Thread: Is Liberalism Dead?

The author does not even rise to the level of clever propaganda. Just your run of the mill propaganda.

The conservatives need to just own this economic model that their return to power yielded. They have broke it to such a degree that not even liberalism can help, or Keynes.

The best thing for the nation is for the repubs to get total control again, so they can put the last nail in the economic coffin. Only then can a new liberalism come and fix what they have broken. Yet this will be a decades long struggle as we wrestle the power back from special interests for whom the republicans have been willing handmaidens.

The only hope lies with the liberalism of the democratic party. Once again we must fix what the republicans broke.

The Reagan / Thatcher era ended Keynesian policy and ushered in new policies, in favor of low taxes, less regulation, and it has yielded low growth, high unemployment, huge deficits and increased concentration of wealth, exactly as Keynes would have predicted...

And this new course has a disasterous track record, as the repubs want more and more of the same, not capable of seeing it's an ideological failure, on their part. Only egos keep us on this most destructive course, this path to the bottom.

We already know what works, as we did it for many decades. We know what creates large middle classes, what keeps the debt within acceptable levels. The repubs just refuse to do it, because afterall the model that brought prosperity to average folks was a liberal model, that proved itself. What have the changes brought by the republicans done?

Well, the damage these men and their constiutents have done to america is very clear and easily observable, yet they still persist in their madness as they try to blame the other side.

The rise of the republicans and our economic woes are not coincidental. We are gonna have to relegate them once again to the minority if we are to get out of this mess. They are incapable stewards, and their "better way" has been an abysmal failure, taking down the middle class with it.

The average american does not "feel" this extra freedom and liberty so highly touted by these republicans. The freedom is only felt by the top boys, the banksters, the big business interests, as the average Joe is kicked to the curb, to enjoy his extra freedom in homeless shelters, as middle class folks HAVE to use the safety nets, as corporate profits got fatter. This is the republican way, and eventually those americans who voted these jackwags in, will be forced awake, and even the clever propaganda will not save the right side boys.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

The author does not even rise to the level of clever propaganda. Just your run of the mill propaganda.
...
The only hope lies with the liberalism of the democratic party. Once again we must fix what the republicans broke.

Did you say something about run of the mill propaganda?

Liberalism isn't dead, but it needs to move into the realm of an actual grassroots movement, rather than what it actually is, a few white intellectuals leading masses of government client groups.

Once it transforms from a patronage machine to an intellectual movement, it will start to succeed again. And in order to begin that transition, it has to actually start trying to persuade Americans of the virtues of activist government. We've got armies of conservatives trying to convert the public into conservatives. Liberals don't even try. They abandoned persuasion a long time ago in favor of just adding up the number of client groups they'll need to win and promising them taxpayer money.

Originally Posted by goober

The Reagan / Thatcher era ended Keynesian policy and ushered in new policies, in favor of low taxes, less regulation, and it has yielded low growth, high unemployment, huge deficits and increased concentration of wealth, exactly as Keynes would have predicted...

The Reagan / Thatcher era ended with the return to power of Keynesian supporters, Clinton/Bush/Obama/Cameron. During the Reagan / Thatcher era there was unparalleled prosperity. Only revisionist historians like yourself fail the credit Keynesian policy to the low growth, high unemployment, and huge deficits we have today.

Originally Posted by goober

The Reagan / Thatcher era ended Keynesian policy and ushered in new policies, in favor of low taxes, less regulation, and it has yielded low growth, high unemployment, huge deficits and increased concentration of wealth, exactly as Keynes would have predicted...

To bad that what was going on before Reagan / Thatcher was not Keynesian policy either. No where did Keynes say continuing to add debt regardless of economic conditions was acceptable.

And liberalism is no more dead than being conservative. They both just took back seats to a new (well, somewhat new) political ideology both have adopted as priority, vote buying.

Is Liberalism Dead?

No, of course not. It will be alive and well and marching and protesting and all the other 'fun' stuff that they do after next January 29th when it isn't their guy that has secret kill lists

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

And this new course has a disasterous track record, as the repubs want more and more of the same, not capable of seeing it's an ideological failure, on their part.

So, a thread about liberalism's failure does not cause you to see its disastrous track record? Can you even admit Obama's huge deficits directly flow from Keynesian liberalism, the same ideology that caused Europeaon countries to embrace so called austerity measures, i.e., balanced budgets. Said differently, how can you morally defend long term (century) deficits?

Bain Capital = Venture Capital?
Bain Capital = Leveraged Buy-Outs.

Does that make Liberalism make sense?
No.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Is Liberalism Dead?

No, of course not. It will be alive and well and marching and protesting and all the other 'fun' stuff that they do after next January 29th when it isn't their guy that has secret kill lists

Wow. Is this anything like Nixon's 'enemies list'? Sure sounds like it. And this guy's a Liberal? Who would have thought?

Well, kinda does fall into the pattern though. I mean tolerance for any speech as long as it doesn't contradict the liberal ideals, then that speech is black balled by calling it racist (when it’s not), bigoted (which it typically isn’t), marginalized, criticized, and berated to no end. Yeah, support of free speech my ass.

Repossessing and redistributing wealth that isn’t theirs. Demanding more for those less fortunate, but can’t be bothered to give from their own pot o’ gold.
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

And the list goes on and on, as you well know TSquare. You’ve posted those lists before.

Is Liberalism Dead? In the classic definition of some 20 years ago, no it’s not, but in that definition’s present interpretation, seems to be, one just has to look at the 2010 House election results.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

So, a thread about liberalism's failure does not cause you to see its disastrous track record? Can you even admit Obama's huge deficits directly flow from Keynesian liberalism, the same ideology that caused Europeaon countries to embrace so called austerity measures, i.e., balanced budgets. Said differently, how can you morally defend long term (century) deficits?

Liberalism helped to give us history's largest middle class. It is hard to just ignore that fact.

The Keynsian idea of deficet spending to stimulate our economy is moot, useless, because of the change in economic models. Deficet spending no longer puts our industrial workers back in their jobs.

This has nothing to do with liberalism, in fact the current model is not a liberal model at all. Instead is it a conservative model. Which is shrinking the middle class.

The truth is, neither liberalism nor conservatism can make this model work, except for the top tier.

Everything in an economy is interrelated. The economic model affects more than just one aspect. It affects income, income distribution, tax revenues, and spending on social safety nets, stimulus programs(worthless given the money leaves the nation). It also affect negetively the society at large.

If you ship american wealth and jobs overseas, you are gonna have deep consequences that arise. Neither liberalism or conservatism today will fix what is broke, thereby addressing the REAL problems of america. She no longer has an economic model that makes the nation healthy. Instead she has one that will impoverish more, while not being able to afford the traditional safety nets that are overwhelmed by the change in economic models, to benefit the few at the top.

Since this new economic model arose from conservatives, history will lay the blame where it rightfully belongs. Republican rule preceded the great depression, and they once again screwed up america, with the help of some treasonous democrats. To me this is as clear as water. No coincidences here at all! Yet so many defend the madness, even democrats.

Until enough folks realize this economic model will impoverish more and more americans, as the wealth goes upward, there is nothing one can do, except cut deeply into the safety nets, that a poorer nation cannot maintain. Yet there is a clear and obvious reason as to us no longer being able to afford the nets. The economic model does not provide enough to do so. And the model was changed with the arise of the republicans, who came back to once again create their mischief, and to show us they are not capable of good stewardship. What is good for business IS NOT good for america, and that is blatantly obvious. Yet that is their ideology. But it is greatly flawed if a civilized nation is to endure.

The question should be, not how I can defend the deficets, but rather why do you continue to support an conservative economic model that is devastating america's average people? And which is the root cause of such deficets.

We used to have something during the 60's called "income creep". As the middle flourished and saw a rise in their incomes, it put them into a higher tax bracket, which help to pay for the social programs. What happens when the middle class goes stagnant in wages, then starts to shrink as a class with the new economic model that coincidently arose from republican trade policies, devised in a top secret atmosphere during Bush Sr. term? The one that Perot said would cause a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving this nation. And what has been the end result of those republican/special interests trade agreements? Look outside for god's sake. Cause/effect. Cause/effect, cause/effect.

And the right side denies the cause/effect. Such is the mind of a conservative. Liberals won't touch the economic model either, and that is the real travesty here, as common people no longer have any representation at all. But if it is to be touched, only liberalism will do it. Our only hope for the middle is liberalism, progressivism.

Historically in the 20th and 21st century, america saw the rise of history's largest middle class, under democrats, liberals. And we have seen it shrink and the newly poor arise under republican policy. You don't have to like this fact, but you certainly should not be able to deny it. But the right side does. They perhaps call it a coincidence. Or worse, that at some date in the future their policies, their ideology will prove to be correct in producing positive outcomes. And they say this as jobs continue to leave people jobless here as communists are employed. They believe that a huge middle class will arise in communist china, that will be able to afford american goods, which by the way, we make few of, in the consumer market. That is one helluva pipe dream, and I really think the astute cons know this already, but let nothing get in the way of the top boys maxing out their profits.

When maxing out the profits of the few with cheap labor destroys a nation's middle and impoverishes them, we must reaccess the role of business in the health of a nation, and relegate business again to a nation's best self interest, rather than to the individual seeking to gain greater and greater wealth. We used to know better, and did this, for over 200 years. What changed? Republicans coming back into power. I don't see how a sane man could see it in any other way.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Liberalism helped to give us history's largest middle class.

How did liberalism achieve this?

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

The Keynsian idea of deficet spending to stimulate our economy is moot, useless, because of the change in economic models. Deficet spending no longer puts our industrial workers back in their jobs.

This has nothing to do with liberalism, in fact the current model is not a liberal model at all. Instead is it a conservative model. Which is shrinking the middle class.

Really? Highest corporate taxes in the world and highest burden of environmental regulations, etc IS the liberal model.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

If you ship american wealth and jobs overseas, you are gonna have deep consequences that arise.

You focus on the effects rather than the liberal causes. See above.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Since this new economic model arose from conservatives, history will lay the blame where it rightfully belongs.

Right, liberalism. The explosion of government in the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Republican rule preceded the great depression, and they once again screwed up america,

Oh? What specific legislation did that?

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

The question should be, not how I can defend the deficets,

But since it is the question of this thread, how about answering how you can defend the century of deficits?