What are the goals of liberalism?

[lsbskins1]

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."

Right, because when the federal funds that pay hospitals block grants to do this kind of stuff are gone, they'll just take the losses...

http://www.ehow.com/about_5580189_gr...hospitals.html

They are required to attempt to collect payment, but the reason they are able to provide the services is because the government supports their budgets.

[finder]

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,

Wasn't the allure of having no "glass ceilings" what created the wealth by drawing many entrepreneurs from around the world here with their dreams and ideas?

[finder]

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.

But AC,

Why doesn't the liberal effort simply focus itself on those specific companies? And they should take much greater measures to protect the middle income wage earners and mom and pop shops from consistently being the collateral damage as a result of their efforts. All we hear are excuses in the end, meanwhile, no joke, there are people living better then I, in government housing, receiving assistance that I'm not able to receive or take advantage of because I make too much at 60,000 per year. My compiled tax burden is above 50% of that. Just saying that is the reality down here on the ground that I see daily so if the corporations aren't the ideal providers for society like you claim, and are the real targets, then how is it they got richer in the last 3.5 years while I can't benefit from the very programs I'm paying for, that liberals claimed they wanted the rich to pay for?

[Angry Citizen]

Why doesn't the liberal effort simply focus itself on those specific companies?

They do. Ever hear about the distinction between "small business" and "big business"? Liberals made that.

meanwhile, no joke, there are people living better then I, in government housing, receiving assistance that I'm not able to receive or take advantage of because I make too much at 60,000 per year.

No there aren't, and if there are, they're outliers. And if you're making 60,000 per year and need government assistance, then either you need to cut back on plasma TV's, or you need to invest in condoms.

how is it they got richer in the last 3.5 years

Have liberals been in charge? No, they really haven't. Any wide-ranging reform to reverse Reagan and Clinton era deregulation and welfare reform would be met with a) the Blue Dog Democrat coalition jumping ship, or b) a Republican filibuster.

The era of liberalism was between the presidency of FDR to the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Guess when our most prosperous and economically stable period was?

[Dan74]

If your goal is prosperity then you really are lost

[Angry Citizen]

If you'd like to please explain how I'm "lost" for wanting prosperity, that'd be great. If not, well, please let me know.

[finder]

They do. Ever hear about the distinction between "small business" and "big business"? Liberals made that.

My daughter's used baby clothing store and friend's bistro both did good business but were taxed and regulated out of business. I'm having a hard time seeing what liberals consider "big business" if that's the "distinction" in context of going after the rich.

No there aren't, and if there are, they're outliers. And if you're making 60,000 per year and need government assistance, then either you need to cut back on plasma TV's, or you need to invest in condoms.

You obviously have no clue as to the cost of living in the bay area. I'm tied to my job unfortunately for various reasons but I'd much rather be making say 40,000 annually in Texas. And yes they are, huge liberal metropolitan areas commonly have people who rely on government living side by side with us who need to "invest in condoms". Do you really believe all that equality crap they spew is meant for the middle class?

The era of liberalism was between the presidency of FDR to the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Guess when our most prosperous and economically stable period was?

During the Carter administration?

[lsbskins1]

My daughter's used baby clothing store and friend's bistro both did good business but were taxed and regulated out of business. I'm having a hard time seeing what liberals consider "big business" if that's the "distinction" in context of going after the rich.

Just how were they "taxed and regulated" out of business?

[Dan74]

If you'd like to please explain how I'm "lost" for wanting prosperity, that'd be great. If not, well, please let me know.

Because prosperity can come from just about anything. It doesn't require equality or any of that.

[Angry Citizen]

Prosperity for the masses is equality by definition.

[Dan74]

But from Roosevelt onward there wasn't prosperity for the masses.

[Angry Citizen]

I didn't say improvements couldn't have been made. I did say that our most prosperous time was during the post-FDR, pre-Reagan era when our regulations and taxes were high and our welfare state intact.