View Poll Results: Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    21 26.25%
  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    13 16.25%
  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    3 3.75%
  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    36 45.00%
  • Im a not American, yes.

    0 0%
  • Im a not American, no.

    7 8.75%
Page 15 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 504

Thread: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

  1. #141
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,343

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    And yet, we've never been richer as a society. Or do you think we were better off before the 1960s? Please tell me you do.
    Greetings, Hatueuy.

    I disagree that we have never been richer as a society than we are today. In the years after WW2 ended, we became the center of manufacturing for the entire world. The pent-up demand for goods exploded in the US, and the City of Detroit was one of the beneficiaries , becoming the greatest manufacturing city on the entire planet, with the highest per capita income in the United States. Today, it's a national disgrace. We have fewer Americans working in manufacturing than we did in the 50s, although our population has more than doubled. As a result, nine out of the top ten occupations in America pay less than $35,000 a year.

    Prior to the 60s, there were not 50 million people on food stamps; and millions of others relying on government Section 8 to help them pay for a place to live, many of them in ghettos. We are subsidizing school lunches to ensure children have enough to eat, and some districts are even sending children home over the weekend with pack-packs of food to ensure they don't go hungry.

    While I agree that some are more wealthy today, the average American is not. For a long time, US consumers attempted to keep up their middle-class lifestyles by going into increasing amounts of debt, but they are tapped out, and the middle class is slowly shrinking. In response. retailers are closing thousands of stores across the country, and those jobs are gone.

    Bottom line, at least from what I see, we are not better off today than we were in the 60s, and I'm sad to see it.

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    By force, what nonsense. You live in a society of laws. You don't like those laws? You're under absolutely no obligation to live within it.

  3. #143
    Educator HogWash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    05-03-15 @ 12:47 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    997

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    The combination of liberalism, socialism, obamaism was rejected in that election. The phony bull**** in Ferguson, Missouri didn't hurt the conservative cause either. People are sick to death of that crap. Too bad it couldn't have happened in 2012.
    Liberalismódividing up the EARNED wealth of honest, hard working and ingenious AMERICANS and giving it to the leeches who would rather waste their worthless lives living off the government teat.
    -----HogWash-----

  4. #144
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,881

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Tell me though, how is a product actually legal when you can only sell it using legally approved channels?
    By that idiotic rationale, alcohol isn't "actually legal."

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Yes, that noted "lefty state" of Arkansas, which is now represented entirely by Republicans.

    I don't think you could miss the point more if you tried.
    I dont believe you stated this was in AK, but in any case it was a drop in the bucket, Kobie. A drop in the bucket.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    By that idiotic rationale, alcohol isn't "actually legal."
    If the only way you can sell a product is to use government approved channels that are taxed and regulated is the product actually decriminalized or did the government just figure out a way to control and tax the product? If someone can still get arrested for selling the product not in a government approved manner is the product actually decriminalized? No, it's not.

    Do you think that is freedom? Well, I say it's authoritarian bull****.
    Last edited by Henrin; 11-09-14 at 07:10 PM.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,023

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    "In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty, including almost 20% of American children,[7] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.[8] Starting in the 1980s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations.[9] California has a poverty rate of 23.5%, the highest of any state in the country.[10]
    Poverty in America: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

    Daniel Slesnick found, using consumption spending, that the poverty rate fell from 31 percent in 1949 to 13 percent in 1965 and to 2 percent at the end of the 1980s. One rough indicator of the decline in poverty is the range of items that most poor homes now contain—from color TVs to VCRs to washing machines to microwaves—compared with the relative lack of these items in poor homes in the early 1970s.10
    In 2009 the number of people who were in poverty was approaching 1960s levels that led to the national War on Poverty.[11] In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.[12] This would be roughly 1.2% of the US population in 2011, presuming a mean household size of 2.55 people. Census data for 2011 showed that half the population qualified as low income.[13]

    In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels.[14] A 2013 UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world.[15]"

    That's from WIKI. The bolded part alone demonstrates the failure of the war on poverty.
    Poverty in America: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

    According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate declined from 22.2 percent in 1960 to 12.6 percent in 2005. Most of this decline occurred in the 1960s. By 1970, the poverty rate had fallen to the current level of 12.6 percent. It then hovered between 11 and 13 percent in the 1970s, fluctuating primarily with the state of the economy.11 A longer-term perspective leaves a more positive impression. For example, according to one estimate by Christine Ross, Sheldon Danziger, and Eugene Smolensky, more than two-thirds of the population in 1939 was poor by today’s standards.12
    Poverty

    The population in poverty was approximately 45% in 1870, it declined to around 30% by 1910, only to reach about 45% again in the mid 1930’s and decline again to near the 30% mark by the early 1950’s (Ornati 1955; Hurst 2004).
    Poverty data based on an official government definition was first collected for 1959. Using that measure (discussed below),

    The U.S. poverty rate fell significantly from 22% to 12% between 1959 and 1969. Since that time, according the 2000 Census figures, the poverty rate decreased from 13.1% in 1989 to 12.4% in 1999.

    Today the national poverty rate is about what it was in the mid-1970’s and half the rate of 1959 (Hurst 2004).
    You honestly have no clue what it is you're discussing. Raw numbers don't paint an image of anything. In raw numbers, we have more people living in poverty because we've also tripled our population in the last 100 years. However, in the general scope of things even the children living in poverty have daily access to food, shelter and basic social necessities. So again, not only is your understanding of the poverty alleviated flawed, it completely ignores how these things are measured to begin with.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #148
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    No. But the output of the persuasion scientists was swallowed hook, line and sinker.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You honestly have no clue what it is you're discussing. Raw numbers don't paint an image of anything. In raw numbers, we have more people living in poverty because we've also tripled our population in the last 100 years. However, in the general scope of things even the children living in poverty have daily access to food, shelter and basic social necessities. So again, not only is your understanding of the poverty alleviated flawed, it completely ignores how these things are measured to begin with.
    If people are better of why do most households require both parents to work to make ends meet? Sorry, I just love flipping liberal arguments. The great thing about general arguments like this is that they are easy to flip.

  10. #150
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,023

    Re: Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Greetings, Hatueuy.

    I disagree that we have never been richer as a society than we are today. In the years after WW2 ended, we became the center of manufacturing for the entire world. The pent-up demand for goods exploded in the US, and the City of Detroit was one of the beneficiaries , becoming the greatest manufacturing city on the entire planet, with the highest per capita income in the United States. Today, it's a national disgrace. We have fewer Americans working in manufacturing than we did in the 50s, although our population has more than doubled. As a result, nine out of the top ten occupations in America pay less than $35,000 a year.

    Prior to the 60s, there were not 50 million people on food stamps; and millions of others relying on government Section 8 to help them pay for a place to live, many of them in ghettos. We are subsidizing school lunches to ensure children have enough to eat, and some districts are even sending children home over the weekend with pack-packs of food to ensure they don't go hungry.


    While I agree that some are more wealthy today, the average American is not. For a long time, US consumers attempted to keep up their middle-class lifestyles by going into increasing amounts of debt, but they are tapped out, and the middle class is slowly shrinking. In response. retailers are closing thousands of stores across the country, and those jobs are gone.

    Bottom line, at least from what I see, we are not better off today than we were in the 60s, and I'm sad to see it.
    I think you should look at it from the point of necessity. Are our poor actually poor? Can we call them "poor" when they have purchasing power that exceeds or matches that of virtually any country dealing with the global recession? Can our poor be considered poor when they have cellphones, access to the internet and cheap restaurants with more nutritional value than whatever you're bound to find in 3rd world countries? Of course not. This myth that we've somehow become poorer is just that. It's a myth. The poor in the 1950s couldn't afford televisions, they couldn't afford vehicles or for that matter anything the working class could. Today? They can.

    As for the second part of your post, it has absolutely nothing to do with social programs. It has to do with the 'free market' giving credit to anyone who asked for it for whatever reason. That's an entirely different discussion. People wanted to buy on credit and they ignored frugality in search of the proverbial American Dream.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 15 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •