If modern liberalism puts more emphasis on "positive liberties," what are the best arguments for it?

[Shodan]

@Stringbean

Those aren’t liberties, they are social welfare entitlements.

And I see liberals talk about them all the time. It doesn’t mean the majority of hard-working Americans are okay with paying more in taxes to provide such “liberties.”

But liberals don’t generally admit that the entitlements will be paid for by those who receive them - it’s “the rich” or “the 1%” or Wall Street or pharmaceutical companies who are going to foot the bill.

Or they claim it’s a free lunch. If Obama hadn’t lied about the average family’s premiums going down by $2500 a year, or that his tax wasn’t a tax, Obamacare may not have gone thru. Or just borrow and spend - “we can’t balance the budget because we are in a recession” followed immediately by “we can’t balance the budget because we just got out of a recession”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gyrate]

@Shodan

Or just borrow and spend - “we can’t balance the budget because we are in a recession” followed immediately by “we can’t balance the budget because we just got out of a recession”.

Regards,
Shodan

Just a reminder that in modern times Republican administrations have far outborrowed and outspent Democratic ones.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Gyrate

Just a reminder that in modern times Republican administrations have far outborrowed and outspent Democratic ones.

Have you ever done the analysis with Republican Congresses vs Democratic Congresses?

[Shodan]

@HurricaneDitka

Have you ever done the analysis with Republican Congresses vs Democratic Congresses?

I took the reference to “administrations” as meaning Presidents. In that sense, it is merely incorrect, given that Obama increased the national debt more than every other Republican President in history put together. (Every other President, period, but Gyrate was limiting his statement to just Republican vs. Democrat.)

It is certainly correct that Congress is much more responsible for budgets than the President, but that isn’t what I believe was being talked about.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - Usually the next step is to try to blame Obama’s stimulus package on Bush, which is misleading to the point of grotesque, or blame Bush for the fact that Obama spent the TARP repayments.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@HurricaneDitka

If Bill saw it as a net benefit to pay for Bob’s medical care, he would probably just do it, without the government or their guns needing to intervene. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the Bobs of the world see the benefit much more directly than the Bills of the world. I self-identify with Bill.

Actually, I would argue it’s the opposite. Bill-a-likes, presumably, see it as a net negative to perform a screening program for all persons worldwide to see what their health needs are, and a further investigation to see what the effects of their help will be. The reaction of a Bill to your average Bob’s medical care isn’t “I must judge carefully the net result of my actions and will pay if it benefits me”, it’s “Bob who?” The calculation does not occur.

[OldGuy]

@HurricaneDitka

If Bill saw it as a net benefit to pay for Bob’s medical care, he would probably just do it, without the government or their guns needing to intervene. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the Bobs of the world see the benefit much more directly than the Bills of the world. I self-identify with Bill.

Of course it’s more of a benefit to Bob than Bill, but then we’re not asking Bill to pay all of it either just a portion. It’s only a positive benefit to Bill if all the Bills pay a portion. We have to organize it so they all do so – that’s what governments do.

And even if it were more of a benefit to Bill than the entire cost, Bill will also see it’s a big positive benefit to John to pay for Bob so he’ll let John do it and won’t do it himself. It’s the classic free-rider problem.