Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Democrats can't conceive of a problem that the government can't fix and they can't comprehend what it means to not have enough money, this is mainly because they're spending/wasting other people's money while trying to fix every problem they can find that might gain them votes one day.
Sort of like the contractor I recently hired to refurbish an old farm house for me. He had no way of knowing my funds were limited nor did he care as long as I continued to write the checks.
Yes. Sorry my definition of neo-liberalism doesn't coincide with Wikipedia's economics based page. Next criticism?
I guess asking you to google it up instead is no longer an option either? But then, just like arguments, proper usage of terms doesn't have to be based on reality either. Right?
I guess asking you to google it up instead is no longer an option either? But then, just like arguments, proper usage of terms doesn't have to be based on reality either. Right?
Well it didn't take long for someone to throw out Glen Beck. LOL
I guess asking you to google it up instead is no longer an option either? But then, just like arguments, proper usage of terms doesn't have to be based on reality either. Right?
Again you're referencing an economics concept. Here is one definition of liberal:
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Clearly Democrats don't espouse this, what do you call democrats then. I like to use the term neo-liberal as I call establishment Republicans neo-conservatives. Care to actually criticize the substance of my argument, that Republicans don't need to have alternative solutions, that sometimes the solution is that the government shouldn't solve the problem?
Again you're referencing an economics concept. Here is one definition of liberal:
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Clearly Democrats don't espouse this, what do you call democrats then. I like to use the term neo-liberal as I call establishment Republicans neo-conservatives. Care to actually criticize the substance of my argument, that Republicans don't need to have alternative solutions, that sometimes the solution is that the government shouldn't solve the problem?
Probably not because I made a great point.
Outstanding point....in my business we sometimes say a solution (new widget) looking for a problem........really insightful. Where i reside in the NE I am amazed at my Dem friends who are always looking for problems to solve, and money to spend.......when the best remidy is to do nothing, let people solve whatever percieved problem on their own....
Recently in American politics, not doing anything or simply preventing Democrats from promulgating their agenda, even if Republicans don't have alternatives, has actually proven to be more beneficial to us than costly.
In my opinion, Republicans don't have alternative solutions because some things the government shouldn't solve.
Typical American neo-liberal conversation:
Conservative: "I really don't like this high-speed rail idea. We don't have enough money."
Neo-liberal Democrat: "Oh yeh, well, well what's YOUR solution to the problem."
Conservative: "What problem?"
Neo-liberal: "You know, uh, the one that will be fixed by high speed rail. Look, as long as you don't have your own solution to contribute, just shut up. Obama is the greatest president ever."
I don't know if you've heard today...but now both Republicans and Dems want the 1.6 billion dollar money for the high speed rail...
I guess in the end, not even Republicans were dumb enough to turn down that type of money.
(maybe the Governer thinks only Democrats are out of work, or work in the engineering and construction trades)
I think the governer acted out of his own 'self interest' and not nessicarily for 'All Republicans'...
That 1.6 billion dollars will create a lot of jobs, and I'm sure many of those hired to work that project will be registered Republicans...
It was easy for the Governer of Florida to swipe his pen and refuse that money, since he's employed by the state and has a job...
But to the 1000's of unemployed, that project offered, offers, some finincial help...
Dumb move by the Governer...turn down the money, (which will just go to another state), just to proove some kind of silly principled point...
Sacrifice future jobs for 1000's, just to satisfy some kind of inner point to self...and that's what that decision was...selfish...
That's why other Republicans are now trying to reverse it.
Neo-liberalism is largely an economic concept. Were you talking about liberalism, instead?
Let it be known, henceforth, that VTHokieFan in the year 2010 AD, has cast the term "neo-liberalism" to Democrats, to take on the same meaning as "neo-Conservative" to Republicans in the sphere of modern day American politics.
I could potentiall be three things based on context: liberal, conservative and libertarian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
