Many "new liberals" advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are REJECTED as interference by modern advocates of "classical liberalism", which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
You are NOT the same as our fore fathers. Washington would puke if he were alive today and saw what kind of damage progressives do.
2007-05-01 05:21:36 · 17 answers · asked by scottdman2003 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I doubt they know the values of the 'old' democratic party. We used to have real choices between Republicans and Democrats but now the libs have veered so far left it is downright scary!!
2007-05-01 05:26:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
You have your facts all wrong, but your intentions all right. The ambassador had a dinner party. After dinner a group of armed murderers attacked the building killing the ambassador and his aide. They then disappeared into the night. 6 or 7 hours later, the same group (presumably) showed up at a CIA "safe house", and attacked there, killing two more. That was just before dawn, and again they fled. That was that. Despite the hype, despite the craziness, there was nothing to be done. No Stand down order was issued to the military. The only "stand down" that was ever uttered was to four "security specialists" in the capitol city of Libya. It was not issued by the President or the Secretary of State but by a local embassy official who told the guys in Tripoli not to rush to Benghazi and get into a fire fight that was already over with. I assume (yeah, I know) that he was concerned even more American lives would be lost if they rushed into a situation where a road ambush was possible. The capitol is several hours away from Benghazi, and there was little they'd have been able to accomplish. Everything else is manufactured, made up, "cavalry rushing to the rescue" falsehoods. There were no drones hovering overhead watching the attack on the consulate. That too is fabrication. There were no ready jets 10 minutes out ready to swoop in and do harm. That's pretend. Other forces in the mediterranean could not respond in time, and had no targets if they were ready, 1 hour after either assault. (1 hour is considered very quick response time, by the way.) There was no death sentence, there were only deaths. This is why more respect is due to those who serve our nation so far from home. They place themselves in those situations, knowing the risk ahead of time. I honor their memories, and thank them for their service. They gave their all. But the rest is hysteria, not history.
2016-05-18 00:34:05 · answer #2 · answered by catalina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that the free market doesn't always do what is best for the country. It does maximize profit, whic his usually a good thing. However the free market does not regular pollution, or make sure that companies are honest about thier accounting practices. That is where we need government to step in and regulate. This is not doing damage, it's making the country a better place. It may cut into profits in some compannies, but profits are not a justification for anything. Simply because doing a thing will result in incrased profit does not mean that it's the best course of action. There is a thing called social responsibility that is so often overlooked.
2007-05-01 05:31:55 · answer #3 · answered by Louis G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the same as saying that Lincoln was a Republican and expresses traditional Republican values, which is also a farce.
The founding fathers set up a system that would evolve with the changing times. As it has. Remember when the constitution enacted the economy was pre-industrial revolution, when the majority of Americans were subsistence farmers? It was a different economy and a different structure. Washington was considered a progressive in his day, even if the definition has changed.
Try a better source next time too, the academy does not recognize Wikipedia as a credible source.
2007-05-01 05:27:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's a lot to answer for...but let's look at the de-regulation of the Airline and Trucking Industries. Before de-regulation, truck companies and airlines had semi-protected routes. Lots of small companies (long gone today) serviced these routes.
De-regulation came in ostensibly to foster "competition". The big carriers came in, slashed their prices until the small guys went under and then raised their prices or simply provided second rate service to routes that previously enjoyed good service.
Case in point - Ozark Air used to provide jet service throughout Missouri and the surrounding states. They lost their protected routes and today we are stuck with the turbo props and regional jets and service that sucks when it's good.
Sometimes a little government regulation in the market place can be a good thing.
2007-05-01 06:09:51 · answer #5 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most would argue that we are no longer seeing economic inequality arising from competition in a free market. We are starting to see economic takeover arising from a hijacked free market. I think that is the biggest difference that could be argued. Also, I think they would point to the increasing complexity of the issue. For example, environmental protection has become much more of an issue then for our forefathers.
2007-05-01 05:31:40 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Today's liberals do owe more of thier philosophy to Marx than Jefferson, yes. And, while that may not be foremost in thier thoughts, I think most would have the intellectual honesty to admit it - and go on to explain why classical economics can't be aplied in the modern world, and why the basic egalitarian ideas of Marx, while never implemented in a practical way, can still be an ideal worth striving towards, even if not via violent revolution.
2007-05-01 05:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Just look at where the money is coming from to pay for all the give away programs. TAXPAYERS, it like stealing your money. I agree some people need help and should be taking care of,but to give it to people that physically in better shape that I am in. who to lazy to work, NO!
To give it to women that want to stay home and make babies that they can not afford or take care of, NO!
2007-05-01 05:36:55 · answer #8 · answered by bbj1776 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And the idea of a conservative hasn't changed? Look at Goldwater, a die hard conservative only 40 years ago, his views back then are very close to current liberal views. So what is your point?
2007-05-01 05:35:20 · answer #9 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
do cons understand that lincoln was the most liberal president ever? and that the republican party was the dominate left party before a major shift following the civil war?
i love when cons try to claim Lincoln becuase his ideas were so liberal.
as for the founders. they were considered liberal because they were fighting aginst the status quo. not becuse of what they were fighting for.
2007-05-01 05:28:44 · answer #10 · answered by Kevy 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋