What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[lookout123]

I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.

GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.

As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.

I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.

Agreed. It is 1984 newspeak and it is doubleplusgood. I see that as being a trademark of the republican party. The obvious examples are things with catchy names that misdirect, e.g. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, to name two. While the Dems are no better, this isn't one of their tactics, I fault the dems for being too "Marquis of Queensbury" in a street fight. The Republicans I admire for their guerrilla tactics, the ends justify the means so they don't feel the need to fight honorably, since the outcome is believed to be in the best interest of the country, even those to whom the best trickles down. The Dems would rather lose everything than their sense of playing by the rules. (not saying they actually always do play by the rules, but for the most part, they seem wedded to the rule book and calling FOUL every chance they get.)

Originally Posted by lookout123

GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.

True, all businesses and entrepeneurs should be accountable for their business decisions and while the personal protection afforded by a corporation has its foundation in a good place that has been abused too often (e.g. Enron) In addition to the market being reset, most importantly what would be taught to the entire nation and world at large would be accountability and moral and ethical values, answering to a higher calling than one's financial self interest. Just as crummy parents will model crummy parenting skills to their kids, our countries leaders (as in LEADERS) are whooly responsible for setting the tone of moral and ethical behavior. Just as lack of fear of loss no longer being in the equation is bad for the economy, so is a lack of personal integrity. If the wealth is going to trickle down, I'm sure the moral bankruptcy will follow along.

Originally Posted by lookout123

As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.

This somewhat follows with the previous point, re: people who feel they live in a world of integrity are more likely to behave as their role models do and will not likely run to the ER for the sniffles. There is another component to this aspect which involves improving primary care and follow up care. My BIL was working on a study that showed dramatic cost savings and reduction in unnecessary hospital visits resulting from minor improvements to primary care. (I posted a link to the video last year)

Another aspect of this relates to what Andrew Carnegie believed about the greater value to all of society by building schools, hospitals, and museums. His feeling was that if you paid a man a few dollars more he would just spend it on meat and beer, but if you withheld those dollars from everyone and used the accumulated money to build a school or museum, the entire community would be uplifted rather than each bloke having a bit more meat that week. Sadly, it seems that someone along the line decided, "Fuck the schools and museums, I can get even richer if I just pocket the money." Sure, you can do that, but at what greater long term cost? Not intangible costs, but indirect costs. I feel that the erosion of integrity by the LEADERS BY EXAMPLE may serve that one person but at a greater cost to society.

Originally Posted by lookout123

I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.

Well, I think the right system will develop organically as people change themselves inside. All of the rules and government are creaeted one step at a time. At a certain point someone decided it was OK to lie, then from that decision new options are available that weren't before. Choices are made and still more options are opened. What it will take is people adopting a code of ethics and conduct. For example, To me it is obvious that allowing lobbying is very dangerous to integrity and the first politician who allowed it to be sugar coated was the pioneer blazing the trail of what is now a six lane highway.

When I lived at the monastery, the roshi was fond of saying that one of the things that set Buddhism apart from other religions was that it wasn't Atheistic, it wasn't Agnostic, it was Non-theistic. It does not see the existence of God as relevant to living a moral and ethical life. 2500 years ago Buddha put forth the following:

In the Kutadanta Sutta, the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity.

In the Jataka, the Buddha had given to rules for Good Government, known as 'Dasa Raja Dharma'. These ten rules can be applied even today by any government which wishes to rule the country peacefully. The rules are as follows:

1) be liberal and avoid selfishness,
2) maintain a high moral character,
3) be prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the subjects,
4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity,
5) be kind and gentle,
6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate,
7) be free from hatred of any kind,
8) exercise non-violence,
9) practise patience, and
10) respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony.

Regarding the behavior of rulers, He further advised:

- A good ruler should act impartially and should not be biased and discriminate between one particular group of subjects against another.
- A good ruler should not harbor any form of hatred against any of his subjects.
- A good ruler should show no fear whatsoever in the enforcement of the law, if it is justifiable.
- A good ruler must possess a clear understanding of the law to be enforced. It should not be enforced just because the ruler has the authority to enforce the law. It must be done in a reasonable manner and with common sense. -- (Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta)