Conserve and Liberal

Beyond accepting multiple national languages English is being separated into jargon and common understanding. This irritates me, because jargon is words associated to a profession. There are several words with two meanings because jargon differs from common usage. When Politicians, Psychologists, Engineers, Scientists and various people address the public they use jargon. People are using dictionaries with common usage not jargon. I do not feel anyone is necessarily wrong; however, it could be assumed professionals use jargon. No one knows what anyone is talking about anymore.

Deciding to take it upon myself to explain terms associated to political jargon, this is the first in a series to clear up misunderstandings between Politicians and U.S. Citizens.

Root of conservatism is conserve. "To keep from being damaged, lost or wasted: save."


Root of liberalism is liberal. "To give freely: generous. The literal meaning is not strict."


Moderate, is an adjective or verb. "Temper or restrain within reasonable limits to avoid excesses or extremes. It also means mild, gentle, calm."

Successful politicians are moderate or Moderators. In life, even the most conservative or liberal candidate makes concessions so anything could happen. An extreme conservative is fine with everything the way it is, while an extreme liberal wants to change everything.

Republicans are suggesting cutting programs in order to conserve government jobs. To end existing programs is liberal. It damages an existing program because government has taken on too many responsibilities and the United States has more people on the government payroll than with businesses.

Perhaps the problem began as being too liberal. Wanting to fulfill everyone's desires through making government programs became too expansive and expensive; therefore, generous spending is limited or new structures are developed so spending is regulated. Ergo, changes are design become strict, which is a conservative goal with a liberal implementation.

Phrases "conservative spending" and "liberal spending," are a part of regular news broadcasts; however, I don't think people and sometimes politicians know what it means. Planned Parenthood and Abortion Clinics are conservative and liberal cause. In a sense, since they already exist, conservative actions are to preserve associations; however, people talk around the issue, because several Republicans want to downsize clinics, which is actually liberal. The question is gibberish. Perhaps people want to preserve older values that are no longer in use, yet they are here now ergo disbanding the program is not conservative.

Conservative spending preserves existing government programs in an attempt to keep what is already here. Hopefully something will change in the future. Liberal spending is attempting to change current circumstances through new programs and altering existing programs.

I support generous spending in areas of unemployment benefits, pensions, welfare, preserving some businesses and keeping the framework of existing programs lucid. Nine percent unemployment is a serious problem. I would like it to change. People will spend their money with businesses to preserve current standards and attempt to rectify the recession. It is also possible to fund programs to help businesses, yet restrict loans.

A huge issue affecting many people is government employees are being threatened with downsizing. As a democratic system politicians want to be favorable to most people. Most are primarily concerned with changes to personal life. They want government jobs for security, regular wages and guaranteed pension. Now the government is implying their jobs are not safe. Though downsizing would preserve several government institutions, most people are not as concerned about the property as they are families and themselves.

This places pressure on everyone. Conserving the building is not really a priority. There has to be liberal spending or a plan to shift government employees to private sector jobs. Some options are to sell portions of government owned businesses ownership to nongovernment businesses or businesses under government contracts. They can also raise rates on products and services. There will be more partially government regulated jobs; however, if the bus costs too much, people will not ride it or apply for government assistance; therefore, generating nongovernment income is unlikely.

Maybe government programs should be altered to appeal to more consumers. They could spend money to market the bus and make buses user-friendly to attract regulars. USPS already raised rates on package deliveries. With more people going UPS and FedEx, United States Post Office Employees may gain referrals to UPS or FedEx. UPS and FedEx receive subsidies for hiring government employees which is less expensive than operational costs to keep USPS open.

Realistically something has to change. Whether approaching it as preserving the existing structure by making alterations or implementing new plans with an understanding it takes less time to implement necessary changes within the existing structure. I said the same thing with different words to make a statement. Are we selecting what to preserve by referencing historical data? It does not work that way. Hopefully, this will clarify political discussions or make it worse because it appears some politicians began to utilize common usages in speeches.

Related Article
Any Goal to Get Anywhere
Neo-Politics
Political Party Overview
Socially Accepted Lies