Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (32634)	7/1/2008 8:15:14 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 224750

So that is a very nice fairy tale Stephen, but we may wish all people are basically good, but we do know that many are not. What about those bad ones? Many will not be corrected. Many are simply sociopaths and thrive on the assistance provided to continue their painful activities. Do the liberals stop them? Do they protect others from them? I believe once we can protect others from rapists, murderers and arsonists, we will have it made. I believe much of the fault starts at home and then in the schools where they are equally undisciplined. That is one reason so many countries spend so much less per student and yet the learning in these others countries is superior. It isn't a problem at which people can simply toss money. Children need security, need to show respect to others and be removed from the classrooms when the are disruptive.

To: puborectalis who wrote (32634)	7/1/2008 8:19:25 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

All the economic reinforcement and medical care in the world will not create a safe, secure environment without respect for each other. It starts with the children and it goes forward for life. How to handle thugs before someone is in the ER is where we need to examine the possibilities. No simple answers there.

To: puborectalis who wrote (32634)	7/1/2008 10:26:05 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224750

Americans tried liberal programs for decades. Instead of curing social ills, welfare checks created a vicious cycle of more babies (for families unable to afford those they had) in order to receive a larger gov check; babies having babies, fatherless families and crime ridden cities. All the result of one ill-conceived liberal government program which solved nothing and merely created more social problems. >it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills<

To: puborectalis who wrote (32634)	7/2/2008 9:07:48 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Respond to of 224750

First of all I'd like to assert to you that government is the least effective way of doing almost anything. One of the few things that the gov't does do well is the military, but that’s more in spite of the politicians rather than because of them. Since I believe this true and have seen the inefficiencies first hand I also believe that many areas of the gov’t could be privatized. You’ve mentioned SS. I’m still moderate enough that I will concede to you that SS was necessary at the time, I say at the time because lower income people didn’t have that many investment vehicles to build their own safety nets to save for retirement, (now it’s hardly that way). Hell, I’ll even give the Dems credit for the program although I doubt if the Dems could have passed and enforced it without Republican help. SS highlights a problem that seems to be endemic of Democrats……They’re great at starting a program…..but inept when it comes to managing the same mostly because one is starting is popular, maintaining is not….and I might add that adequately maintaining the projects might have also shown that Illinois wasn’t exactly getting it’s bang for the bucks. Wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out that SS rules needed to be modified in order for the program to balance it’s books, however, where enacting the program would be seen as popular, making the program work by modifying the paid benefits would hardly be. So as with many huge programs it became a political football. Again, accepting that fact and dealing with the problem wouldn’t be seen as popular being that fewer people that paid into the program would receive the benefits from it, We see exactly the same thing today with BO and public housing albeit on a smaller scale….otherwise known as the projects. B. O. may have had a lot to do with digging up the money to build public housing in Chicago, but he also had a lot to do with it’s complete failure by not, either monitoring how the money was being used to maintain the program or possibly worse, steering management to his buddies regardless of whether they were going competently manage the housing or not. Again though, we see political expediency. It’s popular to give away gov’t subsidized housing, but quite another political football of making it work. So, instead of doing the right thing and fixing the way the projects were managed and maintained, BO kept building more, even as the first project was being turned into a rat hole. I'm not done here yet....by any means.....

To: puborectalis who wrote (32634)	7/3/2008 9:45:03 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Affirmative Action, like most well intended social programs that the liberals invent, was a feel good program that gave minorities selection advantages when it came to getting into college, obtaining Gov't loans for starting businesses etc.... and was IMO Constitutionally illegal. Not only that but it signaled a departure from something that I consider as an American core value that the best person gets the job or promotion, or college entrance.....etc So now where these processes should be color blind AA has instilled race as part of the selection process... Instead of creating AA, what should have been done was to enforce equal opportunity when it comes to college entrance and jobs selection. If that was enforced and where there might have been discrimination happening a few well placed law suites against businesses an colleges that were discriminating would have sent a clear constitutional message to businesses and colleges. Violate EO guidelines and you lose money through fines etc.... this clearly would have given the offenders an economic incentive not to discriminate. As ML King demonstrated, economic incentive a most powerful tool. Also, one additional unintended consequence. It created two classes of degrees from the same school, same course load, same grades, the only difference is the color of the person earning the degree. In other words, employers don't see those 2 degreed persons as equal being that the selection process was lowered for one. So, in effect what AA did was set race relations back several years............ I'm still not finished.