I thought liberals LOVED taxes...

[WoundedKnee]

... but in listening to the CNBC 'Squawk on the street' business feed, the people of NY, NJ, Conn, and Calif are RUSHING to pay ahead on their 2018 property taxes in December 2017 to AVOID taxes that won't be deductible any more, and are in a panic about 2019. One NJ mayor on the air said he is in fear of people LEAVING for lower tax states. I thought liberals LOVED taxes. So why wouldn't they ENJOY giving 'their fair share' to the federal government?

They can buy Liberal indulgences by calculating their taxes by the old formulas and rates and then remitting to the government that which they would have saved under Republican tax malfeasance.
It is a bit ironic that those who live in high tax states are upset that they should now more fully fund the Federal Government that they support, in theory, as long as they are deducting the taxes to the states in which they reside and, indeed, vote for higher local taxes.
The response to this, as I have learned over the years, is that the blue states pay more than their "fair" share of federal taxes sans any comparison of cost of living and corporate compensation between the states. Most blue states are fabulously rich because of a very small minority of their residents whereas most red states are mainly income median (and less populous/able to command exorbitant salaries/fees [not wages]).

 

[neci]

So are you happy to pay taxes or do you hate that your taxes are being spent on a bunch of shit you don't like???

i am happy to pay my taxes, because i can. i am happy for the roads i drive on and the schools in my town. i am happy for the fire department and the police department who respond without charge. yes, there are things my government pays for i disagree with, but instead of cry like a baby about paying taxes, i bitch about those in other ways.

 

[Adre]

Ain’t it funny how the anti-government crowd sucks up all the same services the rest of us do. Whining and whinging all the while their mouths are firmly locked on to the Treasury teat.

 

[BotanyBoy]

i am happy to pay my taxes, because i can. i am happy for the roads i drive on and the schools in my town. i am happy for the fire department and the police department who respond without charge. yes, there are things my government pays for i disagree with, but instead of cry like a baby about paying taxes, i bitch about those in other ways.

Ok.

Ain’t it funny how the anti-government crowd sucks up all the same services the rest of us do. Whining and whinging all the while their mouths are firmly locked on to the Treasury teat.

Well if you're going to stick a gun to their head for it anyhow, they might as well get whatever they can back.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is no difference between the dictionary, encyclopedia and textbook definition and reality.

There is a vast one. And you know it you're just a shit poster and need to stop.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There is a vast one. And you know it you're just a shit poster and need to stop.

No there isn't that's why you'll never point one out.

Their only relation is that liberals believe that people should be treated equally under the law and that there is a role for government, that's about as close as liberalism gets to the left.

Otherwise they are MAXIMUM civil an economic liberty, pro open market capitalist.....the exact opposite of socialism.

You've just been mislead or you're trying to mislead others into thinking the encyclopedias, dictionaries and text books are all wrong.

They aren't.

 

[KimGordon67]

Liberalism is explicitly capitalistic, as in pro max liberty sounds like a libertarian when it comes to the voluntary exchange of goods and services for profit or otherwise.

Definition of liberalism
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard (see gold standard 1)
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see autonomy 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal (see 1liberal 6b) party


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism


Socialism is the exact opposite, it calls for the elimination of private property and markets for that property to be exchanged on. It is by definition government or collective ownership over the means of production and control over the distribution of goods and services.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The fairly obvious problem here is that both these terms have various definitions. In their common usage, most people (on here anyway) would be using the definitions bolded above. 'Liberalism' in an economic sense (def'n 2b above) is different from political liberalism - for the sort of 'liberal' that you're railing against, it's the desire for the amelioration of inequalities that is the defining feature. That doesn't really involve a voluntary exchange of anything - as the definition states, there is a necessity for government intervention.
The bolded definition of socialism above is also what you're thinking of when you say 'socialism'. However, most people in here you identify as 'socialist' (or 'communist' on a bad day) would really adhere more to social democracy:

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions." (Wiki reference, which'll do.)​

As you'll see, that's somewhat different from 'socialism', in that capitalism is seen as the most efficient means of organising the economy, but it's also recognised that capitalism inevitably results in inequalities (as opposed to Coach, who seems to adhere to the rationale that the free market will 'naturally' smooth out inequalities if left to its own devices), and there needs to be systems in place to address these inequalities. It is far more aligned with the definition of 'liberalism' bolded from the fairly contradictory definitions you provided.

I think your problem is that you just see 'capitalism' or 'socialism'. Things are a little more nuanced than that. Not much, but a little.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The problem is that he doesn't realize that reality and the dictionary don't agree. If left is made of liberals (reality) then they aren't liberals (definition) so we need to start with getting to a point where we are all talking about the same things but he's a shit poster. Smart enough to know what he's talking about. That's why he's so dangerous. He's not stupid, he's just evil.

 

[KimGordon67]

The problem is that he doesn't realize that reality and the dictionary don't agree. If left is made of liberals (reality) then they aren't liberals (definition) so we need to start with getting to a point where we are all talking about the same things but he's a shit poster. Smart enough to know what he's talking about. That's why he's so dangerous. He's not stupid, he's just evil.

I'm not sure about 'evil', but there's definitely issues with maintaining an internally consistent, coherent, and logical argument.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not sure about 'evil', but there's definitely issues with maintaining an internally consistent, coherent, and logical argument.

That's because he isn't interested in those things. He's just pissing people off. I do it all the time on other subjects. The worst thing you can do as a shit poster is be consistent and coherent it's. I spent an entire month putting eagles on Snoopy and telling people you've hear of elf on a shelf now you see Eagle on a beagle. . . it might have gotten worse from there. There was a wookie on a cookie too.

 

[KimGordon67]

That's because he isn't interested in those things. He's just pissing people off. I do it all the time on other subjects. The worst thing you can do as a shit poster is be consistent and coherent it's. I spent an entire month putting eagles on Snoopy and telling people you've hear of elf on a shelf now you see Eagle on a beagle. . . it might have gotten worse from there. There was a wookie on a cookie too.

Now I want a wookie on a cookie.

 

[BotanyBoy]

'Liberalism' in an economic sense (def'n 2b above) is different from political liberalism

Politics is about economic control....they are inextricably linked.

Unless you want to tell me how they are different, as I see it there is no conflict in the definition of both social and economic liberalism.

As you'll see, that's somewhat different from 'socialism', in that capitalism is seen as the most efficient means of organising the economy, but it's also recognised that capitalism inevitably results in inequalities (as opposed to Coach, who seems to adhere to the rationale that the free market will 'naturally' smooth out inequalities if left to its own devices),

Only the ignorant think the market will smooth out inequalities.

Liberals, libertarians and other capitalist who have a clue are simply ok with them.

It is far more aligned with the definition of 'liberalism' bolded from the fairly contradictory definitions you provided.

How? Liberalism isn't about pursuing economic equality, it's about economic liberty...freedom...the opposite of every churched up flavor socialism you can think of.

I think your problem is that you just see 'capitalism' or 'socialism'. Things are a little more nuanced than that. Not much, but a little.

My problem is that I read the definitions and studied the subjects then tried to have conversations with laymen who conflate equal rights with equal socioeconomic outcomes for all.

The problem is that he doesn't realize that reality and the dictionary don't agree.

They do agree.

If left is made of liberals (reality)

The left doesn't like liberalism....they are just ignorant (or subversive) enough to think/pretend liberalism and socialism are the same thing. They call actual liberals "libertoonian Nazi scum!!" because they hate liberty and making money.

I'm not sure about 'evil', but there's definitely issues with maintaining an internally consistent, coherent, and logical argument.

Not holding an ardently leftist perspective isn't a problem with maintaining an internally consistent, coherent, and logical argument.

That's because he isn't interested in those things.

Sure I am, but we have to start with reality......all the dictionaries, encyclopedias and text books aren't wrong, you are.

 

[KimGordon67]

Politics is about economic control....they are inextricably linked.

Unless you want to tell me how they are different, as I see it there is no conflict in the definition of both social and economic liberalism.



Only the ignorant think the market will smooth out inequalities.

Liberals, libertarians and other capitalist who have a clue are simply ok with them.




How? Liberalism isn't about pursuing economic equality, it's about economic liberty...freedom...the opposite of every churched up flavor socialism you can think of.



My problem is that I read the definitions and studied the subjects then tried to have conversations with laymen who conflate equal rights with equal socioeconomic outcomes for all.



They do agree.



The left doesn't like liberalism....they are just ignorant (or subversive) enough to think/pretend liberalism and socialism are the same thing. They call actual liberals "libertoonian Nazi scum!!" because they hate liberty and making money.



Not holding an ardently leftist perspective isn't a problem with maintaining an internally consistent, coherent, and logical argument.



Sure I am, but we have to start with reality......all the dictionaries, encyclopedias and text books aren't wrong, you are.

If I responded to any of this, I'd just be repeating myself. If you can't see the differences between the definitions of 'liberalism' that you've provided (i.e. "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" vs "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; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities"), I can't make you understand them.

 

[phrodeau]

The best government is the least government. People who have a work ethic are the backbone of a strong country and a strong economy, nothing weaker than a country where the people are dependent on government for everything and refuse to do anything to contribute, to themselves or their country. The United States would be best served if the government were sized down to about 10% of its present size and services.

Let me ask a question... We're $20Trillion in debt, and what do we have to show for it?

Taxes are supposed to be for NEEDS (and we don't have $20T in needs), not WANTS (liberals have an endless supply of unsustainable wants and 'entitlements')

Government is parasitic by nature... nothing but a drain, so the idea is to limit the drag it is on the economy to the absolute minimum

That all makes sense. So let's start by cutting the military.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If I responded to any of this, I'd just be repeating myself. If you can't see the differences between the definitions of 'liberalism' that you've provided (i.e. "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" vs "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; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities"), I can't make you understand them.

They are different in that they explain different aspects of liberalism.

But not in conflict with each other in any way, like they are with leftism and it's various socialistic manifestations.

You can't explain how liberalism as it's defined by nearly the entirety of academia, is left wing or anything but totally opposed to leftism....because the left hates liberty more than anything, because liberty leads to hierarchy and that will just not be tolerated by the super open minded tolerant left.

 

[KimGordon67]

They are different, but not in conflict in any way, like they are with leftism and it's various socialistic manifestations.

"a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" vs "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; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities"

The bolded bits tend to be fairly at odds with each other - you can't have a free market if the government is mucking around with things. That's your fundamental gripe, isn't it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The bolded bits tend to be fairly at odds with each other - you can't have a free market if the government is mucking around with things. That's your fundamental gripe, isn't it?

Social inequities.....not economic.

There is a HUGE difference between believing it's the governments role to ensure equal rights and liberties under the law and believing it's the governments role to ensure equal economic outcomes for all.

Liberals support the former and socialist the latter.

My fundamental gripe is that liberalism, being uber capitalistic, individualistic and liberty oriented is very remotely and vaguely related to socialism at best. Because they are opposed to one another in nearly every other aspect beyond the shared desire for equal treatment under the law.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So you're problem is imaginary.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you're problem is imaginary.

How do you figure?

 

[Sean Renaud]

You haven't answered any of my questions and I have all of yours.

So just stop.

 

[Luk]

You haven't answered any of my questions and I have all of yours.

So just stop.

Remember how he used to just sin his wheels all night and not really have a point about anything? He's got worse.

 

[coachdb18]

Looks like, to avoid being called 'liberals', the liberals of the board have resorted to a tag team of what the meaning of the word 'is' is....

You're a liberal if you support revenue-be-damned spending on feel good shit that drives the country to insolvency.. period.

 

[Luk]

Looks like, to avoid being called 'liberals', the liberals of the board have resorted to a tag team of what the meaning of the word 'is' is....

You're a liberal if you support revenue-be-damned spending on feel good shit that drives the country to insolvency.. period.

Did MENSA need a mascot or something

 

[BotanyBoy]

You haven't answered any of my questions and I have all of yours.

So just stop.

Yea I didn't think so.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're a liberal if you support revenue-be-damned spending on feel good shit that drives the country to insolvency.. period.

No.

Liberalism is not a synonym for socialism.