Does it seem odd that liberals decry the excesses of governmental power yet they want the same government to nationalize the banks and run a health care system?

Doesn’t it seem odd that your question is heavily biased?

I would start answering your question by pointing out that “liberals” don’t exist as a solid group, they don’t all have the same opinion regarding government power. If anyone I would think it’s the libertarians who decry the excess of government power, not liberals.

As for whether it seems odd, no. In fact it seems quite fitting that liberals would support the idea of a socialized health care system.

^Word.

And I’m a ‘liberal’ and I don’t agree with your assessment.

Uhm. Your question is backwards. It’s the conservatives, the Republicans, that want Government out of our lives*. Liberals are all about regulation and higher taxes for social services. Conservatives are all about “just enough laws to keep the water faucets running”.

* You know, except in things like what we do in our bedrooms. That obviously has to be regulated…

Yes you are backwards. If you believe in less government then you should be a conservative or Republican. I like Mrltty’s comment “just enough laws to keep the water faucets running”. That is so true.

Why do people feel the need to try and label folks by words that are meaningless? Liberals? Conservatives? What ever happened to moderates? A person should be judged by their actions, not by the label placed on them by their detractors.

It’s like all those people attacking Obama because he is Black. Oh, they don’t admit to it being about that, but you know it is. Now that Obama is president, Bush has been declared innocent of being the worst US president in recent history. The economy tanked on Bush’s watch, not Obama’s.

@dynamicduo In terms of excessive governmental power that liberals decry take for example, the military industrial complex and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the criminal acts of torture outside the law that the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz et al.

And I’m not making an editorial comment on the pros or cons of a socialized health care system—I’m making the point that liberals want big government on the one hand, and on the other hand, decry it on the other.

@asmonet What don’t you agree with? Oh and word: I’m a liberal too. I’m merely pointing out a disconnect in the philosophy.

Well, first off, more than half of the populace (including many prominent Republicans) want the government to control health care. The only arguments against it from the conservative side are the high price tag, and the difficulty in setting it up.

And second, very few liberals want the government to permanently nationalize the banks. We’re smart enough to realize though that the government may NEED to take over a few of them temporarily in order to stabilize them.

@evelyns_pet_zebra Because people label themselves that way.

@westy81585 Fair enough, although I’d be curious to see a list of prominent Republicans who support a government run national health care system.

@Stanley: Everything.

Next time they talk about it just look who talks about it with them. I wish I could remember the exact names, but I remember not long ago they had some prominent ones up there talking about wanting to get it done with Kennedy and some other guy.

@asmonet. “Everything.” You don’t agree that liberals want to have a national health care system?

@westy81585 Well, if you do remember, let me know.

I suppose I’d be labeled a liberal, which is fine by me. I decry the government sticking their noses where they don’t belong (national ID Plans, tapping phones, etc.) and not doing enough of the job they’re meant to do like organize healthcare for its people

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Given that the government sticks their nose where they don’t belong and run illegal wars (along with greasing the pockets of the politicians that propagate those excesses), do you think the same government can be trusted to organize healthcare for its people?

@Stanley perhaps not
but I know as a Public Health worker that the private multiplep payers system that has been increasing our debts for decades is a major failure

I would appreciate it if you found me some form of government documentation that states the United States of American needs to be responsible of organizing its citizens healthcare systems.

You say something like the government needs stop sticking their nose was it does not belong. But, then you say well I want them to take care of me (health care). But don’t you think by “tapping your phone lines” they are protecting you from harm. I hate when poeple say that George W. Bush was the worst president becuase that it not true. George W. Bush protected American’s after the 9/11 attacks. And for the record the Economy was doing very well from 2002 until 2007.

@Stanley We already have a well-functioning, national health care system that should be the envy of all people in private insurance systems. It is called the Veteran’s Administration, and outcomes for serious medical problems are either equivalent or better for VA patients than people outside the VA. Plus, the VA is much, much cheaper to operate. It should serve as a model for our national health care system.

I’m not the only person to notice this. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman agrees.

“I would appreciate it if you found me some form of government documentation that states the United States of American needs to be responsible of organizing its citizens healthcare systems.”
America voted Obama into office. One part of his agenda is organising healthcare. Which means that the voters think that it needs to be the government’s task to do so.

“But don’t you think by “tapping your phone lines” they are protecting you from harm. ”
well i guess then the STASI did protect the east german citizens from harm?

“George W. Bush protected American’s after the 9/11 attacks.”
By waging two wars of aggression against 2 seemingly 9/11 unrelated sovereign countries? remember, osama bin laden denied any involvement in the attacks.

Well i guess i could then say that Nazi germany protected their citizens from the evils of communism and american decadence by starting ww2 and putting political opponents into concentration camps.

Oh that was great to incoporate Obama and communism into the same explaination. Because by voting for Obama that was American’s first step towards government takeover. The simply thing is that conservatism and republican agree that governments role is to protect and regulate. Not create and orgainze government services such as health care. When national health care happens, and it will, If Obama keeps up his speed. Who do you think will pay for that. The American people. So when companies compete the citizens win.

Well, it took only 21 posts to get a comparison to Nazi Germany. I thought this forum was different than the rest. I guess now.

@Stanley… Godwin’s Law.

Today’s “liberals” tend to favor increased federal involvement in economic issues, but decreased government power in social areas.

“Conservatives” favor federal power in areas like national security and on the social level, but as a rule decry federal intervention in the economic systems of the country.

This is the commonly accepted difference.

Not in the least bit. You just fail to understand a pretty elementary principle. Liberals are people who think the government’s FUNCTION should increase but it’s POWER should decrease.

Conservatives are people who think the government’s POWER should increase but it’s FUNCTION should decrease. Don’t you see why they have a problem with your logic?

Conservatives are the ones who believe in big, scary government; not liberals.

@quarkquarkquark Thanks, I had forgotton the name—and I actually heard an interview with Godwin recently.

@Jiminez How can a government’s function increase but its power decrease?

@Stanley – Why must it increase?

@Jiminez : That is extremely contradicting. Frankly I feel you don’t understand.

@shilolo You’re missing the point of my question. I’m not saying a national health care system is bad—in fact I agree the V.A. system is pretty well run (except the food is awful there). I’m asking about the apparent contradiction in liberal philosophical thinkiing. The bank nationalization and health care nationalization were just examples.

Most liberals believe the government should cater to the citizens every need. Few people want to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. If you are sick of being poor find a way to make more money work harder, do more. People go and cry to the government. Republicans believe if you want it go and get it, and get the government out of my way so I can have what is mine. This is why people think that Republicans are mean and rule with force, because they are don’t tolerate laziness.

There is no contradiction. Liberals feel the government should be involved in some things and others not, conservatives feel the same, but for different things. Liberals do not, as is commonly believed, believe in “a big government,” just as conservatives do not believe in “a small government.”

@GoPhillies – No, that’s just a sociopathic way of looking at it. We don’t want government to cater to every need, just certain needs. Do you see the difference? That’s the thing about needs. They’re needs. They’re not wants. You’re being clinically unsympathetic. And you either haven’t been raised right or you were just born like that. Civilization means ethics trump all else. The ethical thing to do is to let people heal. A person with health problems may not be able to work. How, then, do they make money to get healthy? See, you haven’t thought about any of these things. You guys aren’t very smart. It’s not laziness. People are willing to work. But work isn’t the most important thing in the world and I don’t know where you ever got the idea that it was.

Imagine for a moment that your passion in life (if you even have one) is not profitable. What then? How are you going to find the drive to work your hardest at another job, when you have no passion for it?

@Jiminez: Your such a hippie.

@GoPhilies, fortunately for you, this site is moderated

@GoPhillies – What? That’s what you have to say in response? Ahahahahahahaaha…. And learn to spell, please.

@GoPhillies I believe in a much more socialist environment than you seem to favor with the whole cliched ‘hey homeless bum, go get a job’ ideology – I think we should remember things aren’t as simple as that and there are many barriers in the way of people who do want a job and even when they have jobs (2 or 3 of them even) they still won’t have health insurance…in fact 2/3 of people who don’t have health insurance ( I don’t have a link, I just learned this during my masters in public health program) have a job or two…

anyway, George Bush was a terrible president for not only his foreign policy awfulness and not only for his taking away civil liberties from thousands but for dozens of other things and I’m extremely glad he’s gone

I think liberals have always been in favor of big govt in public life, to wit The New Deal and The Great Society. Most of us understand the necessity of levelling the playing field, protecting the little guy from the corporate giant. We also believe what you do in your private life is none of our business, say what you want, read what you want, kiss who you want.

Conservatives (or those who call themselves that today) hypocritically claim to want small govt but actually have increased govt spending every year they have had a legislative majority. They also want to legislate private behavior while allowing big business to destroy this country and it’s people willy-nilly.

@galileogirl Do you trust the government to run a health care system efficiently?

@Stanley I don’t understand your post. What contradiction? Wanting a national health care system does not equal a behemoth of waste. It might become that, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I would consider myself liberal, and I’m also a doctor. A national health system might cut into my salary, yet I am still in favor of it. I must be stupid, right?

Actually, what I see is that the US as a whole is behind the economic 8-ball precisely because we don’t have a health care system. Our companies have to pay massive health benefits to current and retired workers. If the government, via taxation, provided a truly efficient, low-cost service, that would greatly improve the competitiveness of American companies. Is there something wrong with wanting this for my compatriots? I think not.

It’s up to the American people to make sure the govt runs an efficient health care program. We can do that if we pay as much attention to who is lobbying for big medicine as we do to who is sleeping with Lindsey Lohan. We need to grow up and be educated about what our legislators are doing. I belong to a giant HMO that not only cares for the sick, but finds it cost-efficient to keep people healthy. That should be the model for a govt health plan.

As far as waste goes, the private system we have now is a monument to waste, with 20% going to keeping people from getting care, obscene salaries for top management, overpriced pharm and 4 lobbyists for every Congressman.

@shilolo Hmm. I don’t recall saying that a national health care system would be a behemoth of waste. I asked if you felt it was a contradiction that liberals on the one hand decries a government that does illegal wiretapping, illegal torture, and an illegal war, but on the other hand wants the same government to take care of them. You don’t see an internal contradiction in that logic at all?

@galileogirl Do you feel that a governmental system would be better if nationally controlled or locally controlled? That is, is a system more efficient if it’s run closer to home or is it more efficient if it’s run from a location far away with a big bureaucracy?

@Stanley: if instead of killing and torturing, government concerned itself with the welfare of its constituents, then it wouldn’t be the same government regardless of its size.

@ratboy That would assume that the politicians that we elect have our own best interest at heart. If that were only true.

@Stanley It is your logic that is flawed. Growing up, I wanted my parents to take care of me, to provide shelter, food, protection, health care and education. I also did not want them snooping through my stuff on a daily basis or burning down the neighbor’s house for shits and giggles. I wanted them to behave normally and consistently. I wanted them to act in my best interests but also in a moral and ethical way. That is also what I want from my government. All very consistent.

@shilolo We all want that from our government. But I ask you the question I asked ratboy—actually I made a statement to him, but I’ll phrase it as a question. Do you feel that our elected representatives truly have our best interests at heart, or their own? If you believe the former, then I admire your idealism.

@Stanley of course politicians have their own best interests at heart, every human, yes every life form on this planet has. But this does not change the fact that being a politcian is a job, and the people are the boss. And as such, a politician has to put the interests of his employer first, which he of course must find out first and then advertise himself based on this information, so that the employer, the voters, employ him, and once he has that position, he has to continue working for his employer’s best interest. If he doesn’t, and it upsets the employer enough, he will be gone after 4 years. I am sure there are ways to get rid of him even earlier, if the voters so desire.

The problem is that many politicians do not really seem aware of that fact and act as if they are the boss once in office. I think that is in part due to the fact that the voters do not make this clear enough. Remember that Bush has been elected TWICE for president.

@ragingloli Actually, he wasn’t really elected the first time, but that’s for another discussion

We’ve turned representation into a commodity; politicians are purchased by multi-national corporations that have interests quite distinct from those of the nation.

Tsk.
You mean democrat, not liberal.
big diffo.
most democrats are liberal…being liberal has nothing to do with fiscal matters.

@timeand_distance Actually, no, I was talking about liberals. Not Democrats. And I’m not even saying that nationalizing banks is a bad thing. I was merely pointing out a contradiction.

liberalism is mainly about civil rights, and not about small government or little intervention in economic matters. that is libertarianism.