<p>Also in case you did not know the guys selling Porsches and Ferraris and Mercedes and BMWs make lots more $$$ than the guys selling Fords. Same for the guys fixing them. I don’t know if the Mercedes and BMW plants in the US (yes they are in the US now) pay better than the Ford plants but i’d be happier making fine Mercedes and BMW cars with some quality than stamping out some crappy Fords. The fact that Fords are crappy and don’t sell causing people to lose their jobs is the market at work. I do feel sorry for the assembly guy that had little to do with the problem and hope that they can turn it around. Chrysler and Cadillac were both near death and got it turned around so it can be done. Same for Nissan. The car business is TOUGH.</p>
<p>Xiggi: Everything I listed was damned as evil at the time it was proposed, fought for, and eventually won. In 1964 Barry Goldwater ran for president as the Republican nominee on a platform which opposed virtually all of them. Social Security, Medicare, Child labor regulations, Progressive taxation, Minimum wage - all fulminated against as being “socialist” (that’s the catch phrase they used before “liberal” caught on.) Desegregation - I told you about the “racist revolutionaries” line already. Of course, a lot of the racist opposition was cunningly disguised as something else - states rights was big; here in California in my youth the voters passed a law banning any restriction on a property owner’s right to sell or rent (or refuse to sell or rent) property to anyone they wanted. Sounds innocuous on its face, doesn’t it? Simple affirmation of economic liberty for property owners, right? The spin on it was excellent, and it passed readily. Except it was simply an effort to legalize racial discrimination. Today you accept the things liberals brought to America pretty much as a given good, and would (I suspect) recoil in horror at some of the slick arguments advanced against them at the time.</p>
<p>But you’re right, we haven’t won one lately. In part, it’s been a period of consolidating those achievements. In part, it’s been the success of the right wing in utilizing wedge issues and fear tactics to distract the public from the direction the nation was turning. For twenty-five years the rich have been increasing the gap in wealth that they enjoy over the middle class and poor, while their effective tax rate has declined. But no one seemed to notice. All the media attention seems to be on vague threats of one sort or another - terrorists, abortion, “War on Christmas”, you name it. “Whatever you do, don’t look at the man over there behind the curtain!” (And you think the media is liberal?)</p>
<p>So what issues do I think liberals are now working on which your children will accept as a given, even if they seem outlandish and controversial today? Here’s 3 for starters:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Single payer medical funding on a national level. Remember, Bill and Hillary tried to work on this one before getting scuttled by a slick propaganda campaign. My support of this concept is not driven by ideology, but simple observation of the numerous adverse impacts of our current system on many facets of the nation, economic, legal, medical, social. The arguments against it are just as slick as the ones used against social security and anti-discrimination, and just as dishonest. Your kids will wonder what all the fuss was about.</p></li>
<li><p>Progressive taxation. Yeah - you thought we already had that, didn’t you? We don’t. The poor and middle class take home a lower percentage of their income than the wealthy, due to the slick packaging of arguments that the PR guys for the “haves” have been able to sell to the public. Here’s a tip: anytime you hear an argument for lowering or eliminating one tax, think about the hotel maid whose wages will have to be taxed more to make up the shortfall, and then ask if it’s worth taking the money out of her pocket. All taxes seem unfair when viewed in a vacuum, which is how the tax breaks for the wealthy are always packaged. </p></li>
<li><p>Fighting discrimination against homosexuals. The principle was won regarding racial discrimination, but homosexuals are still fair game in lots of places. Again, slick and dishonest arguments against treating homosexuals like “regular people” abound.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You conveniently do not mention the negatve impact of the liberal welfare state on generations of minority and poor people. The high marginal tax rates turned into a moribund economy that was jump-started by the major tax cuts under Kennedy of all people. Some might say lower taxes saved this country. Could you really defend a 90% marginal tax rate today?? Now we are just tinkering around the edges.
Outside of SS most maids pay nothing to the federal treasury. They probably get a tax credit payment from the US.</p>
<p>Kluge, your argument seems to be based on the theory that if a little bit of something is good, then a whole lot of it is better. All you have to do is look at the economies of Europe to disprove that theory.</p>
<p>Or look at the havoc the welfare state has wrought on the families it hoped to liberate. The full force of which has liberated father from mother and both from their children. Too much is never enough, indeed.</p>
<p>In romantic mood, my mother and father were prone to say things to us like Id rather have you than all the money in the world. Im pretty sure they meant it, and as much as I think my parents are special I dont think they are so special such that most parents wouldnt feel the same way. The welfare state, perhaps more than any other political event, has torn families asunder ripped into shreds for a subsistence living with little hope in sight.</p>
<p>The civil rights finally enacted in the 60s were the fulfillment of the promise of the Declaration of Independence; the welfare state owes more to the machinations and dreams of utopians like the Marx Bros., Karl and Harpo, and that blowhard from the Beatles…V. I. Lennon.</p>
<p>Kluge, thank you for articulating your positions and views in a very clear way. I may not agree with the need or benefit of the issues you mentioned, but I most definitely respect your views. </p>
<p>From my vantage point, if a private citizen can formulate a plan in such cogent terms, I’d expect to see a well-defined platform and plan of action from the Democratic Leadership. I do not really expect much else than “This is what we believe in and this what we will do.” </p>
<p>Please tell me if that has happened lately? I am not asking this question in a rethorical or sarcastic way.</p>
<p>Didn’t take it as such, Xiggi. Like I said, all politicians are bought these days. And the people who can afford to buy don’t support the liberal agenda for the most part. (Considering the fact that for most people where they stand depends on where they sit, that’s only to be expected.) I don’t hold Democratic politicians up as paragons of virtue or courage any more than I would any other politicians. That’s why every step takes a long time. As I said in response to dstark, the one coherent message I’ve heard of late is Edwards’ recognition of the Two Americas - at least he is recognizing the problem. Do you hear any Republican politicians addressing this issue?</p>
<p>So why aren’t Democratic politicians rushing out to say “I’m for single payer medical care, increasing taxes for the wealthy, and equal rights for homosexuals”? Because the last point would be used as a wedge issue; the second would be subject to the distortion Barrons used in post #83, and the first would be hit with the kind of cheap shot arguments FF and FS used in #84 and #85.</p>
<p>Quick, easy, slick one-liners which support the status quo - at least with regard to protecting the financial interests of the wealthy - are the road to success in politics today. Politicians want to get elected. Indeed, they need to get elected to do anything. Our current system of cash based politics buttressed by the constant subtle reinforcement of right wing philosophy coming from the mainstream media, means that these battles, just like the earlier ones I listed, will have to be fought step by step, and inch by inch.</p>
<p>Barrons & FS: If you’re going to consider every social malady which may have been aggravated by any policy you view as “liberal” as a validation of your right wing beliefs, are you going to take ownership of every social malady that’s aggraveated by the policies you extol? And if so, by all means draw me a picture of how everything would have been just dandy for the poor victims of the welfare state under the policies you would have preferred. Theory is just fine, until you try to apply it to people - a truism which applies to the theories of the right with equal force as the theories of the left.</p>
<p>Not at all, I think the civil rights movement–largely spearheaded by liberals–was, as I said, the fulfillment of the Declaration. In saying that, does this mean that I must but the store? Or everything theyre selling hope not. </p>
<p>How about a little consumer protection attached to this wonderful liberal product?</p>
<p>I think the benefits of a lower tax lower spending government outweigh the negatives. I would continue to place emphasis on equal opportunity over equal results. I have no problem with equal rights for all and if gays want to risk losing half of their earnings/equity in a marriage it’s OK by me. My biggest problem with single payer is drawing a limit on how much care we can afford. Americans do not accept direct rationing very well and we cannot in any possible way pay for all the care that could be given under an unlimited care system. Plus it would be another huge $$$ cow for politicians and businesses to fight over and breed more corruption than we have already.</p>
<p>Well put, Barrons. There are problems with implementing single payer, and you’ve put your finger on the biggest ones. I’m not ignoring those problems - I just think the problems we have with our current system are even worse. It’s a big subject and won’t fit here, we can agree to disagree for now. With regard to taxes and spending, I think you’d agree that there is a magic balance point, where taxes and government spending are just enough and not too much. The problem is determining just where that point is. I have no respect for politicos who simply repeat “cut taxes…cut taxes…cut taxes” without recognizing the inevitable spending cuts and/or government borrowing which must follow. My personal feeling is that we need to invest more in our infrastructure and education than our current tax revenue stream will pay for, and that problem is being aggravated by the mindless pandering of the “cut taxes…cut taxes…cut taxes” politicians.</p>
<p>Barrons, one of your better posts. Really.</p>
<p>“My personal feeling is that we need to invest more in our infrastructure and education than our current tax revenue stream will pay for, and that problem is being aggravated by the mindless pandering of the “cut taxes…cut taxes…cut taxes” politicians.”</p>
<p>Kluge, should we not differentiate between INVESTING in infrastructure and education and SPENDING? Do we really need to cover our INVESTMENTS with current revenues? In the past, we have seen that is it not impossible for agovernment to balance the books by bringing long-term investments to a halt in a period of growing revenues, and crippling the future. Did this accomplish much, short of giving to some empty suit the temporary pleasure of parading with an infamous lockbox? </p>
<p>The difference between investing and spending is not rethorical: Investments are to be measured based on return rates. Additional spending is simply lumped together with the remaining expenses, and mostly without much rhyme or reason. </p>
<p>I strongly believe that the amortization of our investment in education and infrastucture should be covered by additional taxes that are fair, equitable, progressive and, most importantly … universal. Nobody should be sheltered from the responsibility to improve and PAY for a better system. While the rich can afford to pay more, the poor needs to also take responsibility, and accept to participate fairly when the payments become due. Repayments of education debts via public service could go a long way. Four years of education for 2 to 4 years of public service would not be too much to ask. </p>
<p>However, before increasing spending and investments, the system needs to be completely overhauled from top to bottom. The dead wood and sclerotic minds need to be thrown out without mercy, but the positive contribution of many should be rewarded by better wages and better conditions. </p>
<p>This is the only way to eradicate the corruption, the waste, and the cynicism that plagues our current system.</p>
<p>Why should education leave anyone in debt? Seriously. Fundingfather and I have both mused recently about how a college education today leaves its recipient in about the same position financially as a high school diploma did forty years ago. Of course, a high school diploma is obtainable free of tuition, book costs, and the other expenses that leave many of today’s college graduates in debt. Why shouldn’t a state school college education be provided on the same terms as K-12?</p>
<p>As to the responsibility to pay back, is it really a college student’s fault that his parents aren’t rich? Why should the offspring of the wealthy get a pass from the responsibility to perform public service? Why not have everyone start off even after all of the education they are capable of completing? Either everyone performs public service or no one does, regardless of who their parents are. And finally, isn’t this a logical extension of your argument that scholarships should be tax-free? ;)</p>
<p>I meant it when I wrote of “investing” in education as a nation. A “basic” education today is a B.A. for every student who is able to complete the college coursework; I think our nation as a whole would see a return on the investment required to ensure that they all have the opportunity to received that education without having choose between getting their degree or going into debt.</p>
<p>Not all “conservatives” are the same. While I firmly believe in free enterprise and pulling yourself up to the next rung–or three–I’m not quite in bed with Jerry Falwell either. Most of us still think for ourselves. My visits to church usually involves some RE consulting work for which I charge all faiths the same fee-- $00.00.</p>
<p>I think most people put more effort into something they are paying for so I am againsy free college. Most state schools are still reasonable and a good starting point for anyone.
The wealthy will always have it better and I stopped worrying about that many years ago. I just focus on doing things to make my life a little better. If everyone just did that most everyone would be better off.</p>
<p>With what 12 billion cut from the student loan/grant program, even if you wanted to borrow the money now, it is really tough</p>
<p>An uneducated population is not healthy for the country</p>