American Liberalism

[Stormin Norman]

I will leave my person feeling on the subject aside (for the moment anyway) and pose the question. How has American liberalism enhanced the lives of the people and allowed for a more beneficial system of government to suface in the U.S.? Please describe specific examples. If you think that it has done more harm than good, please explain.

[Ernest Everhard]

hey general you're barking up the wrong tree here.

[Guest]

are you saying that people would be better off without minimum wage, child labor, environmental, and other restrictions?

Are you implying that corporations are inherintaly caring for the need of the general population? Are you implying that any successful corporation has became that by fair play and no exploitation; if it was bad business, it would be weeded out, etc?

I agree throwing money into meaningless social programs a lot of the time doesn't work out; and that is why the centre-left democrats are often considered the ones that mess everythign up. I consider the failure of these additional programs the same way someone will fail putting out a fire by not aiming at its base.

[Xvall]

Norman, us 'useless liberals' are the ones fighting for human rights, and helping children in other countries. Apparently, very few corporations share the same concerns as we do.

[Stormin Norman]

It is evident that liberalism has done nothing but hurt the health of our nation. American liberalism has degraded the very fabric of our nation through whatever means necessary. Almost any aspect of life in the United States can be evaluated by how much liberalism has done to hurt it. Health Care, minimum wage, entitlement programs, the justice system, morality, free speech, and national defense all provide examples of liberal corruption.
First of all, health care costs have risen to exorbitant levels. This is called the 'cost disease' in the service sector, which has effected health care more than most other services provided by our economy. Why? Some would say this is due to greedy capitalists who are gouging the public. Reasonable people understand that a large reason that the health care sector is tremendously effected is due to the bureaucracy. For the most part people in this country our covered by health care, many of them on Medicaid and Medicare. Both are institutions created by liberals. The result of flooding the market with government subsidies on health care has increased the damage done by this 'cost disease'. Manufactures of health care products look to exploit the 'free money' in the market and charge more for the merchandise. Along with entitlement programs come laws that demand treatment of people who are illegal aliens or not covered by insurance. Hospitals much make the cost up somewhere so they tack it to the bills of people who pay for insurance. This is why premiums have increased drastically. Of course, these examples are simplistic and require further investigation. The topic is too broad for this post, however it demonstrates the damage socialization has done to this aspect of American life.
Next, look at minimum wage. Personally, I don't know a single person who works for minimum wage. I did once at my first corporate job when I was 14. Anyone with any skill would not be required to live of such a small wage. People act as if minimum wage were some sort of liberal triumph. In reality it is a joke and so is anyone who would agree to work for peanuts. Any economics course will demonstrate the problem with price floors and ceilings. When you play with Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' the results can be catastrophic. In this case I believe that many teenagers are being paid less than the market would allow since the government decrees that the minimum wage is fair. In reality, they would have been paid more if the market system had decided fair price for unskilled labor. Congratulations, you helped the small business owner stiff high school kids.
As far as entitlement programs are concerned, refer to Medicare and Medicaid above. We could also look at the ridiculous retirement program that was set up for America's seniors. Barely a 3% return on investment, a profit that is smaller than the rate of inflation. Personally, I would never choose such a poor investment for myself. Unfortunately, I don't have a choice, since my investment is going to pay for today’s retired citizens. That is why politicians remain in politics rather than business, simply because they are terrible with money. It is easy to see how the consumer gets screwed on this deal. Money that would be better served in other investments is being deferred to a failing system, which will leave all Americans without a serious retirement budget.
...The justice system is being rapidly eroded by the deterministic perspective, a hallmark to liberal idealism. It is no longer meant to serve justice, but is seen as a system meant to rehabilitate. "Poor guy, he was a product of his environment, it is no wonder that society forced him into the position to commit murder".
.....Morality. The relativist perspective has allowed for anyone’s perversions to be justified by his or her culture, and inhibited anyone from deciding what is right and what is wrong. "So the Taliban treats women so poorly, that is just the way of their culture. One must not pass judgment on another person's culture".
.....Free speech. "Hate crime!" "Sexual Harassment!" These are disguised as methods of insuring everyone's comfort levels, but they are truly designed to silence others. If you don't like the cut of somebody’s jib, simply call shout either of the two phrases and people will cower for fear of a lawsuit. Malte has even used this tactic on me. Beware the man who want's to silence anyone for any reason.
.....National Defense. Too easy. Look at the fallout eight years of liberal disruption has had on our society. The intelligence and military communities have been downsized to a level that leaves us vulnerable to a bunch of troglodytes. If we didn't have such a liberal view on immigration, we would not be asked to endure possible homicide bombings on U.S. soil. We were contenders with the world's superpowers, now we are being terrorized by the Middle Eastern equivalent of our hillbillies.
Rest assured most of the ridiculous policy and trivial matters, which are the focus of today’s media, results from the rise of liberalism in America. When you hear something that makes your blood boil, when you think that something is too stupid to be reality, there is probably a liberal behind it. Although it makes great material for the stand up comic, the joke is on you. You are digging your own grave.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:56 pm on June 25, 2002)

[Thine Stalin]

I'd like to think FDR's extreme liberal views helped your country through its worst depression, and Woodrow Wilson's liberal goverment had enough sense to avoid world war I until it was no longer possible, keeping your economy from plummeting right after the war.

Don't be so atagonistic, conservitism hurts us alot too. If it weren't for religious idiots controlling the goverment, we'd be have a better understand of the human genome, and cloning.

Sorry for the generic examples.

[Pepe]

Hey Norman,

What do you mean by "American Liberalism"?
Are you sure that you don't mean the American Ilusion or Lie?

What about the American people that during the Cold war were arrested or killed just because of their socialist ideals?

I really would like that you would explain better what you mean with liberalism. I see it more as a soft way of fascism, where political and economic systems are imposed to the world as also to the americans.

Can you explain me why in the U.S the death penalty still exists? Can you explain why must of the people executed are black and why black people compose the high majority of the criminals in the U.S?

Unfortunately I don't have enough information in the subject, and that's why I leave here some questions, maybe you can answer them or some one visiting this topic.

Fuerza Companeros

[James]

Well i really like JFK, so i'll use him as an example to back up my belief in Liberalism.

Heres some Essays i had to do in some Course Work a while back. They give you the general point.

Firstly;

Question 1. Describe the problems that President Kennedy faced in the years from 1961 to 1963.

President Kennedy faced many problems, at home and abroad. The Kennedy family were Irish Catholics who had been successful in America. They were wealthy, educated and sophisticated. Many Americans were jealous of him and the easy life he had (especially those in politics-congress). It is not a surprise he did not have that much political power over many politicians, he had won the election by only 0.2% (votes).
When Kennedy became President he was concerned about civil rights because many black Americans were still being treated unfairly in many places of American, especially in South America where segregation was still common day place. People of all colours and cultures were getting annoyed; protests were becoming more and more common. Protests were becoming mass gatherings that attracted television crews and when they turned violent the whole world new about it. This was a great embarrassment for the world’s biggest democratic world power. America is meant to represent democracy, this was not democracy. Kennedy was a liberal and thought that many were being unfairly treated. He wanted to make it so that everyone felt they were equal.
However, Kennedy found it very hard to get any of his bills passed, because of opposition. The southern democrats opposed his ideas of equality. They preferred segregation, where they had power. Many of the congress also shared this view; thus congress did not support him when he tried to pass a civil rights bill, making it impossible to have a right for all.
However congress was not all that stopped civil right bills from being carried out. Simply, in many cases, the law was just not enforced. George Wallace made a very famous speech, publicly opposing Kennedy; “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever” this was the view shared by many southern politicians.
Segregation was one of the main problems in American civil rights. This led to great leaders such as Martin Luther King to come forward and lead the people (black and white) and be their voice. Massive protests took place, the largest was in Washington. This protest took place at the same time Kennedy proposed the bill to segregation, Kennedy did ask Martin Luther King to not go ahead with the protest so that the bill would have more chance of being passed. Martin Luther King replied with that if there were no peaceful protest, there would be a violent one. It was in 1963 that Kennedy proposed the civil rights bill that would give equal rights to all. Kennedy stated that “Race has no place in America life or law.” However congress refused the bill. Civil rights were not the only domestic problems facing the new President. Unemployment was turning cities into crime-infested areas, as people turned to crime to get money. They needed money to pay for food, shelter and health care. There is no National Health Service in America like there is in Britain. So you get no health care unless you are earning.
As well as serious domestic problems, the new young President faced even more challenging foreign problems which if went sour, could be the beginning to third world war, nuclear warfare and the end of our planet.
During World War 2 America and the USSR were on the same side. When the war finished all the allies pulled back their armies to their own borders, the USSR did not. It converted all the countries it had under its power to communism “satellite states”.
After the war both countries started building up its numbers of nuclear missiles. An arms race began, both sides wanting to be the world super power. In a way it was a classic battle, two old enemies against each other, both the biggest, one communist the other democracy (both against each other, they both preach the opposite to each other).
A good example of the cold war was the Berlin situation. Berlin had been split in half after the war, western control and eastern control. Berlin was “marooned” in the centre of Eastern Germany, and was also the capital. The soviets wanted to remove the western presence from the city and untie the capital. The soviets didn’t know how far the USA would go to defend their sector. The soviet ambassador to the USA was reported to have said, “When the chips are down, the United States won’t fight for Berlin”. However Kennedy was convinced “All Europe (was) at stake in West Berlin” he increased military spending, more men up and mobilised 158,000 reserve soldiers.
Kennedy shared the common belief that, if allowed, communism would spread all through Europe in a domino action (each country falling one by one). This is why Kennedy held on to Berlin so tightly. He told the Soviet leader, that, “force would be met with force” The crises depend when the USSR constructed a huge cement wall going through Berlin, separating the east from the west. Any people trying to escape from the east to the west were shot. Eventually as communism started to die in Europe, the wall came down, in 1989. Berlin was not the only near confrontation of the cold war though, Cuba nearly resulted in World War Three.
Kennedy’s biggest challenge came in 1962 when it was discovered that the USSR was secretly installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. Cuba at the time had recently become a state backed up by the USSR, and was only a few miles off the cost of Florida. The USA became hostile toward Fidel’s government as soon as it came to power. When Cuba became Socialist, America feared that the communism influence would spread through the whole Caribbean. In 1961 JFK backed Cuban exiles in an invasion at the Bay of Pigs. However the invasion was not a success and fuelled the Cuban and Soviet anger. Fidel now realized how serious the threat was from the Americans.
In October 1962 photographs taken from a U-2 spy plane showed that Cuba had started to install soviet missiles. Khrushchev had made a deal with Fidel, America had its “Jupiter” missiles in Turkey, that were in striking distance of the USSR, the USSR felt threatened and wanted some missiles in range of America to deter attacks. Fidel realized that America would not rest till his socialist regime was over thrown, allowing the soviets to place missiles on Cuba would deter attacks from the US and maybe gain more respect from America.
When Kennedy was told about this, Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara outlined three possible courses of action for the president: "the political course of action" of openly approaching Castro, Khrushchev, and U.S. allies in an attempt to resolve the crisis diplomatically, an option that McNamara and others considered unlikely to succeed; "a course of action that would involve declaration of open surveillance" coupled with "a blockade against offensive weapons entering Cuba"; and "military action directed against Cuba, starting with an air attack against the missiles. Much of the conversation that day centred on the military option and the hazardous unknowns of Soviet retaliation, including the possibility of nuclear action. “I don't believe we have considered the consequences," McNamara told the president. "I don't know quite what kind of a world we live in after we've struck Cuba, and we, we've started it.... How, how do we stop at that point?" Thankfully, Kennedy never had to answer that question. Ultimately, President Kennedy chose to initiate a naval blockade against Soviet ships carrying missile equipment.
Kennedy chose this wisely. Choosing an air strike, or any other militant action could well have resulted in war. However Kennedy’s decision had been one that was most difficult. If the Soviets tried to break through the blockade, nuclear war could result. Yet if they did not remove the missiles, the possibility of invasion (and thus, war) still remained.
At first Khrushchev refused to command his boats to return. He protested that America had missiles in Turkey, which justified the Soviets having missiles also within range of the opposition. Khrushchev also said that the Soviet captains would not obey American orders, which resulted in American warships stopping and searching every vessel travelling to Cuba. Both sides found that they could not afford to back down; the humiliation would be too great and would be a victory for the other side. This after all was the most serious confrontation of the Cold War. In the end the Soviets agreed to withdraw the missiles, in accordance to American promises that they would not try to other throw the new Cuban government.
Kennedy had won the most serious confrontation of the Cold War he had confronted the world’s second biggest super power, and had won without loss of life. This improved his support at home, because after he had taken the responsibility for the Bay of Pigs and next to destroyed the CIA, he had had a reputation for having a soft spot for the “red menace”. Kennedy having stood firm against the Soviet Union, shook this reputation off with many people.
However the crisis not only helped Kennedy in the long run, the communication between the worlds two biggest superpowers increased when a few months after the crisis (in June 1963), a direct teletype hot-line link between the white house and the Kremlin was put in place.
So in conclusion, Kennedy was faced with many problems. He faced domestic and foreign problems, both of which were very serious. At home he faced a congress that opposed him and his new ways, a country torn over race and civil rights and personal attacks made at himself. Becoming President by only 0.02% of the votes meant he had many enemies, in and out of government. Kennedy’s biggest challenge was the USSR though. He faced them on two major fronts, Berlin and Cuba both of which he emerged the victor and in both cases there was no loss of life. Every problem that Kennedy was encountered with he was successful in.

[James]

Oh and i might as well post this one, its kind of relevent.


Question 4
During his presidency John F. Kennedy was often unpopular. Why did his reputation grow in the years after his death?

When the relatively unknown JFK beat the better known Richard Nixon there were mixed reactions. JFK won 34,227,000 of the votes, while his republican opponent, Nixon, polled 34,107,000. So he only won 0.2% of the vote. When he became President he faced many opponents, and was hated by many. After his death though, his reputation grew.
The election in 1960 was thought by many to be corrupt, with some feeling that JFK’s father had “bought him political success. JFK was from a rich, upper class family that was Catholic. He was the first Catholic to become President, and was also the youngest. It was normal for the President to be an older man and to have had many years of political experience. Some thought that Kennedy was too young with not enough experience. So in many eyes he was seen as being an incompetent President. Some were also jealous of Kennedy’s good looks, charm, style, family and beautiful wife.
JFK’s father had been involved with the mafia, and had got them to help gain Kennedy votes. Kennedy himself knew that his father was doing deals behind the scenes but so was Nixon. He needed the votes. When Kennedy came to power though, the Mafia did not got repaid the way they wanted. Kennedy started new reforms to counter crime, and JFK’s brother Robert, started a legal battle against the Mafia. Needless to say, JFK became very unpopular with the Mafia and other groups. Another scandal surrounding the Kennedy’s was Marilyn Monroe. JFK was thought to have been associated with her, and speculation grew after her mysterious death.
JFK’s policies also made him unpopular. He became very unpopular at home, when he tried to improve civil rights for all, including for black Americans. JFK’s attempts at stopping segregation were often unsuccessful, but it started the downfall of white supremacy. Many Southerners stood firm against JFK’s wishes, for example “segregation today, and segregation tomorrow segregation for ever”. His foreign policy was also very unpopular. When Kennedy took the blame for The Bay Of Pigs disaster, and took no military action against Cuba or the USSR, he was seen to be “soft on communism”. Shortly before his death, JFK said that America would willingly “offer its hand of friendship” to Cuba if it didn’t make any more deals with the USSR. “After The Bay Of Pigs Kennedy punished the CIA by splitting it up into many pieces, nearly destroying it completely.
It is debatable the extent to which Kennedy was a great president. In some ways President Kennedy seems to have been a great president; he reformed nearly everything about the presidency. He was the first Catholic to take office and was also the youngest President in American history. His staff was full of young faces, rather than grey aging faces. Many thought him to be boyish looking, but when he stood firm against the soviets they knew he was a man. All of this and his speeches connected with the people. As with his wife (who was in the worlds top ten best dressed women list); she brought glamour to the white house for the first time, especially when combined with JFK.
Domestic problems where very hard for JFK to face, the civil rights (especially for Blacks) in the country were in such a state, with segregation still in practice in the south. Kennedy was repeatedly the voice for the people who felt they had no hope. JFK believed in civil rights for everyone, even though he was partially unsuccessful, what he started is being carried on to this day. Kennedy also pushed for better health care, mainly for the elderly. However congress stopped him from doing so. As with Kennedy’s plans to get more money and help those in the inner cities get a better education. However Kennedy did manage to get money for the poor, and set up training for those that had no job and a building programme that gave work to the unemployed.
Then nature of JFK’s death was also important in increasing his reputation. JFK had been throughout his presidency connecting with the people. In most cases, people saw him as one of them. Not as they had seen presidents in the past, who were untouchable, a different class. JFK’s death was captured on many films and witnessed by many people. Sympathy followed when the whole of America saw their president’s head being blown off. JFK was assassinated in front of his wife, and was no doubt witnessed by his children. At his funeral his son, clad in a little sailors suit, pulled away from his mother and saluted his father’s coffin; millions witnessed this.
After his death there was anger. The people wanted to know who had killed their president, and their government seemed reluctant to investigate that deep. At first the American people believed that Oswald had killed the president. But after suspicions aroused, many believed there was more to it and that Oswald hadn’t had anything to do with the murder. No one knows who killed JFK, or the specific reason as to why. This was not what JFK deserved.
When JFK was shot, he was 45/46 years old and had held office for nearly three years. The positive aspects of his character were many in number. He was good looking, charismatic, liberal, and supportive who had stood firm. His death was the end of an era. No president that followed could match him or what he had stood for. The presidents that followed carried on Vietnam, which was a very unpopular war with the American people and cost them many lives. Many thought that they shouldn’t have been there. In the following elections corruptions became more and more commonplace, which culminated with Water Gate. JFK’s regime had gained the publics trust; the presidents that followed destroyed this trust. Many thought that the day JFK was shot, “the dream died”.
So in conclusion, JFK’s reputation grew over the years after his death for many reasons. He was a new breed of president, who had helped the poor, the abused, the homeless, the unemployed and the country equally with compassion. JFK was the one who had prevented world war three, and ultimately, the end of the world. Many idolised him, and were heart broken when he died. Sympathy is also probably a big contributor. JFK was killed on film his dignity was taken with his life. He left behind a large family, one of which was also assassinated soon afterwards (Robert Kennedy), and two small children. However, the presidents that followed may have, in a sense, made him look good. The presidents that followed were associated greatly with fraud and dodgy dealings, and also carried on the war in Vietnam. JFK had made it clear that he intended to bring American involvement in the war, to an end. When the two following presidents both increased American involvement, public opinion of JFK must have soured. JFK was renowned for winning wars without loss of human life, during the Vietnam War, each day Americans saw Americans being badly wounded and killed. JFK would not have let this happen. I feel that the reason public opinion on JFK increased after his death was that he was a much better man than those that followed. He had style, good looks, compassion, visions and was a true American. Who ever had been behind his murder, he died a true martyr.

[James]

Yikes, i should have proof read them before handing them in. Excuse the shit english etc etc

[Supermodel]

Stormin, I think the problem is much simpler than you stated it. The problem is litigators. American sue over everything, including breaking an arm while breaking into your house at night to rob you.

Common sense is dead, not liberalism. Personal responsibility is dead, not quality of life.

Government should defend our borders, lock up dangerous criminals, and provide a floor and ceiling for poverty and wealth, and a floor for healthcare and education. And that's all.

I just got back from a national wildlife preserve.

You can't harm the squirrels.

The squirrels eat the baby birds.
The birds are endangered because of the squirrels.
The beetles are endangered because the the birds.The beetles destroyed rare trees that form a habitat for the squirrels and birds, not to mention the beetles.

Hundreds of lawyers make a living writing laws about this stuff and prosecuting granny for grilling a squirrel for dinner. If you pee and make a puddle that's a wetland, now you can't build on it.

[Xvall]

LOL
Shows how much you care about your constitution. Apparently 'Health Care' as well as 'Free Speech' are examples of 'Liberal Corruption'. Ooh! We better ban free speech! It might make our childrin think otherwise than our christian conservative views.

[marxistdisciple]

lol how silly, liberalism is possibly some people's root of all evil. Liberalism is however what stops corporations taking over most everything in the country. It is the sole voice against war and opression of poorer and more vunerable people. It is basically America's saving grace. Without liberals, the americans would probably have nuked the soviets in the cold war, and probably would have lost even more troops in vietnam.
I agree with supermodel, the real problem that starves the healthcare system of money is litigation. We are getting a litigation culture in the UK here, the goverment has already cited plans to stop huge financial litigation on the NHS, and to give people money and support according to their needs if a doctor messes up.

I heard a case of a burglar tripping over some guys dog and injuring himself while he was robbing his house. He successfully won his case. It seems the house owner ought to make sure his house follows all health and safety regulations regarding midnight burglary! Health and Safety is a problem councils suffer from, people trip over things and then sue for excessive amounts of money. It's just another way for lawyers to make money out of pointless cases. How about capping litigation payouts in certain circumstances? (except things like death or paralysis due to gross negligance)

[Stormin Norman]

Supermodel,

What type of political leanings do you image these juries have who award such ridiculous amounts for people who do stupid things? Who makes it possible for people to abdicate their responsibities? Isn't the environmental lobby generally a liberal one?

It seems that you have witnessed the ridiculous as well. Try to imagine the world view that makes it possible, for these are liberal follies. That is not to say that folly doesn't come from both sides of the aisle. Conservatives have done their damage. When they stick their fingers in the air and judge which way the political wind is blowing, they find it necessary to sell out their beliefs. When conservatives compromise with liberal agendas it has negative impact. For example, signing onto campaign finance reform, a move that will leave much of the power in the hands of the PACs and once again undermines free speech.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:42 pm on June 26, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

Drake Draconian,

Why do you bother responding to a post that you obviously did not read. I stated that health care and free speech were victims in the liberal merry-go-round that you choose to ride. Never did I say that either health care or free speech were in themselves bad things. No, I don't believe the government holds a mandate to provide for people's health care or prescription drugs. Yes, liberals use them as a means of buying votes and is a costly campaign stategy for the taxpayer. Free speech is being hurt by the liberals in many ways. Clinton himself wanted to go after talk radio, after the Oklahoma City bombing. He always claimed there was a 'right wing conspiracy' against him. I guess that was easier than accepting his own mistakes. Also look to the EEOC for examples of what liberals have done to free speech. Would you ask somebody on a date in your office? Would you be willing to say that homosexuality is wrong publicy? Liberals are the closest thing to the thought police that we have.

[James]

Don't i get a reply too? :(

[Stormin Norman]

Marxistdisciple,

Litigation is a huge problem, not only in health care, nut in all aspects of life. People's freedoms our being limited. People who own private property no longer allow the public to use it, since they are afraid they may be held liable for the actions of others. This is limiting of choice that I have had personal experience with. As government institutions are being sued (schools, agencies, police deparments), taxes are raised to pay these enormous settlements. Recently, the department of interior was sued for millions by Mexican Nationals, whose family member had died crossing the desert when illegally entering the U.S..
However, the main reason that prices are increasing in the health care sector is a result of increasing productivity in industry. Manufacturing productivity improves at a constant rate. With this comes increased revenues for the companies involved. The companies can then pay there employees more money. Since the cost of labor is a competitive market, wages and salaries rise in the industrial sector. When this happens the service sector must also raise the amount of money it pays its employees in order to keep them from taking advantage of the higher wages. This ensures that they will maintain a certain standard of service. The problem is that the limit of productivity in the areas depends on human workers. The rate of productivity is virtually set, so revenues do not increase based upon productivity. The industrial sector has the benefit of paying its workers more and charging the consumer less, but the service sector must pass the cost of labor on to the consumer to maintain the profit margins. That is the number one reason given for the insane cost incurred by the public when seeking medical treatment. Let's face it, obviously the medical industry also takes advantage of the fact that consumers have third party payers responsible for footing the bill. In addition, anything that is remotely socialized has an propensity for fraud, and medical suppliers know that trillions of government dollars are in the market. If you want to know how much money was misplaced by Medicaid and Medicare look at the GAO reports last year.

Don't worry, I will get to you too James.

[James]

Thanks. Remember though, i don't live in america or anything - so be nice.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:20 am on June 26, 2002
Drake Draconian,

Why do you bother responding to a post that you obviously did not read. I stated that health care and free speech were victims in the liberal merry-go-round that you choose to ride. Never did I say that either health care or free speech were in themselves bad things. No, I don't believe the government holds a mandate to provide for people's health care or prescription drugs. Yes, liberals use them as a means of buying votes and is a costly campaign stategy for the taxpayer. Free speech is being hurt by the liberals in many ways. Clinton himself wanted to go after talk radio, after the Oklahoma City bombing. He always claimed there was a 'right wing conspiracy' against him. I guess that was easier than accepting his own mistakes. Also look to the EEOC for examples of what liberals have done to free speech. Would you ask somebody on a date in your office? Would you be willing to say that homosexuality is wrong publicy? Liberals are the closest thing to the thought police that we have.


How am I destroying Health Care and free speech? By using it? If I racall, all the 'liberal' laws that are being passed are doing nothing more than enriching and using these two. I don't know where you get this accusation that we are destroying the country. How? By not thinking like everyone else?

[jimr]

I am slightly embarressed to say that I don't exactly know what classifies a liberal. In 1906, The liberal party came to Britian and started off some of the most important reforms that eventually led to a welfare state being created in the post war 1945-1951 Labour Government. However the reasons behind these social reforms, ie provision of school meals act, free medical inspections, introduction of national insurance was all done with suspicious motives. The fear of socialism caused Churchill to agree to limited social reforms to keep the socialists happy, by giving them a little to prevent them from taking it all.

I always thought that Liberalism went with teh standard notation of Lassiez faire, thus promoting Private ownership and being Capitalist by nature. Certianly these liberal ideas were not socialist in any sense of teh word.

Perhaps someone could inform me more about Liberalism, Neo Liberalism and the differences between the two. However in my current somewhat confused state I in no way support liberal acts, as they are only ever reactionary in their tactics to keep the people happy and are not being at all progressive.

[marxistdisciple]

"However, the main reason that prices are increasing in the health care sector is a result of increasing productivity in industry. Manufacturing productivity improves at a constant rate. With this comes increased revenues for the companies involved. The companies can then pay there employees more money. Since the cost of labor is a competitive market, wages and salaries rise in the industrial sector."

Fair enough, if the company made barbies, or burgers. Do people suddenly start getting ill more often to fuel private hospital growth? Do people start having more babies to help fund private schools? Of course not. That is the problem with the market economy, when the market is suffering it has to create customers, and demand for itself. Yes private industry pays more than public companies. That is because they can afford to....they make profit. Does that mean people choose to work for private hospitals and schools instead? Probably, yes. So what is your solution Storin'? Isn't the capitalist system inherantly flawed in the first place....surely public hopsitals shouldn't be competeing with private ones, surely you shouldn't have to give your credit card in when you get shot? Seems plain ridiculous to me, but then I live in a country with a nationalised health service so I probably don't know what I am talking about...

Yes, the companies do take advantage of people being ill, that's why the NHS here gets charged extorsionate amounts for drugs, and tries to find generic equivilents to reduce the outlay. That was what all the fuss was about in Africa too, with anti aids drugs. These drugs keep people alive, but companies wouldn't a)allow generic cheaper equivilents to be manufactured, or B) reduce the prices to a reasonable level, therefore putting life below profit. It's the usual story.

"If you want to know how much money was misplaced by Medicaid and Medicare look at the GAO reports last year. "

I don't doubt it, most companies have their hand in every honey pot they can reach.

[Stormin Norman]

In response to:

'I don't doubt it, most companies have their hand in every honey pot they can reach.'

I would be willing to bet that much of the fraud was an acted carried out by a government official and his friend in the market, who made it easier for the both of them. Just an example of how government involvement in the market accounts for much of the fraud commited, especially when the chair of the commitee has access to millions of dollars. It is easier to steal from the public trough than the private one, because most investors and businessmen watch where their dollars are going. The taxpayer expects to get ripped off.

[Stormin Norman]

James,

Good work. Although I am already familiar with most of the U.S. history referred to in your papers, it is always good to refresh the mind when it comes to past events. I think that many in the intelligence and military community would disagreed with the statement that he redeemed himself after the Cuban Missile Crisis. After all he got them into the mess, to begin with, by hanging U.S. operatives out to dry in the Bay of Pigs. The civil rights movement is attributed to men like Kennedy and Johnson in the history books, but I think it succeeded because of the devotion that the blacks had for the American Dream. I don't really think that any liberal politician sincerely cares for the oppressed. It is a easy way to get the populus vote. By far his best achievement, and the only thing that I respect him for is the advances in the space race that occured under Kennedy. It would be nice to have a president who wants to embark on a Mars mission.

[jimr]

why spend billions on sending man into space when man still starves on earth?

[marxistdisciple]

I agree jimr,

"I don't really think that any liberal politician sincerely cares for the oppressed. It is a easy way to get the populus vote."

It easy to get the popular vote in texas by stating how important guns are to them, this doesn't mean Bush doesn't like shooting himself. By this logic, all the democratically elected liberal senators have been lying to their voters. So if this is the case what makes the conservatives any different? Surely they are equally corrupt in that logic. Sure, some people try to win the liberal vote and don't keep their pledges, but that is just another evidence of the flawed election system in the US. Only in America can Bush get less votes than Gore and still win. The unfortuante thing is, people really don't know what democracy is any more, and they just believe what they are told. I'm not nieve enough to think that Gore would have been a million times better, but it is the process that counts. If the process is flawed, then the outcome is never democratic.

Kennedy had plans to make a lot of reforms he never got the chance to do, he was a peaceful man, and wanted to pull out of vietnam. I believe that was the main reason for his assasination. but saying that, has there ever been a liberal president/revolutionary who hasn't been assasinated?

[Child of Revolution]

I believe that, neo liberalism has helped, by making most of the world considerably poorer, whilst at the same time, bravely and cleverly, filled their own damn piockets with gold.

[Stormin Norman]

Marxist disciple,

I said populus vote, not popular vote. Look up the term. As a communist you should familiarize yourself with it. It was a political movement existing in the U.S. during the late 19th early 20th century, and it marked the beginnings of the liberal movement in America.