Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:12 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fundamental Differences In Conservative And Liberal Views Back to Topics
SemiSteve
Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 12:24:31 PM

It may be helpful to recognize the fundamental differences in conservative and liberal views.

We seem to be repeatedly revisiting some of the same basic concepts and spending enormous efforts trying to convince the other side why our view makes more sense.

One of them I have noticed is the treatment of the poor.

Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle.

Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities.

Do you concur?

If so, why do we need to re-argue what has already been covered? This forum is great for learning what makes the 'other side' tick; but would be better if we could move on from the same-old same-old and try to arrive at some solutions or equitable compromise suggestions to send off to our representatives.

What other subjects can you identify the views of both sides on?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 6:22:00 PM

"Be your own harshest critic. I say the same things about my own ideas."

You don't have ideas.

All you do is cut down others.

You may think you have ideas but if you don't tell anybody it is nothing but a whim.

***

I-75, you think the unhappiness in America is caused by liberals????????

Why not? You guys blame everything else bad on us.

Surprised you are not hanging this one on Obama.

Hollywood produces what sells. Movies and TV were in their infancy when I Love Lucy and Wizard Of Oz were produced. After we got tired of laugh tracks and Opey grew up it was found that shock value sells. (originated by Hitchcock)

So a few Friday the Thirteenth's and Texas Chainsaw's later we are in the gutter.

But at least some corporations are making a lot of money for their few pampered executives.

btw, There are a lot of conservatives in Hollywood.

If you don't believe me just ask yourself.

Did I fire 5 or 6 shots?

I really can't remember.

So just go ahead.

Make my day.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,207
Points:3,211,260
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 12:49:00 PM

This next piece of commentary is about the newly adult generation, and its seemingly dark outlook on life, and life in America.

It hit me like a ton of bricks. The left has worked so hard to make us miserable, and has succeeded.

"I was watching a movie not long ago, a dated fifties musical short on Turner Classic Movies. It was bursting with life. The kids in the room wanted me to put on something gory, negative, dark, and I said, no, no, watch this, this is great stuff – this is America. And one of the teens replied, no it’s not, that’s from when America was happy. And that struck me. It hit me like a ton of bricks. The left has worked so hard to make us miserable, and has succeeded."

"If you had to boil the culture down to its essential oils, it would be last Sunday’s Oscars – oh, how that once mighty American art genre has fallen.
American traitor Edward Snowden got an Oscar; American hero Chris Kyle got the middle finger. Even the traitorous far-left journalist Glenn Greenwald got an Oscars shout-out. Of course Hollywood would reward vicious traitors. There was no way the Hollywood establishment was going to give an Oscar to Clint Eastwood after he so delightfully skewered Obama’s empty chair. And their disdain for Americanism and the military is infused in everything they churn out."

Strong stuff. Anyone here dare to refute what is openly apparent to some?
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,891
Points:1,619,535
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 9:04:37 AM

There is a difference in allot of people working on a solution then having their solution rammed down our throats
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,173
Points:3,582,695
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 12:00:15 AM

SemiSteve, our resident and self-proclaimed idea man said: "AC-302, No huge idea is entirely envisioned in every detail from the start."

--Didn't say that either. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will your poor-farm idea. But my point is that if some guy sitting in his shorts typing on a laptop can come up with these VERY OBVIOUS questions, then that's a problem for your idea. All I'm saying is don't come up with fool "polyana" ideas, then tout how they're going to solve the nation's problems.. then get PO'd when others say to you: "Well, have you thought about..X...?"

Be your own harshest critic. I say the same things about my own ideas. If I see the obvious holes, I point them out. And more than once I've said: "I haven't got a solution" or "I don't know what the right answer is.." There's nothing wrong with saying you don't know, when you don't, and I'd encourage everyone to do it more often than trying to BS one's way through.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,207
Points:3,211,260
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 12:38:35 PM

Popcorn, while your modern story is highly accurate and very entertaining, you must be flailed for giving spiders a bad name!

This next article is about the Republican candidate for 2016 race, but it has a large measure of measurement of the conservative movement today.
Sorry if it seems one-sided. I will quote the choice passages.

America's Future Depends upon Which Republican Wins

"But there’s tension in the Republican alliance, primarily because being pro-business and pro-free markets are not the same thing.
Many Republicans -- establishment, big-government Republicans -- view the interests of America’s biggest businesses as America’s interest..."

"Most noticeably, since 2009, at least, the establishment side of the GOP coalition -- the pro-business, big government side -- has butted heads with free market, limited-government conservatives."

"...a significant part of the GOP is very comfortable with current spending practices, debt accumulation, pork and market-distorting preferential regulations, cronyism, farm and other subsidies, tax loopholes and federal “insurance” such as “too big to fail.”"

"Conservatives understand how the government distorts free markets at taxpayer expense and want to stimulate economic growth by cleaning up America’s fiscal, tax and regulatory messes."

"U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has correctly observed: "Americans intuitively understand that crony capitalism is not a form of private enterprise, it's a form of public corruption."

"Because the economy has been anemic and middle-class income is suffering, the party and the nation have reached inflection points."

"Today, pro-business and pro-market Republicans disagree, not just on tax, regulatory and spending reform, but on immigration and income gaps."

Conservatives are not in charge of the Republican Party today, despite what you may read and hear (around this forum). If a true conservative can manage to get the Republican nomination, it would be an uphill battle for that person to get elected President, and an ongoing battle with Congress and the Bureaucracy to effect any real changes.
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,891
Points:1,619,535
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 9:48:06 AM

Steve
Most topics you are very Liberal on but this topic of the poor. You are SPOT ON.
Some do not deserve help
It is the old story of the Ant & the Grasshopper
ORIGINAL VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

************************************************************
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned , is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 8:16:48 AM


"Steve, to help the poor and needy is a noble and worthy cause. But not all poor and needy deserve our assistance."

Finally the point is being understood, Steve wants to help those that need it and devise a plan to stop the multigenerational recipients from being just that.

Who do dose it start with all that are being helped right now.

Just because two people come from a different political spectrum dose not mean they disagree on an end result.

[Edited by: streetrider at 2/25/2015 8:17:37 AM EST]
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:7,133
Points:1,879,080
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 8:00:37 AM

Steve, to help the poor and needy is a noble and worthy cause. But not all poor and needy deserve our assistance.

Some are interested in getting everything they can without working for it nor earning it - they want it handed to them. They are fully capable of earning more than they have but they have chosen not to.

And there are others that are just too dumb to help. They consistently have made bad life decisions (skipping school instead of going to school, hanging with their buds drinking alcohol and doing illegal drugs instead of getting and working a job) and now are incapable of being anything more than an anchor to society.

If you want bi-partisan support, then you need to identify those that are worth helping because many of the poor do not deserve it.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 8:58:38 AM

The ones who don't have all those things and the taxpayers who are supporting them and are indirectly paying for some of those things by bankrolling the government assistance which makes them possible.
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:7,133
Points:1,879,080
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 8:17:57 AM

Steve, if Cirdan's post is correct, who are you trying to help?
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,682
Points:142,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2015 11:48:45 PM

Kind of depends on how you define "poverty." Found an article written by a self-described Columbia educated liberal Democratic, New Yorker, and Jew:

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey for 2005 (the last year I could find in detail — but it doesn’t matter what year, because those who say that poverty causes crime have said it for a hundred years and continue to say it), among all poor households:

Over 99 percent have a refrigerator, television, and stove or oven. Eighty-one percent have a microwave; 75 percent have air conditioning; 67 percent have a second TV; 64 percent have a clothes washer; 38 percent have a personal computer.

As for homelessness, one-half of 1 percent living under the poverty line have lost their homes and live in shelters.

Seventy-five percent of the poor have a car or truck. Only 10 percent live in mobile homes or trailers, half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments. Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home, the average of which is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

According to a recent Census Bureau report, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones."

Original article

[Edited by: Cirdan at 2/23/2015 11:51:12 PM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2015 3:49:07 PM

AC-302, No huge idea is entirely envisioned in every detail from the start. We didn't begin with the modern cars we have today. We began with a chassis, an engine, a seat and a way to steer. As these contraptions were tried out, innovations improved them.

And so it could be with my idea.

It is unclear to me what you mean by 'put it out there'.

Would that mean communicating the idea here in a discussion forum where it might get brainstormed and improved a bit or would that mean going directly to a representative and pushing for government to jump in pronto?

I have done the former but not the latter.

So I have an idea on how to address poverty. I brought it to a group of people who like to discuss politics. (but sadly some of them only want to argue rather than actually try to solve problems) It helps me to hear impressions of it and possible ideas for improvement. That way the idea can be molded into something that has already taken some possible problems into account.

Then maybe it will be ready to 'put out there' for serious consideration by the powers that be.

OK, so how would the safety of women and children be assured?

How about seperate dorm areas?

"... what is the incentive for someone to move on?" [and out of the facility]

Well, first of all, any private rooms would be small. Those who have qualified for a private room would probably be working outside jobs and paying rent to the facility. They would also be required to do chores at the facility. There would be no private bathrooms. Residents would not find this to be an idyllic life. Also, they would be pressured to keep moving up the economic ladder, the goal being to earn enough so that they could afford their own place. Moving out of the facility and into their own place would get them more space, private bathrooms, fewer rules, etc.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2015 12:52:26 AM

AC-302 - "--But again, how do you guarantee their safety, or the safety of women and children from those who would do them harm?"

Can anyone do that now?
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,173
Points:3,582,695
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 6:21:12 PM

Streetrider - I agree that it needs to be privatized. I think it's the only way to get efficiency into the system.

SemiSteve said: "They start out sleeping on a cot in a large nonprivate room with lots of cots. As they pitch in on facility maintenance, cleaning and cooking chores they have a chance to work their way up to a shared and eventually a private room."

--But again, how do you guarantee their safety, or the safety of women and children from those who would do them harm? You have some big ideas, and i applaud that. But you must not leave it to others to pick holes in them. You should look for the holes in your own ideas, and figure out how to plug them, or at least acknowledge that you don't have that solution BEFORE you put something like that out there.

Again, if you have your collective, then what is the incentive for someone to move on? Here, now, what if 2 unmarried residents have relations, and the girl gets pregnant? Then what? Is the kid taken away from them?

There's lots of things to think about in this circumstance. In many ways, your idea, in this iteration, sounds a little like an Israeli kibbutz, but one where the government "owns" it, not the people. Key difference in the meaning of success.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 10:53:32 AM

Steve

We kind of think alike on this. Many tax payers are totally fed up with multi generational welfare. It will continue to grow unless we change.

We both believe there are people that need help, others need shown the way.

I think the only way to change the current system is to privitise it.

This way you get lobbyist fighting to get it done.

However, I do disagree with your method if motivating to better private accommodations they need to be private from the start.

If I had my way we would keep two systems going, all those that fall into multigenerational welfare folks would be the first to be given a chance, (made to), optional to the homeless to go live in the new self sufficient community.

Without getting into details about housing etc. They would be involved in building the buildings.

Yes all would participate in working learning skills, schooling and work ethics, learn right from wrong etc.

They would end up being a self sufficient community.

Instead of paying people to sit around creating trouble and more welfare babies.

Are there not many self sufficient communities within in our country now?

They don't rely on outside help. I can think of one close by here, the Amish.

Some will eventually leave with skills and a work ethic.

Our cost is to get them to the point of self reliance.

Which can be much cheaper than what we are giving out now.

There is a need to help establish these type of communities otherwise our burden continues to increase.

Just my two cents





[Edited by: streetrider at 2/21/2015 10:59:37 AM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 9:04:59 AM

Picture this. The dole is phased out as these facilities are being built. Eventually the dole is essentially cut off with the exception of those who are truly physically or mentally incapable of work.

Now slackers have a choice. They can become street people; or try to fit in at one of the centers, something that has to be earned. They start out sleeping on a cot in a large nonprivate room with lots of cots. As they pitch in on facility maintenance, cleaning and cooking chores they have a chance to work their way up to a shared and eventually a private room.

If they don't work hard they don't move up.

Typically the ones with the private rooms also have outside jobs, are paying some rent to the facility, and have the fewest chores.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/21/2015 9:12:36 AM EST]
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,804
Points:3,944,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 9:04:31 AM

Does your political view point determine the vehicle you buy?

Compare this map to a red/blue state map.
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,804
Points:3,944,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 8:53:04 AM

"And at some point, you can expect lawsuits about discrimination (age, race, sex, etc.)."

Farming is one of the ten most dangerous occupations in the US. It has a fatality rate of 20.2 per 100,000 workers (source: cdc.gov).
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:7,133
Points:1,879,080
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2015 8:32:22 AM

Steve, I did not say that they refused to work - they are working but barely. And when you insist that they work harder, they claim you are expecting too much, you are being unfair and unreasonable.

And at some point, you can expect lawsuits about discrimination (age, race, sex, etc.). All of this while they are at your pseudo-business/community and being supported by taxpayers.

Your idea is good in an ideal world but we do not live in that world. In this world, many of these people work hard at doing nothing and contributing nothing and will continue to do so. And your vision will not change this.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 6:45:25 PM

It would only have farming as one of the choices of work if it was rural or on a large enough property to do that.

Residents who refuse to work are thrown out.

The taxpayers support the facilities.

Taxes could be reduced because the dole would be ended; and all the money currently going into the dole would saved, leaving plenty to run the facilities and have savings left over to reduce the deficit, the debt, and eventually taxes.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/20/2015 6:46:49 PM EST]
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:7,133
Points:1,879,080
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 6:20:45 PM

rj,

1) What happens when the residents of the poor farm, or whatever other pseudo-business/community you are creating, do what they are doing now - relying on others to do the work resulting in the necessary work not getting done?

2) Who supports them until they become profitable? Also, (my follow-up question) why should they become profitable since they already are receiving support?

3) Who is putting up the capital for this pseudo-business/community? Also, (again my follow-up question) is there return on investment to the original backers of this pseudo-business/community?

How is that for starters?

Just because I haven't been posting does not mean I haven't been following alone (SemiSteve likes to think of himself as a moderate but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out he is a liberal in a tax-n-spend some-more disguise.
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,804
Points:3,944,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 5:33:21 PM

Cons eat libs for breakfast {:>)
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 4:19:42 PM

BigJake - "AC's questions do need to be addressed. What does happen in those cases."

What cases?

Please be sure that you know what the original proposal was before answering.
BigJake
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:7,133
Points:1,879,080
Joined:Jul 2001
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 1:00:57 PM

AC's questions do need to be addressed. What does happen in those cases.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 12:39:10 PM

AC-302 - "--You picked a solution that ends up as a socialist collective. OK. let's say we do set up a "poor farm"."

That, and the rest of your post, shows that you didn't even read Steve's idea. You just fixated on the word "farm" and built your own delusion off of that.
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,173
Points:3,582,695
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 11:23:49 PM

SemiSteve said; "The thing that baffles me, rjhenn, is that when I switched my view on the form that government assistance should take a few years ago I expected to see a lot of support from conservatives for ending the dole."

--You picked a solution that ends up as a socialist collective. OK. let's say we do set up a "poor farm". 1) If the residents refuse to actually work and can't raise any food, and don't really give a rip, then what? Are you willing to let them starve, or would you then give them food?

2) If it takes a year to reap a crop, then what? Are you going to support them for that amount of time?

3) What about the modern farming tools? Are you going to expend, say $450K on a new combine for them, and another $100K for a tractor? Or are you expecting them to basically have small gardens and do all work by hand?

4) How are you going to guarantee the safety of women and children on the farm?

5) How are you going to prevent people from growing "weed" or even opium? (coca won't grow in most places in the US, so not a problem there)

There are a lot of other problems with your poor farm idea.

However, I'm more in favor of some kind of job retraining for those who need it. This might come with some support as well. After this, they must go into the service, or get a skill that leads to a job - then get a job. If we cut off welfare after 2 years, then that will force people to go look for work - which ought to be the end game. (getting people to stop laying about on the dole, and getting them and their offspring to be productive, constructive, tax paying citizens)
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,910
Points:142,830
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:38:27 PM

" But with or without my plan they still are afraid to come out and say 'cut 'em all off!' "

Um, why would anybody propose to just cut em all off? Why are you demanding we come out and say this?

The conservative position on this issue is crystal clear -- regardless of what you claim.

A safety net is not unreasonable not is ANYBODY against it. Nobody proposes eliminating it. However, what we have today is a fishing expedition -- bait and switch -- vote this way and get something (entitlement bribery).

Vote your check, vote Democrat, and vote often.

Agreed. teach a man to fish -- but we disagree what you consider teaching (or fishing for that matter)

SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:10:36 PM

The thing that baffles me, rjhenn, is that when I switched my view on the form that government assistance should take a few years ago I expected to see a lot of support from conservatives for ending the dole.

Surprisingly that is not the case.

Despite how much they rail against it when asked point blank if it should be abolished they quickly change the subject and avoid answering.

I have proposed many times what I feel might be a better and more effective approach to ending poverty but get few takers. My plan is based on 'teaching a man to fish' instead of 'giving him a fish' but when it comes right down to it most conservatives are quite reluctant to support a plan which attempts to do exactly that.

But with or without my plan they still are afraid to come out and say 'cut 'em all off!'

Perplexing. Do they want to support the needy or not?

I am getting the idea that they just really don't care what happens to people and simply prefer to believe that 'the market will eventually correct this' or 'it will all work out if we just get government out of the way'.

At which point I tend to point at places where there is little or no government involvement in the situation (like Somalia) and what really happens when there is not enough government oversight is that thugs rule.

And that seems to be the essence of conservative thought. 'Let the strong prevail and the rest be fodder for them.'

Which is, of course, the epitome of Koch brothers' philosophy.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/19/2015 12:12:58 PM EST]
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 11:20:30 AM

Cirdan - "Biased, simplistic, and wrong."

So, just like many of posts from self-described conservatives?

"There's a difference between a hand up and a hand out. Liberals simply refuse to believe that if the Government hands out money people will line up to take it, whether they need it or not."

The problem with that evaluation is that too many conservatives seem to be against a hand up as well as a hand out. It should be every man for himself; greed is good; worship the rich, for they are the source of all that is good.

The fact that a healthy economy depends on the wealth being spread out (meaning well-paid workers, not the typical conservative myth of "the Government hands out money") escapes them completely.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 7:06:30 AM

Does that mean you would favor ending the dole, Cirdan?
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,682
Points:142,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:50:16 AM

Biased, simplistic, and wrong.

There's a difference between a hand up and a hand out. Liberals simply refuse to believe that if the Government hands out money people will line up to take it, whether they need it or not.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:41:43 PM

Liberals feel that the system produces poverty because:

1. The rich have squeezed the job market so that too few jobs are available and they don't pay enough.

2. Racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination.

3. The schools are bad.

4. Poor neighborhoods are plagued with gangs, drugs and violence.

5. Non-nutritious foods in poor areas. Food deserts make it hard to learn and excel.

6. Money pressures and food stamp requirements force parents to be seperate and kids to be raised by singles, often placed in day-care or in front of a TV instead of having quality time with parents.

Conservatives feel that the poor are just lazy; and don't want to work. Or they just make bad choices. Or they don't want to do what it takes to get a good job. Coming from a rough neighborhood is no excuse for getting into trouble and having a criminal record (which precludes advancement.) The poor simply make bad choices early in life which haunt them forever (such as not striving in school, getting sucked into gangs, or getting pregnant, or simply not realizing that they should leave poor areas and set out on their own, clean themselves up and knock on doors until they find good work.)

Or perhaps they don't manage meager assets well, don't save, or overspend on niceties, go into debt for frills, all of which ensure they will never build wealth and are always one job loss away from financial ruin.

Liberals think the government can help reduce poverty; conservatives think there is nothing which can be done; and if the government tries to help it only makes the problem worse.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:17:00 PM

I'll try to sum up the differences on food stamps:

Conservatives feel there should be no or little dole; and that the impoverished have nobody to blame for their condition but themselves. The government can help out by reducing taxes so that businesses will be more profitable, so they can hire more, thus offering more employment for those who are currently under or unemployed.

Liberals support a system of government assistance for those in need; are willing to accept that some will game the system, and feel that the government should spend more on education because education lifts people out of poverty. They also support raising the minimum wage; which will be an instant boost to the economy, create more demand and thus create more jobs. They also support raising taxes on the wealthy to offset increased education costs.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 4:02:39 PM

mudtoe - "Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to this post.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be shared immediately to other true believers and to just piss off more liberals...

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self. I'm going to have another beer."

I believe you posted this before.

And it's only worth a light laugh and a thought that maybe you've already had one beer too many.
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,807
Points:2,045,345
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 2:07:57 PM

I think this sums up things nicely:


Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer.... and the invention of the wheel.

Beer required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

The wheel was invented to get man to the beer.

These two were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: 1. Liberals. 2. Conservatives.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men evolved into women. Others became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.

Modern Liberals like lite beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard Liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: many Liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most college professors, social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, film makers in Hollywood, group therapists and community organizers are Liberals. Liberals meddled in our national pastime and invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink real beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when Conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to this post.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be shared immediately to other true believers and to just piss off more liberals...

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self. I'm going to have another beer.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 2:00:56 PM

SoylentGrain - "Sorry, I don't buy into the evil bank propaganda."

Did I say anything about "evil" banks?

"The incentive is not to go into debt."

How is that an incentive if they're going to have to go into debt no matter what, but it will all go away when they die?

"Both revenue and expense."

???
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 10:02:26 AM

"When just a few percent of the population pays the majority of the tax, that's a real good incentive not to work. "

Absurd. Do you really believe top earners are going to give up fantastic incomes, wealth and luxury because they have to pay the highest tax rates? And then what? Go on the dole?

Seriously?

What a laugh.

If they do there will be a long line to fill the vacated opening.

Those are the kinds of problems most would love to have.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 9:50:25 AM

That's the goal SG. But the problem would occur in the interim. So the way to do it is a gradual transistion.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,551
Points:27,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 9:22:12 AM

"IOW, you're proposing more business for banks."

Sorry, I don't buy into the evil bank propaganda.

"Since they've got nothing, and wouldn't have anything for an estate to be taken by the government in repayment, where's there any actual incentive?"

The incentive is not to go into debt.

"You're going to replace the spending side with the collection side?!?!?!"

Both revenue and expense.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 2:22:23 AM

SoylentGrain - "Banks already manage hundreds of millions of credit cards. The US government doesn't and if they entered into the business, it would be costly, inefficient, and open to corruption. This way the US treasury simply writes a few checks a month to individual banks."

IOW, you're proposing more business for banks.

"When just a few percent of the population pays the majority of the tax, that's a real good incentive not to work. If all individuals pay some tax and are, furthermore, accountable for the government services they use, most would think twice about taking other peoples' money. The result: government spending decreases, a lot."

Since they've got nothing, and wouldn't have anything for an estate to be taken by the government in repayment, where's there any actual incentive?

And you completely missed what I was saying. You said "Replace that [every bureaucracy that writes subsidy and welfare checks] with a single federal sales tax." You're going to replace the spending side with the collection side?!?!?!

Like I said, I can see consolidating all the subsidy and welfare program into one, and disbursing the funds through a government-issued bank card makes a lot of sense. Consolidate the programs and you'll make it easier to detect fraud, for one thing, and eliminate a lot of duplication of effort.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,551
Points:27,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 8:05:03 PM

"If we cut off the recipients then we also cut off the ones they pay rent to."

Thought you said your plan would employ people. If that's the case they would have money to pay rent.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 5:21:39 PM

There is a problem with my idea which nobody has noted.

What happens to all the places these people on the dole pay rent to?

Lots of apartments and small houses are going to go vacant if people can not afford them.

Right now the dole keeps lots of slum lords in business.

If we cut off the recipients then we also cut off the ones they pay rent to.

Hmmm.

Don't know what to do about that.

Any ideas?

(besides: Oh, just continue the dole...)
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,551
Points:27,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 9:13:21 AM

"And if the IRS is funding the accounts, then it isn't the bank you need to pay back. The bank would just be an intermediary that would also have to be paid for its services, thus adding overhead. "

Banks already manage hundreds of millions of credit cards. The US government doesn't and if they entered into the business, it would be costly, inefficient, and open to corruption. This way the US treasury simply writes a few checks a month to individual banks.

"But I don't see a lot of consistency in your proposal. "Replace [every bureaucracy that writes subsidy and welfare checks] with a single federal sales tax."??? Not even the same side of the equation."

When just a few percent of the population pays the majority of the tax, that's a real good incentive not to work. If all individuals pay some tax and are, furthermore, accountable for the government services they use, most would think twice about taking other peoples' money. The result: government spending decreases, a lot.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 2:02:22 AM

I'm certainly in favor of combining all welfare and assistance programs into one single program.

But I don't see a lot of consistency in your proposal. "Replace [every bureaucracy that writes subsidy and welfare checks] with a single federal sales tax."??? Not even the same side of the equation.

And if the IRS is funding the accounts, then it isn't the bank you need to pay back. The bank would just be an intermediary that would also have to be paid for its services, thus adding overhead.
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,551
Points:27,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2015 9:05:59 AM

A couple of the things in you plan I like, semisteve. However, its still another government bureaucracy that would go gargantuan. If the IRS, USDA, and a couple other government "organizations" would be eliminated, maybe.

I like getting government out of the picture altogether. Eliminate every bureaucracy that writes subsidy and welfare checks. Replace that with a single federal sales tax. Turn welfare over to banks and the IRS. Issue every citizen a bank card that can be used for limited assistance. The IRS funds the account through a bank.

The catch is you have to pay the money back with interest. When you work, a maximum of 10% comes out to pay back the bank. If you have a balance when you die, the federal government is first in line for your estate. (that one is going to encourage the kids to take care of mom, dad, and the grandparents.)

Yes, just like now, there would be people who would live on the system for life. But, my simple plan has two components current welfare doesn't have: accountability and minimal government involvement.

SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2015 10:46:30 AM

Soylent: "I understand what you want to accomplish. However, the means is similar to what has produced no results in the past. There is a downside to concentrating a large number of people who have established a pattern of behavior that produces no results. A better solution is to place an individual with only people who have succeeded. i.e.; a a real work environment."

I see my proposal as a means to that end.

Consider this scenario: A young single mother of two had some training in a trade but made a poor choice of men. As a couple they made ends meet with both paychecks. But he wasn't serious and it didn't work out. Now, she is faced with a cash flow problem. She can't earn enough to pay for a place on her own, and child care, so she can work. So she is on the dole and her life becomes taking care of the kids herself. Her kids grow up learning that all one has to do is have kids and then get free checks. No need to work.

But then life changes. SemiSteve's plan is enacted. The dole vanishes; and is replaced by a facility where this mom and her two kids can go to get food and shelter. They can no longer afford their apartment so they move to the facility and get their own small bedroom. Life is very different there. The kids are part of a group which is supervised by other moms during the day at the facility. This childcare service is free for mom. This allows mom to go back to work at her trade. She has to pay a small rent to the facility for her room, but not so much that it takes all her money. She is able to save a little. She also has to do some chores around the facility. And she does childcare one day a week for other moms.

She meets a guy from the men's part of at the facility who is good with her kids. He never finished school and is attending classes to get his GED. While there he also met a guy who had worked as a welder before he got into trouble and messed his life up. The facility has some donated welding equipment and takes on some small piecemeal local welding jobs. The experienced guy teaches the other the trade. The young guy uses the facility's networking program to find a part time outside job as a welder's helper.

The young couple are now both pulling in small paychecks which they pay part of to the facility and are also able to save a bit. Eventually they are able to afford a security deposit on an apartment and work out a budget, with the help of facility services, so they can move out of the facility and establish a life on their own. They both work and the kids are dropped off each day at the facility for continued free daycare. He also attends welding school to get certified.

She moves up in her job and gets more hours. He gets his certification and finds a better job. The couple is now able to pay for childcare and no longer qualifies for assistance from the facility. They are able to make ends meet together and save a little more. They are over the hump.

It is a happy ending. They have successfully transitioned back into productive society. The kids grow up learning that work is the only way to have a happy life on their own.

The cycle of cross-generational government dependence is broken.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/12/2015 10:47:30 AM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2015 7:58:06 AM

Really fixated on the farm thing, eh?

You know? I really didn't envision big ag jobs as the solution to welfare. More of a self-worth exercise in which the dejected could build confidence in a community garden situation and get some wholesome organic food to detox their minds a bit while they find their place in society.

But if you think they are better off on the dole and junk food you apparently have a lot of company.

It just baffles me if that approach is working so well why so many complain about it.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2015 11:56:15 PM

AC-302 - "--Steve - may I ask just exactly how many jobs in agriculture are available now? Sure, ~200 years ago, fully 90% of Americans were involved in agricultural pursuits. Now it's well under 10%, and probably less than 5%. So you're putting people on an agricultural collective, and teaching them skills that they cannot use to get a meaningful job that can be used to support themselves."

Apparently all you read was the first paragraph of Steve's post.

"In this case, you're fostering DEPENDENCE on a social collective. Hmmm...sounds like Marxism to me, ne pas? Anyone else here see this as a socialist solution, and not a good one at that?"

Yep, that certainly looks like what Steve said.

NOT in the least.
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,173
Points:3,582,695
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2015 10:09:25 AM

SemiSteve said: "Working the land on a farm. What a horrible thing to learn. Instead of learning that one does not have to work at all and they will be given free checks."

--Steve - may I ask just exactly how many jobs in agriculture are available now? Sure, ~200 years ago, fully 90% of Americans were involved in agricultural pursuits. Now it's well under 10%, and probably less than 5%. So you're putting people on an agricultural collective, and teaching them skills that they cannot use to get a meaningful job that can be used to support themselves.

In this case, you're fostering DEPENDENCE on a social collective. Hmmm...sounds like Marxism to me, ne pas? Anyone else here see this as a socialist solution, and not a good one at that?
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,551
Points:27,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2015 9:07:38 AM

"And that agricultural work would be just one of many options which could be chosen."

The farming; are you talking about turning the unskilled, unemployed loose with a million dollars worth of ag equipment or teaching 4th century gardening techniques? The world is advancing. It would be cruel to prepare people with skills no longer demanded by consumers. Government does a very poor job of determining what people need.

"And you think sitting home on the dole is a better idea."

No/Maybe. I understand what you want to accomplish. However, the means is similar to what has produced no results in the past. There is a downside to concentrating a large number of people who have established a pattern of behavior that produces no results. A better solution is to place an individual with only people who have succeeded. i.e.; a a real work environment.

It's analogous to the one room school vs the classroom of today. In the one room school a teacher had 20 students of varying age and skill level. The younger students learned from the teacher as well as the older more experienced students. It was a simple model and effective in allowing individuals to excel. The modern system is an efficient use of resources, but, for the most part, teaches students at a low common denominator.

Your idea is noble, but it might be better to get people out of the environment where there is a failing pattern of behavior and place these folks with only people who have figured it out, so to speak. That's a real job. It's a tough issue.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,349
Points:469,725
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2015 7:46:29 AM

Working the land on a farm. What a horrible thing to learn. Instead of learning that one does not have to work at all and they will be given free checks.

And that agricultural work would be just one of many options which could be chosen. Cooking, (being a chef), childcare, painting, appliance repair, auto detailing, light mechanics, barbering, etc, etc, etc. Any trade you can think of. Many who come to the centers will bring skills they can share. The possibilities are limited only by imagination.

And you think sitting home on the dole is a better idea.

And I laugh at the silly thought that taking away the dole is a leftist idea.

Or that anybody would be required to be a part of this.

All they have to do is go out and find a job.

If it doesn't pay enough they can live at the center and get reduced duties. Or none if they earn enough to pay a minimal rent.
Post a reply Back to Topics