'Liberal' in America

[Snowy89]

Plus, your comment's sexist.

How so?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

How so?

To quote you:

deal with it like a man!

If you can't figure out the sexism inherent in that statement, you will probably be ripped to shreds by some of our most prominent posters.

[Snowy89]

To quote you: If you can't figure out the sexism inherent in that statement, you will probably be ripped to shreds by some of our most prominent posters.

Then what is your interpretation of taking it 'like a man'?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Then what is your interpretation of taking it 'like a man'?

I believe it's a sexist statement that presumes an obligated gender role for males.

[MinDonner]

*faints and shrieks* (hysterically, natch)

C'mon Job, tell us why possession of a penis is necessary for a sensible response to criticism :box:

[wolfeyes]

But the rights own version of "shairia law" is perfectly okay, dress codes, corporal punishment...control over women's bodies, including imprisonment after a miscarriage.

[TrueMetis]

But the rights own version of "shairia law" is perfectly okay, dress codes, corporal punishment...control over women's bodies, including imprisonment after a miscarriage.

Personally I'd prefer a moderate sharia law to what religious Christian conservatives are after.

[wolfeyes]

But the rights own version of "shairia law" is perfectly okay, dress codes, corporal punishment...control over women's bodies, including imprisonment after a miscarriage.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

I have 2 Muslim cousins, who spent about 10 years living in Iran. They are both vegetarians and one graduated with a Master's in Finance at age 20, but those are about the only differences we have. They've got rocking bodies, and they are proud to show them. I feel bad because half of their family is super hicked out, Sarah Palin supporting, faux Christian trash, while they are 'liberal'.

When Bin Laden died, a lot of their friends who live in the DC area, who are also Muslim, were running around celebrating with American flags. Funny, because all of my super Liberal friends were calling such super patriotic behavior barbaric and disgusting. Seems likes they can't win no matter what they do.

I live in the land of Fred Phelp's, a disgusting abomination of hate and brain washing, but am from the laid back, super Liberal beach, from an Irish Catholic immigrant family. I can't stand stand the Phelp's family.

I personally find Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to be cancerous moles. I don't care if you argue with me, I am not changing my mind. I hate them as mush as I hate Rush, Coulter and Phelp's. It isn't because of their religion or political party, it's because they are divisive. They cause rifts in the country that aren't needed. It's hard to have a civilized, educated country, when political and religious leaders are fighting each other for positioning and power. The majority don't give two shits about anyone who doesn't make enough money to afford the gas it takes to get to the polls or to the pew for offerings.

Another thing that bugs me, is the argument of not wanting to support people on welfare. With a rise in poverty comes a rise in crime. Poverty begets violence. I'm not saying to throw money at the impoverished so that everyone is equal, monetarily, without them putting in the work, but cutting social welfare funding and programs does nothing but spiral our country down a greater hole. Drug test, tie tubes, snip balls, I don't care, but don't cut the programs children need to have a fighting chance.

Also, No Child Left Behind is the worst thing to happen to the educational system since I have been alive.

[KazigluBey]

I was a very staunch conservative/libertarian when I was a teenager, partly because I wanted to be different from all the marxist wannabes in high school and partly because I believed I was going to make a lot of money when I got older. As it turns out, it doesn't matter if you're smart and work hard, because if you don't go to college, or in my case get the wrong bachelors degree, you have almost no chance of even being middle class in today's america. The game has changed, the cards are stacked against my generation achieving the same standard of living as our parents, and our only chance to have a decent quality of life in this new America is by voting in the most liberal politicians you can find. America's golden years of 1950-1970 had high taxes, pro labor regulations, and a booming middle class.

[The Progressive]

I was a very staunch conservative/libertarian when I was a teenager, partly because I wanted to be different from all the marxist wannabes in high school and partly because I believed I was going to make a lot of money when I got older. As it turns out, it doesn't matter if you're smart and work hard, because if you don't go to college, or in my case get the wrong bachelors degree, you have almost no chance of even being middle class in today's america. The game has changed, the cards are stacked against my generation achieving the same standard of living as our parents, and our only chance to have a decent quality of life in this new America is by voting in the most liberal politicians you can find. America's golden years of 1950-1970 had high taxes, pro labor regulations, and a booming middle class.

I remember your prior rightwing extremist views on these issues.

Good to see people openly admitting things like this.

Respect!

[peterbound]

I was a very staunch conservative/libertarian when I was a teenager, partly because I wanted to be different from all the marxist wannabes in high school and partly because I believed I was going to make a lot of money when I got older. As it turns out, it doesn't matter if you're smart and work hard, because if you don't go to college, or in my case get the wrong bachelors degree, you have almost no chance of even being middle class in today's america. The game has changed, the cards are stacked against my generation achieving the same standard of living as our parents, and our only chance to have a decent quality of life in this new America is by voting in the most liberal politicians you can find. America's golden years of 1950-1970 had high taxes, pro labor regulations, and a booming middle class.

I disagree. Having a skill set can set you apart from those having useless undergrads. I have no degree and make 70-80 a year (in the states, i was clearing 300K in Iraq) as a Fire Fighter. Many trades make comparable, if not more in terms of yearly income:

The median expected salary for a typical Electrician III in the United States is $52,509.

The median expected salary for a typical Carpenter III in the United States is $47,805

Although these are the low end of 'Blue Collar' jobs, they still are enough to maintain a middle class living (with a poverty line of 11K, and middle class ranging from 25 - 100K).

I would also question your statement on working hard and being smart. Seems you might be bitter due to the fact that you choose a poor Major, but I still believe there are opportunities in the US like no where else in the world if you are resilient, smart, and hard working.

I think if anything is stopping our generation from achieving your set goals (Hell, i want to have a /better/ standard of living than my parents) is that we've stopped working hard, are dumbing ourselves down, and we give up at the first sign of adversity.

As to the Unions, i'm fucking pro union all the way, but I have seen some industries fight themselves out of a job.

[Xenophon]

America's golden years of 1950-1970 had high taxes, pro labor regulations, and a booming middle class.

Along with endemic racial discrimination, women forced to stay home or shunted off into "pink collar" jobs, and a GDP per capita less than half of that today. Yay Golden Years!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I was a very staunch conservative/libertarian when I was a teenager, America's golden years of 1950-1970 had high taxes, pro labor regulations, and a booming middle class.

Well, if you want to return to the tax code of 1950, and repeal all the various laws and regulations put in place since then, I am with you 100%. I absolutely agree that the economy would do much better, and that the "average person" would have a much better chance of getting a good job.

Just be aware that there was no Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC or any other form of "welfare", no Clean Air Act, no Clean Water Act, no Department of Education, Department of Energy, or Environmental Protection Agency.

Just as an aside, without all that stuff, what do you suppose the government actually spent taxes on? There's an interesting thought worth exploring....

Oh, there was also no Civil Rights Act -- meaning that there were no workplace lawsuits based on discrimination burdening businesses, no Family Medical Leave Act, no Americans with Disabilities Act, or any of that stuff. As best as I can tell, the difference in "labor relations" regulations between then and now is pretty small in most respects.

But here's a fun fact. As of 1959, the midpoint of the golden years, not a single state in the country permitted public employee unions. Not one. I mean, even FDR opposed them. Wisconsin was the very first state to permit that in 1959.

You know, you may really be on to something here!

[Xenophon]

Just as an aside, without all that stuff, what do you suppose the government actually spent taxes on? There's an interesting thought worth exploring....

Oh, people have: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1950_0.html

[Emo Targaryen]

As to the Unions, i'm fucking pro union all the way, but I have seen some industries fight themselves out of a job.

I don't think that's about the unions. It's about the fact that some industries have less demand in a modern economy or can be more efficiently done by less developed countries by now. Unions neither slow nor accelerate this process - but they make it harder on the workers. Instead of fighting for a smooth transition to a new occupation (for younger workers) or an early retirement plan (for older workers) they fight for the right to keep their jobs as they are. In the end the companies who engaged in declining industries go bankrupt and the workers are left with nothing at all.

On an interesting note, in the German-speaking part of Europe, "liberal", and especially "neo-liberal", is also a slur - but in the opposite direction: It denotes economical deregulation ("liberty" for the large corporations) Reagan/Thatcher-style. "Left-liberal" is used for the combination of civil rights with moderate economical liberalism and "leftism" or "socialism" denotes what Americans call "liberalism".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sure, Trisk, I'd accept that top marginal rate. As long as it came with the deductions, exemptions, shelters, and other components of the tax code of 1950.

[Xenophon]

I don't think that's about the unions. It's about the fact that some industries have less demand in a modern economy or can be more efficiently done by less developed countries by now. Unions neither slow nor accelerate this process - but they make it harder on the workers.

That's true for some industries, but it's not the full story. Compare US automobile plants that follow the UAW work rules with those that don't. The UAW pushed for a ridiculous and rigid job classification system and work rules that made plants inefficient, even compared to other American plants that don't follow UAW rules. It's gotten so bad, that there are now unionized plants that don't follow the union's own rules, because 1) it's the only way to turn a profit, and 2) most of the union members themselves are sick of all the featherbedding and redundancy built into the existing work rules.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Unions neither slow nor accelerate this process - but they make it harder on the workers.

Not if they are doing it right. The corporations would love us to think that all unions are nothing but pig-headed idiots who would prefer joblessness to a pay cut, but a lot of them do very good work, and are very willing to negotiate and be reasonable.

The unions and the company bosses should ideally keep each other in balance, without the bosses oppressing the workers, or the unions demanding more than is reasonable. Unfortunately people demand extremes - either no unions at all, or all-powerful unions.

[Atreides]

Well, if you want to return to the tax code of 1950, and repeal all the various laws and regulations put in place since then, I am with you 100%. I absolutely agree that the economy would do much better, and that the "average person" would have a much better chance of getting a good job.

Just be aware that there was no Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC or any other form of "welfare", no Clean Air Act, no Clean Water Act, no Department of Education, Department of Energy, or Environmental Protection Agency.

Just as an aside, without all that stuff, what do you suppose the government actually spent taxes on? There's an interesting thought worth exploring....

Oh, there was also no Civil Rights Act -- meaning that there were no workplace lawsuits based on discrimination burdening businesses, no Family Medical Leave Act, no Americans with Disabilities Act, or any of that stuff. As best as I can tell, the difference in "labor relations" regulations between then and now is pretty small in most respects.

But here's a fun fact. As of 1959, the midpoint of the golden years, not a single state in the country permitted public employee unions. Not one. I mean, even FDR opposed them. Wisconsin was the very first state to permit that in 1959.

You know, you may really be on to something here!

I think a lot of the US prosperity in the 1950s had to do with the fact that we had suddenly become a superpower and the single largest country that didn't have to rebuild after World War II. And as others have said, the 50s might've had good business and economy, but although extremely important, that's not the only thing that's necessary.