Simple view of liberal vs conservative

[RANDY P]

Originally posted by stevepaa
And if we provide it with the attitude that "Look buddy, you screwed up, but we will provide the necessities for you", well I just think we are devaluing him.

Devaluing him? So we should worry about his self - esteem or offending him by reminding him he's using the people's money to get by these days? That's silly.

You're not getting that we already offer basic medical, support for food, and housing assistance. Frankly, it's too much already. We don't need to worry about his feeling.

rjp

[Nathans_Dad]

This is a great thread!!

Steve: In all fairness, I certainly don't think you would be for gassing all the poor and unfortunate people in America. Republicans want to do that But I do think that the idea that some people are just destined to fail leads to some very scary ideas of how to "help" those people.

Moses: I think you HAVE to be concerned with the non-contributors, as long as we have programs in place that take US GDP and put it into their pockets for a lifetime. Welfare is a drag on our country in an era where global competition is growing exponentially. Oh, and I don't really care about their "life choice" as long as they don't expect MY tax dollars to put food in their belly for their lifetime simply because they made a "life choice" that didn't include an income.

Rodeo: I don't think your example is a good one. In that case, she is a crackhead. Smoking crack is illegal in this country. She should be in jail. Now, to give your argument the benefit of the doubt, here is what I think might be a decent solution:
1). She goes to jail for smoking crack.
2). While in jail she gets drug rehab and counseling to try and keep her from returning to drug addiction. She also gets some job counseling and gets placed in a probationary workers program to learn a skill which can be used in the marketplace.
3). Her family gets government assistance contingent on her participation in the work program for the specified time AND her holding a job down AND random drug tests for cocaine. If she fails any of these then the gubmint money stops, except for vouchers for diapers, baby food, children's clothes, etc. Yes, she could barter these for crack, but it's at least harder to do than getting cash. If she decides to turn her life around then she can re-apply for the gubmint assistance, same rules apply.
4). Her children would either (A) benefit from her rehabilitation and seeing their mother turn her life around or (B) be taken from the home of a crackhead where the environment is horrible and likely contributes to their likelihood of becoming drug addicts themselves.

The current system goes like this:
1). Crackhead (maybe) gets picked up and spends a few days in jail.
2). Crackhead applies for welfare and gets accepted where she gets a monthly check which can buy her more crack.
3). Children grow up in a crackhead house and learn that mommy doesn't have to work because she gets a magic check in the mail every month.
4). Kids never learn any sort of responsibility or work ethic and probably end up in poverty themselves drawing a welfare check.

Now, Rodeo, how would you handle the situation? I'm curious...

[stevepaa]

rjp,
It's not his self esteem that I am fundamentally concerned about. It is society's viewpoint about them that frames how we treat others on many issues.

[Howard Agency]

Originally posted by Superman
Moses, the Kragens fart cannot afford his own retirement. Certainly not the medical part. Or at least, if he's one of those folks who don't get a (medical insurance) seat when the music stops playing then he might need some help. As long as he gets what he needs, we libs are happy. Don't know where the elite assumption comes from. Well, yes I do I guess.

If life is a carousel, then some folks have an outside horse and some have an inside horse. You cannot reach the brass ring from an inside horse.

Great analogy! Or is that a metaphor? We start at the center, and natural forces push us outward (closer to the ring) as speeds (age and wisdom) increase. The rewards are greater out there, but it’s harder to hang on. Our Kragen guy has clung to the safe center, choosing comfort rather than a chance for greater rewards. Even so, with proper planning and budgeting he can still succeed. Just no cheese on his burgers.

All this BS not withstanding, there is a moral obligation on the part of the outside riders to pass the gifts inward. I just lose it a bit when someone from the inner circle complains that the government (or the wealthy) are not doing enough.

Quick test. Microsoft’s and Walmart’s charitable donations are:
A: Wonderful
B: Woefully inadequate

Moral? Get off your A$$ and move on

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Howard Agency
Moral? Get off your A$$ and move on

Hey!! That's a great line! We should start a website and call it "Moveon.org"!

Oh..wait...

[RANDY P]

Originally posted by stevepaa
rjp,
It's not his self esteem that I am fundamentally concerned about. It is society's viewpoint about them that frames how we treat others on many issues.

Sorry, I just don't get what you saying. You saying that you want him to retire with greater dignity (maybe we can give him a new Cadillac) or he doesn't have the basic needs met?

If you tell me the latter, it's not true. We do have public assistance available for guys like him. If it's not enough to take a trip to Europe, and it definitely isn't going out in style -well that's simply too bad.

From where I sit, I could care less about what others think of me. I don't need anyone to get by and no one dictates anything in my life. We should all spend a little less time worrying about the next guy, and take care of ourselves. I respect others who see it the same way - they're not liabilities to anyone else.

I still think you meant self-esteem though, that's laughable.

rjp

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Actually, basic medical, food and shelter doesn't sound so bad.

I should be able to quit work and have all my necessities fully paid for me?

Hmmm. Never thought of that. Seriously, I've ALWAYS thought that if I didn't study hard and work hard, well, I'd be homeless. I've been scared of that my entire life, heck, I still have that fear today.

Maybe I should rethink things. Working is kinda tiring.

I was discussing this last night with the wife. No worries or responsibilities, no one cares what you do/don't do and your only concerns are comfort and entertainment. After a little debating we agreed that getting a government job would be the best of both worlds. I laugh but I'm serious.

[Moses]

Originally posted by stevepaa

Moses, Why we struggle to fix their lives really defines us as a whole.

You liberals are so intolerant! Why can't you tolerate the choices people make make with their lives? It reminds me of the old adage; Liberals love diversity, but their definition of diversity is people who look different but think the same.

[RANDY P]

Originally posted by Moses
Liberals love diversity, but their definition of diversity is people who look different but think the same.

Maddox.

[stevepaa]

Moses,

My emphasis is really on the why in why we struggle. I really don't think we should preemptorially intervene in much of anything, particularily people's lives. But at the end, why and how we provide needy assistance does define us.


Randy,
like the cartoon. I disagree with most of the diversity nonsense because it typically resolves it self around race, gender or personal sex preference as defining classes. Type casting demeans us all.

[Superman]

Moses, you're a smart guy and so is Steve. I don't think you two disagree. In this instance I notice you are talking about two different things.

You notice that in America, folks basic needs are take care of. That's enough. No need to make lazy folks rich. Steve seems to also be okay with basic assistance but not more.

I think Steve is sort of thinking out loud and he's having a hard time generating the discussion he wants to have. Regardless of whether we take care of folks' basic needs, or nothing, or provide them luxury apartments with a view of the city, he notices that we are programmed by heredity and environment so fully that some folks are simply not going to be achievers in the American sense. Steve wonders why we don't all have your attitude. He wonders why we make judgements upon those lazy SOB's.

I suspect it makes us feel superior.

[stevepaa]

It's an end game analysis, not something for the gamer to dwell upon playing the game. Every poker player thinks he has a chance, but after the series is over, the probabilties of the cards determined the winner to a large extent. And so, every person will normally try his best to succeed.

As applied to those who need assistance at the end of their days, it might change someone's attitude about the person needing assistance if we accept such probabilities.

[Howard Agency]

Some of this is hard to swallow.

Steve, if you play poker with players better than you, you will lose over the long haul. Poker is as much a game of luck as golf, tennis, or auto racing.

Supe, 'programmed by heredity and environment so fully that some folks are simply not going to be achievers'??? Using that logic, Hitler was right.

Sure glad no one sold me on this concept when I was 21.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Superman
...we are programmed by heredity and environment so fully that some folks are simply not going to be achievers in the American sense. Steve wonders why we don't all have your attitude. He wonders why we make judgements upon those lazy SOB's.

I suspect it makes us feel superior.

I still contend this conversation is going in an opposite direction from where you guys might want. In short, I can see Hitler having the same discussion eighty or ninety years ago.

The coupling of heredity and environment conocts itself into an evil and explosive mixture, which more often has done as much a disservice to those in need as it has benefitted them. Why? Because there will always be another group who might say, "Hey, you helped them. What about us?" and from there, focus their ire on the group that's been helped.

This can lead to many, many social problems: the LA Riots for example.

Lately, I've taken a hard anti-Democrat view to programs of any sort designed to help one group catch up when so many others have fallen two steps back. I'd rather see all the benefit programs cut, than see this group or that race or that culture or this sex get thrusted ahead because of aimless fair-weather government concern.

If everyone in equal part can't be lifted from the bottom, then the system is simply broken and the programs themselves are unfairly biased.

But as far as "programmed by heredity and environment," I can't see that as anything more than an excuse. In fact, whomever feels empowered and superior over such an excuse, should not be held nearly as accountable as the person who uses it as their own excuse for the sad situation they find themselves in.

Of course, accountability is about as rare these days as table manners.

[cantdrv55]

Best thread I've read in a very long time.

I bet if we list down all the characteristics one must possess to achieve financial success, we will agree that the Kragen fellow was missing one or more that have nothing to do with genetics or environment.

[gsxrken]

I also enjoy this thread and the lack of rancor is refreshing.
Stevepaa, you sound like a nice guy and I believe the good Lord is going to ask me first and foremost how I treated the least of my brothers. And I hope I have some time left to improve in that regard. However, I'd ask you to reconsider your alarming choice of the words "genes", as you use it in the first post in this thread. The Hitler references are apropo here, as outrageous as that may sound to you. While it cannot be disputed that if you plotted the outcome of any human endeavor it would align itself in a bell curve, cause cannot be determined by plotting outcome.
Jeff Higgins, I thought your post was an excellent one, and illustrates that neither side has the corner on the market on concern for their fellow man. Whenwe're paying the taxes we're paying, we have a right to weigh in on how the money is disbursed.

[stevepaa]

Yes, genes is a loaded word. Innate traits may be better.

The Hitler references are not really appropriate. That requires a group to be singled out. I presume no singular group. I would expect a distribution of races, and ethnic groups. I am not suggesting helping any group. My thrust has been that perhaps we should look upon the truly needy from a different perspective than "well, he didn't plan very well", or " he didn't work hard enough".

[Superman]

Originally posted by cantdrv55
Best thread I've read in a very long time.

I bet if we list down all the characteristics one must possess to achieve financial success, we will agree that the Kragen fellow was missing one or more that have nothing to do with genetics or environment.

I think some of you are misreading what Steve is pointing to, and what I have tried to point to. Let me ask you this: Aside from genetics and environment ("nature and nurture"), what do you believe would be a third category of input into our decisions?

My story about the aliens is one that gets considered often in philosophical and psychological circles. This notion of "free will" is interesting, and there is a good argument to be made that "free will" does not exist, except as our plain observation that we are insiders to our decision-making process.

Steve is not trying to argue anyone's superiority or inferiority. He's just pointing out that our actions are to a large degree (if not completely, 100%) DETERMINED. "Determination", as I say, is an interesting philosophical position, and some of you seem to have not worked through the elements of that discussion. This notion that our decisions are "free" can become difficult to defend.

And then taking a look at the big picture, we notice that there will be winners and there will be losers in our economic system. By definition. If any of you think we can all be winners in a capitalism system, then you have not thought it through. Steve asserts that how we treat the 'losers' becomes a powerful statement about our society. About our obedience to the main Christian principles stated and restated and repeated many times in the Bible.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Superman
Steve asserts that how we treat the 'losers' becomes a powerful statement about our society. About our obedience to the main Christian principles stated and restated and repeated many times in the Bible.

Beautifully put as always. I guess the liberal/conservative dichotomy resides in how we define societys "losers".

I would not define the Kragens guy as a loser. Nor would I define the single welfare mother of 8 kids as a "loser". And no, not the healthy homeless crack junky either.

I would reserve public support for those unable, not unwilling to help themselves. Yup! I believe in free will, self determination and freedom.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Moses
I would reserve public support for those unable, not unwilling to help themselves. Yup! I believe in free will, self determination and freedom.

I'll jump back in here, because while I enjoy the philosophical discussion, it's policy that really turns me on

How does society (meaning government) differentiate between the "unable" and "unwilling"?

I'm an uneducated single mother of two toddlers with an IQ of 65, my mother is dead and I never knew my father. I am barely literate. I have another kid on the way. I can't support the children I already have, and I have no idea how to help myself.

Am I unable or unwilling? Do I get anything from the government? Do my kids?