What are the goals of liberalism?

[finder]

Seriously, is there a set of defined goals that liberals have in mind? Do government entitlements equate to "freedom" for liberals? What level of taxation is the most they need and will never ask for more beyond it, if granted? Is forcefully taking from a few for the benefit of many a moral request or is it coercion? Do liberals acknowledge that corporations are entities made up of people of which the majority put in a lot of sweat and sacrifice to make the company the economic success and providers of essential goods or services that it is? Are there any government programs the liberals are willing to declare obsolete outside of military expenditures that are only about 3.2% of our gdp? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent...n-military.htm

Considering President Kennedy was more to the right than most modern republicans today and Winston Churchill had this to say...

"Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains."

When is it going to be enough, liberals?

[Dan74]

It seems you're treating liberals a bit too harshly. Most of them advocate somewhat progressive positions, but they're willing to compromise on almost anything.



Also, it's funny that you quoted Winston Churchill. I'll go ahead and quote Joseph Stalin:

"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division, and from the antagonism between poor and rich, means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts."

[finder]

It seems you're treating liberals a bit too harshly. Most of them advocate somewhat progressive positions, but they're willing to compromise on almost anything.



Also, it's funny that you quoted Winston Churchill. I'll go ahead and quote Joseph Stalin:

I am sincere in my questions. I thought Churchill's quote summarized my own personal political leanings well. I too believed in liberalism until I saw greater and greater sums of money leaving my control at an ever increasing rate as I climbed the economic latter; to support welfare programs for those who had more spending money and better health care then myself as a result.

Do you agree with Stalin? That all land owners are land owners because they exploit those who are not as his quote implies?

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Seriously, is there a set of defined goals that liberals have in mind?

Well, as a liberal myself, I'd have to say... not necessarily. Although a source of frustration for me (personally) is the lack of cohesion amongst liberal politicians, and a lack of an actual message regarding these issues.

Let me put it this way: I believe in equality.

I believe in equal opportunity for equal work - that includes equal pay for women and minorities, and it includes equal support for urban and underprivileged schools as for those in rich suburbs.

I believe in equal opportunity for all people - regardless of the socioeconomic circumstances of their parents. That means that people deserve a quality education, and the opportunity to succeed.

I believe in equal freedom from government repression (ironically enough, given the Republican slant these days) - the government should not have any say in what an individual does in their private lives or in their bedrooms. With that said, the government does have a say in issues that affect a society as a whole.

I believe in equal protection from harm - whether it be bodily harm (crime or sickness) or financial, those at the top of the socioeconomic food chain deserve no more (and no less) protection than those at the bottom.

I do not believe in legislated morality. I do not believe in economic policies which enrich the few at the cost of the many. I do not believe either, though, in more than an opportunity to succeed - no one deserves more than an opportunity; one works for it, or does not.

Now, as a self-identified liberal (although politically independent, in voting terms) I will and always have voted for those that support these positions, and those (above all) that are credible and/or have a history of supporting those goals.

I do want to say the following: I don't understand the hypocrisy or the idiocy in the changing or equivocating in positions before and after youthfulness. Maybe it's because I'm still young. But honestly, even with my "meager," wages - I'd appreciate the taxes taken out of my check more if I knew it was going to help someone in need; and beyond what wages I need to live on, support a family on, and retire from in about 40 years, (which, I'd guess, is far less than most people expect) I don't expect anything from my working life in a financial sense.

[barts]

Seriously, is there a set of defined goals that liberals have in mind?

I can't speak for all liberals, obviously, but there may some goals that many liberals share in common. They may include a clean, healthy environment; environmentally sustainable industry, agriculture, and natural resource; universal, publicly-funded education to, at least, the college level; universal, publicly funded health care; low cost loans for small businesses; a government that represents all citizens not just those who fund campaigns; a judiciary that applies the law fairly so there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor; public policy based on facts rather than ideology; an ethos that favors people rather than money; and that's just a brief list.

Do government entitlements equate to "freedom" for liberals?

All government "entitlements" are paid for by people. Some government programs can, indeed, mean freedom. High quality education and universal health care come to mind, as does an independent, apolitical judiciary.

What level of taxation is the most they need and will never ask for more beyond it, if granted?

It's foolish, of course, to never say never, but history shows that the most prosperous times for most people occurred when the highest marginal tax rate on income above about $500,000 was in the 70% range.

Is forcefully taking from a few for the benefit of many a moral request or is it coercion?

The issue today isn't the many taking from the few, but rather the few taking from the many.

Do liberals acknowledge that corporations are entities made up of people of which the majority put in a lot of sweat and sacrifice to make the company the economic success and providers of essential goods or services that it is?

Some corporations do, indeed, fit this descriptions, but corporations that are rent-seekers do not. The rent-seekers, entities who acquire a greater percentage of wealth without creating new wealth, include most of the financial sector which is single-handed the most dangerous threat to world stability and peace.

Are there any government programs the liberals are willing to declare obsolete outside of military expenditures that are only about 3.2% of our gdp? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent...n-military.htm

I would suggest the War on Drugs for a starter, subsidizing major agricultural companies, and the idiocy of many foreign policy positions such as the blockade of Cuba.

When is it going to be enough, liberals?

When the environment is clean and healthy, when there is a true democracy, when education and health care are universal. The list goes on.

When you ask "When is it going to be enough for liberals" it makes wonder when is it going to be enough for conservatives, particularly the wealthy ones. How much of the nation's wealth must you horde before you're satisfied? How much environmental destruction are you willing to cause? How many people are willing to impoverish before it is too many?

[Dan74]

Do you agree with Stalin? That all land owners are land owners because they exploit those who are not as his quote implies?

I quoted Stalin in response to your Churchill quote. Both have some cute & charming quotes, but in reality they were both not so kind and charming.

[finder]

Well, as a liberal myself, I'd have to say... not necessarily. Although a source of frustration for me (personally) is the lack of cohesion amongst liberal politicians, and a lack of an actual message regarding these issues.

I can understand, as noted in my op, my sympathies.

Let me put it this way: I believe in equality.

I think if you ask any fair minded person that they would likely say, "yes" signifying agreement that they too believe in "equality." But how do we approach that and by extension "fairness?" For instance if I'm poor, you win the lottery and a third part built a company from the ground up, would you say the lottery winner should be taxed more then the guy who built the company? Should I the poor, receive more of your money since "you didn't earn it" and some of his to make things fair and equal? Or should the third party pay more because all though he did earn it he has become too successful and has too much? Should we just have a plateau that people can reach and then all earnings above that must be confiscated in the name of equality? i'm curious as to how "equality" works in the liberal mindset. I realize there are scoundrels who have exploited their way to the top but I'm referring to everyday honest people running their economic interests.

I believe in equal freedom from government repression (ironically enough, given the Republican slant these days) - the government should not have any say in what an individual does in their private lives or in their bedrooms. With that said, the government does have a say in issues that affect a society as a whole.

How do we determine what is an equal distribution of justice without being bias as to what the affect may or may not have on society?

I do not believe in legislated morality. I do not believe in economic policies which enrich the few at the cost of the many. I do not believe either, though, in more than an opportunity to succeed - no one deserves more than an opportunity; one works for it, or does not.

Do you consider rape immoral? What is "equal opportunity" and how would you purpose to insure it to all across the board?

Would you mind expressing your views to some of the specific questions in the op? I really am curious as to your thoughts.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I think if you ask any fair minded person that they would likely say, "yes" signifying agreement that they too believe in "equality." But how do we approach that and by extension "fairness?" For instance if I'm poor, you win the lottery and a third part built a company from the ground up, would you say the lottery winner should be taxed more then the guy who built the company? Should I the poor, receive more of your money since "you didn't earn it" and some of his to make things fair and equal? Or should the third party pay more because all though he did earn it he has become too successful and has too much? Should we just have a plateau that people can reach and then all earnings above that must be confiscated in the name of equality? i'm curious as to how "equality" works in the liberal mindset. I realize there are scoundrels who have exploited their way to the top but I'm referring to everyday honest people running their economic interests.

Cash earnings are cash earnings; tax them the same.

I can't say much about the "liberal mindset," - I can only give you my own. And in my own mindset, I don't give a good damn about someone who earns a million dollars a year claiming they're "overtaxed."

Can they live a decent life, and support their family, and retire at a decent age with reasonable benefits and healthcare?

If yes, then they're not "overtaxed," to any extent. I don't care about wanting three boats, or a private jet, or any of that. Wants are not as important as needs, and everyone in society has needs - a basic education, a reasonable assurance of healthcare, and opportunity.

How do we determine what is an equal distribution of justice without being bias as to what the affect may or may not have on society?

Preferably, as apolitically as possible. The simplest question is: does this affect an individual, or society as a whole? If society as a whole, apply utilitarian principles in government, in my opinion.

Do you consider rape immoral?

Yes, but fortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with it being a criminal act - as it should be. Rape, in my opinion, should be illegal not because it is immoral, but because it is an assault - it deprives another person of their right to choose, as well as deprives them of liberty and leads to bodily harm.

The best corrolary to this is the debate about homosexual marriage, in my opinion. Absolutely no one is harmed by homosexual marriage alone (we'll leave the rearing of children out of this, for the moment) - hence, legislation has no part in its governance. [

What is "equal opportunity" and how would you purpose to insure it to all across the board?

As it pertains to the issue, ensure equal opportunity. Equal pay for equal work. Equal funding for schools, regardless of the finances of their neighborhood. Equal protection from environmental harm, regardless of where an individual lives. As I said - opportunity should be equal, not necessarily outcome. If opportunity is equal, then the rest of the inequalities in society are not (in a moral sense) the consequence of the society, I would argue, but are instead the consequence of the individual.

That's all I want - an actual, real society based on individual responsibility.

Would you mind expressing your views to some of the specific questions in the op? I really am curious as to your thoughts.

Taxation is just a governmental tool to make those things we want happen. I don't particularly care about a rate. What other questions would you like answered?

[lsbskins1]

In answer to a specific question posed by the thread...How much taxation is enough?

When we collect enough in taxes to fund all the services people demand from government, then it will be enough. Don't tell someone they can have Medicare and not actually pay for it. Don't tell someone we can fight a war and not actually pay for it. We could cut every discretionary program in the federal government and still not make up the deficit. End every single one. Kill the FBI, make the EPA go away, fire every federal employee who does anything that is not related to SS, Medicare or the military and still not make up what we owe. No federal emergency funds if a tornado, flood or hurricane blow through your town, cut all federal grants that support local schools, not give a penny to any foreign country, not subsidize one single crop...literally kill every single government program and job that is not in those three categories and we would still be running deficits. Why is that? If you ran for office tomorrow saying you were going to gut the military, SS and Medicare, do you think you would get elected? Give it a try.

Now, lets look at a solid truth. No matter what Grover Norquist tells you, Americans don't pay that much in taxes. We are taxed at a lower rate than the citizens of almost every other 1st world nation.

So, either get the Republicans to take the heat for an honest representation of the services that they will kill to make the budget balance or don't talk to me about taxation. Stand up with Paul Ryan, who is at least honest, and say, "Yup. Medicare as we know it has to go if we are going to keep taxation at current rates. Grandma and Grandpa are going to have to take that voucher and use it till it runs out and just suffer if it isn't enough. Sorry. If you want the keep tax rates under 37 % on the top earners, that is the deal. And, we are cutting Medicaid, too. Get ready for poor kids with broken bones not getting treatment and poor adults dying of treatable infections, because we just can't afford to do that shit anymore." The day a Republican stands up and takes that heat is the day I might take a Republican seriously.

[CarlPilkington]

Should we just have a plateau that people can reach and then all earnings above that must be confiscated in the name of equality?

Oh god yes, it should be somewhere around the point you have more money than you could possibly ever spend. Some people just win the lottery too damn much,

And, we are cutting Medicaid, too. Get ready for poor kids with broken bones not getting treatment and poor adults dying of treatable infections, because we just can't afford to do that shit anymore."

Let's be a little more honest here, hospitals don't ask for money up front, they treat you and then bill you. Poor people, like my self, get treated and then are in debt for about seven or so years and then hospitals just give up on trying to collect money. My parents were telling me that the hospital I was born in called the house every day until I was about seven, then they gave up, because my parents couldn't even afford to pay the bills. Yet, here I am. No one who lives by the Hippocratic oath is going to say "Ohp, you're too poor, I can't treat you. GTFO."

[finder]

The issue today isn't the many taking from the few, but rather the few taking from the many.

What does the many have that the few doesn't have or yet need?

When the environment is clean and healthy, when there is a true democracy, when education and health care are universal. The list goes on.

You do realize a true democracy will result in anarchy? The United States is a representative republic. More sensible then majority rule. I would hope we get back to that idea of governing.

When you ask "When is it going to be enough for liberals" it makes wonder when is it going to be enough for conservatives, particularly the wealthy ones. How much of the nation's wealth must you horde before you're satisfied? How much environmental destruction are you willing to cause? How many people are willing to impoverish before it is too many?

The same could be asked of the wealthy liberals. Mom and pop shops are taxed and regulated out of business at a growing alarming rate. My purchasing power has consistently decreased in the last five years. (60 annual rage) Suggesting that the liberal mantra of "making the rich pay their fair share" approach seems to be not only a failure but is backfiring onto all but the super wealthy and the poor. Who are either insulated or not affected depending on their circumstance. For the poor pay null in taxes yet reap the benefits there of and the super wealthy are insulated behind an army of lobbyists.

I would suggest the War on Drugs for a starter, subsidizing major agricultural companies, and the idiocy of many foreign policy positions such as the blockade of Cuba.

I agree, those would be a good start.

[Angry Citizen]

Seriously, is there a set of defined goals that liberals have in mind?

Yes, there are.

Do government entitlements equate to "freedom" for liberals?

No. Government entitlements allow for freedom of access to better lives. We think of people how you might think of cars. There might be an absolutely amazing Corvette sitting in my lot ready to go, if the damn thing had gas. Government entitlements aren't the Corvette; government entitlements are the gas.

What level of taxation is the most they need and will never ask for more beyond it, if granted?

Precisely 52.8195382758020414% from each individual, rounded upward to the dollar.

Seriously, what kind of ridiculous question is this. The level of taxation is tied directly to the state of the economy. The better the economy, the higher taxes should be until we pay off a) our debts, and b) our deficit. The weaker the economy, the lower taxes should be until growth is stimulated. There is no set, defined taxation that would make everything all better, and to speak of one is to miss the entire point of a taxation system.

Is forcefully taking from a few for the benefit of many a moral request or is it coercion?

If it is coercion, it is a lesser evil than letting a person's potential be wasted. See the Corvette analogy.

Do liberals acknowledge that corporations are entities made up of people of which the majority put in a lot of sweat and sacrifice to make the company the economic success and providers of essential goods or services that it is?

Only the most ardent socialist is entirely anti-corporation. Most of us just want corporations to be the economic success and providers of essential goods and services that you claim they already are. The sad fact is, they're not - not even close. Most of them, anyway.

Are there any government programs the liberals are willing to declare obsolete outside of military expenditures that are only about 3.2% of our gdp?

Given that the government itself is little more than 20% of our GDP, that represents a sizable fraction of our budget.

But regardless - sure. Department of Homeland Security. The collection of federal spy agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, which I feel should be condensed into one. Our current tax code. Things like that.