Real difference between classic conservatives and liberals. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #1 04-17-2009, 07:07 AM

I heard someone use this to distinguish between the classic versions of the 2 major parties. With so much redefinition going on, who knows if it still applies. It does pretty mush align with my feelings, but I am not a majority.

Conservatives/Classic Republicans believe that money belongs to the individual citizen and some is given to the government for its public use.

Liberals/Demorats/Progressives believe that all money belongs to the government and some is given to the citizens for their private use.

Probably not strictly true, but not bad.

#2 04-17-2009, 07:24 AM

I don't liberals belive all money should go to government.

POS · #3 04-17-2009, 07:55 AM

I always saw conservatives as long-term thinkers and liberals as short-term thinkers:

1) Tax the rich, share with the poor is great for now, but eventually the rich will get tired of paying and do something else. Then everyone ends up poorer.

2) Universal health care is great for the short-term; everyone gets coverage, but eventually the quality of care will drop and the price will be too much for the government to afford. We all end up with worse coverage than we do now.

3) Giving the poor food stamps and a govt paycheck helps them today, but it removes the incentive for them to get a better job and help themselves later on. You don't help people by giving them things, you make them dependent on you when you do.

#4 04-17-2009, 08:06 AM

I don't agree with the short sighted arguement. I think it has more to do with some people can't afford the current health care so what are they supposed to do? Some people (the rich) are not paying the same percentage of taxes as most do. That just doesn't seem right to me. And I am all in favor of helping people who need help (i.e. food stamps whatever) for a short term. I think everyone needs help once in a while.

Kuan · #5 04-17-2009, 08:07 AM

Actions are results of beliefs, and actions are often misconstrued as belief. It's merely a physical realization of an abstract set of ideas.

Botnst · #6 04-17-2009, 08:33 AM

Abscess of ideas.

dynalow · #7 04-17-2009, 08:34 AM

Oh, I am so tempeted to post the spoof story about the History of liberals and conservatives.
Alas, I don't want to spoil the serious vein of the thread. So, I'll just sit on the sidelines and see how many posts it takes to start the flamethrowers.

BC, stand by with your red pen.

sunedog · #8 04-17-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Conservatives/Classic Republicans believe that money belongs to the individual citizen and some is given to the government for its public use.

Liberals/Demorats/Progressives believe that all money belongs to the government and some is given to the citizens for their private use.

Probably not strictly true, but not bad.

Not even close.

What's wrong with Webster's definition?

con·ser·va·tism "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

lib·er·al·ism "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism

LUVMBDiesels · #9 04-17-2009, 08:50 AM

I think the main difference is that Cons focus in individuals (rugged individualism, caplitalists,wealth creation, individual rights like the 2nd amendment, individual gifts to charity,etc)

Libs focus on the society as a whole (social programs, collective responsibilities,collective rights/entitlements, statistics and social engineering through wealth redistribution)

Both groups have valid points of view. What is needed is a balance. I tend towards more individualism myself,but I can see the need for some collective work too. We need public schools and other services, but we should also stand on our own two feet and do everything that we can for ourselves.

MS Fowler · #10 04-17-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunedog

Not even close.

What's wrong with Webster's definition?

con·ser·va·tism "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

lib·er·al·ism "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism

According to those definitions, Conservatives are Not interested in political or civil libertiesand are against progress.
Yes, that seems fair.

JollyRoger · #11 04-17-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I heard someone use this to distinguish between the classic versions of the 2 major parties. With so much redefinition going on, who knows if it still applies. It does pretty mush align with my feelings, but I am not a majority.

Conservatives/Classic Republicans believe that money belongs to the individual citizen and some is given to the government for its public use.

Liberals/Demorats/Progressives believe that all money belongs to the government and some is given to the citizens for their private use.

Probably not strictly true, but not bad.

Self serving tripe.

JollyRoger · #12 04-17-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POS

I always saw conservatives as long-term thinkers and liberals as short-term thinkers:

1) Tax the rich, share with the poor is great for now, but eventually the rich will get tired of paying and do something else. Then everyone ends up poorer.

2) Universal health care is great for the short-term; everyone gets coverage, but eventually the quality of care will drop and the price will be too much for the government to afford. We all end up with worse coverage than we do now.

3) Giving the poor food stamps and a govt paycheck helps them today, but it removes the incentive for them to get a better job and help themselves later on. You don't help people by giving them things, you make them dependent on you when you do.

If you guys are such great long term thinkers, why are we still dependent on foreign oil? Why do we have nothing to replace our evaporated manufacturing base? Why did you think housing prices would rise forever? Why are you denying that in 30 years, the planet will be turned into a hot house? Long term thinker? No, I'd say "blind". And all your points are easily refuted simply by looking at the governments of Europe, where social democracy seems to be doing fine after about five decades of it.

JollyRoger · #13 04-17-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

I think the main difference is that Cons focus in individuals (rugged individualism, caplitalists,wealth creation, individual rights like the 2nd amendment, individual gifts to charity,etc)

Libs focus on the society as a whole (social programs, collective responsibilities,collective rights/entitlements, statistics and social engineering through wealth redistribution)

Both groups have valid points of view. What is needed is a balance. I tend towards more individualism myself,but I can see the need for some collective work too. We need public schools and other services, but we should also stand on our own two feet and do everything that we can for ourselves.

^ +1

jplinville · #14 04-17-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

If you guys are such great long term thinkers, why are we still dependent on foreign oil? Why do we have nothing to replace our evaporated manufacturing base? Why did you think housing prices would rise forever? Why are you denying that in 30 years, the planet will be turned into a hot house? Long term thinker? No, I'd say "blind". And all your points are easily refuted simply by looking at the governments of Europe, where social democracy seems to be doing fine after about five decades of it.

Paranoia runs amok...

JollyRoger · #15 04-17-2009, 10:19 AM

huh? (scratches head)