Can someone explain to me "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

[Craig234]

Of course I do realize that. At least the Democrats are honest about their raping of people for taxes. The Republicans haven't cut anything yet. They are trying to but nothing ever comes of it. Look at Boehner's plan...CBO found it didn't cut as much as he said it would.

I am not a sympathizer to Democrats at all. But when the Democrats say they are going to rape us with more taxes, I believe them. When the Republicans say they will cut our taxes, I don't believe them.

Putting aside the fact the word 'rape' for taxing those who make over $250K in a period when the wealthy have 'raped' the nation and skyrocketed in wealth is like saying asking Bill Gates to leave a tip at dinner is 'raping' him of the money, are you saying you are in the over $250,000 crowd Democrats have supported any tax increase for since the 20th century, as opposed to the under-$250,000 98% of Americans who Obama has cut taxes for reportedly more than anyone in history? Or are you just that ignorant and confused?

There's a certain irony that when taxation is at a low point both historically in several decades and globally, the screams it's too high are louder than when it's higher.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Putting aside the fact the word 'rape' for taxing those who make over $250K in a period when the wealthy have 'raped' the nation and skyrocketed in wealth is like saying asking Bill Gates to leave a tip at dinner is 'raping' him of the money, are you saying you are in the over $250,000 crowd Democrats have supported any tax increase for since the 20th century, as opposed to the under-$250,000 98% of Americans who Obama has cut taxes for reportedly more than anyone in history? Or are you just that ignorant and confused?

There's a certain irony that when taxation is at a low point both historically in several decades and globally, the screams it's too high are louder than when it's higher.

I am talking about the middle class. Where did I say the rich? Oh, I didn't. You did.

I just moved into a new suburb. Now I find they have wage tax, occupational tax, EMS tax (not emergency services) on top of all the other usual taxes. PA is not the only state with these crazy taxes. When is enough enough on taxes? These taxes apply to everyone in the area. So....Democrats and Republicans alike in city, state and federal can go fuck themselves and so can you for supporting all these damn taxes.

I am fine living here and will stay right where I am at because it is much better than the cesspool of the big city that I used to live in. They clearly catered to the poor and suck the middle class dry that live there.

 

[zinfamous]

Don't you have left and right wing parties in the UK? How is left and right defined there?

by US standards, the British right is ultra commie pinko liberal.

 

[Craig234]

I am talking about the middle class. Where did I say the rich? Oh, I didn't. You did.

No, you referred to 'the Democrats' "raping" YOU for more taxes. Presumably you are including the Democrats in the federal government - you didn't exclude them.

But since they haven't even raised taxes on people under $250,000 a year - in fact, reportedly lowered them the most in history - you must make over $250,000. Right?

Or, as I asked, are you just that ignorant and confused?

I am fine living here and will stay right where I am at because it is much better than the cesspool of the big city that I used to live in. They clearly catered to the poor and suck the middle class dry that live there.

Reducing poverty, those evil bastards.

 

[Craig234]

by US standards, the British right is ultra commie pinko liberal.

That's just not correct though.

They may have things they are forced to 'support', like the BBC, because the voters like them, much like Nixon and Eisenhower did, but they're hardly 'commie'.

In fact, Thatcher is infamous for a program of austerity and anti-union policies viewed by many as very bad for the country - the 'right' there is closer to that, from what I hear.

It's more that the country is supportive of various liberal policies, and the right can hide many of the things they would do if they could.

The right has to balance what it says it's for with politics. That's a bit like the way many view Republicans who won state elections in 2010 as having a 'stealth' agenda.

 

[JockoJohnson]

No, you referred to 'the Democrats' "raping" YOU for more taxes. Presumably you are including the Democrats in the federal government - you didn't exclude them.

But since they haven't even raised taxes on people under $250,000 a year - in fact, reportedly lowered them the most in history - you must make over $250,000. Right?

Or, as I asked, are you just that ignorant and confused?



Reducing poverty, those evil bastards.

I apologize for not clarifying that I refer to ALL Democrats and Republicans in all areas of gov't. Reducing poverty at the expense of the middle class---not the rich, mind you.

And be honest, when Democrats raise taxes, they tell people about it. I am complimenting them for their honesty. It's the Republicans that I don't respect as much. They say they will lower taxes and yet, they magically stay the same or get increased. Can't respect a liar.

Taxes are high enough in this country. Any more taxation = a raping to me. Sorry for the harsh term but I am not the only one fed up with taxation, even if it helps the poor people of this country.

And I will gladly give credit to Pres. Obama. I have gotten a tax break. Slight but it is something. (And unlike others, I refer to him as President, not some derogatory term. I would also say the same of Pres. Bush too).

 

[zinfamous]

That's just not correct though.

They may have things they are forced to 'support', like the BBC, because the voters like them, much like Nixon and Eisenhower did, but they're hardly 'commie'.

In fact, Thatcher is infamous for a program of austerity and anti-union policies viewed by many as very bad for the country - the 'right' there is closer to that, from what I hear.

It's more that the country is supportive of various liberal policies, and the right can hide many of the things they would do if they could.

The right has to balance what it says it's for with politics. That's a bit like the way many view Republicans who won state elections in 2010 as having a 'stealth' agenda.

the right accepts national healthcare as much as anyone else in the UK.

that's my point--by simple virtue of a single issue, they would be considered pinko liberal commie bastards over here.

 

[Craig234]

the right accepts national healthcare as much as anyone else in the UK.

that's my point--by simple virtue of a single issue, they would be considered pinko liberal commie bastards over here.

No, the people support national healthcare, and there's no entrenched private insurance industry making billions in profits to protect.

That's the 'right' doing what's politically required to get votes, not that the principles support it. If you don't think the right there WOULD support a lot of such privatization if they could...

 

[Craig234]

I apologize for not clarifying that I refer to ALL Democrats and Republicans in all areas of gov't. Reducing poverty at the expense of the middle class---not the rich, mind you.

And be honest, when Democrats raise taxes, they tell people about it. I am complimenting them for their honesty.

I'm sure you think you are, but consider my saying 'When Republicans restore slavery, they tell you about it. I am complimenting them for their honesty.'

Hm, what's wrong - oh wait, it's the Republicans haven't restore slavery. And the federal Democrats have not raised taxes on those making under $250,000.

See the problem with what you said? You're saying they did something you are critical of that they didn't do.

Actually, while I think you have a point Democrats tend to be more 'honest' about planned taxation - for which they are routinely murdered in elections by Republicans who use and misuse that - I'd also say Democrats aren't perfect about it. They sometimes use misleading information to 'sell' policies, such as understating inflation and unemployment.

Both parties are guilty of borrowing all Social Security trust fund money 'off the books'; though Democrats did put the wars we have 'on the book', unlike Bush.

Taxes are high enough in this country. Any more taxation = a raping to me. Sorry for the harsh term but I am not the only one fed up with taxation, even if it helps the poor people of this country.

And I will gladly give credit to Pres. Obama. I have gotten a tax break. Slight but it is something. (And unlike others, I refer to him as President, not some derogatory term. I would also say the same of Pres. Bush too).

The fact you know you got a tax break at all puts you well ahead of many/most.

 

[werepossum]

by US standards, the British right is ultra commie pinko liberal.

Pretty much. The driving concern is getting elected, so both major parties center on the electorate's views. The UK gets an extra party that attempts to straddle the fence. I think though that the UK's left and right parties have less ideological spread than our own - maybe because of that third party. Or maybe it's merely because ours are nearer, but it certainly seems like the Democrats are farther left and the Republicans farther right than is typical or historical.

 

[soulcougher73]

Pretty much. The driving concern is getting elected, so both major parties center on the electorate's views. The UK gets an extra party that attempts to straddle the fence. I think though that the UK's left and right parties have less ideological spread than our own - maybe because of that third party. Or maybe it's merely because ours are nearer, but it certainly seems like the Democrats are farther left and the Republicans farther right than is typical or historical.

I'd be curious to know how much of the lack of ideological spread as you say is due to the UK not being as religious as the US. I bet it has a lot to do with. Religion clouds the judgement

 

[HAL9000]

I'd be curious to know how much of the lack of ideological spread as you say is due to the UK not being as religious as the US. I bet it has a lot to do with. Religion clouds the judgement

A hell of a lot.


Wow this thread took off while I was busy!

 

[HAL9000]

That's just not correct though.

They may have things they are forced to 'support', like the BBC, because the voters like them, much like Nixon and Eisenhower did, but they're hardly 'commie'.

It's not because the voters like the BBC, it's because it's tax funded, run by the country effectively, the BBC is almost part of the country.

In fact, Thatcher is infamous for a program of austerity and anti-union policies viewed by many as very bad for the country - the 'right' there is closer to that, from what I hear.

It's more that the country is supportive of various liberal policies, and the right can hide many of the things they would do if they could.

The right has to balance what it says it's for with politics. That's a bit like the way many view Republicans who won state elections in 2010 as having a 'stealth' agenda.

We do have a lot of liberal policies, but by that I mean liberal in the definition sense.

 

[HAL9000]

the right accepts national healthcare as much as anyone else in the UK.

Definitely, it's something we are proud of, it's just like education, it's just one of those key issues, it's not really up for debate whether or not health care is national.

 

[werepossum]

I'd be curious to know how much of the lack of ideological spread as you say is due to the UK not being as religious as the US. I bet it has a lot to do with. Religion clouds the judgement

Could be. I'd say everyone looks for something larger than themselves, be it G-d or Government. But it's certainly a valid point that G-d changes more slowly than does Government, so the more people following G-d, the more quickly left and right diverge.

Maybe.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I'm sure you think you are, but consider my saying 'When Republicans restore slavery, they tell you about it. I am complimenting them for their honesty.'

Hm, what's wrong - oh wait, it's the Republicans haven't restore slavery. And the federal Democrats have not raised taxes on those making under $250,000.

See the problem with what you said? You're saying they did something you are critical of that they didn't do.

Actually, while I think you have a point Democrats tend to be more 'honest' about planned taxation - for which they are routinely murdered in elections by Republicans who use and misuse that - I'd also say Democrats aren't perfect about it. They sometimes use misleading information to 'sell' policies, such as understating inflation and unemployment.

Both parties are guilty of borrowing all Social Security trust fund money 'off the books'; though Democrats did put the wars we have 'on the book', unlike Bush.



The fact you know you got a tax break at all puts you well ahead of many/most.

Reading comprehension for the loss? Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else. I have not said that Democrats in the federal gov't have raised taxes on those that make less than $250k. Please point out where I said that.

 

[Craig234]

It's not because the voters like the BBC, it's because it's tax funded, run by the country effectively, the BBC is almost part of the country.

I'm unclear what that means. I think voters do like the BBC and that's a factor for any politician who would oppose it (privatize it)?

Here in the US, we have PBS, which is similar in principle in that it was created to have taxpayer funding and be an independent producer of television.

But here, the right has been able to attack it, and federal funding has dropped to a small part of its budget, and they want to end it altogether, even though the public likes it.

 

[Craig234]

Reading comprehension for the loss? Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else. I have not said that Democrats in the federal gov't have raised taxes on those that make less than $250k. Please point out where I said that.

So when you say, unqualified, that 'when Democrats raise your taxes', in a discussion that includes the national level explaining it to the OP who is in another country, you meant 'when national Democrats raise your taxes in your imagination', or you meant you just thought you would leave out the qualifier 'not referring to national Democrats' so you could impugn them by implication and then play lawyer later you didn't technically say 'federal'.

 

[Craig234]

Definitely, it's something we are proud of, it's just like education, it's just one of those key issues, it's not really up for debate whether or not health care is national.

A lot of things 'aren't up for debate' until they are. Social Security and Medicare were not 'up for debate' earlier either. What became 'up for debate' under Margaret Thatcher?

 

[JockoJohnson]

So when you say, unqualified, that 'when Democrats raise your taxes', in a discussion that includes the national level explaining it to the OP who is in another country, you meant 'when national Democrats raise your taxes in your imagination', or you meant you just thought you would leave out the qualifier 'not referring to national Democrats' so you could impugn them by implication and then play lawyer later you didn't technically say 'federal'.

You mean national Democrats have never raised taxes in the entire history of this country? Are you just intentionally being dense? I made a general statement. I never specifically said THESE democrats. If taxes get raised now, it would be on the Republicans anyway.

Thread is getting derailed by this.

My definition of liberal and conservative was how they actually are---not what the two pretend to be. Are you telling me Democrats are for small gov't then? Republicans pretend to be and then go big gov't.

You seem to be intentionally obtuse on this as if I was trying to attack someone. Your enlightenment will not work on me. Liberals love taxes just as much as the "conservatives". However, the "conservatives" in any of our forms of gov't today seem to love taxes but just won't admit to it up front. What am I missing?

 

[Craig234]

You mean national Democrats have never raised taxes in the entire history of this country? Are you just intentionally being dense? I made a general statement. I never specifically said THESE democrats. If taxes get raised now, it would be on the Republicans anyway.

Oh, so your topical comment relevant to what's going on isn't about the Democrats raising taxes not under Obama, not under Bush, back in 1993 under Bill Clinton - oh wait, that was on the top 2% too - was there some big tax increase I don't remember for average Americans under Clinton? Democrats weren't doing it before that under Reagan and Bush 41, don't remember much tax increases under Carter, Ford or Nixon were before that... let's see, JFK had a tax cut... this big problem you discuss doesn't seem too relevant.

Thread is getting derailed by this.

Uh, ya, you say that rather than 'ya, I made an allegation about Democrats raising taxes that wasn't correct'. correcting the error ends a 'derail', you don't care to do that.

My definition of liberal and conservative was how they actually are---not what the two pretend to be. Are you telling me Democrats are for small gov't then? Republicans pretend to be and then go big gov't.

I commented at length on my opinion. It's more complicated than your question.

You seem to be intentionally obtuse on this as if I was trying to attack someone. Your enlightenment will not work on me. Liberals love taxes just as much as the "conservatives". However, the "conservatives" in any of our forms of gov't today seem to love taxes but just won't admit to it up front. What am I missing?

Here's a clue for you. Liberals don't like taxes. We don't say 'chocolate, sex, and taxes, three great pleasures'. What we do is recognize the benefits of taxes, and while we want to 'keep them to a minimum', we can proudly pay them, supporting all kinds of good things as a society, a concept that seems lost on our modern radical right who seems more than anything to completely oppose the government of the founding fathers based on giving the people to have a government they run that taxes and spends.

As I've said many times, it's less about 'big' or 'small' than 'type'. Are the people's interests being helped, by Social Security or Medicare? Big is ok. Are they being hurt, by corrupt spending? Then no amount is too small for that. Government is not a boolean, liberals understand, but the radical right does not seem to.

The problem in part is, right-wing propagandists spreading myths have a lot more funded press to lie about liberals than there is press to accurately report, so the myths are spread.

Liberals like some government programs, and oppose others. Liberals are for more people doing well, while the right is more for an ideology that 'doesn't care how people do', as long as it's all the 'free market', claiming that a magic hand will allow everyone all kinds of opportunity.

One of those myths is 'liberals love to tax', which you parroted but won't admit.

When the pendulum has swung far - people making a tax-adjusted million dollars under JFK paid 43% in income tax while they pay 23% today, one of the reasons why the top 1% have doubled its share of the national pie's income from 10% then to nearly a quarter of all income today (and 40% of all wealth), then Democrats are more in favor of shifting that back to less concentrated wealth, which means more taxes on the rich for a bit. When we're running a $14 trillion debt, Democrats are more open to look for taxes to balance it.

But while taxing can be defended, you are attacking them - in your compliment - for taxing they haven't been doing. I wish they were, and we had an actual Democrat as President.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Putting aside the fact the word 'rape' for taxing those who make over $250K in a period when the wealthy have 'raped' the nation and skyrocketed in wealth is like saying asking Bill Gates to leave a tip at dinner is 'raping' him of the money, are you saying you are in the over $250,000 crowd Democrats have supported any tax increase for since the 20th century, as opposed to the under-$250,000 98% of Americans who Obama has cut taxes for reportedly more than anyone in history? Or are you just that ignorant and confused?

There's a certain irony that when taxation is at a low point both historically in several decades and globally, the screams it's too high are louder than when it's higher.

Do you honestly consider people making $250,000 per year as wealthy? When we talk about income disparity are these really the people that you are concerned about? IMO it makes no sense to use this as the dividing line. When you look at effective tax rates these people have the highest rates of anyone, even those that make more than them.

I think its misleading to say that they are wealthy just because them may fall into the top 2%. Qualitatively their lives and political influence is much more similar to someone making 75k than someone in the top 0.1% making 10s of millions a year.

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you honestly consider people making $250,000 per year as wealthy? When we talk about income disparity are these really the people that you are concerned about? IMO it makes no sense to use this as the dividing line. When you look at effective tax rates these people have the highest rates of anyone, even those that make more than them.

I think its misleading to say that they are wealthy just because them may fall into the top 2%. Qualitatively their lives and political influence is much more similar to someone making 75k than someone in the top 0.1% making 10s of millions a year.

While i personally think the $250k should probably be raised to like $400k as far as these debates go. But yes, $250k is pretty damn wealthy. A few places like SF, NY $250k wont buy as much as where i live, but they wont be struggling to take vacations and dfive new cars etc.

If my wife and brought in $250k here in KC we could pretty much live anywhere in this city we wanted to. It would afford even the most affluent areas.

 

[thraashman]

Liberals love the country

Conservatives hate the country

Actually, a better way to put it would be.

Conservatives love what they believe the country once was.

Liberals love what they believe the country can be.

Both hate the country as it is.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Oh, so your topical comment relevant to what's going on isn't about the Democrats raising taxes not under Obama, not under Bush, back in 1993 under Bill Clinton - oh wait, that was on the top 2% too - was there some big tax increase I don't remember for average Americans under Clinton? Democrats weren't doing it before that under Reagan and Bush 41, don't remember much tax increases under Carter, Ford or Nixon were before that... let's see, JFK had a tax cut... this big problem you discuss doesn't seem too relevant.



Uh, ya, you say that rather than 'ya, I made an allegation about Democrats raising taxes that wasn't correct'. correcting the error ends a 'derail', you don't care to do that.



I commented at length on my opinion. It's more complicated than your question.



Here's a clue for you. Liberals don't like taxes. We don't say 'chocolate, sex, and taxes, three great pleasures'. What we do is recognize the benefits of taxes, and while we want to 'keep them to a minimum', we can proudly pay them, supporting all kinds of good things as a society, a concept that seems lost on our modern radical right who seems more than anything to completely oppose the government of the founding fathers based on giving the people to have a government they run that taxes and spends.

As I've said many times, it's less about 'big' or 'small' than 'type'. Are the people's interests being helped, by Social Security or Medicare? Big is ok. Are they being hurt, by corrupt spending? Then no amount is too small for that. Government is not a boolean, liberals understand, but the radical right does not seem to.

The problem in part is, right-wing propagandists spreading myths have a lot more funded press to lie about liberals than there is press to accurately report, so the myths are spread.

Liberals like some government programs, and oppose others. Liberals are for more people doing well, while the right is more for an ideology that 'doesn't care how people do', as long as it's all the 'free market', claiming that a magic hand will allow everyone all kinds of opportunity.

One of those myths is 'liberals love to tax', which you parroted but won't admit.

When the pendulum has swung far - people making a tax-adjusted million dollars under JFK paid 43% in income tax while they pay 23% today, one of the reasons why the top 1% have doubled its share of the national pie's income from 10% then to nearly a quarter of all income today (and 40% of all wealth), then Democrats are more in favor of shifting that back to less concentrated wealth, which means more taxes on the rich for a bit. When we're running a $14 trillion debt, Democrats are more open to look for taxes to balance it.

But while taxing can be defended, you are attacking them - in your compliment - for taxing they haven't been doing. I wish they were, and we had an actual Democrat as President.

I feel like I had my forum cherry popped now. I got lectured by Craig on how wonderful liberals and Democrats are and how evil the conservatives and Republicans can be. I am not going to back down from any of my statements.

Now I realize why people despise you so much. You just instantly attack anyone who is not in direct line with your views. But thank you for setting me straight on how wonderful Democratic policies are. Democrats make such wonderful policies for the poor people. In reality, how many of them have gone from poor, lower class to middle class? These programs are designed to keep the poor people fat, dumb and happy. They aren't motivated to move up because they would then lose their "free" money. Now the Democrats have a permanent voting block.

Great policies!! Of course, there are some good policies but on the whole, they are designed to keep people voting for them to keep the Democrats in power---and Republicans do the same too.

Oh, and did you forget ObamaCare? That's not going to be a huge tax hike--maybe not directly labeled as a tax but tell me how we are supposed to pay for the extra millions of people covered without someone losing part of their paycheck in the process?

Last, on local and state levels, you believe Democrats don't love taxes? Stop being such a douche and maybe people will take you off of their ignore list and maybe try to have civil conversations with you.

Edit: Also genius, where did the OP say NATIONAL level of liberal and conservative?