GratisNet: Being a Liberal means having respect for the rights and opinions of others, even when those opinions are opposite yours and most especially when they are being shouted at you. Being a Liberal means having respect for the idea of equality, equality in education, equality in opportunity, equality in employment and equality at the ballot box. Being a Liberal means having the desire to promote the welfare of the people, all the people, and not being afraid or ashamed to admit that at times, government is the only organization large enough and strong enough to do the job.
Can anyone seriously imagine that minorities would have the right to vote, have the unlimited use of public facilities, etc. without the civil rights movement of the sixties, a movement that was driven by people proud to wear the label of Liberal? Being a liberal means believing in all those things that motivated the Founding Fathers to revolt against King George and those who would deny that simple truth are playing fast and loose with the history of those tumultuous times.
Finally, being a Liberal means that we are our brother's keeper, we do have an obligation, as a society, to help those who, for whatever reason, have fallen upon bad times and we most assuredly have a moral obligation to ensure that our elderly citizens can experience their twilight years with security and dignity. Being a Liberal means living the morality expounded in the tenets of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as those of Islam and the religions of the East. In other words, being a Liberal can be expressed as the ultimate morality, ie: Doing unto others as you would have done to you.
So the next time you hear someone from the "I've got mine and the hell with you" conservative crowd speak of morals and patriotism, remind them of what it means to be a Liberal and remind them that their political philosophy was wrong for America in 1776, for it was the philosophy of the Loyalists of that time, and it is most certainly wrong for America in 2005 and beyond.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You have thoroughly confused me with this post. I think you have the modern liberals mixed up with the classical liberals. The founding fathers did not believe in massive income redistribution programs: i.e. social security, welfare, food stamps, or corporate welfare for that matter.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we do have a moral obligation to help those who have fallen on hard times. The only difference between our views is how to help. I believe in the voluntary good will contributions of man and it appears you believe in government force to accomplish social goals. In other words, charitable contributions made at the point of a gun.
As for Social Security, the crisis is not that the government can't continue to fix it. The crisis is that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. A system that would be illegal if any private company attempted to set up and administer the way the government administers social security. Don't get me wrong. I am no Bush apologist, but something must be done to give people better returns on their investment. Something must be done to allow people to pass their wealth on to thier own family when they die. Something must be done to relieve the burden on young black men who will pay into the system all thier lives and then sadly not reach the age of eligibility, thus not being able to realize any return on that money, since statistically a majority of black males die before age 67. Social Security and the Bush regime both need to go by the wayside if we are to have any hope for liberty in the future.
Sorry for the confusion and no, I do not have the classical and modern forms of Liberalism confused. The Founders did not believe in "massive income redistribution programs: i.e. social security, welfare, food stamps, or corporate welfare" so you are correct but they did envision that times and societies change which explains the inclusion of ways in which to alter or amend their constitution. How else would you explain the expulsion of women in the statement of "equality" in the DoI, or the fact that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 with no rights whatsover? Do you seriously think that they intended to keep these exclusionary provisions sacrosanct over the centuries?
To say that they did not envision a strong federal government is to ignore history and the years under the Articles of Confederation, years in which the central government was weak, with little control over the member states. The reason for the Constitutional Convention was ostensibly to amend the Articles but in fact, the real objective was to form a new government model based upon a strong central, or "federal" if you will, government.
"I believe in the voluntary good will contributions of man..." What happens when such goodwill is inadequate to the task or even non-existent, then what?
"...it appears you believe in government force to accomplish social goals." There are times, such as those noted above and for example, the Great Depression of the last century, when government is the only entity large enough to provide the assistance needed to keep society stable and functioning while trying not to make the mistakes of the Weimar Republic which resulted in the nascent German democracy being aborted by Adolph Hitler and the followers of his NAZI movement. A movement that was on the extreme right, in spite of his using "socialist" in the name. He did that for a well known and documented reasons but the discussion of which is best left for another time.
"As for Social Security, the crisis is not that the government can't continue to fix it." Please do your homework. Social Security is not "in crises" nor are drastic measures needed to make the necessary adjustments.
"The crisis is that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme." Incorrect.
"...but something must be done to give people better returns on their investment." Social Security is not an investment plan, perhaps both you and Mr. Bush would do well to research the origins and goals of the system. While I was not around when Social Security was enacted (I was born some six years after, in 1941), I am familiar with the reasoning behind the program and the provisions of it as well
"Something must be done to allow people to pass their wealth on to their own family when they die." Non-sequitor, given that Social Security is not an investment plan in which people have "accounts" with their names on them.
"Something must be done to relieve the burden on young black men who will pay into the system all their lives and then sadly not reach the age of eligibility, thus not being able to realize any return on that money," If we were to do away with Social Security who then would pay the survivor benefits for the offspring of these men, or do you expect that "...the voluntary good will contributions of [men]" would be adequate to the task?
"Social Security and the Bush regime both need to go by the wayside if we are to have any hope for liberty in the future." While the actions of Bush and his miscreants indeed bode ill for liberty in America, you nor anyone else has demonstrated how the destruction of Social Security would reduce liberty. The proponents of Social Security have and can demonstrate that vast numbers of seniors today enjoy the liberty precisely because of the guaranteed re-numeration they receive. This stipend they receive is there after any monies they may have had invested in the market, or in 401K programs (ENRON, etc.) disappeared down the drain.
Thanks to Social Security, seniors can live with some modicum of dignity and surviving dependents have not had the loss of a parent result in the loss of their future.
First and foremost, you would do well to ignore the half truths and outright deceptions of the Bush gang and do the research into Social Security for yourself. Learn about its inception, the goals set out for the program and the additions to it made over the years but mostly learn that it never was designed to be, nor ever has been an investment plan.
Thanks for the reply Daniel.
"...they did envision that times and societies change which explains the inclusion of ways in which to alter or amend their constitution."
I agree that they intended to allow the constitution to be amended over time. I understand that each state gave away some of its' powers in order to unite together under a stronger central government in order to deal with other foreign powers such as England, who may one day attempt to reclaim all or some of the states. It was well understood at the time that this was a compromise between the states who gave that power and who may take that power back via secession.
"To say that they did not envision a strong federal government is to ignore history and the years under the Articles of Confederation, years in which the central government was weak, with little control over the member states."
I think you may need to examine article I, Sec 8, which specifically lists only eighteen areas in which Congress may intervene in human life. In order to satisfy people like Jefferson who wanted a weak central government, the Bill of Rights was included to act as a limit on government powers. Amendment 10 limits Congress from exercising any powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Now I may be crazy, but I have never seen the Article that mentions anything about Congress having the right to set up a giant socialized retirement plan for the people.
"First and foremost, you would do well to ignore the half truths and outright deceptions of the Bush gang and do the research into Social Security for yourself. Learn about its inception, the goals set out for the program and the additions to it made over the years but mostly learn that it never was designed to be, nor ever has been an investment plan."
First let me explain I am no Bush apologist. The only thing about Bush I will apologize for is having voted for him in 2000. I was young and naïve and I apologize. I realize I am still young, but I’m am no longer naïve.
Social Security was sold to the American people in a deceptive way. A 1936 government social security pamphlet said that 3 cents of each dollar you earn up to $3000 per year paid by you and your employer would be the most you would ever pay. That’s it. The government can only take 6 cents per dollar, and must stop taking after your income rises above $3000. Today the government takes 15 cents on every dollar earned, the $3000 cap has been done away with, and the age of eligibility has been raised several times.
"'Something must be done to allow people to pass their wealth on to their own family when they die.' Non-sequitor, given that Social Security is not an investment plan in which people have "accounts" with their names on them."
The original plan sold to the public by the politicians claimed that an account would be set up for you and that checks would be issued to you as a right. Have you seen that asterisk on a social security statement next to the benefits you are supposed to be guaranteed? At the bottom of the page it pretty much declares congress may do whatever it wants with your benefits including exempt you from getting any benefits. This precedent was set forth in Fleming v. Nestor (1960).
How can seniors live with any dignity knowing that congress is continually pilfering the wages of the nation’s younger generations more and more over the years in order to keep their government checks, which aren't even guaranteed, coming?
Daniel Brunson said...
"I agree that they intended to allow the constitution to be amended
over time. I understand that each state gave away some of its' powers
in order to unite together under a stronger central government in order
to deal with other foreign powers such as England, who may one day
attempt to reclaim all or some of the states."
May one day attempt Daniel? You did study the War of 1812 (AKA War for American Independence, Part Deux)?
"It was well understood at the time that this was a compromise between the states who gave that power and who may take that power back via secession."
By whom? Secession, "well understood?" Given the fact that the Framers of the constitution wrote in precise English why would they neglect to lay out the manner and procedure in which a member state could remove itself from the union? The reason is simple, they were in Philadelphia to create a government they hoped would last and the last thing on their mind was a dissolution of that which they were trying to bring into existence.
"I think you may need to examine article I, Sec 8, which specifically
lists only eighteen areas in which Congress may intervene in human
life. In order to satisfy people like Jefferson who wanted a weak
central government, the Bill of Rights was included to act as a limit
on government powers. Amendment 10 limits Congress from exercising any
powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Now I
may be crazy, but I have never seen the Article that mentions anything
about Congress having the right to set up a giant socialized retirement
plan for the people."
Actually if you apply your standard Daniel, 80-90% of the US Code is not authorized by the constitution.
"First let me explain I am no Bush apologist."
Good for you.
"The only thing about Bush I will apologize for is having voted for him in 2000. I was young and naïve and I apologize."
No apologies necessary as long as you remember the old saying," Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
"I realize I am still young,"
Young is better than old, trust me.
"but I'm am no longer naïve."
On this we would disagree but that, too, is alright for it is one of the things that made America great. Of course with the current "Dissent is not patriotism" crowd in power, that greatness is being diminished daily.
"Social Security was sold to the American people in a deceptive way.
A 1936 government social security pamphlet said that 3 cents of each
dollar you earn up to $3000 per year paid by you and your employer
would be the most you would ever pay. That?s it. The government can
only take 6 cents per dollar, and must stop taking after your income
rises above $3000. Today the government takes 15 cents on every dollar
earned, the $3000 cap has been done away with, and the age of
eligibility has been raised several times."
So you would expect that costs and benefits should have remained constant through the years? Using the 1939 dollar as a base, in the year I graduated from high school, 1958, the dollar was worth less than 25 cents and if I recall correctly, the minimum wage was 75 cents/hour. It is silly to expect, in a reality of inflationary pressures, that one program will shall not be affected.
As for the changes to the system, (IE: disability, survivor benefits) they were in response to a real and urgent need in society
"How can seniors live with any dignity knowing that congress is
continually pilfering the wages of the nation?s younger generations
more and more over the years in order to keep their government checks,
which aren't even guaranteed, coming?"
Quite simply when one considers that Social Security was and is and intergenerational pact to ensure that the plight of seniors witnessed by the nation during the great depression would not happen again.
How many people that lost their 401k money due to the ENRONS, etc. or lost their pensions when the company went belly up could have survived their senior years with any sort of dignity were it not for the Social Security safety net?
When you are young it is easy to imagine that such programs are not needed but as one who has had 401k plans raped by management, been downsized (and out of work for 14 months with two kids in college and one about to go, some 20 years ago) and has had some outrageous medical bills, half of which coming after the insurance was cancelled because I was too much of a "risk," I know better.
Throughout my working life I have always paid in the maximum allowable to Social Security, usually before summer was out and even with taking an early retirement, I receive substantially more than the average benefit that has been bandied about the media.
The difference between my youth and yours Daniel seems to be that I always knew that Social Security was not an investment plan and that the money I was paying in each year was used to not only pay current beneficiaries but also place into a "Trust Fund" that would be used to make up the difference when money coming into SS was not enough to offset current outlays. In other words Daniel, the Trust Fund was not unlike the "Rainy Day" funds families, cities and companies have always set up as a hedge against future financial needs. That the government has chosen to use these funds, leaving US Bonds in return, to offset current general account expenditures has only been reality for some 25 years or so.
"Of course with the current "Dissent is not patriotism" crowd in power, that greatness is being diminished daily."
Agreed. I will start on an up note. I'm sure you and I would have a lot of agreeable things to talk about on the current reckless administration. I have spoken out in opposition to the Iraq war since before it started. I have tried to inform my conservative friends of the dangers of the Patriot Act to what is left of our quasi-free society. I appreciate the efforts of those on the left such as Michael Moore for exposing the shamefulness of congress for passing The Patriot Act without even reading it.
But then we have our differences sir.
"Actually if you apply your standard Daniel, 80-90% of the US Code is not authorized by the constitution."
Now we are getting somewhere! What you call my standard is also known as the chains of the constitution. Politicians have been disregarding those limits for decades now as they have taken this country into the slavery of majority rule, also known as mob rule. The U.S. government has zero respect for individual liberty, which leads me to my next point.
When I asked you how seniors could possibly live with dignity knowing that their S.S. checks are not guaranteed, but subject to the current whim of the current congress, you said:
"Quite simply when one considers that Social Security was and is and intergenerational pact to ensure that the plight of seniors witnessed by the nation during the great depression would not happen again."
This "intergenerational pact" is robbing me and my peers of the ability to more easily save for my own long term care and security in a time when taxes are much higher than they were when this so-called pact was entered into. No one consulted me when I entered the work force at age fifteen to ask if I would like to take part in this "intergenerational pact." I did not have the ability to opt out.
What would be the harm in allowing some people to peacefully choose not to participate in this pact? I have found that the most common answer to this question is that people are too stupid to manage their own retirement. Well you know what; in a free society citizens have the right to make stupid decisions, even if those decisions come back to harm them later on in life. My choices in a free society are none of anyone else's concern, so long as I do not forcibly harm anyone else in the process.
I have noticed you seem to refer to the Great Depression a lot in your responses. Did you know there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that the recession, which turned into a depression, was caused by a misguided Federal Reserve System attempting to control inflation in combination with unprecedented government interventions into the market. These interventions put tremendous strains on the already struggling economy, which caused the recession to worsen and last for years instead of only 18 months like the recession of 1921.
Post a Comment