"Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,3 ... 4,1.html/1

David Mamet is an excellent writer.

Reading this piece (I had already done so), reminded me that well written pieces are few and far between in the mainstream press.


2

Some people have a religious faith that free markets are intelligent and productive, while government is an idiotic bull in a china shop. Ironically, these people are now pleading with the government to rescue them after their financial house of cards collapsed. But maybe these free marketeers really are the smart ones - when the bubble was expanding, they put billions of dollars into their own pockets. Now, they hope the tax payer will pick up the tab for their miscalculations. American capitalism - profit without risk!!

It isn't *all* the same people. There are some consistent marketeers, but they are more likely to be outside observers of the process than participants. You are right though, a number of these people want profit without the risk.

Privatize profits, socialize risks...that's the way of american business.

I've ditched my ultra-liberal beliefs myself. But I am by no means conservative...yet.

While I feel that the Democrats can have a better grasp on the economy, I don't necessarily believe in abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. anymore.

At the time I became liberal, I was focused on getting laid. That is no longer the case.

you can get screwed by either party

The only thing the dems have a grasp of is people wallets, their idea of helping out people is to pay themselves big bucks and making sure there is always lots of people dependant on them.

<insert stereotype about Republicans here>

"Brain-dead liberal"... why use such a redundant term?

OK, sarcasm over.

No, not a religious faith, an empirically verified observation. Some people have a religious faith that free markets are cesspools of evil and exploitation while government is the solution to all our problems.

Not really. I generally oppose government intervention, and that includes the current monetary Keynesianism courtesy of Bernanke.

Those aren't free marketeers, and you seem to be endorsing an odd class-warfare view of economics.

And that is not capitalism in the slightest. Profit is always accompanied by risk.

I've heard the reverse of that many times from Libertarians...that governments and their regulations are evil by default while the free market is perfect.

Well, now we have to define "evil" and "perfection" before we can debate much along these lines.

I don't consider government to be inherently evil per se... I just don't think government intervention in the economy is a good idea. And of course, to paraphrase an alcoholic, the free market is the worst economic system there is, except for all the others that have been tried. Market capitalism by definition promotes liberty moreso than any other economic system, and it also provides equality (in a manner) in the sense of equal opportunity to work within the system to your own gain, rather than the socialistic concept of equal outcome, regardless of an individual's talents or work ethic. Also, capitalism tends to result in a general increase in the standard of living for everyone, including the allegedly oppressed classes at the bottom.

Depends on the individuals in question. That particular position is a radical philosophical position more so than anything else in many ways.

Whatever. I'm on my way to med school. Federal grants and work study are the only reasons I'm able to get by on just the government subsidized student loan, for now, and still have enough food in my belly to concentrate on my studies. I would have had to go into the blue collar if it hadn't been for the government's help. My parents just didn't have enough money to put me through med school themselves.

My room-mate would be on the streets right now without his disability check. He admits that it's a flawed system, though, because he ended up slouching about longer than he had to before actually motivating himself to go out seeking work. It's a big regret in his life. Still, it's what kept him from starving or going without medical intervention during the period of his life during which he was unable to walk. Before he busted up his back, though, he was making a decent income. He owned his own house, and he drove a nice car. He earned all that, but hard times put him down. Right now, he's on his way to reestablishing himself in the workforce, and he and his fiance have a baby on the way. Once he's landed a decent job, he's going to be able to support himself again. For the next few months, though, the rest of his disability is going to be the only thing that keeps him in decent shelter.

Section 8 allows low-income families to provide decent shelter for their children. Again, not a perfect system, but it keeps the cockroaches off of a few children's faces. If you've never seen a slum, you don't want to. They're nasty. Just walking by them puts me in dry heaves. If a woman is expecting a baby, she can avoid being forced to choose between abortion and poor living conditions for her child by signing up for this program. The current waiting period is two years. If the conservatives had their way, 1) the woman would be forced to have the child, whether or not she has the means to rear it, and 2) the child would celebrate his second birthday in a slum.

You can call me all the names you want, but I'm not going to be budged on this issue.

Examples of dems at work can be found with the state economies,if high taxes was the answer, MI.OH upstate NY, VT would have thriving economies.
Reality is they are all dying and the red/blue state map pretty much shows dying states versus thriving states.

many opeople look at washington DC as the cause of the nations problems, they don't run the 50 states or is the one single federal law requiring people to buy imports or use so much fuel a year, people choose to do things because they are allowed to make their own choices and if enough people choose to do something and it hurts the national economy, it's not the presidents fault.

You're incredibly misinformed to the point of talking out of your ass. Not only did Ohio go for Bush in 2004, we had a Republican governor, two Republican senators, the ohio house of representatives and senate were and still are a republican majority, not to mention republicans run local politics in Cincinnati and and pretty much everywhere else outside of Cleveland and Columbus. I eagerly await your explanation of how democrats have ruined ohio despite the best intentions of the republican majority.

Oh, and the economy isn't that bad either, though obviously we were hurt by manufacturing jobs moving overseas.

so what you are saying is nobody would help anyone out unless forced to by the government.


I hope you become a doctor and get declared a rich guy and pay taxes up the butt and while you live for your job pass by people living off your hard work and not lifting a finger to help themselves except when it comes to voting themselves lots of you money.

How to create a republican, hand them a degree,a job and a 1040

how to not live in a slum, get married, save up some money by working hard and than have children, most children living in poverty aren't from broken homes or broken families, something would have to not be broken in the first place to break. Some womans poor choice in mates or herself being a slug is her problem.
Mistakes happen and can be fixed, many of them should try losing a few hundred pounds and acting like pleasant people and maybe some guy would marry them and help them raise their kids if they where willing to help also instead of lying on the couch stuffing their face all day.

There is no such thing as a single mother down on her luck, there is only a witch nobody wants to be around.So any woman could help themselves without government help simply by getting married which is fairly easy to do if they stop eating like a pig and act pleasant to men, one will fill the roll of being a husband and father. They have choosen their lifestyle.