Is liberalism political madness?

[Willie99]

Is liberalism political madness? IDK

But it is pretty close to a religion. You are not responsible for your life, the federal government is, and you cannot improve your life, but the government can and will, if you elect me.

May the POTUS be with you, "and also with you", Amen

ope:

 

[RobFunk]

Is liberalism political madness? IDK

But it is pretty close to a religion. You are not responsible for your life, the federal government is, and you cannot improve your life, but the government can and will, if you elect me.

May the POTUS be with you, "and also with you", Amen

Said the guy who can't seperate church from state.

Liberals seem to be a lot more freedom and personal rights based, smaller government than the conserves these days.

 

[Willie99]

Said the guy who can't seperate church from state.

Liberals seem to be a lot more freedom and personal rights based, smaller government than the conserves these days.

please give an example, tank u

and, what about anything any leading Democrat espouses leads you to believe that nonsense about "smaller government".

 

[RobFunk]

please give an example, tank u

and, what about anything any leading Democrat espouses leads you to believe that nonsense about "smaller government".

Easy cakes.

Iraq war - big spending (KBPR, Halliburton and our military $$$$) Fighting the good 'ol holy war
patriot act - big government
anti gay marriage - big government / church
anti marijuana for personal use - big government / church
anti pro choice - big government / church
anti eductional bills - removal of personal freedom
current tax plan - completely slanted towards the very wealthy

Those are all issues democrats are on the other side of

In our current state, democratic leadership is less costly, more effecient and beneficial to Americans than the republicans'. Don't even kid yourself.

 

[Willie99]

The federal government is and always has been responsible for national defense, your big government arguments just don't make any sense with respect to national defense interests.

anti-gay marriage leads to more government? gay marriage leads to more government subsidies and more people benefiting from the work of other people on a number of fronts. Furthermore, you do know your President Elect is opposed to gay marriage, right?

anti-pot laws are Republican laws :think2: just not true. And religion is not even in the anti-pot ballpark

Abortion? letting unborn children die, even those that can survive outside the womb means you're a proponent of smaller government? what are you thinking? Of course, you do wants them there government programs to pay for such abortions, eh? even pay or them throughout the world

school choice is for more government or more freedom? the Dems are protecting their labor unions and the government monopoly on education, you have another issue totally backwards.

and increasing taxation to redistribute the wealth and expand government programs is not something that means less governmenthno:

what about more taxes and 1 trillion dollars in new government programs is an indication the Dems are going to cut government?

what about socialized health care, creating a new largest bureaucracy in DC, leads to smaller government?

There is no argument on earth you can make that supports your conclusion the Democrats are going to reduce the size of government.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

Willie and Funk, you are both right...both party's are in favor of expanding governments roles in our lives. Its like the ying yang, the further you are apart the closer you become.

 

[brucefan]

June 1, 2009

<TABLE width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left width="80%">There Is No Free Market in America
By Brian Hicks </TD><TD align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Democrats and liberals aren't going to like this article.
That's because I'm about to dispel a longstanding belief among partisan Democrats... especially among the more naive.
The truth is: the Democrats were a willing party to the current economic crisis. (Don't worry... George W and the neocons are responsible for the trillions spent in the never-ending whatever that is in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'll save that argument for another day.)
Here's the proof:
This is an article from the New York Times dated September 30, 1999...

How does that make you feel???
Now, you're constantly hearing spin in the media and from politicians about how the current economic situation is a result of "free-market failure."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let me state for the record... THERE IS NO FREE MARKET IN AMERICA!
The market in the U.S. is heavily regulated and manipulated.
The housing bubble was the result of a massive government stimulus plan. Right after 9/11, the U.S. Treasury and U.S. Federal Reserve cut rates to historic lows and increased the money supply to obscene levels.
Couple that with the push for more home ownership... and what you get is a toxic brew of government-sponsored economic activity.
As Ron Paul has said thousands of times (and he's been vindicated 1000x over), the free market would never have let rates drop as low as they did after 9/11.
You see, one of the primary components of a healthy, functioning free market is risk.
Risk is necessary to weed out bad and irrational actors.
When you start handing out what is essentially free money and allowing borrowers to take out mortgages with $0 down, you eliminate risk. And when that happens, you're indicating that actions have no consequences.
That's why so many homeowners are so willing to walk away from their homes – because they have no skin in the game. They lose nothing if they allow their home to go into foreclosure.
Had these same homeowners put 10% down, I guarantee they'd be less willing to walk away from that investment.
But trying to explain that to a socialist is like trying to tell somebody from Philly that Brooks Robinson was the greatest third basemen in history. It's an argument with no ending.

Brian Hicks is the Publisher of Wealth Daily, a popular daily investment newsletter. Click here to subscribe