Republican/Conservative Corner

timsdat

I think another way of saying this is that liberals want everyone to be dependent on the government and conservatives want people to self sufficient.

Conservatives THINK, liberals FEEL.

chelsea_b

I think I've finally realized the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals (yeah, I'm a bit slow). Conservatives are worried about themselves, and liberals are worried about everyone else. I'm not saying this in a derogatory fashion, you all have admitted this. I just never thought about it like that before.

 I would have to disagree with you on that one. Politics have little to do with caring about others. I admitted to being a conservative but have not admitted to caring only about myself nor do I see this in other conservatives I know.

"Conservatives give privately more to charity than liberals do."

"households headed by a conservative donate, on average,
30 percent more dollars than households headed by a liberal"

"this isn’t because conservatives earn more: On the contrary, liberal
families earn an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative
families, and conservative families give more than liberal families
within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich. "

"Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate
blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals."

"A person who goes to church every week and strongly rejects the idea that it is the government’s responsibility
to redistribute income will give, on average, 100 times more money to charity each year than a person who never attends a house of worship, and strongly believes that the government should reduce income
differences between people. The religious person who is a government skeptic will also give about 50 times more to explicitly nonreligious causes. In other words, attitudes about the government compound the
harity gap we see due to faith."

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks

I understand that we need to pay taxes to pay for roads, cops, programs, etc... but I don't like that all the taxes are paid by the middle class.  I don't feel it's fair that the rich have tons of write offs with houses, investments and donations and end up laying little and the people working at Walmart pay nothing and the middle has to make up for it.  I think a person making $5 an hour should pay the same percent as anyone else.  Elimiate all the write offs and deductions and everyone just pay 10% of their gross income.  That would make it more fair.  And a lot of the things mentioned are paid by local goverments, with sales tax and state taxes.  Our federal tax dollars are wasted on illegal immigrant health care, bloated salaries for the congress, and lord only knows what else.  Why should I pay more tax dollars so that lazy people who vote a few times a year get yearly raises?  Conservatives are not focused on themselves, most conservatives are church going people who are the kind, compassionate and give to the needy.  we just want everyone to take responsibility for themselves.

jenn52

Elimiate all the write offs and deductions and everyone just pay 10% of their gross income.  That would make it more fair.  And

While this would be a beautiful deal for me, it would be horrible someone who is truly low income. There's a threshold before taxes are even paid, and if you worked for $5 an hour at Walmart, it's likely you'd fall below that threshold.

I think of liberals as being of mind to give a man a fish..and another fish. and so on and so on. Conservatives want to teach the man to fish, so he can take care of himself. If the man isn't interested in learning how to fish, then he should find some other way to feed himself. I don't say that just because it affects my pocketbook. I don't think we do anyone a favor when we tell them that they can't take care of themself, so we'll do that for them.

cakana

I think of liberals as being of mind to give a man a fish..and another fish. and so on and so on. Conservatives want to teach the man to fish, so he can take care of himself.

That's an interesting analogy, but I have an amendment. Liberals know that some men can't fish, so they give him a fish hoping that it will help him survive until he CAN fish. They also accept that some men just WON'T fish, but they have children, so they throw the children a fish. Conservatives want a man to LEARN to fish, but don't want to HELP him learn, nor help his kids out if he doesn't/can't learn.

I don't think anyone wants their taxes to support people who are purely lazy, but in order to help the people who AREN'T lazy, some of the money inevitably goes to the people who are.

probe1957

timsdat

I think another way of saying this is that liberals want everyone to be dependent on the government and conservatives want people to self sufficient.

Conservatives THINK, liberals FEEL.

Oh PLEASE Billy… that is ssoooooooo LAME!

The welfare state was started by FDR. He was a socialist. It's in the very words of the tax. Social Security. Problem is, my in-laws, in their 80's, are dependent on SS and MIL's pension from her last job just ran out. But, if we were only paying for the function of government and a standing army, we wouldn't pay as much in taxes as we are. We could pay for the Mars expeditions if we cut out the congressional pensions, etc. The reason scientific expedition is a good investment is because we learn so many things that benefit other areas. The technology that sits in your lap now and holds books worth of info got its roots in the developement of the transistor and it's involvement in the space program. They had to figure out a way to cram 9 tons of stuff into something the size of a sedan. But space exploration via government will always be lackluster and overspent because of the beauracracy. True successful space exploration will be at the hands of the private industry. At my job, I'd better perform correctly and quickly. And the money will be there from owners and investors who expect a return. Imagine the wealth generated by owning mining rights on Mars? But I digress.

I am so conservative that I want the govt. to stay out of my pocket. Granted, to have a functioning government and military, it's going to cost. But look at how much some contractors make. Many's a person who became wealthy from goverment contracts.

But, I think, with the way politics is, it will continue to be the same swindle as before. The faces and names change, though.

cakana

I think of liberals as being of mind to give a man a fish..and another fish. and so on and so on.

Absolutely not.

cakana

Conservatives want to teach the man to fish, so he can take care of himself.

I'm a liberal and I'm in complete agreement with you on this. I think most liberals are. But it seems as if the attitude of some conservatives (not all!) is that if he doesn't know how to fish, that's too damn bad. His parents should have taught him, and if they didn't, oh well, guess he'll just starve.

There is middle ground between the extremes, (give, give, give and don't expect people to do anything for it, vs cut them off and make them fend for themselves), and I think that's what we need to aim for - fix the system to help people learn to help them themselves and become taxpaying members of society instead of tax spenders. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

chelsea_b

cakana

I think of liberals as being of mind to give a man a fish..and another fish. and so on and so on. Conservatives want to teach the man to fish, so he can take care of himself.

That's an interesting analogy, but I have an amendment. Liberals know that some men can't fish, so they give him a fish hoping that it will help him survive until he CAN fish. They also accept that some men just WON'T fish, but they have children, so they throw the children a fish. Conservatives want a man to LEARN to fish, but don't want to HELP him learn, nor help his kids out if he doesn't/can't learn.

I don't think anyone wants their taxes to support people who are purely lazy, but in order to help the people who AREN'T lazy, some of the money inevitably goes to the people who are.

ron2

The welfare state was started by FDR.

You know something else that is interesting,  If you look at the poverty rate in the mid-60 when Johnson proposed his Great Society idea and the war on poverty was declared and a number of anti-poverty programs started and many still continue to this day, the poverty rate really hasn't changed that much. 

I just a not too well publicized fact.  In 1942 FDR instituted a 100% tax rate by executive order on anyone earning over $25,000 dollars.  Congress in 1943 rolled it back to 90%.  Boy that is a incentive work real hard and have all of it taken away.  If that isn't socialism what is!!!

timsdat

You know something else that is interesting,  If you look at the poverty rate in the mid-60 when Johnson proposed his Great Society idea and the war on poverty was declared and a number of anti-poverty programs started and many still continue to this day, the poverty rate really hasn't changed that much. 

There is so much missing information here.   The most striking difference in what poverty looks like in America is changing family structures.  Less than 10% of families were headed by a single woman in 1959, but single mother families made up about 25% of families in the 1990s.   Single mothers are also the most likely to be poor and use social assistance in the US.  Additionally, poverty rates for people over 65 have significantly decreased since the 60s.   So rather than looking at the overall poverty rate, I think it's important to look at who is poor, who is no longer poor, what forces have created these conditions and whether anti-poverty programs are being restructured in a way that adequately meets the needs of its users.   What programs are working and which ones aren't and why?   AFDC is generally a ridiculously inadequate program and has been cut back so many times, but EITC has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, for example, because it helps those in poverty build assets - something more programs should focus on for effective poverty reduction.   Some programs showed a lot of impact until the late 70s and then weren't as effective throughout the 80s and showed promise again in the 90s- why?   Many programs are at odds with the real needs of assistance recipients because they don't take into account things like childcare and healthcare needs, particularly for single mothers, and force people to make hard choice between losing childcare assistance or Medicaid and a slightly higher paying job.  In terms of "who is poor", it is also very important to look at wage and skill trends; low-skilled workers earn less now than they did forty years ago, so that impacts options for escaping poverty and puts this group of workers at risk for poverty in a new way. 

Cassidys Mom

But it seems as if the attitude of some conservatives (not all!) is that if he doesn't know how to fish, that's too damn bad. His parents should have taught him, and if they didn't, oh well, guess he'll just starve.

My parents didn't teach me how to get or keep a job but I knew that in order to survive, I'd better learn. Opportunities are far too abundant to make a claim that anyone didn't/doesn't have the opportunity. I'm all for offering help to people who truly can't support themselves but there are an awful lot of people who are quite capable of working, but choose not to. I can't speak for every conservative but I'm fully in support of job training programs. I work for a charter school that provides education to students 18-25 y.o. who've failed in the traditional system and now have joined programs such as the Calif Conservation Corps and in conjunction with the job training, they're furthering their education with us. That's what I mean by teaching a man to fish.

inne

Less than 10% of families were headed by a single woman in 1959, but single mother families made up about 25% of families in the 1990s. 

 Gee that kind of supports the conservative argument to be married and in a stable relationship before having a kid.  I guess that those good Christian moral values make sense.  So much for the ultra liberal free love ideas of the 60's.

timsdat

 Gee that kind of supports the conservative argument to be married and in a stable relationship before having a kid.  I guess that those good Christian moral values make sense.  So much for the ultra liberal free love ideas of the 60's.

 

Single mother families includes women who were previous married and are now divorced.  Many, many more women stayed in unhappy, abusive, disastrous marriages in the 50s because divorce was not a socially acceptable or economically viable option, nor was abuse taken as seriously as it is now and marital rape wasn't even illegal.    Being married isn't necessarily the best thing.  The more pressing issue is what are the barriers to financial stability for single mothers and how do we break those down?   Because being a single mother disproportionately predisposes one to poverty in the United States in a way that is not replicated in countries with more social support, such as free and affordable childcare, healthcare and education.   As a comparison, 1 in 20 children of single mothers live in poverty in Sweden (pretty much the ultimate in secular, free love social-democracy) whereas 1 in 2 children of single mothers live in poverty in the US (and Canada) and being a working single mother in Sweden does not put one at a higher risk of poverty than average.

inne

nor was abuse taken as seriously as it is now and marital rape wasn't even illegal.    Being married isn't necessarily the best thing.

I did say a stable relationship.  And where are the fathers to provide support for their children.

inne

As a comparison, 1 in 20 children of single mothers live in poverty in Sweden

An extremely socialist country isn't it.  Don't they have some of the highest taxes in the world and if Sweden were a US state wouldn't their per household income be one of the lowest in the country and don't they have a much less demographically diverse country than we do.

inne

Because being a single mother disproportionately predisposes one to poverty

Only if that mother didn't have a good education before having children.  I know plenty of single/divorced mothers and they are doing just fine.  Now why is that, because that took their education seriously before having children.  That is the real key education before children.  People need to be taught that it isn't ok to have children if you can't afford it or don't have the eduction to get a good enough job to support the children.