Who knows the difference between Liberals and Conservatives?

[pianofrieak2]

Piano, you are once again the most right-winged subjective and (I'm sorry to say so) ignorant poster in this thread.

 

I wouldn't mind to see what would happen if you ended up on the street. If you claim the conservatives are right that the pityful thing some Americans call alimentation (which isn't even enough to have a less than decent living) is still too much, you should really try and survive for just one month with the amount of money these people get. You probably have no idea how fast money slips through your hands when you have to pay everything yourself since your, most likely wealthy, parents pay everything you need.

 

 

 

If you're on the street, getting a job where you can earn more than what alimentation supplies you, is incredibly hard if you don't have the right education, clothing, family or friends. I hope you're able to still find a tiny bit of what Jesus tried to tell us in your 'catholic' heart and at least grant these people the right to survive.

 

 

 

Whoa, lol. No need to get real offended there, Oy.

 

 

 

For one thing, I took a very neutral stance. I told you what the conservatives believed and what the liberals believed. I took two sentences to talk about welfare and my view and you just come flaming me? Certainly that's not the way to talk if you're trying to be a good person.

 

 

 

But enough about that. Let me refer to your "comments." For one thing, I didn't say scrap the whole welfare system. I'm not naive enough to think that nobody goes through hard times and needs some extra help. But I'm asking that you not be naive enough to think that everyone that has welfare needs it. MANY people are on welfare and use it as a crutch. At least be realistic in your viewpoint.

 

 

 

Secondly, you claim that I'm rich and get everything I want. Besides the fact that you know nothing about me nor my financial situation, I'm offended that you would think something so terrible. You think I'm this cold-hearted person who thinks everyone is selfish and terrible.

 

 

 

My whole point was that the welfare system is terribly overdone. Too many people get it that don't need it, the welfare system continually is taken over by the government and undergoes so much tax from the bureaucracy that billions of dollars are lost in paying for the government to figure out how much goes to which person.

 

 

 

I understand your point and even agree in saying that it needs to continue to exist. But please don't be so naive to think that everyone who gets it needs it or that it needs that much regulation by the government. Besides, I actually live in America, so I have a more in-depth knowledge of how my government handles the whole process. Not saying that you are completely ignorant on the subject, but at least I have a personal and first-hand experience with it.

[yonman14]

 

A liberal economic policy would support the deregulation of business, less government power, and lower taxes (Increase freedoms). While a pure conservative policy would change nothing and keep the status quo.

 

 

Letting the economy act on its own accord, and not intervening is known as laissez faire.

 

 

 

Just a little history lesson:

 

"The laissez-faire school of economic thought holds a pure or economically liberal market view, that the free market is best left to its own devices." (Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Economically liberal = deregulation of the economy.

 

I :3> History

[Oy_the_Great]

Argh, I'm sorry piano, once again you'll have to forgive me if I sound harsh when I do, I'm always defending the rejects in the world and I can offend many others doing so. You know me :)

 

 

 

I just didn't accept the fact that you said 2 things, 2 things that I really think the opposite of:

 

They claim it is very wasteful and impractical. And they are correct, for many in the welfare system are lazy and don't even try to get jobs. The liberals carry the opposite view and decrease military spending to spend it on welfare which results in more tax dollars to pay for the bureacracy and help the poorer classes.

 

 

 

 

You clearly gave us the idea that you supported the conserv'es, but then you say that it's a good thing that they invest more money in the army, which is obviously not there to help poor people, instead of in the welfare system.

 

Is it so bad that your taxes don't go to bombs, aircrafts, warships and anti-missile shields but to the welfare system, that might be bureaucratic? I would much rather give a 10th of my salary (i.e. a part of the taxes) to people in a bureaucratic system, that sometimes work a little and to the people on the street than to the army. I don't really understand why you justify the military. In Belgium we have this minister of defence that claims we need a bigger army. I think that's just one of the worst things a country can do, it'll only create a cold-war effect. The more soldiers we have, the more our enemies will recruit. It's of course silly not to have an army, or your country will be run over and lose all credibility of being a powerful state. But I believe about 7% of all US taxes go to defence, right? I think that same percantage is 0.7% or less of all taxes in Belgium. And that's good; if we're talking about a few percentages of the taxes, we're obviously talking in billions. I would rather have a very balanced economy where everyone can live properly, where there aren't too many excesses and where taxes are used to construct roads, public schools, public sporting facilities and other public, err, stuff :)

 

 

 

You also said

many in the welfare system are lazy and don't even try to get jobs.

. That's pretty harsh of you; you could even call it racist towards the poor, if they could be considered a race. Who says most of these people don't try hard to get a job? I know I would. Do you have proof that a big number of these people don't do a thing to get a job? I think only like 20% doesn't care anymore, the other 80 is probably doing nothing but it. And yes, there will always be people who like to do as little as possible, even if they have to take advantage of others. But there are at least as many of those people in businesses, I can guarantee you that. How do you think some people get promoted if they have competition for that spot? By taking credit for stuff they didn't do, or barely were involved. It happened a few times to my father, who did some great work, but then a colleague claimed he had mostly been doing it. He ran away with the promotion, although my father did the work. That's at least as bad as letting the community work for you IMHO.

 

 

 

One last thing: unemployment rates in Belgium are 10-11%, in the US around 5%. The difference is largely due to the very high welfare payments here. I am an economist, and a convinced capitalist, so I think welfare shouldn't be too high, especially not in a country like Belgium where medical care, education and many other things are practically free.

 

So I too want it to be lowered, but not too much; because I've been on the street, just to see what life is there; I could return to my warm, cozy family with everything I needed anytime. Those people told me what life is all about if you're on the lowest step of our community. They practically can't get a job anymore, not because they're not good employees, but because they live on the street and a company of course doesn't want those people. These people can only do jobs like picking up dirt for the city, doing some scrappy jobs for people etc. It's a vicious circle that's hard to escape. I know (my uncle in Arizona knows all about it) that that circle is nearly impossible to break through in the US, just because of the welfare system. If those people get sick, they can't afford going to a doctor, if those people break a leg, they can't affor going to a clinic where they'll get help soon.

 

What I dislike about the US system is that you can get the best of care if you have the money, and people let you rot away if you don't.

 

 

 

 

 

But anyway, I'm sorry to have offended you Piano, I was in a bad mood too :)

[Oy_the_Great]

 

A liberal economic policy would support the deregulation of business, less government power, and lower taxes (Increase freedoms). While a pure conservative policy would change nothing and keep the status quo.

 

 

Letting the economy act on its own accord, and not intervening is known as laissez faire.

 

 

 

Just a little history lesson:

 

"The laissez-faire school of economic thought holds a pure or economically liberal market view, that the free market is best left to its own devices." (Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Economically liberal = deregulation of the economy.

 

I :3> History

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

That's what progressive minds thought in the 18th century. Adam Smith said that the best way to achieve wealth in a nation would be to have a free market, just like you said. It would be guided by 'the invisible hand' that regulates all competition. Once, again, this was 1776, in his 'inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations'. Back then, Kings still reigned Europe, not the civilians. He didn't realise what would eventually happen if there weren't any rules to follow at all.

 

Afterwards economists knew better; an economy without regulations is like a bunch of viruses without medication. The viruses are companies that take over all other competitive companies and eventually have more than half of the total market share, thus becoming monopolists, who can determine the price. If the economy is full of monopolists, there won't be any more competition, so the free market, lead by competition, the invisible hand, isn't free anymore.

 

There need to be regulations against certain things that would happen in a free market without rules. A good example is the anti-trust law in the US. These regulations are what I call the medication for the spreading viruses.

 

I hope you'll realise that being economically liberal = NOT a deregulation of the economy. Not at all.

[Militaris]

Oy_the_Great, you could not be more wrong.

 

 

 

Firstly, unless a monopoly is more efficient then its competitors, it would not survive in a truly free market. Most monopolies have been caused by government regulations and protections. In a open market, eventually, due to the development of new technologies or smaller more efficient competitors, the monopoly market share would erode away.

 

 

 

One good example is that many of the Telcos (often with government backing) controlled a physical monopoly over phone calls (Due to owning the wire networks). Due to the large capital cost of laying another wire network it was uneconomic for others to lay their own networks, and for a short while the monopolies flourished. (Although phones were never the only firm of communication, just the quickest which allowed them to charge for the service).

 

 

 

Then came along, wireless technology, this allowed for a relatively inexpensive means to offer a phone service. In many countries, the large telco was slow to act, and have now loss large percentages of their market.

 

 

 

A inefficent monopoly would simply not survive in a free market. A efficient monopoly would be a good thing.

[pianofrieak2]

You clearly gave us the idea that you supported the conserv'es, but then you say that it's a good thing that they invest more money in the army, which is obviously not there to help poor people, instead of in the welfare system.[/quote[

 

 

 

What's wrong with me being open about my beliefs?

 

 

 

Is it so bad that your taxes don't go to bombs, aircrafts, warships and anti-missile shields but to the welfare system, that might be bureaucratic? I would much rather give a 10th of my salary (i.e. a part of the taxes) to people in a bureaucratic system, that sometimes work a little and to the people on the street than to the army. I don't really understand why you justify the military. In Belgium we have this minister of defence that claims we need a bigger army. I think that's just one of the worst things a country can do, it'll only create a cold-war effect. The more soldiers we have, the more our enemies will recruit. It's of course silly not to have an army, or your country will be run over and lose all credibility of being a powerful state.

 

 

 

My Dad was in the Air Force so I may sound biased, but you obviously need a strong military. Especially when you're the number 1 and have so many enemies (entire Arab nation, China, Korea, Iran, etc.). Besides, our military expense is between 5 and 7%, so it's not like it's 30% or anything.

 

 

 

And the cold war effect would only happen between China and the US in a decade or so.

 

 

 

But, besides, I'm not against the entire welfare system like I said before. I'm just against wasteful uses of it, which are increasing the more amount of money is poured into welfare.

 

 

 

But I believe about 7% of all US taxes go to defence, right? I think that same percantage is 0.7% or less of all taxes in Belgium. And that's good; if we're talking about a few percentages of the taxes, we're obviously talking in billions. I would rather have a very balanced economy where everyone can live properly, where there aren't too many excesses and where taxes are used to construct roads, public schools, public sporting facilities and other public, err, stuff :)

 

 

 

Balanced economy? You mean socialism where everyone makes the same amount of money desipte their job's requirements (doctors v. garbage men)? Since you're from Europe, you probably have a much higher view of socialism, but it's really quite unfair unless you're in the lower classes.

 

 

 

God tells everyone to work their hardest in whatever they do, whether it be a garbage man or a CEO. How about this economy? The government takes as little money as it needs to do its basic jobs (protection, roads, education, etc.) and then nothing more. Instead of it dipping its hands into everything, regulating it, and then letting people do whatever they want with their 20% of their earnings. Why not let the people do whatever they want with 80% of their earnings and let the government play a minimal role.

 

 

 

You also said

many in the welfare system are lazy and don't even try to get jobs.

. That's pretty harsh of you; you could even call it racist towards the poor, if they could be considered a race. Who says most of these people don't try hard to get a job? I know I would. Do you have proof that a big number of these people don't do a thing to get a job? I think only like 20% doesn't care anymore, the other 80 is probably doing nothing but it. And yes, there will always be people who like to do as little as possible, even if they have to take advantage of others. But there are at least as many of those people in businesses, I can guarantee you that. How do you think some people get promoted if they have competition for that spot? By taking credit for stuff they didn't do, or barely were involved. It happened a few times to my father, who did some great work, but then a colleague claimed he had mostly been doing it. He ran away with the promotion, although my father did the work. That's at least as bad as letting the community work for you IMHO.

 

 

 

Please, Oy, you know me better than that. I don't think that all poor people are lazy, nor do I think that all rich people are hard-working. Just look at actors. But, anyway, my whole point is that the welfare system should be minimal and the government should let people keep most of their money instead of taking most of it like socialism requires.

 

 

 

Unfairness happens all the time. It's just a part of life. Jesus said to work the hardest that you can in whatever you do, (do it for the glory of God) so it doesn't matter what job you have.

 

 

 

But anyway, I'm sorry to have offended you Piano, I was in a bad mood too :)

 

 

 

I forgive you, Oy. It wasn't that big of a deal. The main difference between you and me is the amount of government. You're a capitalist (you claim) but you seem to have very socialistic tendencies. I can see the pros and cons of each side, but I tend to agree more with civil libertarians and conservatives than liberals.