Kanye to The banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
idk, learn about communism and how Lenin's idea of communism was dangerous. Hold people under constant fear, kill innovative thinkers, practically kill any intelligence in the country and shove the ideology down the throat. At least this is what I thought first, if i got the idea right. If you decide to write about this then you should definitely do some research.

But every political theory has its dangerous sides, like liberalism makes poor poorer and rich richer, which creates a lot of social barriers in the society, choose the theory you know the most of and write about it. Remember that no political ideology is perfect
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
ivey said:
But every political theory has its dangerous sides, like liberalism makes poor poorer and rich richer, which creates a lot of social barriers in the society, choose the theory you know the most of and write about it. Remember that no political ideology is perfect
classic, economic liberalism (e.g. laissez-faire economic theory) that is; not modern liberalism
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
TryDifferentJokes said:
classic, economic liberalism (e.g. laissez-faire economic theory) that is; not modern liberalism
what is the difference between classical and modern liberalism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
ivey said:
what is the difference between classical and modern liberalism?
classic liberalism is belief in low taxation, low corporate regulation like the policies used by the Republicans in the 1920s. While modern liberalism as we know today is more associated with left-of-centre parties (e.g. Democrats) who believe in social liberalism (like civil rights, gay marriage, separation of church and state) while on the economic side; they believe in more funding for public education and a national health service while increasing taxes for the rich and large corporations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
TryDifferentJokes said:
classic liberalism is belief in low taxation, low corporate regulation like the policies used by the Republicans in the 1920s. While modern liberalism as we know today is more associated with left-of-centre parties (e.g. Democrats) who believe in social liberalism (like civil rights, gay marriage, separation of church and state) while on the economic side; they believe in more funding for public education and a national health service while increasing taxes for the rich and large corporations.
But this "modern liberalism" is working in very few countries to be honest. When I read the description of "classical libaralism" i immediately thought of USA today, the very rich pay 14% taxes while middle class has to pay 25% (This was in recent news as Warren Buffett called the government up to raise taxes for rich people). The markets are completely unregulated, that's why we had such a huge enonomic collapse, but the question whether governments should regulate or not is a topic of itself. Yes, Obama is making some changes which benefit the middle class, such as medicare, but the economy practically runs the same way it did before the credit crunch, so the big changes that were expected before his auguration aren't happening right now.

But now that I've written this whole text I realise you're from the UK, and Europe is another case really, where we have a lot more countries that emphasise social liberalism and the welfare of the middle class, but we could always point out the downsides of social liberalism (as OP needs to write the "dangerous" sides)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
ivey said:
But this "modern liberalism" is working in very few countries to be honest. When I read the description of "classical libaralism" i immediately thought of USA today, the very rich pay 14% taxes while middle class has to pay 25% (This was in recent news as Warren Buffett called the government up to raise taxes for rich people). The markets are completely unregulated, that's why we had such a huge enonomic collapse, but the question whether governments should regulate or not is a topic of itself. Yes, Obama is making some changes which benefit the middle class, such as medicare, but the economy practically runs the same way it did before the credit crunch, so the big changes that were expected before his auguration aren't happening right now.

But now that I've written this whole text I realise you're from the UK, and Europe is another case really, where we have a lot more countries that emphasise social liberalism and the welfare of the middle class, but we could always point out the downsides of social liberalism (as OP needs to write the "dangerous" sides)
modern liberalism's working perfectly well in Norway, Sweden, Germany and other countries that actually use it fully. They have much higher standards of living than the US; better healthcare, better education and this is because the righ actually pay their fair share, unlike the USA. Even places like Australia, Canada, France and the UK have systems that would be considered 'socialist' and too extremely left-wing by most right-wingers & even some moderate Americans; yet these countries are faring better than the US is.

Taxes are that low for the rich because of the Republicans, who claim they need to be as the wealthy are 'job creators' who won't hire unless taxes are even lower than they are now (History proves this to be complete bullshit; e.g. the top tax rate in the 1950s in America was 91%, while it's only 35% today - look it up, it's true)

So yes, unfortunately for you Americans; 'classic liberalism' appears to have the most control over your country right now, but people keep on voting for politicians who keep on reducing taxes on the extremely wealthy & corporations; so it's also kinda their own faults. Even Barack 'Change we can believe in' Obama couldn't do anything; in fact, he had to further reduce the top tax rate because the Republicans threatened to shut down gov't if he didn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
TryDifferentJokes said:
modern liberalism's working perfectly well in Norway, Sweden, Germany and other countries that actually use it fully. They have much higher standards of living than the US; better healthcare, better education and this is because the righ actually pay their fair share, unlike the USA. Even places like Australia, Canada, France and the UK have systems that would be considered 'socialist' and too extremely left-wing by most right-wingers & even some moderate Americans; yet these countries are faring better than the US is.

Taxes are that low for the rich because of the Republicans, who claim they need to be as the wealthy are 'job creators' who won't hire unless taxes are even lower than they are now (History proves this to be complete bullshit; e.g. the top tax rate in the 1950s in America was 91%, while it's only 35% today - look it up, it's true)

So yes, unfortunately for you Americans; 'classic liberalism' appears to have the most control over your country right now, but people keep on voting for politicians who keep on reducing taxes on the extremely wealthy & corporations; so it's also kinda their own faults. Even Barack 'Change we can believe in' Obama couldn't do anything; in fact, he had to further reduce the top tax rate because the Republicans threatened to shut down gov't if he didn't.
I agree with everything you said in that post, and markets are globalised nowadays so USA has such a big influence in world economy that their collapse probably triggered the whole world collapse, thus why many European countries are in heavy debts and it overshadows the rebounds of other "role model" countries who use modern liberalism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Jus A Rascal said:
Do anyone honestly think modern liberalism could work in the US though? Personally, I just can't see it happening. Here, immigrants and poor people don't pay their fair share and weasel their way out of paying more, get max gov't support and everything. Running illegal businesses (not just drugs), people in condominiums using ten times the normal about of water and garbage for a catering business and not paying the license. Not to mention the US's defense budget. In countries like UK and those in Scandinavia, much more of population is 'white' and living well.
doing it fully in the US probably won't work like it has in Scandinavia; but at least your lawmakers have to stop your country from becoming a theocracy where the top 5% of earners and corporations control everything that goes on.

Btw, corporate tax loopholes which enable companies like General Electric to pay LITERALLY 0% in taxes while cutting jobs, does far more damage to the conomy than the poor or immigrants do. The whole 'poor and foreigners are the greatest threat' thing is just based on talking points used by Republicans to lower regulations & tax rates and make so many Americans somehow think most govt money is used on poor people who just don't want to work; whereas only 11% of the budget is spent on welfare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Jus A Rascal said:
I agree. Companies are as much to blame an scammers and it's the working middle class that gets shafted both ways. America needs to take a three steps imho:

i) Cut the defense budget
ii) Take steps to reduce the power of larger companies, stop helping bankrupt corporations
iii) Promote small business and environmental jobs
Exactly.

But these things won't happen because lying politicians get donations and contributions from said corporations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
This is a great discussion. You people have it right I think.

I'm actually a poli sci major and came in here expecting a lot of bad info and stupidity but, I was very wrong.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top