NationStates Jolt Archive

In order for more liberal-minded governments to enter onto the global stage, it is important to remember that the disdain for present administrations is not sufficient grounds to gain office, but that a genuine alternative and progressive platform needs to be put forward, in addition to addressing the alleged short-falls of liberal-government.

This can be seen best in the common view of liberal fiscal irresponsibility in favour of social policies, and is representative of a greater hurdle that needs to be overcome before the liberals can be trusted with the power to make reforms by their people.

One area for addressing this issue is within established social security systems, which due to aging populations are becoming progressively more unsustainable. In order to support the policies of social welfare and support catch-nets sought by many liberals, it is necessary to consider fiscal maintenance through strategies such as; means testing, trust fund investment in private indexed funds & alternative levying.

The issue of taxation is another crucial sticking point. Conservatives are often viewed as more likely to institute tax cuts, whilst liberals are seen as more likely to institute a rise. Whilst this view is not necessary well founded and ignore many other issues -such as where and how the cuts are delivered- it is none-the-less an important concern to address. The possibility and viability of semi-self-sustained government is something liberals must consider to continue with a government of compassionate assistance and deliver responsible taxation. Tarriffing, private investment and better recourse management may assist with delivering this goal.

Whilst the question on providing greater fiscal responsibility whilst fostering social reform is a difficult one, the answer will be a key peg in gaining office for liberals the world over.

self-sustained government

Your point being..?

Tarriffing
????????
For tariffs to actually raise any substantial amount of money, they’d have to be extremely high, high enough to cripple foreign businesses that rely on importing to the United States.

How about we just get rid of the state, its taxes, and its various vote-farming control freak social programs? We wouldn't need to worry about how to reform them if they didn't exist anymore.

How about we just get rid of the state, its taxes, and its various vote-farming control freak social programs?

Because we aren't crazy and/or compassionless?

Because we aren't crazy and/or compassionless

And I suppose I am, and the state is sane and compassionate? The state is its own end; it doesn't exist to help people, it exists to push aside voluntary institutions to plant itself in their place and bloat itself at everyone else's expense. Social welfare isn't made to help people, but rather to make them dependents of the state to ensure their servitude, and in doing this it must weaken other institutions that would serve this end voluntarily (family, church/other religious group, charity, etc.) It is not the result of compassion that it has these programs, it is the result of cold political logic and a lust for power.

-neoliberal rant-
Really, you'd think you people could at least open a history book before your mouths. Worse than communists.

Really, you'd think you people could at least open a history book before your mouths. Worse than communists.

And I suppose that you could actually counter my argument instead of using the intellectually lazy "you don't know anything" fallback for those who can't debate an opposing viewpoint. And, should you respond to this post, you will predictably respond that you didn't need to put any more effort into your response because I had "no argument", which is just a cover for the fact that you are the one with no argument (aside from ad hominem attacks.)

In order for more liberal-minded governments to enter onto the global stage, it is important to remember that the disdain for present administrations is not sufficient grounds to gain office, but that a genuine alternative and progressive platform needs to be put forward, in addition to addressing the alleged short-falls of liberal-government.

This can be seen best in the common view of liberal fiscal irresponsibility in favour of social policies, and is representative of a greater hurdle that needs to be overcome before the liberals can be trusted with the power to make reforms by their people.

One area for addressing this issue is within established social security systems, which due to aging populations are becoming progressively more unsustainable. In order to support the policies of social welfare and support catch-nets sought by many liberals, it is necessary to consider fiscal maintenance through strategies such as; means testing, trust fund investment in private indexed funds & alternative levying.

The issue of taxation is another crucial sticking point. Conservatives are often viewed as more likely to institute tax cuts, whilst liberals are seen as more likely to institute a rise. Whilst this view is not necessary well founded and ignore many other issues -such as where and how the cuts are delivered- it is none-the-less an important concern to address. The possibility and viability of semi-self-sustained government is something liberals must consider to continue with a government of compassionate assistance and deliver responsible taxation. Tarriffing, private investment and better recourse management may assist with delivering this goal.

Whilst the question on providing greater fiscal responsibility whilst fostering social reform is a difficult one, the answer will be a key peg in gaining office for liberals the world over.

self-sustained government

Well,your tax proposals are largely conservative ideas already,and most conservatives(although not really Republicans)support fiscal restraint,so Im not sure if your government is much liberal so much as it is "Rockefeller Republican",the nonideological,fiscally responsible,socially moderate, types from the Northeast that used to control the party and now seem to be on their way out.They were devastated in the midterm elections.

And I suppose I am, and the state is sane and compassionate? The state is its own end; it doesn't exist to help people, it exists to push aside voluntary institutions to plant itself in their place and bloat itself at everyone else's expense. Social welfare isn't made to help people, but rather to make them dependents of the state to ensure their servitude, and in doing this it must weaken other institutions that would serve this end voluntarily (family, church/other religious group, charity, etc.) It is not the result of compassion that it has these programs, it is the result of cold political logic and a lust for power.

Pretty much correct. I'd say the state exists to try to help people, that's why it was created and why it hasn't been torn down, but it isn't very good at it. Social welfare: give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Give a man a fish every day of his life, and he no longer wants to learn how to fish. Not to mention that fish he's eating right now was stolen from me....

Pretty much correct. I'd say the state exists to try to help people, that's why it was created and why it hasn't been torn down, but it isn't very good at it. Social welfare: give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life. Give a man a fish every day of his life, and he no longer wants to learn how to fish. Not to mention that fish he's eating right now was stolen from me....

I think that's about the right theory for the genesis of the state; I don't think that it was caused by conquest, because that would seem to presuppose the existence of another state that would be the conqueror. Rather, I think that they managed to convince (or rather trick) the people into believing that its monopoly of force is to their benefit, and since then it has tried to retain the legitimacy of its monopoly through a variety of cunning means (divine right, social contract, social justice, etc.) But in the end, it is only out for itself, not for the purposes it claims to support.

Such questions make me wish that the Bull-Moose party in America had won, I think they were the only party in history that ran under such ideals. Of course, how close they came to victory may have been largely contributed to the fact that they were running under Roosevelt.

*snip*

So, basically, a liberal government that doesn't fuck the economy up? Correct me if I've interperetted it incorrectly.
How is it possible to have a government that will spend money on health care, the arts, homeless people, mental health etc and all that conservative crap that seems to keep Australia running? To me it seems like any party that's ever made money for this country would be more likely to engage in nuclear power than sign the Kyoto protocol.

I really with I understood this better, because I agree that the government needs to change.

So, basically, a liberal government that doesn't fuck the economy up? Correct me if I've interperetted it incorrectly.
How is it possible to have a government that will spend money on health care, the arts, homeless people, mental health etc and all that conservative crap that seems to keep Australia running? To me it seems like any party that's ever made money for this country would be more likely to engage in nuclear power than sign the Kyoto protocol.

I really with I understood this better, because I agree that the government needs to change.

Well we could always get rid of that ridiculous military Keynesian machine called the Pentagon. Or actually try to avoid crippling deficits by paying for things up front.