Conservatives on this site?

[mcanadiens]

Rats @mdl. I now truly realize that I'm on the bullet train to hell.

 

 

[acerimusdux]

The non-negotiable aspects of my ideology are that individual freedoms, competition, and private property are paramount and most political issues can be viewed through that prism.

The word for that philosophy used to be "liberalism". 

This is one reason I like that Bernie Sanders calls himself a "socialist". If the socialists can start actually calling themselves "socialist" (or at least "progressive"), then maybe the word "liberal" could be reclaimed by actual liberals. 

 

Edited October 29, 2015 by acerimusdux

[turtleback]

 

 

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 – For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”

Matthew 19:21 – You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 19:24 – And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 14:13 – If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Acts 2:44-45 – And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Sounds like an Ayn Rand disciple for sure...

And there is the problem.  None of these include that all important element of communism, coercion.  Communism without coercion is on a par with the elusive zebra striped unicorn.

And I already addressed the Acts verses - and the economic disaster it brought down on the Jerusalem church.

[Lihu]

The word for that philosophy used to be "liberalism". 

This is one reason I like that Bernie Sanders calls himself a "socialist". If the socialists can start actually calling themselves "socialist" (or at least "progressive"), then maybe the word "liberal" could be reclaimed by actual liberals. 

Interesting. Classical Liberalism.

[boogielicious]

And there is the problem.  None of these include that all important element of communism, coercion.  Communism without coercion is on a par with the elusive zebra striped unicorn.

And I already addressed the Acts verses - and the economic disaster it brought down on the Jerusalem church.

! 

Here's one! Although it looks a bit like a burro the more I look at it.

[Lihu]

! 

Here's one! Although it looks a bit like a burro the more I look at it.

Looks more like a rainbow striped Unicorn, and it does look kind of like a burro.

[acerimusdux]

Interesting. Classical Liberalism.

Yes, though Classical Liberalism takes that to an extreme, similar to what is called Libertarianism today. I would consider myself more a Social Liberal. But for social liberalism, the argument was that some government spending on things like basic health, education, and a minimal safety net could be justified, because these things can help enhance individual liberty and equality of opportunity.  But to me, I don't think you should be called a "liberal" unless you want to at least keep this kind of spending (and overall government spending) to a reasonable level in order to keep taxes low.

To me, I think that with a philosophy that falls somewhere between Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, I ought to be able to say that I think Rand Paul is "too liberal" and Bernie Sanders is "too socialist".  But that's not the way most people use the word in the U.S.

Edited October 31, 2015 by acerimusdux

[boogielicious]

Conservatives have made the word "liberal" a dirty word. Liberals have made "conservative" a dirty word. It's sad because the basic definitions are honorable. The basic intentions of more liberal and conservative minded people are also honorable. But we've let extreme views cloud the intentions. This has blocked any collective work towards a common goal. 

[RandallT]

Conservatives have made the word "liberal" a dirty word. Liberals have made "conservative" a dirty word. It's sad because the basic definitions are honorable. The basic intentions of more liberal and conservative minded people are also honorable. But we've let extreme views cloud the intentions. This has blocked any collective work towards a common goal. 

Exactly. I just wish people would compromise and do the things the way I want to do them.

Edited October 31, 2015 by RandallT
added smiley so people would know i'm joking

[JonMA1]

May be a bit off topic....

I once heard the opinion that moderate or undecided voters are less intelligent than the average American. I don't agree (but then again, I'm a dumb-a$$ moderate...drrrrr!). I tend to believe that anyone who buys into a certain philosophy 100% without thinking for themselves is bit more gullible and/or a bit more closed-minded.

And we're all guilty of believing "news" which supports our beliefs and dismissing that which doesn't.

While I usually vote republican (I know, not the same as conservative), I believe balance is needed in our three branches of government. There are whack-a-do's in each party (not mentioning any names, but the initials Donald Trump come to mind). I'd hate to see either side have the Presidency, the super-majority in Congress and also the Courts to back up bad decisions.

Gridlock isn't as bad as everyone thinks, IMO. 

[saevel25]

May be a bit off topic....

I once heard the opinion that moderate or undecided voters are less intelligent than the average American. 

You mean logical and sensible people are less intelligent ;) 

Gridlock isn't as bad as everyone thinks, IMO. 

Absolutely. Guess what, the country has done pretty well on it's own with congress being MIA for a while. Honestly the country does well when things are not shifting around all the time. Businesses can settle down and figure out how to make a buck in the system we have. 

Also passing laws was meant to take a long time. Its suppose to be a long process of discussion and formulating compromises. 

I just think all the smart people have shied away from being in politics because they are not idiots. 

[Mr. Desmond]

The stock market and business prefer certainty. Although when major companies emigrate to Ireland to escape our corp tax rates, maybe we ought to pass a few laws and reform the tax system. The GOP is in control. Where is the legislation? (It is a rhetorical question). I believe in all parties working with one another, respecting the other, listening and making accommodation to go forward.

I am a conservative when it comes to advocating business and decreasing governmental bureaucracy that gets in its way; a moderate when it comes to gentle regulation to prevent capitalism's abuses. On social issues, I think the government should have legislation so all are treated fairly and equally (not always the same thing), and on certain social issues, do not legislate, but educate.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[mdl]

On 10/29/2015, 9:08:53, 14ledo81 said:

I also think that those who see people taking advantage of government welfare systems become resentful.  Those who do not see it, many times, do not realize it is a problem.

I don't understand this belief of (even reasonable, like yourself) conservative leaning Americans.  Do you know how welfare works in this country?  In California, with one of the most generous welfare programs, the max benefit is $516/month, with a lifetime max of 4 years of benefits and tons of rules about things you need to do to maintain benefits, things like looking for work, getting training, or getting treatment for drug/alcohol or mental health problems.  The benefits are leveled down until you receive no more benefits once you earn ~$1200/month (I'm not 100% sure I remember that number correctly, but it's very close to that). I'd venture to say that's it's nigh near impossible to "take advantage" of a system that can net you a max of $6k/year for 4 years.  I mean, what does it even mean to take advantage of a system when the reward is living in utterly destitute poverty ($6k/year!)?

As you might expect given that level of benefits, the level of fraud is vanishingly small (my wife is part of a large, deep research project of CA's welfare program, Welfare to Work).

So what gives?  Honest question.  What's the source of the hostility and moralizing from the right about this, given we're so incredibly rich and the safety net we're offering is already so miserly?

[14ledo81]

33 minutes ago, mdl said:

I don't understand this belief of (even reasonable, like yourself) conservative leaning Americans.  Do you know how welfare works in this country?  In California, with one of the most generous welfare programs, the max benefit is $516/month, with a lifetime max of 4 years of benefits and tons of rules about things you need to do to maintain benefits, things like looking for work, getting training, or getting treatment for drug/alcohol or mental health problems.  The benefits are leveled down until you receive no more benefits once you earn ~$1200/month (I'm not 100% sure I remember that number correctly, but it's very close to that). I'd venture to say that's it's nigh near impossible to "take advantage" of a system that can net you a max of $6k/year for 4 years.  I mean, what does it even mean to take advantage of a system when the reward is living in utterly destitute poverty ($6k/year!)?

As you might expect given that level of benefits, the level of fraud is vanishingly small (my wife is part of a large, deep research project of CA's welfare program, Welfare to Work).

So what gives?  Honest question.  What's the source of the hostility and moralizing from the right about this, given we're so incredibly rich and the safety net we're offering is already so miserly?

First, I  should not have said welfare.  I should have use the term "government assistance".  

Here in Wisconsin, you can qualify for benefits and still make a wage.  The recipient would not be living off of 6k a year, they would be receiving 6k on top of their wage.  Again, I am certainly not saying some people are not deserving.  In fact, I feel that most are.

I have heard someone say (when asked what they are doing for work), "Well I am going to milk my unemployment as long as I can.  I can collect for another 12 months.  Then I will look for a job".

I also know someone who had a part time job.  Their husband worked full time.  When the wife quit her job, she was actually better off (financially) than before.  The family no longer had to pay a fee for health insurance, they also received food stamps and fuel assistance.  Something is wrong with the system (taking advantage of it) when you have incentive to "not" work.

[CoachB25]

It is really interesting then what these people acquire:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Again, I grew up in a housing projects.  I have seen first hand the system.  Let's take that family that has the children that they receive government money to feed, two of those meals are fed through the school system for the vast majority of the school year.  The clothing including coats etc. are provided through various agencies like what Kurt Warner and his wife do.  All of the medical care is on the government.  mdl, it would be interesting to hear just how many of those families are non smokers because your position is that they are too poor to afford cigarettes.  How many of them don't have a drug or alcohol problem because they can't pay for the drugs or alcohol.  How many don't have Cable TV, 2 TV sets, Air Conditioning, Smart phones, ...  I visit my former community a couple of times a month and see people living there on the government that have all of this and new cars. 

[cmherrbach]

Die hard conservative here. After serving in the military it is tough to be anything other than that. Both parties have there negatives, I just feel there are less on the right. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, mdl said:

I don't understand this belief of (even reasonable, like yourself) conservative leaning Americans.  Do you know how welfare works in this country?  In California, with one of the most generous welfare programs, the max benefit is $516/month, with a lifetime max of 4 years of benefits and tons of rules about things you need to do to maintain benefits, things like looking for work, getting training, or getting treatment for drug/alcohol or mental health problems.  The benefits are leveled down until you receive no more benefits once you earn ~$1200/month (I'm not 100% sure I remember that number correctly, but it's very close to that). I'd venture to say that's it's nigh near impossible to "take advantage" of a system that can net you a max of $6k/year for 4 years.  I mean, what does it even mean to take advantage of a system when the reward is living in utterly destitute poverty ($6k/year!)?

I'm not sure how accurate that is…

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/

It's on the WSJ.com site, so I tend to want to believe it. It's the first link when I searched for "max welfare benefits" on Google. I'll highlight some of the numbers…

Quote

 

The report, by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, is a follow-up to Cato’s 1995 study of the subject, which found that packages of welfare benefits for a typical recipient in the 50 states and the District of Columbia not only was well above the poverty level, but also more than a recipient’s annual wages from an entry-level job.

That hasn’t changed in the years since the initial report, said Mr. Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato. Instead, the range has become more pronounced, as states that already offered substantial welfare benefits increased their packages while states with lower benefits decreasing their offerings.

To be sure, not all of those who rely on government programs take part in every benefit to which they are entitled, and the most generous benefits are in states that have the highest costs of living.

The state-by-state estimates are based on a hypothetical family participating in about seven of the 126 federal anti-poverty programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Women, Infants and Children program; Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; and receiving help on housing and utilities.

In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of $49,175 — up $7,265 from an inflation-adjusted $41,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia ($43,099), Massachusetts ($42,515), Connecticut ($38,761) and New Jersey ($38,728).

The state with the lowest benefits package in 2013 was Mississippi, at $16,984, followed by Tennessee ($17,413), Arkansas ($17,423), Idaho ($17,766) and Texas (18,037).

 

 

[Kenny Lee]

You can teach a man to fish, but he'll vote for the guy that will give him a fish.