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.
Chuck's claim that "Obamacare is unraveling," is premature and represents his own wishful thinking wet dream. Obamacare has bumps in te road but it doesn't mean that the unpaved road that preceded it was superior.
Those that have been able to get insurance through the exchanges are largely satisfied.
Liberal policies ended slavery in the country; liberal policies gave women the right to vote; liberals were responsible for civil rights; liberals created the New Deal that grew the middle class; liberals created Social Security and Medicare that brought seniors out f poverty.
Where were conservatives? Opposing them on every one of those issues.
Unfortunatley nothing close to liberalism has taken root in our Government in many decades:
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.
Charles spoke of setting back liberalism 10 years.... death was not the point as philosophies recycle, some more than others, socialism rarely and goes dormant for many decades..reason why no compromise is now possible as the choices are not variations but absolute deviations. It is foolish to pretend to compromise at thsi point becaue the socialist backers of obama are struggling for their very life. No holds barred.
When your "bumps in the road" involve taking peoples' healthcare choices out of their hands and placing them into the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats, and costing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars more than projected, then yes they absolutely do mean that the unpaved road was superior.
First, it's not costing hundreds of billions of dollars more than projected.
Second, you decry "taking people's healthcare choices out of their hands," but that is exactly what happens when insurance companies cancel you because you have a pre-existing condition.
And who are those people? Young healthy financially stable single men who rarely use healthcare services? Or families and people with poor health and/or poor finances? Lots of people are finding that they are doing better on the exchanges -- including that Florida woman who was initially complaining about her insurance rising by 10X. Fact, it she transformed her junk policy into a real policy and it only cost $59 a month more.
[Regarding liberals ending slavery] The liberal policies of today didn't exist when slavery ended. People in the 1860s, whether they were abolitionists or ardent slavery defenders, were ultra hard core right wingers by today's standards. They did not have federal income taxes. They did not have food stamps. They did not have a federally mandated education curriculum. They did not try to regulate how much salt or sugar people had. They did not try to ban guns. They did not support public sector unions. They were nothing like today's liberals and it is disingenuous to try to claim them as the spiritual ancestors of today's socialist leaning leftist control freaks. The abolition movement was a clearly a liberal movement, especially after the mid-1800s.
No they weren't. Black people standing up for themselves were responsible for civil rights. Liberals simply capitalized on them. Any time a special interest group comes together, you will find some politician who is willing to take up their cause. You really can't be serious and deny that liberals were behind the civil rights movement. Were conservatives like George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Strom Thurmond advocates of civil rights? Of course not. They were on the other side. Liberals like Thomas E. Dewey, Harry S. Truman and Hubert Humphrey were proponents of civil rights.
No, it didn't. The prosperity following WW2 grew the middle class. The New Deal prolonged the depression in America by half a decade longer than most of the rest of the world took to recover.
Both of which are unsustainably draining the nation's economy.You are just making things up and engaging in revisionist history. The New Deal policies, such as the minimum wage, a progressive tax system, Social Security and pro-union legislation made income inequality decline drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, giving working Americans saw unprecedented income gains. That grew the middle class.
I don't think it is dead either. I think the Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot and they know that their policies are making the country far worse off. I think with the failure of Obamacare, the impending blow up of QE and the polls showing the massive mistakes made by Big Government, people are waking up. Especially the middle class and poor as they see that the President and his Democratic counterparts have weakened the country and have blatantly lied about many things.
I wish what you were saying were true. But the polls also show Clinton as the likely winner of a 2016 election.
Quote:
I agree with 54ford, the pendulum definitely swings. Remember the 80s? The Democrats were a joke, a laughingstock (well they are always that) and couldn't put up a viable platform.
The liberals of today aren't the same ones of back then. Do think back then anybody could have won re-election with 8% unemployment, covering up an assassinated ambassador, a failed trillion dollar stimulus, etc? Times are different now and I don't think you can use past politics to predict future results as accurately as you once could. We have undergone a fundamental shift to an entitlement society now where the 2012 exit polls showed people preferred Romney on both the economy and on foreign affairs but voted for Obama anyway. Out of all the scandals that have happened - oil spill, stimulus, cash for clunkers, fast & furious, IRS, NSA, Benghazi, Catholics forced to provide contraception, telling Russia "I'll be more flexible after the election", Arab Spring turning into a nightmare, etc - Obama was never hurt until it came to Obamacare. Until it came to a scandal that actually personally affected the finances of people, they didn't care. It's a different America today.
I really wish Charles Krauthammer could be sent back to Paris France in the year 1792. The first time he opened his mouth and criticised the Commitee for Public Safety he would have a date with Dr Guillotin's new invention!
Last edited by Ibginnie; 11-14-2013 at 09:54 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
I really wish Charles Krauthammer could be sent back to Paris France in the year 1792. The first time he opened his mouth and criticised the Commitee for Public Safety he would have a date with Dr Guillotin's new invention!
As much as I admire Krauthammer's occaisional brilliance, I have to disagree with him here. Liberalism is not dead, because liberals do not sell great ideas, they exploit greed and laziness, which will never go away.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 11-14-2013 at 09:54 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post
Unfortunatley nothing close to liberalism has taken root in our Government in many decades:
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.
That's classical liberalism which is not what we call liberalism in America today.
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.
