This is not an attack against you, but against the core of Liberal beliefs that the governemt, government programs, and governemt money is the answer to every problem.

Here's a small list of Liberal Failures over the years, my comments at the end:

MY TAKE-

Let's add to that:

Social Security: Bankrupt by real world standards,a pathetically top heavy, wasteful, inefficient program.

Welfare: As mentioned in the article, Produced an underclass of people content to live in poverty as long as they didn't have to work. Women would have babies on purpose so they could qualify. Led in part to the breakdown of the black family. Welfare had to be greatly reformed, and it is still a mess.

Teacher's Unions: The darling of liberalism, they have led to mediocraty as a standard in our public school system.

Public School System: The liberal answer to our public education problems is to blindly throw money at them, rather than enforce quality standards. This has never, and will never work. America has one of the worst public school systems in the developed world.

Tax the Wealthy: As referenced above, taxing luxury items cost MANY Americans their jobs. Taxing the 'Wealthy' puts huge strains on small business, the largest employer of the American workforce. The 'Wealthy' provide a great deal of jobs to Americans, by employment for construction, luxury items, service, high end restaurants, furniture, cars, investments, the list goes on and on. (when have you ever gotten a job from a poor person) If we make the US inhospitable for them, they will take their money elsewhere. In spite of this, liberal class warfare (designed to get the 'Poor' and middle class angry enough to vote for libs) just hurts the economy, and in the end, hurts the very middle class and poor that the libs claim to empathize with. Instead of punishing the motivated successful people, we should encourage everybody to be motivated.

Raise Taxes on Corporations: This ALWAYS leads to higher prices for the consumer (the people the libs claim to want to help) and encourages many companies to relocate overseas- outsource, costing us many American jobs (ironically, something the libs claim to hate). To attract companies to the US, and motivate companies to stay in the US, we should create a climate that attracts them. The only way to do this is to make it easy, and financially attractive for them to do so. Liberal policies do not do this.

Windfall Profits Tax (on oil companies or any corporation): A windfall profits tax will simply make the costs to the end user increase, as well as taking money that could otherwise be used for research and exploration. This is counter-intuitive, since it's supposed to be punishing the oil companies, but in the end, will only punish the consumer. It is widely accepted that taxes on corporations end up being paid by the consumer in higher prices. The answer is to address the root of the problem: Supply & Demand. The only way to have short term price decrease is to decrease demand, increase supply, or both. High prices have already cut into demand, and greater freedom to find our own oil until a better fuel becomes affordable will have a great impact on prices. Because energy trading is based on speculation, greater freedom to explore & drill for oil in environmentally friendly ways will have short term, as well as long term effects on prices.

The Projects: Touted as a way to help the 'less fortunate', they became run down, corrupt, crime filled places that kept people down by getting them stuck in a culture of failure. Most projects around the country are being torn down because they DIDN'T WORK. A better answer is to work to educate people and bring them out of poverty & a culture of crime. Give a mana fish, he eats for a day, TEACH a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.

Appeasement: The idea was to just turn a blind eye to Hitler, rather than address the unfolding situation in europe during the 1930s and 40s. This led to the US entering a huge world war, rather than nipping the threat in the bud.

Public Healthcare: If you believe that this government program will not turn out in shambles like other massive beurocracies in our government, you are sorely mistaken. When you take the forces of competition out of a market you always end up with mediocraty as a result. Regardless of the great intentions of the person who starts the program, the beurocrats will eventually ruin any good intentions.

The Fairness Doctrine: This is an effort to silence 'talk radio' as we know it. The problem with this is, the first ammendment guaruntees the right of individuals and news media to express their opinion as they see fit WITHOUT government intervention. Talk radio does not claim to be balanced, it clearly states what it is, opinion radio that you can choose to listen to or not. That's the point, YOU CAN CHOOSE! It should not be up to the government what is and is not allowed on the airwaves or in print. What next? Opinion websites should be cencored? Opinion pieces in the newspaper or on CNN should be cencored? Where does it end? This doctrine was repealed for a reason, it was unconstitutional, and a rediculous beaurocracy that could be manipulated by whoever happened to be in power. Simple, it didn't work.

Liberal ideas are born out of a good heart, but overlook the moral corruption that naturally exists in any governemt (becasue government is run by humans, creatures that are naturally corrupted by power). Liberals want to be known for their good heart, not their results. Their heart is great, but the results are poor at best.

It's like I always say, 95% of the problems goverment is trying to fix were caused by government in the first place. Their answer? MORE GOVERNMENT! Insanity? Yes. If your definition of insanity includes "Trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result", then yes, the core of Liberal beliefs is insanity (and honestly, so republican beliefs are as well). Tax the rich, punish big business, implement huge government programs, throw money at everything, etc HAVE NEVER WORKED, but that's still the liberal answer to everything. This is insanity.

I'm not by any means saying the Republicans have done a great job, in fact, I'll be the first to say they have sucked. One reason they have fallen so far is because they have, in many ways, taken the liberal idea of spend, spend, spend, and run with it as a method of vote buying. The budgets signed by Bush have been TERRIBLE. Pork, waste, crap, this includes budgets created by both the republican and democrat congresses. This is why I'm a conservative (financially) and a libertarian (socially). Small government, reduced government programs, more individual responsibility for one's own future, the exceptionalism of individual motivation and personal drive, the responsibility of the parents to aid in the education and upbringing of their children, not just leaving it to the government, holding corporations accountable without punishing them when the succeed, ENCOURAGING people to build wealth instead of fostering jealosy, individual freedom to do what you see is right without big brother telling you what to do, etc. Those are my beliefs, and I believe they work!

I'm sure somebody will comment on this without reading MY beliefs and say something stupid about republicans, and me being one I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN! I am a conservative libertarian/independant. I vote republican only because I believe the liberals will continue to be disastrous if they gain power.

So why aren't conservatives crazy? Their economic policies I understand, but on many social issues they expect everyone else to follow a Judeo-Christian moral code even if those people are not Christians.

How is that not crazy and intolerant?

Public Healthcare: If you believe that this government program will not turn out in shambles like other massive beurocracies in our government, you are sorely mistaken. When you take the forces of competition out of a market you always end up with mediocraty as a result.

WRONG

Healthcare is a public good that is more effciently provided by the government than the market.  Many rural private hospitals operate a regional monopoly and have very poor helathcare due to lack of competition.  Many inner-city hospitals have poor healthcare due to lack of funding from the poor people who get healthcare there.  There is a huge economic externality associated with healthcare, healthy people work better and make the economy better, and unhealthy people drag the economy down.  Private healthcare leads to unhealthy poor people who cant work and pull the economy down.  Thats not to mention that preventative medicine is much cheaper than medical treatment when the illness becomes serious, and low income people usually forgo preventative treatment because they cant afford it.

Total healthcare funding (private and public):

United States: $4,700

Great Britain: $1,800

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita

The United States pays almost three times as much as Great Britain does for healthcare.  Obviously Great Britain is doing something right and the United States, with the most expensive healthcare in the world and far from the best, is doing something wrong.

The US also has a better healthcare system.

I remember hearing Rudy G saying that he had a 90% chance to survive his cancer in the US, but only like 45% in the UK.

All money pouring into healthcare has caused more competition among Doctors and there are just more good doctor because of all the money flowing into medical care.

The US pays a rediculous price for healthcare largely because of exorbitant insurance rates paid by doctors due to runaway malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice insurance for a doctor can cost 200,000/year or more, more than many doc's salaries. The answer is to reform the current system, not turn it into another Government beaurocracy that will add to the tax burden on the American population. The first step is to rien in our corrupt, runaway court system by limiting lawsuits, something Bush has tried to do repeatedly, but has been filibustered by the dems.

EDIT: You get what you pay for. The US has the best cancer survival rate in the world, while the UK is one of lowest in europe. I'll pay more if I get a better chance to live.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

Also, US Hospitals are attracting Canadians due to waiting list problems in the 'ailing' canadian public healthcare system.

Source: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/162/4/547.pdf (Canadian Medical Association)

Lawsuits are a part of the free market system, it forces the doctor to provide a quality service and it gives consumers an avenue to get money back if their treatment was faulty.  However, I do agree with you that we need government regulation against unnecessary malpractice suits.

Tax burden?  How is paying less money for healthcare a burden?  Public healthcare actually saves people money. Instead of paying $5,000 a year for medical insurance or bills you can pay $2000 in taxes.  Thats $3000 extra in your pocket.

Objective analysis of American vs. British healthcare has concluded that the British healthcare system is better.

So if Rudy Guiliana said it, it's true?  Aren't you the one who always claims that Obama gets people to blindly follow his words?

Your last point is like saying that if there is a hole in the ground and I throw money in it that the hole will get smaller.  It is obviously true, but that doesn't mean there isn't a smarter way to solve the problem.  You are completely ignoring the vicegrip insurance companies have over the entire healthcare system as well.

Yes, because we all know that adding a top-heavy bearocracy into the mix magically shrinks costs. And please also note my new addition above about the QUALITY of healthcare. I'd rather not be put on a waiting list if I need to be treated for cancer. Costs are lower, because the government healthcare systems do not allow for rediculously huge malpractice lawsuits. This is what needs to be changed to start. Taking that cost off the top would very quickly lower healthcare costs.

Please read the raw data regarding cancer survival rates that I linked to. And who came to the conclusion that British healthcare is better? (that's a pretty ambiguous term anyway). In what way? Did they look at survival rates for life threatening diseases? The US leads in that catagory. I'll take that over cheap any day.

I am so sick of people making these outrageous claims without any evidence behind them:

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/5/10/3308

news release from Harvard School of Public Health:

"Boston, MA – The debate over medical malpractice litigation, which raged during the last presidential campaign, continues as a hot-button political and health care issue in the U.S. The Senate is expected to vote soon on legislation to impose a federal cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice suits, following on similar bills that passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate last year. One popular justification for tort reform is the claim that “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits—those lacking evidence of substandard care, treatment-related injury, or both—enrich plaintiffs’ attorneys and drive up health care costs. A new study by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital challenges the view that frivolous litigation is rampant and expensive.

The researchers analyzed past malpractice claims to judge the volume of meritless lawsuits and determine their outcomes. Their findings suggest that portraits of a malpractice system riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown. Although nearly one third of claims lacked clear-cut evidence of medical error, most of these suits did not receive compensation. In fact, the number of meritorious claims that did not get paid was actually larger than the group of meritless claims that were paid. The findings appear in the May 11, 2006 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Some critics have suggested that the malpractice system is inundated with groundless lawsuits, and that whether a plaintiff recovers money is like a random ‘lottery,’ virtually unrelated to whether the claim has merit,” said lead author David Studdert, associate professor of law and public health at HSPH. “These findings cast doubt on that view by showing that most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury, and that claims with merit are far more likely to be paid than claims without merit.”

The authors reviewed 1,452 closed claims from five malpractice insurance companies across the country. They focused on four clinical categories: surgery, obstetrics, medication and missed or delayed diagnosis, areas that collectively account for about 80% of all malpractice claims filed in the U.S. Specialist physicians in each of these clinical areas reviewed the claims and the associated medical records to determine whether the plaintiff had sustained an injury from care. If an injury had occurred, the physicians judged how likely it was to have been due to medical error.