• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 14 21.5%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 12 18.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 32 49.2%

  • Im a not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a not American, no.

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Total voters
    65
US Conservative said:
The fatal flaw of liberalism, is that it must sacrifice the freedom of the individual for the state. Thats why even the term "liberal" is a misnomer. When it inevitably comes down to that choice-freedom or the state, the liberal chooses the state.

This is one of the skeletons in the closet the left needs to deal with. I'd like to think this election brought that home, but I doubt it-especially after the sad excuses Ive heard up to this point.
Click to expand...

As a conservative you are an expert at personal freedoms. Only second to your knowledge of "liberalism". A well oiled thought machine.
 
Hatuey;1063961399You honestly have no clue what it is you're discussing. Raw numbers don't paint an image of [I said:
anything[/I]. 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.
Click to expand...
Lol I didn't give numbers, I gave percentages. Those haven't changed much. But if you are right and the war on poverty has been such a rousing success, I guess that means we can declare victory and reduce spending. Whats that? You want new programs and more spending? Sounds like you are calling in for more troops in the war on poverty. You don't do that sort of thing when you are winning.
 
Henrin said:
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. :D The great thing about general arguments like this is that they are easy to flip.
Click to expand...

You're not flipping anything. Just like you had no clue what it actually takes to adopt a child or what goes into marriage law, you again have no concept of how the 'free market' has actually taken into consideration the fact that both parents work. Your claim has absolutely nothing to do with alleviating poverty and everything to do with pricing. More people working? Products go up in prices because more people can afford them. Free market. Ain't it great?

Before the 1960s, you had people making ends meet with a single salary however that working class had virtually no social mobility. You were born working class? You died working class. It was the law of the land. Now, you can be born working class, utilize social programs and move up. That simply wasn't there before and it's the basis for the debt to society arguments. However, even without a debt to society argument, social programs have ensured that working class families don't fall into deeper poverty like the kind we saw in the 40s, 30s, 20s, 10s.
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, this is the death of the left, blah blah. Keep spiking the football, man.
 
Fletch said:
Lol I didn't give numbers, I gave percentages.
Click to expand...

And you misunderstood what they were actually telling you. There's not much of a shock there. Or do you not realize that a 50% drop in poverty rates is an inherently good thing? ;)

Those haven't changed much. But if you are right and the war on poverty has been such a rousing success, I guess that means we can declare victory and reduce spending. Whats that? You want new programs and more spending? Sounds like you are calling in for more troops in the war on poverty. You don't do that sort of thing when you are winning.
Click to expand...

Ah, I want more social spending? Lol.... wha? No. I've argued for programs from going higher than 20%. Eliminating poverty is not a possibility or a reality. However, a country without social programs falls into social anomie. That's a fact. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
You're not flipping anything. Just like you had no clue what it actually takes to adopt a child or what goes into marriage law, you again have no concept of how the 'free market' has actually taken into consideration the fact that both parents work. Your claim has absolutely nothing to do with alleviating poverty and everything to do with pricing. More people working? Products go up in prices because more people can afford them. Free market. Ain't it great?
Click to expand...

Actually, it has everything to do with supply. Anyway, I don't see how I didn't show I knew how marriage law or adoption worked.

Before the 1960s, you had people making ends meet with a single salary however that working class had virtually no social mobility. You were born working class? You died working class. It was the law of the land. Now, you can be born working class, utilize social programs and move up. That simply wasn't there before and it's the basis for the debt to society arguments. However, even without a debt to society argument, social programs have ensured that working class families don't fall into deeper poverty like the kind we saw in the 40s, 30s, 20s, 10s.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? Plenty of people moved up before the 1960's. Social programs didn't make that a reality and arguably hasn't helped it much either.
 
Hatuey said:
Ah, I want more social spending? Lol.... wha? No. I've argued for programs from going higher than 20%. Eliminating poverty is not a possibility or a reality. However, a country without social programs falls into social anomie. That's a fact. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, it's a not a fact. You just made that up.
 
Hatuey said:
And you misunderstood what they were actually telling you. There's not much of a shock there. Or do you not realize that a 50% drop in poverty rates is an inherently good thing? ;)
Click to expand...
Ah, what would a conversation be without liberal arrogance? Is that part of the initiation process? Or are liberals just born snotty and arrogant? Perhaps you can link to a study of that. And as to your point: My link showed no such drop.



Ah, I want more social spending? Lol.... wha? No. I've argued for programs from going higher than 20%. Eliminating poverty is not a possibility or a reality. However, a country without social programs falls into social anomie. That's a fact. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Is it a fact? Says who?
 
Fletch said:
Ah, what would a conversation be without liberal arrogance? Is that part of the initiation process? Or are liberals just born snotty and arrogant? Perhaps you can link to a study of that. And as to your point: My link showed no such drop.

Is it a fact? Says who?
Click to expand...

It takes enormous brass balls or almost an almost childlike lack of awareness to sit here on DP, of all places, and whine about liberals being arrogant and snotty. Have you read some of your right-wing brethren's posts around here?
 
Fletch said:
Ah, what would a conversation be without liberal arrogance? Is that part of the initiation process? Or are liberals just born snotty and arrogant? Perhaps you can link to a study of that. And as to your point: My link showed no such drop.
Click to expand...

It's almost like you don't actually understand what these links mean:

Poverty_Rates_by_Age_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG


Would you say this is a drop? I would. It's from your link.

ec7d088d6.png


Would you say this is a drop? I would.

1-6-14pov-s1-f1.png


bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-1-825.ashx


You notice that? Social programs kick off in the 50s, poverty drops. Correlation? Causation? Well, we know what happened without them.

Is it a fact? Says who?
Click to expand...

How is most of Africa doing? South East Asia? Latin America? Hell, the only developing country with any semblance of anti-poverty programs like those of the West is Mexico and their poverty rates have drastically gone down with every left wing government put in power.
 
Kobie said:
It takes enormous brass balls or almost an almost childlike lack of awareness to sit here on DP, of all places, and whine about liberals being arrogant and snotty. Have you read some of your right-wing brethren's posts around here?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Liberals are far more arrogant and snotty that conservatives. There is really no comparison. Arrogance is a hallmark of liberalism. The entire leftist ideology is built upon the twin pillars of arrogance and theft.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fortunately America was never a third-world country. I understand that the poor today in America are considered wealthy by millions around the world, and that's to our credit. But if we consider that the actual value of the dollar is about five cents today, it seems that you would need more dollars to live, and that's the problem. In order not to raise prices, companies are being forced to shrink the size of their product, especially in the food area - cereals and other grains especially. And paying $4 or $5 a pound for ground beef is unbelievable when that used to be the price for a good T-bone steak not too long ago! I wonder how people are managing, and we've had threads on here to discuss that. Is it inflation, or something else? Small wonder that businesses like WalMart are thriving, but they are selling stuff that people need, which used to be made here, but now carries labels from China and other countries that now have the manufacturing we used to do. People cannot live here on $1 an hour in salary, like they do in other parts of the world.
 
Hatuey said:
It's almost like you don't actually understand what these links mean:

bg-war-on-poverty-50-years-chart-1-825.ashx


You notice that? Social programs kick off in the 50s, poverty drops. Correlation? Causation? Well, we know what happened without them.



How is most of Africa doing? South East Asia? Latin America? Hell, the only developing country with any semblance of anti-poverty programs like those of the West is Mexico and their poverty rates have drastically gone down with every left wing government put in power.
Click to expand...
Look at your last graph. And see if you can understand it yourself. Poverty was falling dramatically BEFORE the war on poverty began in 1964. Since that point it has hovered right around 15%. Which is essentially no change at all since the war on poverty began. Its almost like you don't understand what your own graphs mean.
 
polgara said:
Fortunately America was never a third-world country. I understand that the poor today in America are considered wealthy by millions around the world, and that's to our credit. But if we consider that the actual value of the dollar is about five cents today, it seems that you would need more dollars to live, and that's the problem. In order not to raise prices, companies are being forced to shrink the size of their product, especially in the food area - cereals and other grains especially. And paying $4 or $5 a pound for ground beef is unbelievable when that used to be the price for a good T-bone steak not too long ago! I wonder how people are managing, and we've had threads on here to discuss that. Is it inflation, or something else? Small wonder that businesses like WalMart are thriving, but they are selling stuff that people need, which used to be made here, but now carries labels from China and other countries that now have the manufacturing we used to do. People cannot live here on $1 an hour in salary, like they do in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

As for the first part, in red, I would say that's debatable. I would call any country where 87% of any demographic is living in poverty to be a third world country. I would consider a country where women have no real access to education to be a third world country. I would say a country where illiteracy rates are 50%-60% to be a third world country. That's the country we had before the 50s and 60s.

As for the second part..... you do know that portions have actually grown in the last 50 years? Yes? In all areas?

HBO: The Weight of the Nation: Eat Better : Themes: Eat Better

info_portionTrends.png


As for your your questions have nothing to do with social program. Companies have found ways to make cheaper products and sell them in a more expensive manner. That happens. It's no different than companies getting machines to do the jobs of human beings at a fraction of the price. Whatever the cause may be, it has nothing to do with social programs.
 
Fletch said:
Not at all. Liberals are far more arrogant and snotty that conservatives. There is really no comparison. Arrogance is a hallmark of liberalism. The entire leftist ideology is built upon the twin pillars of arrogance and theft.
Click to expand...

LOL. Okay, buddy. :lamo
 
Hatuey said:
info_portionTrends.png


As for your your questions have nothing to do with social program. Companies have found ways to make cheaper products and sell them in a more expensive manner. That happens. It's no different than companies getting machines to do the jobs of human beings at a fraction of the price. Whatever the cause may be, it has nothing to do with social programs.
Click to expand...

Ummm...you do realize that chart has very little to do with her argument, right?
 
Fletch said:
Look at your last graph. And see if you can understand it yourself. Poverty was falling dramatically BEFORE the war on poverty began in 1964.
Click to expand...

You honestly believe the war on poverty started in 1964? Lol. These social programs go as far back as the New Deal.

American President: Dwight David Eisenhower: Domestic Affairs

Eisenhower favored a more moderate course, one that he called Modern Republicanism, which preserved individual freedom and the market economy yet insured that government would provide necessary assistance to workers who had lost their jobs or to the ill or aged, who through no fault of their own, could not provide for themselves. He intended to lead the country "down the middle of the road between the unfettered power of concentrated wealth . . . and the unbridled power of statism or partisan interests."
Click to expand...

New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most important program of 1935, and perhaps the New Deal as a whole, was the Social Security Act, drafted by Frances Perkins. It established a permanent system of universal retirement pensions (Social Security), unemployment insurance, and welfare benefits for the handicapped and needy children in families without father present.[73] It established the framework for the U.S. welfare system. Roosevelt insisted that it should be funded by payroll taxes rather than from the general fund; he said, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."[74]
Click to expand...

Again, the 60s marked a high point for these programs as far as their establishment goes. However, the war on poverty is part of a long line of legislation which has been in the works since before the 60s and they have by all means worked. How does that make you feel inside?

Since that point it has hovered right around 15%. Which is essentially no change at all since the war on poverty began. Its almost like you don't understand what your own graphs mean.
Click to expand...

Ah essentially, it's no change... you do realize you sound ridiculous when you make such blatantly false statements against the very image you claim are right? Yes? From now on, 23-25% poverty rate is the same as 15%. Just like 35% poverty rate is the same as 25%. Yes? No. That's nonsense.
 
Henrin said:
Ummm...you do realize that chart has very little to do with her argument, right?
Click to expand...

Her arguments have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and I even acknowledge that. Food portions have gotten smaller? False. What they have to do with social programs? Nothing. Just like people getting divorced has nothing to do with poverty. :shrug: Now quit trying to follow me because your ridiculous arguments have nothing to do with the discussion either.
 
Hatuey said:
Her arguments have nothing to do with the discussion at hand and I even acknowledge that. Food portions have gotten smaller? False. What they have to do with social programs? Nothing. Just like people getting divorced has nothing to do with poverty. :shrug: Now quit trying to follow me because your ridiculous arguments have nothing to do with the discussion either.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you. :lol: She was talking about food prices in general, and for some reason you posted a chart that shows that portions have gotten larger for three different types of food. Big ****ing whoop if fast food joints serve bigger hamburgers, pizzas and Mexican food portions? It has nothing to do with the price of ground beef at the grocery store.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not following you. :lol: She was talking about food prices in general, and for some reason you posted a chart that shows that portions have gotten larger for three different types of food. Big ****ing whoop if fast food joints serve bigger hamburgers, pizzas and Mexican food portions? It has nothing to do with the price of ground beef at the grocery store.
Click to expand...

This is why you need to read posts. She complained things are more expensive, yes that's what happens in a country where supply and demand matter and the population triples in size. It has happened in literally every country that doesn't freeze prices. That has nothing to do with social programs. Food portions have gotten smaller? That's just false. We eat more as a country than we ever have. We eat ****ty foods, however that's what happens when companies want to turn a profit without spending a lot of money. Food raised in industrial farms? Cheap and plenty of. Food raised by human hand (basically artisanal farming nowadays) expensive. That has absolutely nothing to do with social programs either. Both have to do with a society that demands more and wants it cheaper. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
You honestly believe the war on poverty started in 1964? Lol. These social programs go as far back as the New Deal.
Click to expand...
The war on poverty did begin in 1964. That is a fact. You just want the post war boom that really impacted the poverty rate to be credited to government action. That is false. Since 1964, there has been essentially no change in poverty. That is 50 years and there is no denying that. Yet you do. Why? Cant handle the fact that your leftist ideas are a failure. Because they are.

Ah essentially, it's no change... you do realize you sound ridiculous when you make such blatantly false statements against the very image you claim are right? Yes? From now on, 23-25% poverty rate is the same as 15%. Just like 35% poverty rate is the same as 25%. Yes? No. That's nonsense.
Click to expand...
Your own graph shows no change in 50 years. That is a fact and you sound ridiculous pretending otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom