• 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!

What are the biggest deficiencies of your own political ideology?

My side doesn't account for the inevitable effect of market forces, and doesn't incorporate them into its solutions as much as it should as a consequence.
 
I see this one too: insufficient appreciation of market forces.

A tendency to political correctness, which can range from decent good intentions to strict intolerance, maybe too easily.

A lack of appreciation for the essential decency of our conservative brothers and sisters.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Call it exercise in self-awareness vs. denial and security in your own beliefs. Are you able to critically examine your own **** and find out if there are way that it does, in fact, stink?

I can start. My ideological lean is essentially libertarian but its greatest deficiencies are general failure to weigh environmentalism against individual rights and that it doesn't acknowledge how protectionistic its economic theoretical underpinnings are, and what the real world implications of that would really be.

Your turns.
Click to expand...

As a conservative, I think our entitlement programs are abused. When discussing that with others, I often fail to say that the people who abuse such programs are far out-numbered by the people who need it who are not getting enough.

I also oppose public sector unions and often forget to adequately blame the politicians who agree to their sometimes outrageous demands. And by "adequately blame" I mean :spank: :spank: :spank:
 
YoungConserv said:
As a constitutional conservative with a libertarian lean I recognize that some people are in trouble through no fault of their own and I see local governments be that city or county and charity as the solutions to those problems not the federal government.
Click to expand...

I don't accept that it's through no fault of their own, certainly they may have had help going down that road, but they have always gone that way on their own two feet.
 
YoungConserv said:
I don't know about you but my church is on a bad side of town and we decided to take a ten by ten block area and do everything we can to transform it, we are by no means a rich church but that wasn't a problem as we primarily gave our time in forms like baby sitting, toutoring, counseling and job training. This had a measurable effect it pushed that neighborhood from one of the worst areas of the city for schools,crime and debt to one of the best in all those categories. This is the power of the church.
Click to expand...

It could have easily been done by any group, try again.
 
Democrats or Liberals in general need to accept that significant entitlement reform is needed to put this country on a sustainable fiscal path.
 
iguanaman said:
Just like food doesn't feed the hungry? Your ideas are straight out of Orwell.
Click to expand...

Food feeds the hungry for a day. You have to keep coming back with more food unless you can convince the hungry to change their ways and learn to feed themselves.
 
YoungConserv said:
We have been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and spent billions and nothings really changed!
Click to expand...

Because we're not interested in changing the people, only in handing them things for free. It's made the poor dependent on the government, they haven't learned how to be self-sufficient, in fact, it's only taught them to stop trying.
 
In terms of how my ideology is viewed, the spectre of the military dictatorships that called themselves socialist in the 20th century makes it nearly impossible for real socialist policies to be adopted, so we have to wait for the liberals to catch up, which many of them are slow to do.

The real block to achieving those goals, however, is that emotions like fear and selfishness are more powerful than compassion or reason. People act on their fear far more than on compassion, and appeals to emotion are much more effective than appeals to reason. It's difficult to be passionate about reason, and passion is ultimately what tends to rule. You can't really be passionate about not letting your passion get the better of you. Most big political changes and organizations run on passion, and it's usually passionate fear.
 
Cephus said:
Because we're not interested in changing the people, only in handing them things for free. It's made the poor dependent on the government, they haven't learned how to be self-sufficient, in fact, it's only taught them to stop trying.
Click to expand...

Yet, by that spending you get them to vote for more of it, keeping liberals in power to do so.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet, by that spending you get them to vote for more of it, keeping liberals in power to do so.
Click to expand...

Which is really the only reason the Democrats keep voting for it, they want to stay in power. They don't give a damn about the poor.
 
iguanaman said:
Just like food doesn't feed the hungry? Your ideas are straight out of Orwell.
Click to expand...

We all need food, clothing and shelter, yet are expected to earn money to provide that for ourselves and our dependents. General Welfare was with us since the nation began, yet only recently started sending out checks to selected "needy" individuals.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet, by that spending you get them to vote for more of it, keeping liberals in power to do so.
Click to expand...

Hmm...republicans campaign on lowering taxes, sending a $500 check to every American. You are saying democrats campaign on giving a small amount of money to a very limited demographic (extremely poor people), and note this demographic rarely even votes. Just sayin there is probobly a flaw in your thinking.
 
drz-400 said:
Hmm...republicans campaign on lowering taxes, sending a $500 check to every American. You are saying democrats campaign on giving a small amount of money to a very limited demographic (extremely poor people), and note this demographic rarely even votes. Just sayin there is probobly a flaw in your thinking.
Click to expand...

The flaw is in your thinking. NOT taking more of my money via federal taxation, coupled with a cooresponding decrease in gov't spending, is far different than income redistribution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The flaw is in your thinking. NOT taking more of my money via federal taxation, coupled with a cooresponding decrease in gov't spending, is far different than income redistribution.
Click to expand...

I agree completely different. However, giving someone $500 or lowering their taxes $500 accomplishes the same goal. If all I care about is my personal financial gain (as you were implying with your original post), it could also make sense that most americans would vote republican everytime. Perhaps Republicans only want to lower taxes to buy more votes...
 
drz-400 said:
I agree completely different. However, giving someone $500 or lowering their taxes $500 accomplishes the same goal. If all I care about is my personal financial gain (as you were implying with your original post), it could also make sense that most americans would vote republican everytime. Perhaps Republicans only want to lower taxes to buy more votes...
Click to expand...

Even Obama could not accomplish that economic miracle. In order to reduce taxation, for "stimulus", Obama had to ignore the FIT completely and lower SS withholding instead, since many low income folks now pay no FIT to begin with. Buying votes is far easier using when other people's money. The republicants have a major problem, in order to reduce taxes they must first reduce gov't spending. The demorats have no such problem as they are willing to simply borrow (other people's money) to give it away for votes.
 
justabubba said:
your libertarian form of guardianship is a sham
Click to expand...

It's not "my libertarian form," it's how legal guardianship actually works.

you yield control of one's circumstances to another but refuse to provide the means to care for the ward which, again, is the fatal flaw of libertarianism
Click to expand...

This statement is nonsensical, can't even glean any meaning out of it, so not sure what to say in response.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Even Obama could not accomplish that economic miracle. In order to reduce taxation, for "stimulus", Obama had to ignore the FIT completely and lower SS withholding instead, since many low income folks now pay no FIT to begin with. Buying votes is far easier using when other people's money. The republicants have a major problem, in order to reduce taxes they must first reduce gov't spending. The demorats have no such problem as they are willing to simply borrow (other people's money) to give it away for votes.
Click to expand...

Facts presented:

1. Lower income people are the least likely demographic to vote.
2. Taxes affect every American, welfare only a small demographic of low income people
3. Republicans often campaign on lowering taxes and since you brought it up lowering spending
4. Government spending has grown regardless of the party in power for all of recent history


Just to clear it up, a real life example of what i am talking about, the Bush tax cuts:

"In addition to the tax cuts implemented by the EGTRRA, it initiated a series of rebates for all taxpayers that filed a tax return for 2000. The rebate was up to a maximum of $300 for single filers with no dependents, $500 for single parents, and $600 for married couples."

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You tell me what you think is more effective at buying votes...
 
drz-400 said:
Facts presented:

1. Lower income people are the least likely demographic to vote.
2. Taxes affect every American, welfare only a small demographic of low income people
3. Republicans often campaign on lowering taxes and since you brought it up lowering spending
4. Government spending has grown regardless of the party in power for all of recent history


Just to clear it up, a real life example of what i am talking about, the Bush tax cuts:

"In addition to the tax cuts implemented by the EGTRRA, it initiated a series of rebates for all taxpayers that filed a tax return for 2000. The rebate was up to a maximum of $300 for single filers with no dependents, $500 for single parents, and $600 for married couples."

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You tell me what you think is more effective at buying votes...
Click to expand...

Can you back the bolded up?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
It's not "my libertarian form," it's how legal guardianship actually works.



This statement is nonsensical, can't even glean any meaning out of it, so not sure what to say in response.
Click to expand...

your libertarian government can install a guardian but without resources the guardian is unable to provide the necessary care for the ward
the libertarians will instead keep their heads in a hole, chanting let charity take care of it, all the while pretending the needy have been provided for
 
justabubba said:
your libertarian government can install a guardian but without resources the guardian is unable to provide the necessary care for the ward

the libertarians will instead keep their heads in a hole, chanting let charity take care of it, all the while pretending the needy have been provided for
Click to expand...

The legal guardianship I'm talking about is not some libertarian notion. It's how it currently works in our society.

Read the OP -- still waiting for your answer. This is about self-criticism, you keep fixating on critiquing your opponents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom