First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Liberalism
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/16/10 , edited 11/16/10

amersfoort wrote:

I have mixed feelings about my own topic after reading all this, and what concerns me even more is that my question on when the term liberal/liberallism changed and became something evil has not been awnserd, and frankly I have given up on the thought of having that question awnsered.

However I have tried to come up with my own awnser.
This goes not only for the term liberal, but for every term used as a insult, here it is:
If one group dislikes the actions taken by a other group for example: People disliking the fact that toys may not be given away together with Happy meals anymore, the groups disliking that action will come up with a term, for example ''Food facists''.
Even thoo the people who have taken away the toys are not really ''facists'' or ''food'' it's just very easy to use as a insult.
Same thing must have happend to the term liberal, the word that once meant less govermential influence, more economical freedom now oddly enough stands for socialism, goverment influence and taking away freedom.

I hope this small and probably innaccurate awnser closes down this topic.
Because any discussion going on here will not be fruitfull to anyone and will only lead to more radical thoughs.

Anyway please stop turning this topic in a off-topic flame war,
And please post without your reason being ''hate''


The answer to your question is quite simple actually- Liberalism is use an insult because the far-right (a minority among Conservatives, mind you, but still the loudest) connected the Liberalism to 'Evil, Nazi, Fascist, Authoritarians, and everything that is wrong with this world.' Just as Liberals have manage to connect the word 'Conservative' to much the same. Indeed, expose yourself long enough to Liberals (and Living in Southern California, or 南加州, believe me, I have been expose to too many Liberals), and you will find Conservativism to be as much a dirty word as Liberalism is to Conservatives.

Modern Liberalism wants more government, as stated above, because businesses only want to make money- if there is no regulations, then we would wound up back in the great era of the Industrial Revolution- almost all sane man would want some regulation, Liberals and Conservatives only differ in how much regulation.

Some Liberals would subscribe to the Keynasian School of Economics, whose basic model goes something like this: Give the workers more money, they will spend, spending creates demand and thus the need to increase the supply, creating the supply needs job, jobs are created. Most Conservatives, on the otherhand, subscribe to Supply-side Economics, which follows as thus- Give money to rich, the Rich will invest it by either investing in other companies or in their own business, either expanding it or creating one, and that would lead to more jobs, and more money for the commoners to buy items, creating more demand and more supply. While both have their merits, and have been tried, the former by FDR and the latter by Reagan, both are not without their flaws, I merely respond to Allhailodin's assertion that only the Conservative model is the only correct model, and if you disagree, you are destroying America, you America Hater. Additionally, while both believe that the Government's should mainly be concern with the commonwealth of Society, Conservative believes in 'Equality and Individuality', that is, everyone is equal, and should rely on their individual strenght to pull through. Liberals, on the otherhand, believe in 'Social Justice', that is, some people have special needs and would need the government's aid to level out the field, so to speak.

Both are equally reasonable ideas, and most people do not accept all the doctrine just to hate the other, as Allhailodin seems to, these unfilmed majority known as Moderates, it is only that pundits, newcaster, and television host, to make up for their lack of understanding, would paint a picture of two-sides in dead-lock battle, and sensationalist, like Rachel Maddox and Glenn Beck, like to paint their enemies as evil people to rake in more viewers (If there is one thing the American Viewing Public likes, if being afraid that a great evil force known as 'the Opposition' will destroy their lives and sacrifice their babies to Molar).

Of course, this only applies to Modern American Liberal and Modern American Conservativism- I hope I do no err in representing theri ideas.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/16/10 , edited 11/16/10

amersfoort wrote:

I have mixed feelings about my own topic after reading all this, and what concerns me even more is that my question on when the term liberal/liberallism changed and became something evil has not been awnserd, and frankly I have given up on the thought of having that question awnsered.

However I have tried to come up with my own awnser.
This goes not only for the term liberal, but for every term used as a insult, here it is:
If one group dislikes the actions taken by a other group for example: People disliking the fact that toys may not be given away together with Happy meals anymore, the groups disliking that action will come up with a term, for example ''Food facists''.
Even thoo the people who have taken away the toys are not really ''facists'' or ''food'' it's just very easy to use as a insult.
Same thing must have happend to the term liberal, the word that once meant less govermential influence, more economical freedom now oddly enough stands for socialism, goverment influence and taking away freedom.

I hope this small and probably innaccurate awnser closes down this topic.
Because any discussion going on here will not be fruitfull to anyone and will only lead to more radical thoughs.

Anyway please stop turning this topic in a off-topic flame war,
And please post without your reason being ''hate''


I believe my first or second post to this topic covered your question. but I'll try again.

First what is a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' really? one could say that they are two sides of a coin. In general usage they mean opposite concepts of expenditure of, well anything. If I'm conservative with my use of ketchup or Mayonaise on my french fries then I put a precise and minimal dose of either on my plate. My mayonaise loving friend however might put a big old liberal dollop of the white stuff in the middle of his and just drown them.

In more specific Political science terms they measure two specific points on a wider spectrum that also includes centrist, radical and reactionary. While the positions of these terms are fixed relative to each other, the center of the spectrum swings about in different places and times. A centrist believes in a common balance between a desire for change on the left and desire to protect or keep things the same on the right. At the extreme left we have the Radical or Revolutionary who feels that a complete overthrow of the status-quo is necessary to make things right in the world While on the right we have the Reactionary who fearfully defies any change at all cost. Liberal and Conservative are more moderate versions of the aforementioned Radical and Reactionary.

The problem is, as I said before that while these terms are fixed relative to each other, the meaning accross the whole spectrum varies depending on where and when you are:

1) In England, well over a hundred years before the French and American revolutions. The British had their own revolution, Their King was deposed, Their parliament, them a smaller 'rump' parliament, then finally a 'Lord Protector' ran the winning side of the Parliamentarians vs. The Royalists. Among the factions that supported rebelled and then were wooed back into supporting Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell were the Levellers. The Levellers wanted universal sufferage (the vote) for all men, and a number of other egalitarian and 'socialist' policies that probably didn't go as far as the parameters of most of today's modern democracies. Then, even in a revolutionary government that had deposed a king and declared itself a 'commonwealth' the Levellers were considered too radical and were marginalised and then completely suppressed. Today their principals and demands, such as can be coherently determined, are either all achieved or would mark a step back from our current situation (they never even considered that women might want/be able to vote for example) arguably then, a leveller brough forward in time to a modern democracy would be an arch-conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

2) Similarly a 'Bonapartist' a supporter of Napoleon Bonapart might have been a radical when Napleon over threw "The Directory", the current and I think third, Revolutionary Government since the storming of the Bastille. Nowadays Bonapartists, who want a return of Napleon's decendants to the throne of a new empire of france and complete return of the Napoleonic Code ( the law system which some have argued was the invention of the world's first police state) would be VERY conservative, probably Reactionary.

3) For the longest time, Britain was a two party system, The liberals or 'Grits' would trade running the government and being the loyal opposition back and forth with the Conservatives or 'Torys'. This system is still largely in place in the former British colony of Canada where the Liberal party of Canada is the longest lived national party in Canada. Argueably, Centrist, It has managed to maintain a disporportionate time in office as the government of Canada mainly because it's quite willing to steal planks for its platform from both the more Left wing New Democratic Party(formerly the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation), and whatever incarnation of the Conservatives there are. The Conservative party of Canada (Formerly The Alliance Party of Canada, Formerly the Reform Party) is a name that's changed owners suffered mergers and splinterings over the years and currently is a relatively new party paying lip service to the centre-right to appeal to a broad base of Canadians but still pretty much owned and operated by a hard right, formerly western separatist, splinter party from the now defunct Progressive Conservatives.

In Canada, in Present day. Liberal and Conservative mean members of those parties.

4) Americans used the word 'tory' for conservatives too. During the American revolution, those who, Conservatively, one might say, wanted to stay loyal to George IV became known elsewhere as United Empire Loyalists but during and immediately post revolution while they were being hunted down and persecuted (and if lucky, expelled) by the citizens of the new nation of America, they were called 'Torys'


Now, in America, Liberal is a dirty word that even some American liberals recoil in fear from being labeled as. As to why that's so, I'm not sure. I'm not an American. It's worse nowadays but it's been around since the Cold War. Nowadays I can't think of an American accent without hearing Liberal pronounced with a sneer.

But note, this is an American thing. Don't let their loud voices confuse you into thinking it's a universal thing.

For the exact reasons. Ask an American other than AllHailOdin(whose rants I'm sure you're tired of, and has nothing new to offer). I wonder if even Americans know why Liberal is a dirty word in their country?




2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/16/10


Allhailodin, after this, I will respect the wishes of the OP and call it quits.


Indeed, however it is completely balmy to deny that starting business / expanding them doesn't create jobs, which is what rich people tend to do during lax times, because as one who understands their mindset, it will mean more profits when the economy is better. If you expand your business you can real in greater profits. Have to spend money to make money dude.

If you give businesses owners (the foundation of our economy, how totally evil right) tax breaks it means they have more money to invest in expanding their business, all businesses want to expand, expansion = more $$$.

Practical Example

If I have one restaurant of whatever kind you want, japanese, korean, whatever and it makes 250,000 pure profit, thats after taxes and all other business and personal expenses. Am I going to hoard it and do nothing, or is the logical thing to do invest it by opening another restaurant, maybe italian or an american hamdog, luther burger and deep fry your own whatever restaurant, now that restaurant could possibly make another 250,000 pure profit, so instead of just sitting on your single 250,000 by investing it and expanding your business you'd increased(doubled to 500,000) your $$$ and created jobs in the process.


Did you read anything The Founding Fathers wrote in their last post? The rich will not create Jobs, because the Rich are much to wise to go on an unprofitable venture- if there is no customers in your restraunt, you are not going to think, 'Oh, with this extra money, let's waste it on expanding my business. While I am at it, lets find a giant bond fire to throw the rest of my money in.' They will look for the best investment- and,pretend, the best investment now happens to be that Chinese company across the Sea, they will invest their money there, becuase that is what business is about, making money.




You fail to understand, the constitution doesn't apply to POW's or non citizens. The Geneva Convention might, but UN law has less value then a confederate dollar did after the war.


The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution for the government, not the people- a father can limit his son's right to free speech, but the government can't, without reason, put a censor on the father. It applies to everyone under the juristiction of our government- that includes POWs.


Quite simple ~ Every law / regulation passed is a freedom lost ~

Ban on trans fats killed the freedom to eat tasty food since trans fats are what you put in food to make it taste good.
Ban on sale of fireworks in CA killed the freedom to own fireworks
Requiring a license to purchase explosives. Didn't used to need one, used to be able to buy them over the counter.
The federal assault weapons ban killed the freedom to own assault weapons(tho now its defunct)

And dozens of similar laws are passed each year thus killing dozens of freedoms each year, freedoms you never ever get back. America was once free but its rapidly dwindling.


No, trans-fat does not make food taste any better- or have you never been to an actual restraunt?

Also, the founders understand that the people should not be granted too much freedom, some freedom is acceptable, but their main goal was to prevent a mobocratic system of oppression of the minority by the majority (which happens to fall under Social Justice) while still maintaining as much liberty as possible. Our founders would agree that, if a substance is dangerous enough, and it, like fireworks, infringes upon the ability of others to live without injury (as in something goes wrong and disfigures a bystander, then, while not taking away the Liberty to enjoy such amusement as fireworks by professionals, they would support getting it out of the hand of the incautious public. But, aren't you for law? Aren't you against Anarchy?



Some of teh founders were atheists yes.

Replacing what little remaining freedoms we have left with government regulations and control is what I consider actively destroying the country. Tea party too, that's like their thing, Put simply there is too much government in this country and its a threat to our freedoms and liberties. Increasing the government only increases the threat to freedom. These people need to get out because they are actively killing our freedom. I have no problem with differing opinion. I will kill and fight to the death for your right to have that opinion, but I have a problem with people who actively kill freedom. Which is what expanding government does.


The Founding Fathers were not saying they were atheist, rather, that they weren't the awesomely great and cool people we venerate today.

Likewise, you are basically saying, 'My opinion is right, and all other opinions are a threat to Liberty, therefore GTFO.' The other points, the Founding Fathers already addressed, but, this last point, the Founding Fathers will say of it simply:
'That is bigotry and intolerance, it was the same excuse the Senate use to expluse the Chinese, and it is the same excuse you use to expluse your foes.'
468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Manila
Offline
Posted 11/16/10
liberalism is the belief that people should have a lot of political and individual freedom..

liberalism isn't bad.. because we want freedom.. it becomes bad when people abuse the freedom that we have..

so.. when people say "that country is a liberated country.." for me.. it means.. people their are abusing their freedom.. like having sex at a young age, unprotected sex, sex videos, bad people..

but of course, not all.. but almost.. it really is happening to most countries.. which is sad.. cuz teen agers in our modern days are very curious about sex.. it's like they're rushing for adulthood..
11356 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Mount Vernon, N.Y.
Offline
Posted 11/16/10
As I understand it in the United Stated, to be a liberal means to adhere to a form of progressive tax system and to impliment policies for the greater good of the country. The reason why it is viewed as a "dirty word" is because, classically, liberal ideoligies are constantly in opposition to old-school American policies; such as laissez faire capitalism. The main reason liberals are looked down upon is because of it imposes regulations on corporations and taxes the wealthier citizens higher than the averege citizens. While it is true that these ideas run contrary to the ideas of the founding fathers back in 1776, a majority of Americans believe that ideas that are 200 years old are better than anything that can changed them. This is why unions, enviormental groups, and advocates for universal health care are usually part of the "liberal agenda," they impose on the "free market" and Americans confuse the "free market" with freedom and they believe that regulating big corporations is taking away their freedom.
Another reason why "liberal" is looked down upon is because its the opposite of "conservative." Conservatives are advocates for keeping things the way they are, and that is usually perfered to the change Liberals are for.
I tried to be objective in this but i still see some of my own ideas in it. In my opinion "liberal" is a bad word because it runs against corporate interest. If the "free market" and conservatives had their way there would be no minimum wage, guns would be even more accesible than they already are and tear up the inner cities neighborhoods (such as the one I live in), jobs would be outsourced at an even more alarming rate, health insurance companies would be able to drop off who they want. Being against big corporations is viewed as being against American values, look up every social change in America and you will see corporate interests against it. Sometimes you will even see an interesting contradiction, such as food corporations lobbying in 1942 to bring mexican farm workers to American farms because too many people left to fight WW2. Decades later, corporations lobby to break trade agrements to outsource Americna jobs with the backing of "Conservatives"
“Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor” — Thomas Jefferson
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/17/10

vatoL0c0 wrote:

As I understand it in the United Stated, to be a liberal means to adhere to a form of progressive tax system and to impliment policies for the greater good of the country. The reason why it is viewed as a "dirty word" is because, classically, liberal ideoligies are constantly in opposition to old-school American policies; such as laissez faire capitalism. The main reason liberals are looked down upon is because of it imposes regulations on corporations and taxes the wealthier citizens higher than the averege citizens. While it is true that these ideas run contrary to the ideas of the founding fathers back in 1776, a majority of Americans believe that ideas that are 200 years old are better than anything that can changed them. This is why unions, enviormental groups, and advocates for universal health care are usually part of the "liberal agenda," they impose on the "free market" and Americans confuse the "free market" with freedom and they believe that regulating big corporations is taking away their freedom.
Another reason why "liberal" is looked down upon is because its the opposite of "conservative." Conservatives are advocates for keeping things the way they are, and that is usually perfered to the change Liberals are for.
I tried to be objective in this but i still see some of my own ideas in it. In my opinion "liberal" is a bad word because it runs against corporate interest. If the "free market" and conservatives had their way there would be no minimum wage, guns would be even more accesible than they already are and tear up the inner cities neighborhoods (such as the one I live in), jobs would be outsourced at an even more alarming rate, health insurance companies would be able to drop off who they want. Being against big corporations is viewed as being against American values, look up every social change in America and you will see corporate interests against it. Sometimes you will even see an interesting contradiction, such as food corporations lobbying in 1942 to bring mexican farm workers to American farms because too many people left to fight WW2. Decades later, corporations lobby to break trade agrements to outsource Americna jobs with the backing of "Conservatives"
“Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor” — Thomas Jefferson


This...

Makes all kinds of sense to me. And clearly states some concepts I was groping with. Namely that many people confuse corporate america's banner of "Freedom" (for themselves to exploit americans as they wish) with their own personal freedom. This is not an accident but deliberate and sucessfull propaganda by those same corporate interests.

10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

vatoL0c0 wrote:

As I understand it in the United Stated, to be a liberal means to adhere to a form of progressive tax system and to impliment policies for the greater good of the country. The reason why it is viewed as a "dirty word" is because, classically, liberal ideoligies are constantly in opposition to old-school American policies; such as laissez faire capitalism. The main reason liberals are looked down upon is because of it imposes regulations on corporations and taxes the wealthier citizens higher than the averege citizens. While it is true that these ideas run contrary to the ideas of the founding fathers back in 1776, a majority of Americans believe that ideas that are 200 years old are better than anything that can changed them. This is why unions, enviormental groups, and advocates for universal health care are usually part of the "liberal agenda," they impose on the "free market" and Americans confuse the "free market" with freedom and they believe that regulating big corporations is taking away their freedom.
Another reason why "liberal" is looked down upon is because its the opposite of "conservative." Conservatives are advocates for keeping things the way they are, and that is usually perfered to the change Liberals are for.
I tried to be objective in this but i still see some of my own ideas in it. In my opinion "liberal" is a bad word because it runs against corporate interest. If the "free market" and conservatives had their way there would be no minimum wage, guns would be even more accesible than they already are and tear up the inner cities neighborhoods (such as the one I live in), jobs would be outsourced at an even more alarming rate, health insurance companies would be able to drop off who they want. Being against big corporations is viewed as being against American values, look up every social change in America and you will see corporate interests against it. Sometimes you will even see an interesting contradiction, such as food corporations lobbying in 1942 to bring mexican farm workers to American farms because too many people left to fight WW2. Decades later, corporations lobby to break trade agrements to outsource Americna jobs with the backing of "Conservatives"
“Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor” — Thomas Jefferson


That's interesting however it's not entirely, America is by no means a free market, there is way too much intervention in the economy by the state for that. We are a mixed economy.

However Americans see liberals as a group of people who want a planned economy and universal health care, Americans are against those things, most of us are quite happy with private health care and do not want the government telling us what care we are and aren't allowed and when. Americans also see liberals as a group who are against economic growth and prosperity which are things Americans are for. Americans also see liberals as job killers(high taxes tend to kill jobs).

Americans I believe are also against liberals because liberals would impose high taxes on the wealthy, those who make above 250,000 or more, most small businessmen fall into this category and I believe that Americans see this as damaging to the economy.

So that's my view.
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

Allhailodin wrote:



That's interesting however it's not entirely, America is by no means a free market, there is way too much intervention in the economy by the state for that. We are a mixed economy.

However Americans see liberals as a group of people who want a planned economy and universal health care, Americans are against those things, most of us are quite happy with private health care and do not want the government telling us what care we are and aren't allowed and when.
Americans also see liberals as a group who are against economic growth and prosperity which are things Americans are for. Americans also see liberals as job killers(high taxes tend to kill jobs).

Americans I believe are also against liberals because liberals would impose high taxes on the wealthy, those who make above 250,000 or more, most small businessmen fall into this category and I believe that Americans see this as damaging to the economy.

So that's my view
.
So says yourself, the voice of "Americans' beliefs". Well time for you to wake up and face the fact, you delusional bigot:

Community Building

Integral to the Grameen America model are the notions of Group and Center. The Group is a self-identified unit of five entrepreneurs, each of whom wants a loan to build or expand a small business. A Center is composed of Groups and meets weekly with a Center Manager to repay loans and make savings deposits. Just as “networking” is an essential notion for professionals, the Group and Center structure provides the basis for effective networking for borrowers, linking them to resources and ideas that may be otherwise unavailable. Through the Group and Center, borrowers share solutions to business challenges, identify opportunities for sales growth, and provide support and encouragement both personally and professionally.

This support network directly impacts our strong repayment rate, which is consistently around 99%.(citation)
And before you deny my claim of how microfinancing is in fact working in America with your usual BS, keep in mind that I've been successfully having your statement removed for the exact same reason.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:



That's interesting however it's not entirely, America is by no means a free market, there is way too much intervention in the economy by the state for that. We are a mixed economy.

However Americans see liberals as a group of people who want a planned economy and universal health care, Americans are against those things, most of us are quite happy with private health care and do not want the government telling us what care we are and aren't allowed and when.
Americans also see liberals as a group who are against economic growth and prosperity which are things Americans are for. Americans also see liberals as job killers(high taxes tend to kill jobs).

Americans I believe are also against liberals because liberals would impose high taxes on the wealthy, those who make above 250,000 or more, most small businessmen fall into this category and I believe that Americans see this as damaging to the economy.

So that's my view
.
So says yourself, the voice of "Americans' beliefs". Well time for you to wake up and face the fact, you delusional bigot:

Community Building

Integral to the Grameen America model are the notions of Group and Center. The Group is a self-identified unit of five entrepreneurs, each of whom wants a loan to build or expand a small business. A Center is composed of Groups and meets weekly with a Center Manager to repay loans and make savings deposits. Just as “networking” is an essential notion for professionals, the Group and Center structure provides the basis for effective networking for borrowers, linking them to resources and ideas that may be otherwise unavailable. Through the Group and Center, borrowers share solutions to business challenges, identify opportunities for sales growth, and provide support and encouragement both personally and professionally.

This support network directly impacts our strong repayment rate, which is consistently around 99%.(citation)
And before you deny my claim of how microfinancing is in fact working in America with your usual BS, keep in mid that I've been successfully having your statement removed for the exact same reason.


So I supposed the 2010 midterm elections never happened ? Where democrats were slaughtered. You deny that Americans rejected Obama's liberal policies ?

Also its not just my view, its also the view of my friends and most of my family members as well, so I suppose they are all delusional biggots as well ?

Such arrogance and the mentality that you know better than us is the reason that the democrats were slaughtered in the elections.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:



That's interesting however it's not entirely, America is by no means a free market, there is way too much intervention in the economy by the state for that. We are a mixed economy.

However Americans see liberals as a group of people who want a planned economy and universal health care, Americans are against those things, most of us are quite happy with private health care and do not want the government telling us what care we are and aren't allowed and when.
Americans also see liberals as a group who are against economic growth and prosperity which are things Americans are for. Americans also see liberals as job killers(high taxes tend to kill jobs).

Americans I believe are also against liberals because liberals would impose high taxes on the wealthy, those who make above 250,000 or more, most small businessmen fall into this category and I believe that Americans see this as damaging to the economy.

So that's my view
.
So says yourself, the voice of "Americans' beliefs". Well time for you to wake up and face the fact, you delusional bigot:

Community Building

Integral to the Grameen America model are the notions of Group and Center. The Group is a self-identified unit of five entrepreneurs, each of whom wants a loan to build or expand a small business. A Center is composed of Groups and meets weekly with a Center Manager to repay loans and make savings deposits. Just as “networking” is an essential notion for professionals, the Group and Center structure provides the basis for effective networking for borrowers, linking them to resources and ideas that may be otherwise unavailable. Through the Group and Center, borrowers share solutions to business challenges, identify opportunities for sales growth, and provide support and encouragement both personally and professionally.

This support network directly impacts our strong repayment rate, which is consistently around 99%.(citation)
And before you deny my claim of how microfinancing is in fact working in America with your usual BS, keep in mid that I've been successfully having your statement removed for the exact same reason.


So I supposed the 2010 midterm elections never happened ? Where democrats were slaughtered. You deny that Americans rejected Obama's liberal policies ?

Also its not just my view, its also the view of my friends and most of my family members as well, so I suppose they are all delusional biggots as well ?

Such arrogance and the mentality that you know better than us is the reason that the democrats were slaughtered in the elections.


Where the Democrats still have the senate? I don't consider still having a majority in the senate a 'slaughter', when, considering, the senate is granted by our founders more power than the house. And, also considering that they promise they will completely annihilate the democrats in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans still fall short. So, here's my hat to Republicans, who, despite having the passion of the Public at the moment, still manage to lose to, of all people, democrats, who can be likened to elections as Italians to war- Impossible to lose to.


La Ejercito Grande de la Republica de Italia- don't be afraid of them, they are probably more afraid of you.
Posted 11/17/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:



That's interesting however it's not entirely, America is by no means a free market, there is way too much intervention in the economy by the state for that. We are a mixed economy.

However Americans see liberals as a group of people who want a planned economy and universal health care, Americans are against those things, most of us are quite happy with private health care and do not want the government telling us what care we are and aren't allowed and when.
Americans also see liberals as a group who are against economic growth and prosperity which are things Americans are for. Americans also see liberals as job killers(high taxes tend to kill jobs).

Americans I believe are also against liberals because liberals would impose high taxes on the wealthy, those who make above 250,000 or more, most small businessmen fall into this category and I believe that Americans see this as damaging to the economy.

So that's my view
.
So says yourself, the voice of "Americans' beliefs". Well time for you to wake up and face the fact, you delusional bigot:

Community Building

Integral to the Grameen America model are the notions of Group and Center. The Group is a self-identified unit of five entrepreneurs, each of whom wants a loan to build or expand a small business. A Center is composed of Groups and meets weekly with a Center Manager to repay loans and make savings deposits. Just as “networking” is an essential notion for professionals, the Group and Center structure provides the basis for effective networking for borrowers, linking them to resources and ideas that may be otherwise unavailable. Through the Group and Center, borrowers share solutions to business challenges, identify opportunities for sales growth, and provide support and encouragement both personally and professionally.

This support network directly impacts our strong repayment rate, which is consistently around 99%.(citation)
And before you deny my claim of how microfinancing is in fact working in America with your usual BS, keep in mid that I've been successfully having your statement removed for the exact same reason.


So I supposed the 2010 midterm elections never happened ? Where democrats were slaughtered. You deny that Americans rejected Obama's liberal policies ?

Also its not just my view, its also the view of my friends and most of my family members as well, so I suppose they are all delusional biggots as well ?

Such arrogance and the mentality that you know better than us
is the reason that the democrats were slaughtered in the elections.
Is that proper consent based on informed choice? Or the mere groupthink denial of the fact that Grameen America, a pure liberal socialist business that's both successful and profitable at eliminating American poverty. Due to your own ignorance of an objective reality that socialist movement is growing in America:

Last year, as fewer people ate out and layoffs mounted in Silicon Valley, sales plunged more than 60 percent at the once-thriving Mandy’s Korner. “My business was drowning and I was afraid it would go under,” Ms. Keppert said. While she picked up catering work at a local concert site, it wasn’t enough to pay her expenses. She had invested all of her savings in the business, and she did not want to see it go under.

But her loan applications were rejected repeatedly at banks in San Jose. Then she found Opportunity Fund, a local microlender that has teamed up with Kiva.org, one of the best-known international microlenders. Kiva, which has lent more than $150 million in 53 countries, had just begun a pilot program lending to business owners in the United States.

Through Kiva, Ms. Keppert obtained a $6,500 loan that she has three years to pay back and that carries a 6 percent interest rate. She used the money to buy an ice maker, a generator to save on propane costs and large signs to advertise her business.

Before the economic collapse, microfinance — the granting of very small loans, mostly to poor people — was a concept most closely associated with the developing world. But tight credit and the recession have increased the demand for smaller loans in the United States, giving microlending a higher profile and broadening its appeal. Both Kiva and Grameen Bank, a microfinance group that is based in Bangladesh and was started by Muhammad Yunus, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his groundbreaking work in microlending, have widened their lending to Americans.

In addition, last year’s economic stimulus bill granted $54 million to the Small Business Administration for lending and technical assistance to microlenders. Cities like San Francisco and New York have expanded or introduced their own microfinance programs. This year, loan applications at many of the country’s 362 microfinance outfits, some of which have been quietly operating since the 1980s, have more than doubled. Many of the groups expect them to keep rising as other financing streams remain tight for small companies.

“Everyone is knocking on our doors, even those with good credit,” said Galen Gondolfi, a senior loan counselor at Justine Petersen, a microfinance group based in St. Louis.

Since the recession, credit cards are harder to come by, real estate values remain low — making it harder to borrow against home equity — and banks have tightened standards. “The banking system has lots of money, but they don’t have the kinds of applicants that you want to risk someone’s savings for,” said William Dunkelberg, chief economist of the National Federation of Independent Business and chairman of Liberty Bell Bank, based in Evesham, N.J. Small-business owners need to be reminded “that banks are not venture capitalists,” he added. “We’re not in the business of funding great ideas.”

Most banks, large or small, do not bother granting business loans of less than $50,000 because there’s not enough profit to balance the risk. By contrast, microfinance programs in the United States typically lend $35,000 or less to small businesses with five or fewer employees. They charge more than traditional banks, of course, with interest rates ranging from 5 to 18 percent.

Unlike mainstream banks, which focus on an applicant’s credit score, the programs consider passion and commitment to the business. Most require that loan recipients take workshops on money management, marketing and business plans, and some have income caps.

What leads microlenders to work with some of those applicants is a distinct mission. Most are not trying to make a profit; they are trying to alleviate poverty.

“For us to make money, we’d have to charge 15 to 20 percent on our loans, “ said Jeff Reynolds, director of a program in Lyons, Neb., called REAP, which charges a maximum of 7.25 percent.

Early this year, Craig Adams, owner of a wine shop in St. Louis, Vino Vitae, tried to get a $50,000 loan to open an adjoining restaurant and event space. He was turned down first by his longtime bank, which said he had too much debt, and then by a second bank. A local venture capitalist insisted on fees that Mr. Adams was not willing to pay.

He was finally referred to Justine Petersen, and in March, he received a $15,000 loan with a 12 percent interest rate. He has 10 years to repay the loan. He has had to scale back, but he is using the money on architectural plans and inventory. “It’s not the greatest way to go,” said Mr. Adams, 43, “but it’s the only way to go.”

Heavy demand for loans persuaded the Grameen Bank, which has lent $9.4 billion through more than 2,500 of its branches worldwide, to open four new branches in New York and one in Omaha in the last two years, under the name Grameen America.

It also has plans to open offices in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, and Charlotte, N.C. Grameen, a nonprofit, tries to help people who fall below the poverty line and do not have access to mainstream banking, offering first-time loans of as much as $1,500 with an interest rate of 15 percent on a declining balance. In the developing world, established businesses generally receive loans of about $380. Obviously, loans of $1,500 can only go so far in a developed nation, but they can fix up a delivery vehicle. They can also buy a street cart for a vendor, a sewing machine for a tailor or hair dyes for a hairdresser.

Unlike other microlenders, Grameen requires its borrowers to join a group of entrepreneurs that meets weekly. Borrowers are also required to save a percentage of their weekly income — at least $2 — and to pay a portion of their loan’s principal and interest.

Kiva, the organization that backed Ms. Keppert’s hot dog stand, works much like a middleman. It teamed up with microfinance groups that upload profiles of individual entrepreneurs and their loan requests to www.Kiva.org. People browse the profiles, decide which ones, if any, they would like to lend money to, and then Kiva disburses the money through the microlender (the Opportunity Fund in Ms. Keppert’s case). The individual lenders get their money back when a business owner repays the loan.

The pilot program that Ms. Keppert took part in has been available in California and New York since last summer. “It seemed very timely,” said Premal Shah, president of Kiva. “People talk about buying local — why not lend local? It’s a personal stimulus package if you’re the working poor.”

Overseas, Kiva borrowers can seek loans of up to $3,000, while in the United States, borrowers can take out loans of as much as $10,000. Since its American debut, Kiva has helped lend $900,000 to 137 American companies. The average American loan is about $5,600 and has a term of about two years and three months.


“People are compelled to do something in their backyard,” said Gina Harman, president and chief executive of Accion USA, a microlender and partner in Kiva’s American pilot program. “Suddenly, giving $1 to someone in Ghana isn’t as important as giving to someone here.”(citation)
Still think this is philanthropy? Heck no, it's more serious and real than your own psychedelic daydream of a pathetic business proposal.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

longfenglim wrote:

Where the Democrats still have the senate? I don't consider still having a majority in the senate a 'slaughter', when, considering, the senate is granted by our founders more power than the house. And, also considering that they promise they will completely annihilate the democrats in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans still fall short. So, here's my hat to Republicans, who, despite having the passion of the Public at the moment, still manage to lose to, of all people, democrats, who can be likened to elections as Italians to war- Impossible to lose to.


La Ejercito Grande de la Republica de Italia- don't be afraid of them, they are probably more afraid of you.


If even one house is lost, nothing gets done, We will be gridlocked and nothing will get done for the next 2 years, as the saying goes it takes 2 to tangle. Plus a lots of dem governorships were lost.

In my book I call this a slaughter, but its all subjective really. Dem's suffered major losses regardless of what string of letters you label it with.



This election is a referendum on Obama's polices, Teh American people clearly do not want them. We didn't want them from the start, and we loathed them once we found out what was actually in them.
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

Allhailodin wrote:



If even one house is lost, nothing gets done, We will be gridlocked and nothing will get done for the next 2 years
, as the saying goes it takes 2 to tangle. Plus a lots of dem governorships were lost.

In my book I call this a slaughter, but its all subjective really. Dem's suffered major losses regardless of what string of letters you label it with.



This election is a referendum on Obama's polices, Teh American people clearly do not want them.
We didn't want them from the start, and we loathed them once we found out what was actually in them.
Just like how you Republicans kill off women's rights for fair paycheck?

I am deeply disappointed that a minority of Senators have prevented the Paycheck Fairness Act from finally being brought up for a debate and receiving a vote. This bill passed in the House almost two years ago; today, it had 58 votes to move forward, the support of the majority of Senate, and the support of the majority of Americans. As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren’t bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination. It also helps businesses that pay equal wages as they struggle to compete against discriminatory competition. But a partisan minority of Senators blocked this commonsense law. Despite today’s vote, my Administration will continue to fight for a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work.(citation)
If that's not tyranny of Republican minority oppression, which is the opposite of social justice that falls under liberalism, I don't know what is.

Besides, can you prove that racism doesn't have anything to do with the voting result? Keep in mind that when racial equality is also under liberalism, are you conservative Republicans ready to go back to racial intolerance and discrimination?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Where the Democrats still have the senate? I don't consider still having a majority in the senate a 'slaughter', when, considering, the senate is granted by our founders more power than the house. And, also considering that they promise they will completely annihilate the democrats in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans still fall short. So, here's my hat to Republicans, who, despite having the passion of the Public at the moment, still manage to lose to, of all people, democrats, who can be likened to elections as Italians to war- Impossible to lose to.


La Ejercito Grande de la Republica de Italia- don't be afraid of them, they are probably more afraid of you.


If even one house is lost, nothing gets done, We will be gridlocked and nothing will get done for the next 2 years, as the saying goes it takes 2 to tangle. Plus a lots of dem governorships were lost.

In my book I call this a slaughter, but its all subjective really. Dem's suffered major losses regardless of what string of letters you label it with.



This election is a referendum on Obama's polices, Teh American people clearly do not want them. We didn't want them from the start, and we loathed them once we found out what was actually in them.




Note- Democrats still keep all the densely populated area, as opposed to the sparsely populated area the Republicans hold- the Republicans still won, mind you, just that it isn't a complete annihilation. So, in layman's term, where-ever there is a borough with mostly sheep-shaggers, the Republicans carried the day, where-ever the there are cities, the democrats carried the day.

But, remember, the Senate is enbued with more power than the House, and the Republicans still don't hold the majority- I retain my earlier statement about the great shame of losing an election to democrats, it is not suppose to happen, just as Italians are not suppose to win wars and the American Public, or any public mind you, are suppose to be sensible- which brings me to another point- that's why we don't have a full-on democracy- the American people are fickle and easily wooed, which is why this isn't a referendum, this is just what they call 'Passion of the Moment', and, if the economy still goes down with the Republicans (which is probably will), it will be back to the Democrats, and you will promptly be silent while those annoying Liberals will be all like, 'Yeah, told you they sucked, but did you listen, no, cause they are all like douches and all...' That is why we should have a system of Proportional Representation as in the European Countries, based upon the Party-list system, the amount of vote the Party as a whole gets is proportionally distributed to the number of seats- therefore people will not fear 'wasting votes'. So, for ten seats, if Democrats get 59% of the vote, Republicans 30.5%, Hippy-Commie World Peace Party 10.2% and Misc. gets 0.3%, the Dems get 6 seats, GOP 3, HCWPP 1. This expands our choice in incompetant bastards we send to represent us. You may say that that isn't the way the founders design things, but, remember, the Founders didn't really expect to have parties either.
Posted 11/17/10 , edited 11/17/10

longfenglim wrote:




Note- Democrats still keep all the densely populated area, as opposed to the sparsely populated area the Republicans hold- the Republicans still won, mind you, just that it isn't a complete annihilation. So, in layman's term, where-ever there is a borough with mostly sheep-shaggers, the Republicans carried the day, where-ever the there are cities, the democrats carried the day.

But, remember, the Senate is enbued with more power than the House, and the Republicans still don't hold the majority- I retain my earlier statement about the great shame of losing an election to democrats, it is not suppose to happen, just as Italians are not suppose to win wars and the American Public, or any public mind you, are suppose to be sensible- which brings me to another point- that's why we don't have a full-on democracy- the American people are fickle and easily wooed, which is why this isn't a referendum, this is just what they call 'Passion of the Moment', and, if the economy still goes down with the Republicans (which is probably will), it will be back to the Democrats, and you will promptly be silent while those annoying Liberals will be all like, 'Yeah, told you they sucked, but did you listen, no, cause they are all like douches and all...' That is why we should have a system of Proportional Representation as in the European Countries, based upon the Party-list system, the amount of vote the Party as a whole gets is proportionally distributed to the number of seats- therefore people will not fear 'wasting votes'. So, for ten seats, if Democrats get 59% of the vote, Republicans 30.5%, Hippy-Commie World Peace Party 10.2% and Misc. gets 0.3%, the Dems get 6 seats, GOP 3, HCWPP 1. This expands our choice in incompetant bastards we send to represent us. You may say that that isn't the way the founders design things, but, remember, the Founders didn't really expect to have parties either.
Well now, since Allhailodin dared to venture into the realm of US politic and democracy. I think he needs another reality check on the state of social injustice of America, in the form of distribution of wealth, or what I would call the affluent minority/Republicans victory/manipulation:

Time and again Americans populating the middle and lower classes keep hearing from a few progressive voices that wealth in the United States is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. And most often, the blame for our economic ills and the disparity in income and wealth is placed on that singularly elusive number, that elite that comprises less than 1 percent of the population. Even most progressive voices go along in naming the source of all economic ills, that minute elitist few barely comprising between ½ and 1 percent of the population. Capitalism does not seem so onerous, certainly not so dangerous, when the villains are outnumbered 99 to 1.

The reality, however, is quite different. It isn’t the Knights of Wealth, that 1 percent that owns 35 percent of the net worth and 43 percent of the financial wealth, that we need to worry about, but the next 19 percent as well… the Squires who hold 50 percent of the net worth and 50 percent of the financial wealth! [Data provided by economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University as of 2007.]

The soon-becoming slave population, 80 percent of Americans, barely had 7 percent of the financial wealth and 15 percent of the net worth, much of it in overvalued real estate, in 2007. Those paltry percentages are likely to be even lower for 2010.

And what’s even worse, the middle and lower classes are not outnumbering the elite 99 to 1, but outnumbering the elite and sub-elite by just 4 to 1. But that minority of 20 percent holds all the positions of power… not most but all. In such a socio-economic environment, it’s laughable for us to say that our democracy works.
(citation)
And judging by the fact that the conservative Republicans had been in power for the majority of the US governmental history, I for one am not surprised of this outcome.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.