The definition of Liberalism

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP

Again I think you should go thru our old posts on another Forum -
I stated repeatedly to you those factsBalancing a budget on the back of the poor is and receives my utmost disgust in combination with sending Soldiers off to war - and it was a War - to die poorly equipped - That is in my opinion condoning murder -

Now any govt the uses the poor to settle a deficit receives my utter disgust - You are well off and well planned financially -

I work with and meets daily people that live pay check to pay check -

I have also thru charitable work met a substantial number of seniors that under Chretien and Martins cuts had little to nothing to eat come the end of the month.

To agree that this should happen is and show clear greed on your part -

It is not only poor, most of the people in Canada had to make sacrifices. And of course it won’t hit the well off as hard, is that so surprising?

Any service cuts are going to hit the poor hard. Tax cuts will hit the rich, but not that hard, that is the reality.

That is why the proper thing to do is not to run a deficit in the first place. When a government runs a deficit, everybody has to sacrifice to balance the budget again, and invariably poor suffer more than the rich.

That is why I put so much emphasis on the balanced budget. But the conservative attitude seems to be, let us run huge deficits, and leave it to liberals to clean up the mess.

And liberal have the guts to do it. That is why people gave Liberals three majorities in a row.

And make no mistake, the poor are going to suffer, and are going to suffer mightily as a result of Harper’s excesses, as a result of Harper deficit (and him giving handout to some Canadians, as some posters here have indicated that they are getting handouts from Harper).

 

[Downhome_Woman]

Soctrates, regarding your premier post, from which the following comes: Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas.

It is committed to the ideal of limited governmentand liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press,assembly, and free markets. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo.
The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by libertarians to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source.
Yup. It's so easy to define these things on paper and in debate. Unfortunately, theory has to give way to the messiness that is life. People endure upsets (loss of income, social injustice) and lets face it - all this wonderful theory flies out the window.
What is liberal? Hell. All I know is that fiscally I'm some what cautious - conservative. When it comes to 'values'? I'm somewhat liberal. I truly LOATHE it when I'm forced to actually identify myself as one or the other. Life isn't that black and white. And it's great to invoke the classics. They dealt in ideas - not reality.

 

[Spade]

To me this song embodies what liberalism is.
YouTube - Judy Collins - Turn Turn Turn

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Soctrates, regarding your premier post, from which the following comes: Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas.

It is committed to the ideal of limited governmentand liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press,assembly, and free markets. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo.
The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by libertarians to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source.
Yup. It's so easy to define these things on paper and in debate. Unfortunately, theory has to give way to the messiness that is life. People endure upsets (loss of income, social injustice) and lets face it - all this wonderful theory flies out the window.
What is liberal? Hell. All I know is that fiscally I'm some what cautious - conservative. When it comes to 'values'?
I'm somewhat liberal. I truly LOATHE it when I'm forced to actually identify myself as one or the other.

Life isn't that black and white. And it's great to invoke the classics. They dealt in ideas - not reality.

Downhome_Woman welcome to CC.

Me by introducing the topic The definition of Liberalism, it was done poorly on the basis to discuss and debate, the concept or Liberalism, definitely I am not looking to gather up followers on the topic.....

As for life being “black and white” and invoking Classic Liberalism, all human knowledge started from ideas and was transformed into reality. the survival history of mankind confirms that idea or theory is before practice and practice allows reality.


Now, if politicians campaign on the public’s favourite brand of the ideal political party, any one who votes, should be aware of the history of the party they want to succeed before they vote for them.

The unfortunate part is that we are a species of logic and emotion, again unfortunately many put logic aside vote with emotion rather then logic, and a vote has been squandered. When a vote is squandered on the wrong party bad things happen, wrong economics is the first that makes or brakes a country, take for example Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, the US, they had the wrong PEOPLE governing from 4 to 8 years and they have brought these economies to their knees. As a general rule Liberalism has been a viable alternative for economics as well social issues.
Nice to see you say hello her on the great CC.:smile:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

LW good day, I have looked to get the quote, at this time have not been able to come up with it, I DO APOLOGIZE TO YOU today publicly, should I come across it at a later time, we can revisit that point. I was not in any way looking to make you look bad.
Cheers
Socrates:smile:

 

[lone wolf]

LW good day, I have looked to get the quote, at this time have not been able to come up with it, I DO APOLOGIZE TO YOU today publicly, should I come across it at a later time, we can revisit that point. I was not in any way looking to make you look bad.
Cheers
Socrates:smile:

Accepted....

BTW ... I do recall speaking of a program that would be carried on the backs of pensioners and the working poor. That was the revenue-neutral Green Shift and how those particular groups would receive no tax incentives or rebates as they have no taxable income.

Cheers

 

[AnnaG]

Look, people are always going to claim that their favorite programs were cut hardest; the ones they don’t care about were hardly touched. That is natural.

Yup. The best examples of the former were health care and education. And the best examples of the programs that weren't affected were those that benefited Martin and his buddies.

The fact is most people were affected. ..... When spending is being cut, nothing must be sacrosanct, there must not be any sacred cows.

So you admit (in your inevitably roundabout way) that Martin screwed up. Cool!

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Yup. The best examples of the former were health care and education. And the best examples of the programs that weren't affected were those that benefited Martin and his buddies.

So you admit (in your inevitably roundabout way) that Martin screwed up. Cool!

Good point Anna, that was a segment of the vote needed to stay for another term and many of these people denied the Liberals as a result.

However, the record of the Liberals Governing Canada is a long one, and the Conservatives have acted as an interim Government throughout our political history. Surly we can’t take that part of Martin’s miss fire and say that all values of the Liberals are out the window because of that. The history speaks for it self. It is important to have a healthy opposition and as the history in Canadian politics show, the Conservatives having a shorter record of rule in Canada speaks again to the political history of our Country.

Who knows, the Conservatives may get another minority term NOT Majority . Which again will speak to our political history.

 

[AnnaG]

Good point Anna, that was a segment of the vote needed to stay for another term and many of these people denied the Liberals as a result.

The majority of the people that bothered to vote, to be exact.

However, the record of the Liberals Governing Canada is a long one, and the Conservatives have acted as an interim Government throughout our political history. Surly we can’t take that part of Martin’s miss fire and say that all values of the Liberals are out the window because of that. The history speaks for it self. It is important to have a healthy opposition and as the history in Canadian politics show, the Conservatives having a shorter record of rule in Canada speaks again to the political history of our Country.

The present Liberal party is not the same as the recent one and neither of those are the same Liberal party of decades ago. So what?

Who knows, the Conservatives may get another minority term NOT MEJORETY. Which again will speak to our political history.

Like you said, who knows. We don't know if they'll get a minority or a majority until shortly after voting day.
I have no idea what a "MEJORETY" is.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

The majority of the people that bothered to vote, to be exact.

The present Liberal party is not the same as the recent one and neither of those are the same Liberal party of decades ago. So what?

Like you said, who knows. We don't know if they'll get a minority or a majority until shortly after voting day.
I have no idea what a "MEJORETY" is.

thank you, majority.............

 

[wulfie68]

But the conservative attitude seems to be, let us run huge deficits, and leave it to liberals to clean up the mess.

And liberal have the guts to do it. That is why people gave Liberals three majorities in a row.

Again with the Liberal party tripe and revisionist history!

The deficits that are the author of most of Canada's woes were created by your hero, Pierre Elliot Trudeau in his quest to transform Canada into a socialist nation. When Trudeau was ousted in 1979, Joe Clark tried to bring in a budget to take initial steps to curtail spending and address the deficit... which was
promptly refused by the Liberals, the NDP and the remnants of the federal Social Credit (who held the balance of power). Thus we were saddled with more Trudeau deficit years. Brian Mulroney continued to run deficits after he assumed power but his deficits were smaller (when measured by % of GDP than Trudeau) and he also implemented the tools the Liberals under Chretien were able to utilize to "eliminate" the deficit: CAFTA & NAFTA which spurred economic growth, and the GST which supplemented federal revenues. Martin and Chretien didn't have to do much except rein in new program creation and let the country outgrow the deficit... thanks to the tools given to them by Mulroney.

When it comes to our present difficulty, the Liberals and NDP have threatened to bring down the gov't for not spending enough on stimulating the economy during a global depression, while simultaneously decrying the re-creation of the deficit. Tell me that the Liberals wouldn't have done the same or worse and I will call you a fool for ignoring both the facts of our present situation and history.

Back to the original topic, I'm with those who say Liberalism as embraced by the Liberal Party of Canada is not classical liberalism but on the road to Marxist socialism and collectivism. This evidenced by the centralization of Trudeau's programs and his interference in multiple sectors of the economy by creating Crown corporations.

 

[AnnaG]

Again with the Liberal party tripe and revisionist history!

The deficits that are the author of most of Canada's woes were created by your hero, Pierre Elliot Trudeau in his quest to transform Canada into a socialist nation. When Trudeau was ousted in 1979, Joe Clark tried to bring in a budget to take initial steps to curtail spending and address the deficit... which was
promptly refused by the Liberals, the NDP and the remnants of the federal Social Credit (who held the balance of power). Thus we were saddled with more Trudeau deficit years. Brian Mulroney continued to run deficits after he assumed power but his deficits were smaller (when measured by % of GDP than Trudeau) and he also implemented the tools the Liberals under Chretien were able to utilize to "eliminate" the deficit: CAFTA & NAFTA which spurred economic growth, and the GST which supplemented federal revenues. Martin and Chretien didn't have to do much except rein in new program creation and let the country outgrow the deficit... thanks to the tools given to them by Mulroney.

When it comes to our present difficulty, the Liberals and NDP have threatened to bring down the gov't for not spending enough on stimulating the economy during a global depression, while simultaneously decrying the re-creation of the deficit. Tell me that the Liberals wouldn't have done the same or worse and I will call you a fool for ignoring both the facts of our present situation and history.

Back to the original topic, I'm with those who say Liberalism as embraced by the Liberal Party of Canada is not classical liberalism but on the road to Marxist socialism and collectivism. This evidenced by the centralization of Trudeau's programs and his interference in multiple sectors of the economy by creating Crown corporations.

Good post, Wulfie. And it has facts, too! Let's see Sir Porker can counter it with something similarly researched instead of calling you a right-wing religious nut or gibbering on about the Cons or relating everything to the USA. lmao

 

[Socrates the Greek]

After restoring a Liberal majority in 1974, Trudeau faced the effects of a serious world inflation, which made Trudeau ride a bad economic wave.

Mulroney came in the horizon to fix things but instead he didn’t, in stead found it opportune to blame the Liberals for his inability to fix things, while made it worse and there is nothing on record that indicates Mulroney did to improve Canada as a country, while Trudeau did, in the latter post of his office, he gained national attention for his introduction of divorce law reform and for Criminal Code amendments, liberalizing the laws on abortion, homosexuality and public lotteries. He also established a reputation as a defender of a strong federal government against the nationalist demands of Québec.

 

[lone wolf]

After restoring a Liberal majority in 1974, Trudeau faced the effects of a serious world inflation, which made Trudeau ride a bad economic wave.

Mulroney came in the horizon to fix things but instead he didn’t, in stead found it opportune to blame the Liberals for his inability to fix things, while made it worse and there is nothing on record that indicates Mulroney did to improve Canada as a country, while Trudeau did, in the latter post of his office, he gained national attention for his introduction of divorce law reform and for Criminal Code amendments, liberalizing the laws on abortion, homosexuality and public lotteries. He also established a reputation as a defender of a strong federal government against the nationalist demands of Québec.

Yes ... he did wonders for lawyers' financial security. Imagine that: A Divorce Act that made it easier to run away rather than work things out.

 

[AnnaG]

After restoring a Liberal majority in 1974, Trudeau faced the effects of a serious world inflation, which made Trudeau ride a bad economic wave.

Sounds familiar. Is that kind of like what Canada under Harpy is going through now?

Mulroney came in the horizon to fix things but instead he didn’t, in stead found it opportune to blame the Liberals for his inability to fix things, while made it worse and there is nothing on record that indicates Mulroney did to improve Canada as a country, while Trudeau did, in the latter post of his office, he gained national attention for his introduction of divorce law reform and for Criminal Code amendments, liberalizing the laws on abortion, homosexuality and public lotteries. He also established a reputation as a defender of a strong federal government against the nationalist demands of Québec.

GST. We still have it after two different Liberal leaders. So they must not have thought the GST was all that bad an idea.
We still have NAFTA, which the Liberals also have left alone.
Accomplishments - Brian Mulroney, the highs and lows of 25 years in the public eye

 

[Risus]

Sounds familiar. Is that kind of like what Canada under Harpy is going through now?

GST. We still have it after two different Liberal leaders. So they must not have thought the GST was all that bad an idea.
We still have NAFTA, which the Liberals also have left alone.
Accomplishments - Brian Mulroney, the highs and lows of 25 years in the public eye

I must agree with you on this, Anna.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Yes ... he did wonders for lawyers' financial security. Imagine that: A Divorce Act that made it easier to run away rather than work things out.

LW all divorce cases are not the same, divorce in many cases was and is better then a drunken husband who would beat his wife and sexually abuse the his kids.

The state needs laws to insure that family abuse with no hope of rehabilitation, must be stopped by law and look for separation. Otherwise if there is no provision set by the state, abuse will compound, people will commit suicide, because no one was able to rehabilitate the drunk spouse mail of female. So,,,,,,,,, that was a good thing, he took abuse out of a family in pain. I think another term for no hope is reconcilable defences.

 

[lone wolf]

LW all divorce cases are not the same, divorce in many cases was and is better then a drunken husband who would beat his wife and sexually abuse the his kids.

The state needs laws to insure that family abuse with no hope of rehabilitation, must be stopped by law and look for separation. Otherwise if there is no provision set by the state, abuse will compound, people will commit suicide, because no one was able to rehabilitate the drunk spouse mail of female. So,,,,,,,,, that was a good thing, he took abuse out of a family in pain. I think another term for no hope is reconcilable defences.

Have you noticed the stats on domestic abuse? It didn't work. Irreconcilable differences is too easily translated to "He/She said no..."

 

[Risus]

LW all divorce cases are not the same, divorce in many cases was and is better then a drunken husband who would beat his wife and sexually abuse the his kids.

The drunken husband who beat his wife is the exeption, not the rule. And there were already laws in place to address those cases.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Sounds familiar. Is that kind of like what Canada under Harpy is going through now?

GST. We still have it after two different Liberal leaders. So they must not have thought the GST was all that bad an idea.
We still have NAFTA, which the Liberals also have left alone.
Accomplishments - Brian Mulroney, the highs and lows of 25 years in the public eye

Anna please provide some info on what Harper has done to help Canada’s Social system be better?, what put 14 year old kids in prison for life for committing murder? when in fact a 14 year old send to prison for Life coming out at the age of 39 will never be able to function in society thus making him or her a worst criminal?

Please show Harper's report card. He has been given two minorities and screwed both of them up. Divided the country, when in fact Trudeau is on record providing a strong Government against separatism in the early 70s.....



Please compear Harper to Trudaeu.