Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

Those rankings are screwy - I read an article I will look for that went into how they classify votes as liberal or conservative. But I wouldnt dispute your overall point - Obama IS more liberal than many Dems though I would disagree that he is the left wing of the party - Kucinich is who is out on that edge dont you think? And there are a few others, but Obama isnt orbiting out there with them I dont think

[PBzeer]

And while you're researching, perhaps you can find a liberal social program that has worked? As in accomplished it's goal, or isn't running out of money, or hasn't created a bigger mess than it was suppose to solve.

[xort]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

And while you're researching, perhaps you can find a liberal social program that has worked? As in accomplished it's goal, or isn't running out of money, or hasn't created a bigger mess than it was suppose to solve.

Beez
You're such a neanderthal

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

Those rankings are screwy -

Maybe so, but they both point the accusing finger of liberalism at Obama.

Obama IS more liberal than many Dems though I would disagree that he is the left wing of the party - Kucinich is who is out on that edge dont you think?

Okay, sck5, that's two - you and Kucinich. Anyone else?

We ought to start a thread, listing all the people who are more liberal than Obama, but I'm afraid it would die as quickly as it started, for lack of input.

[sck5]

Head start is always cited as a program that works - study after study says that kids who are in the program do better

Various college scholarship programs work - Most notably the GI Bill back in the day. Pell grants also work. I myself used the subsidized student loan program which I paid back on time - I wouldnt have gotten those loans otherwise because I had no credit history at all at that age.

Social Security is a plan that works. I know that conservatives would rather have a different program (or none) but SS is run efficiently (low overhead) and does keep old people and disabled people and orphans from starving in the streets. You might design a different program but the program as designed does what was intended.

The Red Cross was invented by bleeding hearts (literally) and it does pretty well running the blood supply and dealing with emergencies.

Medicare, though underfunded by Republican congresses, is run far more efficiently than private insurance programs and does what it was intended to do.

And no, you cant have your party starve a program of funds and then point to it and say "Look it isnt doing what it is supposed to".

There are more, but that is a good start dont you think?

And I could

[sck5]

"but they both point the accusing finger of liberalism at Obama."

Yep. He's a liberal. No surprise there. What do you expect from a Democrat? If you are far enough to the right yourself, the differences between people at the other end of the spectrum might not seem too big to you but they do to most of the rest of us. That works the other way too, by the way, since most of the far right look just plain nuts to many of the rest of us.

[sck5]

OK OK

Touche you guys. I said "neanderthal" and you lumped me with Kucinich. I think you got the better end of that exchange so lets not escalate further.

My wife and I think if you painted Kucinich blue he would look like a smurf.

[PBzeer]

You have an odd idea of sucess.

Let's take Social Security, as that is the linchpin of liberal social programs. Why is it running out of money to pay the promised benefits? Surely not because Congress doesn't appropriate enough money for it. After all, the whole idea was to be self-sustaining, paying benefits from the SS Trust Fund. Oops, that darn trust fund is full of IOU's, and has been since Congress figured out they could spend the money now, instead of saving it for later.

Of course, the wide spread feeling that most people do not expect to recieve SS by the time they retire, I would assume, to be another mark of sucess. And those now recieving it, live with the threat of reduced benefits to make up for the coming shortfall. Not to mention the fact, that to remain solvent, means going back on the promises made at implemtation, in one way or another.

The larger point here though, and the main point with all liberal programs is, that no matter how well intentioned, how well planned, they eventually become something far different than envisioned. One has to only look around the world to see the results of liberal programs and the end results of them.

You don't solve problems by treating the symptons, you treat the cause.

[PorFin]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Yes, I've heard that quote, and could never decide whether it was intended as a criticism of the American military, or a compliment. Unpredictability is crucial in warfare, but in government, it's not usually a good idea for a President to sneak up on his citizens and surprise them.

Different time, different Army. It was a back-handed compliment about the US Army's ability to rapidly adapt to a given situation without being constrained by "what the book says." As you may guess, the German military tradition at the time did not encourage creative "out of the box" thinking above small-unit level.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I wonder if this comment was made before or after American upper-rank officers started collecting graduate degrees from some of the most prestigious and, therefore, most corrupt, schools in the nation.

Ragnar: I think that you are a little off the mark here. I'm not really sure what your intended message here may have been, but it struck me as a jab anyway. Here are a few things I think you may not realize:

1. The vast majority of officers who pursue graduate degrees do so when they are at the O-3 level (Captains in the Army, AF, and USMC, or Lieutenants in the Navy.) Nobody in the services -- especially the O-3's -- would consider them "upper-rank officers." There are far, far fewer O-6's (Colonels/Captains) out in civil institutions, and they are largely there as Fellows and are not pursuing degrees.

2. Most of these officers who are pursuing graduate degrees under service-funded programs are actually attending public colleges and universities.

3. These officers attend graduate programs that are NOT military specialties. Tactics, operations, and military strategy are taught in-house in service schools.

4. If you are implying that officers who have attended your so-called "corrupt" schools have been subverted by these institutions, I sincerely hope that you don't really believe that the officers are morons who cannot think for themselves. In fact, I'd have to say that you've probably got it backwards. Many of these schools seek out the military officers largely because they bring a different perspective to the table. Unlike most of their peers in the classroom, the military officers often have actual real-world practical experience in the field of study. This improves the quality of discussions in graduate seminars, and thus the relative value of the degree program as a whole.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

Head start is always cited as a program that works - study after study says that kids who are in the program do better.

On the contrary, the long term effectiveness of Head Start is highly controversial, with various reports reporting positive, negative, or no impact.

Many researchers acknowledge that Head Start appears to make a significant educational impact early-on but argue that these benefits quickly fade as early as second and third grade when students who attended Head Start programs begin to fall behind their non-participant peers. This phenomenon is known as “Head Start Fade."

The Red Cross was invented by bleeding hearts (literally) and it does pretty well running the blood supply and dealing with emergencies.

The nerve of some people, claiming credit for the establishment of the American Red Cross simply because it was established by kind hearted people! You liberals are beginning to believe your own propaganda that conservatives are mean people.

The American Red Cross was founded by Clara Barton in 1881. The President of the United States at that time was James Garfield, a Republican who was asassinated in the same year. His successor was Chester Arthur, also a Republican. One of the principal contributors to the American Red Cross was John D. Rockefeller, an abolitionist and a Republican.

Clara Barton was an abolitionist during the Civil War, which would definitely not have aligned her in any respect with the racist Democrat Party. In 1865, Republican President Abraham Lincoln, also an abolitionist, placed Barton in charge of a search for the missing men of the Union army.

Various college scholarship programs work - Most notably the GI Bill back in the day.

Warren H. Atherton, a Republican, is widely recognized as the "Father of the G.I. Bill", officially known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.

Medicare, though underfunded by Republican congresses, is run far more efficiently than private insurance programs and does what it was intended to do.

And no, you cant have your party starve a program of funds and then point to it and say "Look it isnt doing what it is supposed to".

In 2003 Congress passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law on December 8, 2003. Part of this legislation included filling gaps in prescription-drug coverage left by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that was enacted in 1980. The 2003 bill strengthened the Workers' Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Program (WCMSA).

On August 1, 2007 Democrats pushed through legislation in the United States Congress, making deep cuts in federal payments to Medicare health maintenance organizations, defying a veto threat from President Bush.

You must be desperate to find examples of liberal successes.