In American politics? I don't believe so but... what do you think?:)

I don't think it necessarily equates, but in general terms liberals tend toward the Democratic party and conservatives tend toward the Republican party. Exceptions abound, however, as people of varying degrees of liberalism and/or conservatism are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the two-party system.

The line of distinction is becoming very very hazy..
I'd vote for Liberman and Zellerman over any of the Republican candidates
Too bad sooo sad!

On my last ? We came up with some good ideas.

Rush Limbaugh for President.
Sean Hannity for VP.
Mark Levin for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Laura Ingraham for Attorney General.
Oliver North for Secretary of Defense.
John Bolton for Secretary of State. (I know that Ollie and Bolton aren't radio personalities. But I still want to p--s off some libs.)
John Batchelor for Ambassador to the UN.
John Gambling for Press Secretary.
Curtis Sliwa for Secretary of Homeland Security.
Neil Boortz - Secretary of Treasury
Bill Kristol for White House Chief of Staff.
Michelle Malkin for Dept. ICE
William Bennett Education Secretary
Larry Elder Director Dpt HEW
Bill Cosby Dept HUD
Michael Savage Dept HHS
Ann Coulter - first lady
Richard Hoagland,
George Noory, Director of NASA
Art Bell Director of Area 51
Duke Cunningham military finances
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/mon-now-found-perfect-canidate-171587-2.html

Like your new pic!

At the present time does liberal vs. conservative equate to Democrats vs. Republicans

In my opinion it pretty much does, in the US.

I think so from my perspective > I started as a fairly conservative Democrat and left the party . I have not made the leap and joined the Republicans yet but I find fewer and fewer Demcrats to support. At the local level I have for the last 2 decades been members of various 3rd parties serving local issues since the Republican party in NY is all but defunct.

I believe the words "liberal" and "conservative" have become virtually meaningless except as dirty little labels that divide us in the ugly game that Democrats and Republicans are engaging in. They have been thoroughly bastardized by the media and by politicians and rendered essentially meaningless in common discussion.

But for the sake of discussion …if I may.

In a fundamental way I define “liberal” as erring on the side of more government involvement than necessary, while “conservative” as erring on the side of less government involvement than necessary.

But that leaves both American political parties “liberal” at their core because they are in the business of expanding government influence over citizens ( If we allow that government should be telling us what we can and cannot do.). It's only a question of what their respective issues are.

Liberals are considered to be Democrats, and they very are indeed liberal.

Conservatives are considered to be Republicans, and they are supposed to be conservative. But we're fighting 2 wars at once, thinking about invading 2 more countries, we have the largest deficit ever, we keep spending and spending... all this while a Conservative leads the nation.

Republicans have lost their way. They aren't conservative anymore. We're run by Liberals and Liberals. The difference? The real liberals have different values than the fake liberals. Real liberals care more about nature, fake liberals care about fighting the war. Both are stupid.

Kucinich and Paul are the best of both sides. Neither is a real Democrat or Republican. The fairest candidates I have ever heard in my life. They are closer to Independants.

EuRa writes: "...we have the largest deficit ever...." This is not facutally correct. The Bush tax cuts have resulted in substantial economic growth and deficits are lower. The national debt is a different matter. Kucinich is probably a fascist or communist; Paul is libertarian. The term "liberal" has been totally perverted by events and the media; "conservative" is probably accurate in that it connotes retaining established policies and institutions.

I would want to clarify Dark_crow's comment, insofar as being on the side of less government is no error.

Maybe before the time of some of the readers, but it was George W. Wallace who said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between a Republican and a Demorcrat." I guess the founder of the John Birch Society used to say something about like that, also.

Good points made by both DC and George_1950. I loved that George W. Wallace quote. The lines are definitely more blurred, perhaps by the inclusion of moderates. A word by definition doesn't always correlate to the current political terms or slang. The Libertarian party for example, actually is more conservative on some issues than Republicans.



Bobby

I met someone who said, "A Republican is a Libertarian with morals."

Thanks Bobbie, just to clarify I have been using liberal in the political sense and not the social sense; for instance, “It may be, however, that we have become a too liberal and sophisticated society to want to dehumanize and caricature our enemies.” used as a reason for failure of the United States in starting a propaganda war against al-Qaeda. Yet al-Qaeda is using the Internet for propagandizing with tremendous results.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5673

I met someone who said, "A Republican is a Libertarian with morals."
It should read that a Libertarian is a Republican that doesn't let his morals get in the way of his decisions. :D

At the present time does liberal vs. conservative equate to Democrats vs. Republicans Hello DC:

No - not even close.

Ron Paul is a conservative. EVERYBODY else is a liberal. Ron Paul isn't even a Republican, either. He's a libertarian.

IF liberalism means using tax money to create a government bureaucracy to enforce your views, the Republicans are as liberal as the Dems ever were. After all, what is the DEA if not one of those bureaucracy's?

Of course, the Dems don't have any problem creating bureaucracy, but they don't BS about it.

By the way DC, you were right on above when you essentially said the same thing.

excon

Hello DC:

Ron Paul is a conservative. EVERYBODY else is a liberal. Ron Paul isn't even a Republican, either. He's a libertarian.

excon

I think along the same lines concerning Ron Paul. I would like to know where he stands on welfare?




On an unrelated subject that digressed earlier into political moral humor:

Sex Quotes - Famous Political Sex Quotes (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sexandpolitics/a/sexquotes.htm)

Top 10 Famous Political Sex Quotes


10) "If I don't have a woman every three days or so I get a terrible headache." --President John Kennedy

9) "They don't call me Tyrannosaurus Sex for nothing." --Sen. Ted Kennedy

8) "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." --President George W. Bush

7) "Dan would rather play golf than have sex any day." --Marilyn Quayle, on Vice President Dan Quayle

6) "Well, there was no sex for 14 days." --California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on getting the cold shoulder from his wife after backing President George W. Bush at the Republican Convention

5) "This attractive lady whom I had only recently been introduced to dropped into my lap….I chose not to dump her off." --Sen.
Gary Hart, referring to an encounter with Donna Rice

4) "For seven and a half years I've worked alongside President Reagan. We've had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We've had some sex...uh...setbacks." --President George H.W. Bush

3) "I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me." –-President Jimmy Carter

2) "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." --President Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair

1) "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." --President Bill Clinton




Bobby

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in substantial economic growth and deficits are lower.
It is simply not true that the tax cuts have caused government revenues to be higher (and deficits lower) than they would have been otherwise. There is no serious disagreement about this between liberal and conservative economists. Here's a whole bunch of conservative economists' views on the subject: No, The Bush Tax Cuts Have NOT Generated Higher Revenues (http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f)

There is no doubt that Government revenues have been, and are presently, lower than they would have been without the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003. In the absence of spending restraint, simple arithmetic leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Federal Government's current budget deficit, and the accumulated debt produced by previous years' deficits, are both significantly larger than they would have been without the tax cuts.

I think along the same lines concerning Ron Paul. I would like to know where he stands on welfare?
He wants to abolish of federal welfare, and leave that decision up to the states.

If you really want to learn about candidates, and this isn't just to Bobb-o, it's for everybody, I recommend this site:

http://www.ontheissues.org/

It shows what each candidate wants, and how each candidate voted in their history in office. Go ahead, check it out. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul was the only one that actually voted the very same way he speaks today. The only one that doesn't waver on the issues, that doesn't run from the tough decisions, and doesn't lie about his voting history or how he really feels. Good man. The other candidates can really learn a lot more about him.

He wants to abolish of federal welfare, and leave that decision up to the states.

If you really want to learn about candidates, and this isn't just to Bobb-o, it's for everybody. http://www.ontheissues.org/






Thanks, son. ;) Much better! I rather be called "Bobb-o" as compared to the cussing and other name calling that got you in trouble earlier. It took a while for you to finally show your true colors, but I figured you would and you didn't disappoint, i.e. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/huckabee-change-constitution-172829-4.html. BTW here's a sample of Ron Paul's voting record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/

"Bush's faith-based initiative is "a neocon project". (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)"




Bobby

It took a while for you to finally show your true colors
They are both my true colors. I treat everyone the same, no special treatment. Just because I disagree or something on one issue doesn't mean I hate you or will always disagree on others, or treat you the same on all topics. But I come with my own short-comings, I know I'm not perfect and I don't always see the whole picture from the right point of view. I respect it when someone puts me in my place.

I really like Ron Paul. I took that candidate selector on that "ontheissues" site, where you choose how you feel about the issues and it puts you with the best choice for whatever candidate that matches your score. Not surprisingly it was Ron Paul. The candidate I least agreed with? I was shocked: Obama. How is that so, since I thought Obama was more like Ron Paul than anyone else? No idea.

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008


Edit: I just did it again with the most selected answers, and the candidate that most agrees with the general population was (in order):

John Edwards (63%)
John McCain (55%)
Barack Obama (53%)

Ron Paul was last... 18%.. :< Why don't people want freedom? Scared? Awww :<

They are both my true colors. I treat everyone the same, no special treatment. Just because I disagree or something on one issue doesn't mean I hate you or will always disagree on others, or treat you the same on all topics. But I come with my own short-comings, I know I'm not perfect and I don't always see the whole picture from the right point of view. I respect it when someone puts me in my place.:

Don't let your anger get the best of you. You have a tendency to say things you may regret later, even if you didn't mean it but for a moment.


I really like Ron Paul. I took that candidate selector on that "ontheissues" site, where you choose how you feel about the issues and it puts you with the best choice for whatever candidate that matches your score. Not suprisingly it was Ron Paul. The candidate I least agreed with? I was shocked: Obama. How is that so, since I thought Obama was more like Ron Paul than anyone else? No idea.

VoteMatch Quiz (http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008)


Edit: I just did it again with the most selected answers, and the candidate that most agrees with the general population was (in order):

John Edwards (63%)
John McCain (55%)
Barack Obama (53%)

Ron Paul was last.... 18%.. :< Why don't people want freedom? Scared? awww :<


I really like where some of the Libertarian party is going on some issues, but I've yet to decide on a candidate. I've all but ruled out the Democratic party and a few Republicans candidates. Starting very early tomorrow I've got a long day of work ahead of me. I've got to get off the computer and bless the baby a good night.




Bobby

Ron Paul was last... 18%.. :< Why don't people want freedom? Scared? Awww :<
If by "freedom" you mean that no agency of the collective (police, courts, legislatures, executives) has any legitimate power to constrain or compel any individual, then no, people don't want that kind or degree of freedom. We are not singular unattached individuals, we are social beings, which means we are connected to each other and we need each other, and in order to survive and prosper as a species, we have figured out ways to build and maintain the structures and institutions of society that enforce the demands of the collective upon the individual. These demands are both prohibitive (no stealing or murdering) and injunctive (pay your taxes).

The reason Ron Paul is last is the same reason Bush is in such disfavor (ABC News Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4128343)).

NOT BUSH -- In the end there's one thing majorities on both sides agree on, and that's a change from George W. Bush's leadership. Seventy-nine percent of Americans say the next president should set the nation on a new course rather than following the direction in which Bush has been leading. (And two-thirds feel that way strongly.)

The societal winds blow for awhile in the YOYO (You're On Your Own) direction until people realize that they actually DO want government to do certain things, after all. Then the winds blow for awhile in the WITT (We're In This Together) direction until people realize that government can't do everything, and shouldn't try.

Bush and his minions have pushed things farther toward the YOYO end of the spectrum than the public wants, so now the wind is starting to pick up in the WITT direction. Ron Paul's Libertarian fundamentalism is a poor match with the current zeitgeist.

Aside from such generalities, his monetary policy ideas (abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to the gold standard) are completely wacko and would be disastrous if implemented.

It is simply not true that the tax cuts have caused government revenues to be higher (and deficits lower) than they would have been otherwise. There is no serious disagreement about this between liberal and conservative economists. Here's a whole bunch of conservative economists' views on the subject: No, The Bush Tax Cuts Have NOT Generated Higher Revenues (http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f)

There is no doubt that Government revenues have been, and are presently, lower than they would have been without the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003. In the absence of spending restraint, simple arithmetic leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Federal Government's current budget deficit, and the accumulated debt produced by previous years' deficits, are both significantly larger than they would have been without the tax cuts.
Check this: "There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates."

There's plenty for for those who want to see: The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm327.cfm)

There's plenty for for those who want to see: The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm327.cfm)
It is certainly possible that if tax rates were high enough, and enforcement were lax enough, a reduction in tax rates, coupled with more vigorous enforcement and more severe penalties, could result in higher government revenues. It may have actually happened at some time and place in the past.

But it does not follow that lower tax rates will always and under all conditions have that effect. Specifically, in the period from 2001 to the present, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that it has in fact happened in this instance.

excon agrees: Because we're NOT on the gold standard, your 1940 dollar is worth 3 cents.

Sorry, but no, that's not why. Inflation is quite possible under a gold standard, if more gold is mined than the amount of money that's needed in the economy [viz. California in the 1850's]. If, on the other hand, too little gold is mined, the result is deflation and depression. The latter is actually more likely than the former because all the "cheap gold" has already been extracted. Having a gold standard really just amounts to setting the price of gold by government fiat, at a price that inevitably becomes lower than the marginal cost of new extraction, thus drying up the supply. Remember $35/ounce? It was abandoned for very good reasons that are just as valid now as they were then.

Excessive inflation is indeed a scourge, but going back on the gold standard is a cure that's far worse than the disease.

ordinaryguy writes: " Specifically, in the period from 2001 to the present, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that it has in fact happened in this instance."
But further search shows this: "Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006."

Read the entire piece: The Wall Street Journal Online - Outside the Box (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798)

The Laffer theory certainly does not say that if you reduce taxes revenue automatically increase. Zero taxes would have course mean zero revenues. What the goal is then is to reach the optimal reduction in taxes that generates the greatest return through the stimulus.

That is the best I can do to explain the theory. It has been very successful in it's application .

ordinaryguy writes: " Specifically, in the period from 2001 to the present, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that it has in fact happened in this instance."
But further search shows this: "Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006."

Read the entire piece: The Wall Street Journal Online - Outside the Box (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798)
Yes, there are still a few true-believer supply-siders like Pete du Pont who make such assertions, but there's a reason why the tag line is "Outside the Box", and that's because his view is outside the mainstream of credible economic analysis. The fallacy in his argument is that he imputes all increases in government revenues to the tax cuts. In fact, Government revenues are far more driven by the business cycle than by marginal tax rates.

According to the Congressional Budget Office--Historical Budget Data (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf), between 2000 and 2003 revenues decreased from $2,025.5 billion to $1,782.5 billion, due to the "tech bubble recession". By 2006 they had rebounded to $2,407.3 billion as the economy recovered, led by the "real estate bubble". On a percent-of-GDP basis, 2006 revenues at 18.4% are still below the 20.9% value of 2000. There is no credible evidence that revenues are now higher than they would have been without the tax cuts.

The Laffer theory certainly does not say that if you reduce taxes revenue automatically increase. zero taxes would of course mean zero revenues. What the goal is then is to reach the optimal reduction in taxes that generates the greatest return through the stimulus.

That is the best I can do to explain the theory.
And a very good explanation it is. Can you provide any empirical evidence of what the "optimal reduction in taxes" might be?

It has been very successful in it's application .
Not in this instance, unfortunately.

ordinaryguy want to talk about "There is no credible evidence" and cite the Congressional Budget Office? Time to wake up, man.

ordinaryguy want to talk about "There is no credible evidence" and cite the Congressional Budget Office? Time to wake up, man.
The CBO tables are based on data supplied by Executive Branch agencies including the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of the Census, and others. Are you suggesting that the data is inaccurate?

Otherwise known as 'the dismal science'; like reading entrails. The CBO is and has been an ad hoc agency of the Washington establishment as a result of the 'Bob Doles' lacking the courage of their convictions and turning the big government types out. Just my opinion.