Actually, both recognize the state as the best provider and problem solver. A totalitarian state is an ideal society where the masses are provided for with equal distribution of material wealth and needs for sustenance. America has been developing in this direction for a complete generation, and leaders like Obama and Hillary will help complete our transition to this truely progressive state.

Splitting "hairs" over definitions means nothing. Reaching our goal is the only thing that matters. Change is here.

Not really. Statism eventually brings about an opposite response. A government will come in and privatize a whole bunch of things.

Yet, the market has frequently failed for infastructure. Rural ares generally have delayed development because private companies at one time didn't find it profitable, or didn't have the required capital, to build transmission lines to their area. Same with roads, same with railways. The market has consistantly failed in history, requiring state involvement. The government can build almost anything becuase of its huge amount of money, it should take advantage of this to serve the economic interests of the country where the private firms have failed to do so.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

Yea, that's what I was trying to imply there when asked why they haven't changed it.

Of course they would never claim it but they certainly aren't changing it are they?

Fair enough. You're free to try and find any evidence that indicates Liberals give more. In my personal experience a Liberal will be much more likely to go to protest something or to a rally for change or whatever.

But when it comes to actually giving their own change it's a different story.

Though I wonder if Libertarians give at all?

In the american case, and with few exceptions, the progression has been toward more statism. This is because each new increase in state power creates a new constituency to maintain it. Examples: payroll deduction of taxes was started as a temporary WWII measure, and never left. Ronald Reagan promised to disolve the Department of Education, and never did.

I will post in a separate thread my rebuttal of the statist "infrastructure" argument.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Interesting. In Canada, our income tax (4% back then) was implemented during World War I as a temporary measure. It still exists and is now insanely high. Also, when the Canadian Liberals inherited a huge deficit in 1993, they implemented a national sales tax as a temporary measure. We have had a surplus every year since and the national sales tax is still there, although the Conservatives have lowered it from 7% to 5% with substantial resistance.

Its very tempting for government, after implementing a tax for a perfectly justifiable reason (like winning a war or reducing debt) to just start spending it later on on programs to buy votes. This is probably why after World War Two, government in every country grew 5-10 times in size.

I agree that the progression has been towards statism, but conservatives, with their farm subsidies and defense subsidies, are almost as guilty as liberals at keeping it going.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill