Ricky:

Can we look to nations more liberal or socialist and notice that many run far more generous social programs for years, and run surpluses? AND have very healthy economies? (In part becasue of the social programs...)
Sweden for example: /

or Greece or Spain.

Ray, you want to make this a matter of Liberal v Conservative when its neither.

Among other reasons, it's pointless to have a discussion with you because you are confusing the words "liberalism" and "liberals".

The other reason it is pointless is that you are shamelessly dishonest. Here's my entire quote:

Why is it nonsense to say that liberalism suffers from not being able to rein in spending when it has to? That's exactly what is happening. Any program (liberal or conservative or whatever) creates vested interests that fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Notice how in the 3rd sentence i use the words "liberal or conservative".

Freeman said:

Monte, couldn't you have agreed with one thing I said?!

I do, although I tend not to key in on those things. What is of more importance is that I respect your integrity and always appreciate the reasonableness of our discussions.

Holy crap! Will you bullies quit picking on the intellectual adjutant?

so mean...and not very christian

ray

Among other reasons, it's pointless to have a discussion with you because you are confusing the words "liberalism" and "liberals

I don't buy your use of Liberalism since to me, and according to my New Websters Dictionary, Liberalism also includes a philosophy responsible for advancements in individual liberty like civil rights, womens rights, and equal treatment under law. A philosophy responsible for the advancement of individual liberty . You've gone after only social programs, and if you were honest in your labelling you wouldn't use the term Liberalism when you really mean social programs.

You've blamed "liberalism" not runaway spending on all programs. You haven't, for insrtance included run away defence spending or runaway corporate tax exemptions as part of the rationale for debt. You've simply blamed the social spending. Is that really honest?
That you've fudged this by using the term Liberalism just means you really don't want to address the essential point.
That its largely conservative politics since 1980 that have failed to address the budget imbalance. Neither wanting to curb spending anywhere, for fear of the "vested interests" you note, nor wishing to address the concept that appropriate levels of taxation are required to support the programs.
Ideas like "tax cuts always pay for themselves" weren't foisted on the public by liberalism.They were foisted on a willing to believe anything if if it means I get more today group. Magical thinking abounds.

The problem is that those social programs, what you call "liberalsim" are popular becasue they deliver value to too many Americans. (A helluva large group who have a vested interest) And since they were brought into being by FDR, and Johnson and etc. conservative ideologues have sought to diminish that value by blaming all sorts of societal ill on them, and offering in return a return to an era of rugged individualism, and charity taking care of the indigent. Back to the 1870s!
This liberalism, what should really be called socail programs, came into being as a way to improve the lot of the commonwealth of citizens because "rugged individualism" wasn't really working to the advantage of the majority.
So what you have now is a thirty year period where rather than face the electorate with a plan to roll back "liberalism" (popular, and largely successful social programs) , successive govenrments have acted irresponsibly.

By the way,

Attacking the notion that social programs can't be paid for without bankrupting a nation, especially the largest economy on the nation, requires you to square that notion with the success of far more "socialist nations" who managed successfully. So yes, Sweden.

Ricky:

You haven't, for insrtance included run away defence spending or runaway corporate tax exemptions as part of the rationale for debt. You've simply blamed the social spending. Is that really honest?

Ray Jay page 4 on this topic:

(3) increase military spending.

No argument from me. I continue to like Obama's foreign policy. The recent shift from ground forces to high tech weaponry is one with which I agree. My concern about voting for Romney is that the additional cost is not worth it to me.

Ray Jay Page 4 on this topic:

I can't speak for other economic conservatives, but in my world view we cut rates but also cut all of the loopholes and other special breaks in the tax code.

Ricky, after someone accuses you of libel, you should be extra careful when you pretend to quote them. The fact that you cannot or will not speaks volumes about your character.

For the record, I do agree that we need social spending in this country. I just think that we have to be cautious and intelligent about it; we have to recognize that there will be unintended consequences; we have to recognize that we will create dependencies and constituencies.

RJ,
As always you are the mindset of what my bombastic persona voices. Yes, we need social spending, but not to the extreme we have come to.

ray

Why is it nonsense to say that liberalism suffers from not being able to rein in spending when it has to? That's exactly what is happening

ray

For the record, I do agree that we need social spending in this country. I just think that we have to be cautious and intelligent about it; we have to recognize that there will be unintended consequences; we have to recognize that we will create dependencies and constituencies

SInce you're dialing back the first statement to the second... is that recognition that that "liberalism" however you narrowly define it, isn't really the problem?
It's simply responsible fiscal management.
And thats not something US conservatives can say they've been very good at, period. Indeed I could quirte comfortably say " "coservatism suffers from not being able to rein in spending when it has to?" I mean who largely managed the federal agenda from 80 to 2008?

Spain's problem is not simply 'liberalism'. It - like Ireland - got caught up in an usustainable property boom. Greece's problem is not so much 'liberalism' as tax evasion on a massive scale. It was odd to note that ricky is getting piled on for highlighting Sweden and not them, and yet in the very same post being replied to and quoted, he mentioned Greece.

The things is, the success of nations like Sweden suggests that it's not 'liberalism' per se that's the problem. Neither is 'conservatism'. As I said before, it's the system and how people operate it. In some countries, political success can be bought with tax dollars.

Similarly, the success of Singapore since the 1960s shows that the much maligned Central Planning can work. Just because many others have failed at it does not mean that it will always fail.

As RJ says, it's not that there are programmes for welfare or medical cover. It's that they are not being fully funded and that there can be uncontrolled expansion of them.

The problem will be worse at a time like this because a low economy means that more people will be eligible for benefits from the state and there's fewer tax dollars coming. And the issue gets complicated when the long term issue for the USA as a nation (not as a 'government) is debts and a deficit, but the short term issue is a slowly growing economy with high unemployment. The solutions for both are at odds, sometimes.

The problem will be worse at a time like this because a low economy means that more people will be eligible for benefits from the state and there's fewer tax dollars coming

Interestingly, one reason that Sweden apparently rebounded quickly from the recession was thattheir newly unemployed received immediate - what would be called lavish- benefits. Meaning their spending habits didn't change massively.
And as employment rebounded quicker, despite the supossed attraction of lavish benefits, the recession was shallow. And they are now running surpluses, paying down their 32%GDP debt and planning tax decreases...

And piling on? Mindless dogs barking and one guy dialing back when called on some excessive, and misaimed rhetoric. (That he usually doesn't wander into...)

Ray Jay wrote:For the record, I do agree that we need social spending in this country. I just think that we have to be cautious and intelligent about it; we have to recognize that there will be unintended consequences; we have to recognize that we will create dependencies and constituencies.

Given what you do for a living, I don't understand your mentality here. If you think it rarely (if ever) works, and usually has unintended negative consequences, what is the point? It seems all superficial--and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion. I mean that it seems like you're saying, "I'm ok with someone throwing money away at a 'problem', just as long as we're 'careful' about it."

Where am I amiss?

Guapo:

Where am I amiss?

I don't know. My gut is that if there were no social spending for food or shelter or medicine you would see kids dying on the street every day. There's a wide variety of capability and circumstance out there. I don't think that churches and other charities can handle it all. I just want to dial it back quite a bit so we don't bankrupt ourselves.

Ricky:

Sweden, Sweden, Sweden, Sweden

.

I'm all for learning as much as possible about what other countries do. But the notion that since something works in a relatively homogenous country of 10 million people it will certainly work in this incredibly diverse country (which has more illegal immigrants than Sweden has citizens) is not credible.

Hmm, so which do you think is more important, RJ - Scale or ethnic mix?

Ricky's not saying it will work in the USA because it appears to have in Sweden. He's saying that Sweden shows it can work. Why it can't work in the USA needs more work than just 'bigger population' or 'more brown people'.

Danivon, Sweden has nowhere near the defense expenditure of the US. That's what it boils down to. You people want social welfare, you have to end the empire.

Guapo wrote:Danivon, Sweden has nowhere near the defense expenditure of the US. That's what it boils down to. You people want social welfare, you have to end the empire.

You won't find me disageeing with the premise that the USA spends way too much on it's military, has too much overseas and has too often meddled - sometimes to the point of war - in things it should not.

Either way, Sweden can make no valid comparison.

more brown people? Why should I respond to that?