail out the banks. He may have wanted to, and may even have recommended it, but it's congress that has the power of the purse. Congress had to appropriate the money to affect the bailout. Bush (or any president) could only approve (sign), or disapprove (veto) the bill.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:56 pm

Are you serious? Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010; AFTER the banks failed. It was passed in response to the failing banks; to prevent the banks from engaging in such risky investments ever again.
It was because of loosened government regulations that the greedheads in charge of banks and investment firms were able to tank the economy in the first place.
When I was a younger adult, passbook savings drew 5% up until about 20 years ago. After they deregulated the banks rules concerning interest rates, interest rates on savings and CDs dropped until now they may as well be nothing! You have to be a millionaire already to make any money worth discussing in today's financial market. Those shareholders you praise so much get it ALL.
Yeah, removing government controls from banks really helped us regular depositors out a whole lot!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:28 pm

True. Dodd-Frank passed in 2010. It wound up being so unpopular, Dodd declined to run for another senate term, and Frank opted out of running for another house term. The Republicans also reclaimed the house that year.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:27 pm

I don't think those are necessarily cause and effect actions you're discussing here. I'll bet most people who voted Republican in an off-presedential year were NOT even thinking of the Frank-Dodd Act when they voted for their governors and congressmen. *I* certainly wasn't. It was all about the healthcare, immigration, jobs and the economy, gay marriage, and other hot-button issues.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Chris12 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:48 am

I don't consider myself Liberal. I'm fairy left minded and Liberal is the term for the only mayor (economic) right wing party we have around here. I don't particular find American Liberals left wingers either. To me American politics has a right wing and an extreme right wing.
If the question is whether I'm left wing then the answer would be yes. For most social issue's I just can't find a reason for the government to interfere and sadly many right wingers do think limits should be placed on things like homosexuality or the separation between church and state. Those social issue's are regarded as being left and right wing issue's but I don't see it that way. I think that what should define the left and the right are economic policies...but we can't have that when rightwingers have a loud part of their demographic that's xenophobic or a religious nutjub OR leftwingers being far to soft when it comes to immigration and to much politically correct. I find social issue's to just lower both sides in my esteem, admittingly the right more then the left.
As for economics, I have some things I don't like opposition to like healthcare and welfare. Its not only more humane but also more practical to have those as keeping poor people desperate just leads to crime and people not spending money is people not contributing to the economy. Since I support those two things greatly I should be considered fairly left wing. I'm not against cuts to both of those because critical analyses of such important task are welcome and money just isn't infinite. I don't mind the VVD, the right wing party currently in charge in the Netherlands because they respect the state having welfare and healthcare while also toning it down a notch because hey, its crisis. I may not agree with it but I understand the logic behind those cuts and don't feel those concept themselves are in danger.
I think the biggest reason for my mild distaste for the right is because many I have come across reject those thing out of principle and I find that both morally wrong and shortsighted.
Handling of corporations is also a matter of Liberals and conservatives right? I have not idea why because both Dems and reps are pretty much in the pockets of corporations but if the left is at least in theory advocating for some restrictions on corporations that I agree with that. I can't trust an institution who's sole purpose is getting money for itself. With great power comes great responsibility and corporations tend to be lax on responsibilities in exchange for money. If corporations can screw us all over then they will, just remember SOPA. I think its important governments can restrict the power of those who owe us nothing, we can at least kick out the government if they aren't in our interest.
I'm standing about here
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegr ... &soc=-1.13
Its actually pretty close to none other then Ghandi...and yes I am just pointing that out to show I'm superior!

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:14 am

Your compass and Drawscore's clock are basically two facets of the same idea.
Judging by what you've said, you and I are roughly in the same part of the clock/graph; somewhere around 11 o'clock on Drawscore's clock. I also agree that cutting out welfare does nothing but lead to more crime, misery, and expense in the long run, but the right-wingers just can't see that (or don't care). Desperate people are by definition people with nothing to lose, though it's also unfortunately true that many people turn to crime long before they reach that point.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:18 pm

I think if welfare were suddenly ended, there would be riots in the streets, but reducing it little by little, until it did end, over a period of 20-30 years, would be possible. I'd liken it to cooking a frog. If you put the frog in scalding hot water, he'll jump out. If you put him is a pot full of room temperature water, and gradually raise the temperature, he won't know he's being cooked until it's too late.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Chris12 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:40 pm

> drawscore wrote:I think if welfare were suddenly ended, there would be riots in the streets, but reducing it little by little, until it did end, over a period of 20-30 years, would be possible. I'd liken it to cooking a frog. If you put the frog in scalding hot water, he'll jump out. If you put him is a pot full of room temperature water, and gradually raise the temperature, he won't know he's being cooked until it's too late.
> Drawscore

Probably but the problems start after wellfare is gone and not during its removal.
Like I said if there isn't any wellfare the poor will become desperate and take desperate measures to survive. One way or another poor people have to eat and if desperate enough will go to crime if it will keep them fed. An increase in crime will have to be solved by the police who would naturally need to be expanded which will be paid through with taxes that could be spend more productively if there was less poverty.
Those poor people not having any money to spend obviously mean they won't spend the money that they don't have which in turn the government can't tax nor can it be used to pay shopkeepers.
Poverty is bad for the people not having the money as well as people not getting that money the poor could have paid if they had it. No one wins by removing welfare so its best not to.

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:49 pm

> Chris12 wrote:

> > drawscore wrote:I think if welfare were suddenly ended, there would be riots in the streets, but reducing it little by little, until it did end, over a period of 20-30 years, would be possible. I'd liken it to cooking a frog. If you put the frog in scalding hot water, he'll jump out. If you put him is a pot full of room temperature water, and gradually raise the temperature, he won't know he's being cooked until it's too late.
> > Drawscore

> Probably but the problems start after wellfare is gone and not during its removal.
> Like I said if there isn't any wellfare the poor will become desperate and take desperate measures to survive. One way or another poor people have to eat and if desperate enough will go to crime if it will keep them fed. An increase in crime will have to be solved by the police who would naturally need to be expanded which will be paid through with taxes that could be spend more productively if there was less poverty.
> Those poor people not having any money to spend obviously mean they won't spend the money that they don't have which in turn the government can't tax nor can it be used to pay shopkeepers.
> Poverty is bad for the people not having the money as well as people not getting that money the poor could have paid if they had it. No one wins by removing welfare so its best not to.

Or maybe they will show a little personal responsibility, get educated, get jobs, and get out of the hole they are in.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:02 pm

> drawscore wrote:
> Or maybe they will show a little personal responsibility, get educated, get jobs, and get out of the hole they are in.
> Drawscore

Easier said than done, or haven't you kept track of how much an education costs these days? Lots of people going to college are going to be saddled with such loads of debt that even if they find a good job right away they won't have money to spare for things like getting a home for many years to come. You also seem to be assuming they can find decent jobs too. Plenty of low wage jobs out there I suppose, but any real jobs are rapidly getting outsourced to other countries like India. Meanwhile the jobs that are out there don't pay a decent enough wage to keep people completely off of welfare except in places where they're unilaterally raising minimum wages on their own - and even then because those places are so damn expensive to live in!
You want to get rid of welfare? Create jobs that pay enough to be worth working for; not pay minimum wage and tell the employees to supplement their income with food stamps like Walmart and McDonalds have been doing! Make the difference worth working for!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by ebascoray » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:19 pm

Here, Here, Mr. Toddman, on that thought! (Or, is it, "hear, hear"? I've never been sure as to which phrase it is!!)
Ebascoray

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Chris12 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:21 pm

> Or maybe they will show a little personal responsibility, get educated, get jobs, and get out of the hole they are in.

Are you familiar with the ''just world fallacy''? The idea that whatever happens to someone good or bad its all in his own hands? Its a fallacy to think the world works that way.
People generally don't chose to be poor otherwise they wouldn't be poor. If it was all so easy people would already by out of that hole. If your a great mechanic, learned your trade when factories were still a thing in the west and lost your job because its all outsourced to China then how is that your fault? Its not and its a fallacy to think that.
Or what if your born in the slums in a family that has no money to educate you? with no education you can't escape the slums and get a job and without a job you can't get the money needed to pay for an education.
Jobs are finite to a far larger extend then the population is.
There are two argument for wellfare one of them being ''Why should we pay for the poor? let them pay for themselves'' and the one you just stated, the one that says its going to help them in the end.
I find the later to me much, much more insidious. The first one is just cold pragmatism, albeit a shortsighted one. Money is finite and yes with less money going into wellfare you can buy more guns or that battleship needed to win the arms race. Money is finite and choices has to be made.
The second however is just...gross. Taking away the one chance poor people have and either being fully convinced it will help them or just telling them that it does. Its like shooting a footbal player in the foot before the match and expecting a think you because he has to try harder now.
Last edited by Chris12 on Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:22 pm

> ebascoray wrote:Here, Here, Mr. Toddman, on that thought! (Or, is it, "hear, hear"? I've never been sure as to which phrase it is!!)
> Ebascoray

I'm not sure which one it is either. Could be either for different, equally valid reasons. I say, take your pick!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Liberalism

Post by drawscore » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:17 pm

In our national parks, there are signs warning visitors not to feed the wildlife, "or they will become dependent, and be unable to live on their own." The same holds true for welfare recipients. Now, I don't begrudge giving someone a hand up, but I don't care to subsidize a generation of couch potatoes, whose only contribution to society, is to produce another generation of couch potatoes. If they know the government (taxpayers) will take care of them from the cradle, to the grave, what incentive do they have to better themselves?
Welfare is fine, but there has to be a limit to how long a person may collect welfare.
Drawscore

### Re: Liberalism

Post by misterg792000 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:19 pm

> drawscore wrote:Or maybe they will show a little personal responsibility, get educated, get jobs, and get out of the hole they are in.

Show me an educational institute that accepts "personal responsibility" in lieu of currency for tuition. Or keep dripping privilege everywhere, mistaking it for wisdom. Whichever floats your boat this week, when people exhort education in one post and sneer at it as a buncha fancy book-learnin' the next, I have no idea what they want.

> drawscore wrote:In our national parks, there are signs warning visitors not to feed the wildlife, "or they will become dependent, and be unable to live on their own." The same holds true for welfare recipients.

Ah this old trope. That's not why they tell you not to feed the wildlife; they tell you not to feed the wildlife because you don't want a 600 pound bear associating human beings with food. What other wisdom do these week's email forwards have to offer?

> drawscore wrote:Now, I don't begrudge giving someone a hand up

Clearly you do, since you consider those who need "a hand up" to be wild animals.

> drawscore wrote:Welfare is fine, but there has to be a limit to how long a person may collect welfare.

There is. There has been for decades. You don't appear to have any clue how "welfare" works (especially post-1996), instead choosing to rail against some imaginary construct concocted by the "fuck you, got mine" crowd.

### Re: Liberalism

Post by Chris12 » Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:50 am

> If they know the government (taxpayers) will take care of them from the cradle, to the grave, what incentive do they have to better themselves?

Ever been on Welfare? It REALLY isn't a jackpot. You get the money for your house, electricity and food and that's pretty much it, with some saving you could buy some clothes but that's the extend of any treat you will be able to give yourself. Its the basic requirements not to freeze and starve to death. I wouldn't call that being provided for from craddle to grave, providing for yourself with a job will grant those people a better life and they know it. People on wellfare generally are depressed rather then ''muhahaha those suckers are paying for me!''
There probably is a small minority that thinks the way you claim they do. So? We shouldn't rip a safety net out from under everyone just because some people want to leave essentially quite empty lives. Out of 100 on wellfare I would rather have those 10 people leech off the state then leave the remaining 90 abandoned and desperate.

### Re: Liberalism

Post by NemesisPrime » Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:50 am

Drawscore, do you even get out of your bubble? Are you that blind to other people's suffering?
Life on welfare is not easy nor is it fun. You only get just enough to feed yourself and your kids MAYBE pay down a bill or two plus you have to jump through mountains of paperwork and have to make a certain amount of money per month cause if it's even SLIGHTLY over that it gets cut cold turkey and alot of people do have jobs but have such shit pay they work two and three part-time jobs just so they don't starve even with welfare. No sane person wants to be on welfare and would rather have work that they enjoy doing.
But if you're that against welfare then you should support a basic income for everyone that way we can shrink the US Government and stemline the whole bureaucracy of welfare cause everyone would get it and the free market would flourish since people would have a safety net just in case and be more willing to take risks.
But no Drawscore, you may see some people abuse the system and when you go into the store and see someone stocking up on groceries and it's usually the cheap, off-brand, store-brand kind that's supposed to hold them over for 3 to 6 months.
But I'd have a few bad apples abuse the system than throw the baby out with the bathwater and make it harder on those who DO need it.
Everyone speaks in multiple languages...But gag talk is universal and a sock in your mouth is the perfect translator!