how many times does liberalism have to fail before idiots give it up?

Answer 1

Einstein defines the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results. I see that in Liberals constantly, they desperately wish to relive the seventies again. Dr. Savage is right Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Answer 2

Geez! I didn't realize Liberalism did fail.
Flashback to the 90's:
Gas prices dropped below a $1 per gallon
Economy boomed
IT and Construction Jobs boomed
Deficit was turned into a SURPLUS!
ETC,ETC
Now, I am a Democrat, BUT , I wouldn't support a total Democratic congress and Senate, it too would lead eventually to corruption and overspending.
We need a mixture of both parties in order for good debate over ideas and force through better legislation that is good for ALL Americans and not just SOME!

Answer 3

Woody1970, Is that the last time you actually had one? :)

Anyway, Woody1970, are you really that naïve that you honestly think Clinton was responsible for the economic boom of the 1990s?

I assume you were born in 1970; and therefore, can actually remember the 1990s unlike most of the people here on Yahoo Answers.

First of all, the President has very little impact on the economy. He can influence the generally economic condition by either providing an economic stimulus through tax cuts; or slow economic growth by raising taxes. However, the overall economy is controlled by the Federal Reserve Chairman and still dictated by business cycles of surplus and demand. A very, very simplistic example is this. Business slows, people get laid off, less money is spent causing business to slow further, and a recession occurs. Demand picks up, business expands, more people are hired at higher wages, more money is spent, an economic boom occurs.

Clinton was extremely lucky that he was President when an economic boom took place during a technological revolution, which artificially magnified the economic boom. In fact, this is the second time such technology based economic boom occurred. The first time was during the 1920s, back than the boom was magnified by the radio revolution. Had Bush 41 won re-election and was President during the early to mid 1990s, they same exact economic growth would have occurred.

The second thing you neglect to take into consideration is that for the first two years of Clinton's Presidency the Democrats control both houses of Congress. During that time Clinton tried to push through Socialized Medicine, which would have destroyed the US economy had it passed, especially the plan his wife proposed. Luckily, for Clinton his plan failed to pass Congress, and scared the American people to the point that in 1994 they gave control of the Congress to the Republicans for the first time in 50 years.

Having the Congress controlled by Republicans forced Clinton to be a moderate, since he could not get his tax and spend policies though Congress. In fact, this is most likely the single best reason the economic boom of the 1990s was as large as it was. Had Clinton been able to get his socialized medicine plan through Congress, people would not have had as much surplus cash to invest in the stock market. The more money invested in the stock market, the higher the prices of stocks are. Increased stock prices allowed companies to have extra money; through additional stock sales and higher equality to use for loans, and expanded business growth beyond what would have occurred had the growth been solely technology based.

In fact, people should fault Clinton for causing the 1999-2002 recession. He could have lessen its effect had he given workers a tax cut in 1999. But I guess that is asking too much of a Democrat to give working people a tax cut.

So, please look at the BIG picture; and stop heaping so much praise on Bill Clinton. We are extremely lucky he was prevented from doing exactly what he wanted to do.

But to answer your question, zero more times, I hope liberalism is not tried again!

Answer 4

They'll never give it up. They know it fails but their real objective is to flush America down the toilet. This is the real objective that most conservatives simply haven't grasped. We argue with these liberals over whose ideas will do America the most good and not understanding that these people *hate* this country and want to see it demeaned and destroyed. Think about it, people; *Anyone* with the IQ of a bug knows how destructive liberalism is. They know it too (with the exception of the most naive idealists). Better wake up to this, folks.

Answer 5

We shall never give up. The war in Iraq was a good decision. It is a Holy war. No matter how many innocent people are killed. The WMDs are real. Loom at the pitch fork.

Answer 6

Doctor now ?... Liberalism has never had a real chance and when it has it has flourished.. unfortunately it is always co-opted by the greedy, Violent maniacal right.. with their twisted Idea's of "morality".. no you can't blame liberalism because it doesn't exist anymore.. it's remnants are all that remain and if W and Co. have their way they'll be a ghost as well....

The thousand year Reich marches on..

Answer 7

There is a need for left wingers.
Just like there is a need for right wingers.
That way there is a balance.
Right now, though, is the right time to be less liberal.


There are times in history when it's good to be Chamberlain. Now, however, is time to be Churchill.

Answer 8

I guess just as many times as conservatism does. The truth is a moderate government seems to work best for us. when we become too liberal or too conservative the pendulum always swings back too far after a while. I'm afraid we are going to see one of those swings soon after the excesses of this conservative administration.

Answer 9

Liberalism has succeeded in that it allows people to make comments like you have. Without liberalism you would not have the freedom to talk such rubbish.

Answer 10

Liberalism has not failed,
it is conservativism that keeps failing
Conservative=hanging onto the past