Republican/Conservative Corner

cakana

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.

Works for me!
 

timsdat

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

The thing is that abuse often starts during pregnancy for a whole bunch of reasons, so someone can have a really great relationship that doesn't involve abuse and then suddenly that changes.   And having children itself can alter the dynamics of  marriages, the type of relationship you have prior to having children isn't necessarily what you end up with after.

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.

Sweden is not a socialist country, but it has a strong Social-Democrat party and policies influenced by socialist thought.   I don't know about that HHI statistic, but they certainly do have relatively high taxes, taxes which often relieve individuals of private expenses.   Sure, there isn't the same proportion of people with yachts and $15 million homes and consumer goods are more expensive, but there's a significantly higher proportion of people with a living wage, economic security, healthcare, access to university education, etc. If you get sick or become disabled or lose your job or run into financial difficulty you'll be taken care of.  And much more vacation :)   It's not the place for you if you want to get super rich or buy endless things, but it's a very good place to know you can work for a good wage, own a home, raise a family, retire, have great social equality, etc.   It is not as diverse as the US, although that is changing very rapidly as they take in a proportionately higher number of immigrants than the US, notably from Middle Eastern countries (including thousands of Iraqi refugees), which of course has created its own problems.    At the same time, Sweden has one of the highest (often the highest) standards of living in the world and lowest poverty rates.   It is hard, I think, for English-speaking people get a sense of the Swedish system through the press because rather than true, holistic investigations into the country, the system is usually used by people who simplify it for their political ends, often idealizing or demonizing it in ways that have little to do with reality.

My point in bringing up Sweden (where I am originally from) is that they have been extremely successful in decreasing poverty through their social welfare system and it shows that social programs can be very effective, particularly when they are part of comprehensive systems designed to meet the needs of users.  Why not learn from successful programs?

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.

This is not exactly what research indicates, unfortunately, and it depends on the popular myth that a good education = a well-paid job.   I have an extremely good, graduate level education, but I am in a low-paying, social service field.   If I had children and my partner left me, I would pretty much be scr#wed, at least for a while.   Yes, education is important and that's why it should be accessible to everyone and is absolutely vital to any successful social welfare state.   At the same time, a lot of educated people have a lot of low-paying jobs because of the nature of their chosen field, saturation of the market or circumstances that prevent them from taking certain jobs or any job at all.   I have friends with PhDs working retail, friends with law degrees unable to work due to disabilities, friends who had an unplanned pregnancy and didn't feel abortion was the right choice for them and are working 2 jobs and going to school and are 1 disaster away from not being able to make rent.  And beyond that, there are millions of kids living in poverty right now and what their moms could or should have done isn't of any use to them - they need assistance to get out of poverty and how are we going to make that happen?

cakana

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 there are many private organizations both secular and religious based that provide assistance programs.  My church runs one of the largest food banks in the county fully supported by donations from the membership of the church and donations from different supermarkets and food suppliers.  My friend in the Kiwanis supports several head start programs at schools.  My GF's church does reading and tutoring programs for at risk kids, in fact she would take her dog along since it was so mellow and just lay there and listen and the kids would read to the dog.  Look at all the work Salvation Army does.  When I was in High School (Catholic) we were required to do hours of community service each semester.  There are many more examples and I think that you would find that these organizations do a lot with a lot less money then government programs.

Okay, I looked up the Swedish Retail Institute study and the thing about that is that it is extremely flawed:

"But even the authors of this study admit to a methodological flaw: They have declined to factor in the value of the social goods provided to Swedes by the world's most comprehensive welfare state. That includes free health care and education, comprehensive early education, fully subsidized senior care, paid leave for the parents of newborns -- you get the picture. These aren't exactly trivial household expenses in the United States; many American families can't afford them at all. Not surprisingly, it turns out that the [Swedish Retail Institute] is a retail trade lobby -- an organization that looks longingly at all the money lavished on immunization programs and wonders why those funds aren't freed up so that the Swedes can buy more Nokias."

inne

They have declined to factor in the value of the social goods provided to Swedes by the world's most comprehensive welfare state. That includes free health care and education, comprehensive early education, fully subsidized senior care, paid leave for the parents of newborns

And you don't call that a extremely socialist nation.  You have to be kidding.

I prefer to live in a country where my success is only limited by my ambition and desire to succeed and not wanting a government that penalizes me for my success.

I think you are confused about the meaning of socialism.   It doesn't just mean lots of public and social services - if it did, the police department, public parks, fire department, public education, public roads, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, WIC, etc. would all be indicators that the US is socialist, which is it clearly not.   A true socialist system does not have private property and the means of production and distribution of goods are collectively owned and controlled.   This is not the case in Sweden   Sweden is capitalist with an extensive social welfare state.   Some call it a mixed economy, some call it Keynesian.

More money = more taxes in the US too, you just get a lot less for them. 

inne

I think you are confused about the meaning of socialism.   A true socialist system does not have private property and the means of production and distribution of goods are collectively owned and controlled.

Everywhere I have read that the country is pretty much a democratic socialist society.  It is about as close as you will get until you go to the communist nations.

Also doesn't the government control about 75% of the GDP thru government owned industries.

dgriego

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

That's funny - I don't recall anyone asking me my political views when I donated blood....

miranadobe

That's funny - I don't recall anyone asking me my political views when I donated blood....

Don't you know they can tell by the color.  You know red state, blue state!!!

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.

You are being very presumptuous here, offensively so. Your assumption that single mothers were unmarried, or stupidly married, when they had kids is ENTIRELY unfounded, and extremely offensive to some of us...

And not everyone needs religion to have morals. I'm so so sick of that argument...

timsdat

Everywhere I have read that the country is pretty much a democratic socialist society.  It is about as close as you will get until you go to the communist nations.

No Swedish person I've ever met has imagined themselves to be living in a true socialist state.  To describe it as a democratic socialist society (as an economy, not to be confused with the Social-Democrat party) necessarily ignores its capitalism, private property and private industry completely and I think it is very inaccurate, particularly as most people work in the private sector and government holdings do not in and of themselves create socialism.  Private property and private enterprise are alive and well, Sweden has huge, private corporations and small businesses.  Yes, a significant portion of industry is government owned in whole or in part, which is very common in many countries and the United States has a history of nationalization as well - there are thousands of government corporations in the US (Amtrak, Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Empire State Development Corporation, Presidio Trust, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, etc.), not to mention government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae, for example).  This public-private partnership has been celebrated by many as a key component to the country's economic success, particularly in light of the recession in the early 90s.  In recent years there has been a push for the divestment of state holdings and many government-owned companies have been privatized to mixed reviews and there are plans to divest and privatize even more, including Apoteket (which I think is a shame) and shares of Telia, SAS, Nordea, etc.  There is a very active capital market.   This would not exist within a socialist state (and socialist democracy just means that it's socialist and democratic, not that it is a modified socialism or a mixed economy or has a little capitalism) because it is antithetical to socialism.  Call it mixed at the very least.  The Socialist Party (which is very different from the Social-Democrats) in Sweden would be very surprised to learn that they are obsolete because socialism is already in place :)

Anyway, I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with single mothers and poverty.  I get that you don't think it's a good system, but I'm wondering what proven methods for poverty reduction you suggest. 

chelsea_b

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.

You are being very presumptuous here, offensively so.

Yeah, kind of like this statement, huh?  

" 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."

Right, because snarky comments about an entire political party is the same as saying that single mothers should have gotten married before they had kids.

chelsea_b

Right, because snarky comments about an entire political party is the same as saying that single mothers should have gotten married before they had kids.

I don't see much of a distintion.  They are both sweeping and uninformed generalizations about peoples' characters (especially considering the 2 most gerorous families I know are conservative, and one of the most stingy, selfish people I know is a liberal).

Strangely enough, my mom was single after she and my dad split due to reasons that were no fault of her own and I didn't find anything offensive about what was said.  Actually, my mom is a teacher, and would probably readily agree that many women cause their children to suffer through their own poor decisions regarding family--she sees it all the time.  And I know for a fact that she would tell you that single mothers who did not marry before having children should have done so, especially considering all the reproductive options that are available to women in this country.  All this and she's a Democrat......   

Cassidys Mom

The problem with the trickle down theory is that you'd have to believe that companies are paying their employees as much as they can afford. AND that if they made more money and could afford to, they'd pay them more. For some companies that may be the case. But for many others they're actually paying as LITTLE as they can to attract and keep decent employees. Giving them big tax breaks with no strings attached might make the corporate officers very happy, along with their shareholders, but there is no reason why they'd do more for their employees, because they don't have to. And they make more money if they don't.

So I went over to my Dad's for dinner last night to do tax returns (haha yay I OWE the government money... thanks to waitressing earlier this year)

We discussed the trickling effect and I asked him about the Tax break. He said "all the people that are mad about the tax cuts have no idea what they are talking about, if your mad about the tax cut you obviously didn't get one... You weren't allowed to have a tax cut unless you could prove that your company benefited and flourished. I had to hire X amount of more men and spend X amount more money into my business in order to get my tax break... what the heck do people think? Bush just decided oh let's give them money... NO WAY! We got a TAX break meaning we got money back for the crap load of taxes we usually have to pay... and guess what? Now it's starting to come down to your guy's level hense the new bill going into house about sending YOU guys a check... the trickling affect absolutely works. If people just chilled out and stopped with the whole 'the rich get richer!' what are you kidding me? If you make 8million you pay 6million to the government!!!! That's ridiculous! How is it my fault that other people don't make good money? It doesn't take a large brain to figure out if you want to be better off you need to educate yourself and keep moving up... I was on my own at 17yrs old with NOTHING and look where I am now? My parents gave me NOTHING and were the most liberal democratic people I've ever met. Now I'm a so called 'wealthy' man with Republican views."

What I'm starting to realize is all of our politic views mold based on how you were raised, your personal life style, and where you live. Just like you said $100,000 is not a lot of money anymore... yet AMT kicks in at 100,000??? We are not living in the 60s anymore, government needs to change.

What people also don't realize is when you actually ARE wealthy you pay so much more money to the government! When people bark about the rich I always ask them "how many millionares do you know???..." and usually its "uhh uhh... none! but still!" no 'but still' you have NO idea about what they actually do and actually pay...

My Uncle or example (now retired at 46 lucky duck...) well you know why he's retired? worked his BUTT off! He was the CFO of his company and his ending salary was 850,000 a year.... yeah and he also paid half of it to the government, couldn't write off his morgage, couldn't write off his children, couldn't write off ANYTHING! So when you talk about the rich 'only thinking about themselves' well how would you like it if almost more than half of what you worked hard to get is TAKEN from you???

Its a pure fact that if you make a good living you're probably a Republican and if you are in the middle class you are probably a Democrat... let's be honest! If you are in the middle class and you happen to be a Republican then you could me like me and understand why a Democratic system isn't the best OR maybe strong conservative values make you at this point.

Another thing my Dad told me last night was a conversation he had with his father years ago "A Democrat is Robin-Hood... steal from the rich, give to the poor. PERIOD! When my father was alive I used to say 'I don't think it's fair that I am forced to give half my money to the government and you give almost nothing' and his reply was 'yes its fair, you make more'" ?!?!?! WHAT?! What's the point in trying to be successful then?! My grandfather made $5/hr his whole life with no benefits, ya no wonder he thought this way... his butt was to lazy to do anything with it.

Give a man a fish? GO GET YOUR OWN FISH! Look at me! I'm struggling to survive and learn and live... but I don't think ANYONE should just THROW me a fish... Tax Cuts yes, but not say "oh here you go just take all these benefits and money since your dumb butt got into debt during college" no thanks. It's my "fault" where I am, no one else's problem. If I want nice things then I need to get them myself! Also, in my state (MA) it is REQUIRED for you to have health benefits now or else you will lose all of your tax deductions and be penilized. Most companies I know around here give you free health, dental, life, disability.... I really don't see a problem...???? Issues like that are STATE issues, don't pick a president based on a HEALTH plan?! Complain to your state government about that.

After sitting there doing taxes last night I realized "wow... this is just the way it is! and there's nothing I can do about it..." In the end guess what? Taxes in 2009 are going to increase... and guess what? In 2013 they will increase... Because there are people out there that still believe we should be paying the government the crazy amount of money that we do.

Town of Hopkinton built a new school. If you live in that town the taxes just went up $1100 a month... Guess what? When the school is paid off for it doesn't go DOWN... it actually goes up!!! It's retarded! The government and their tax system is MESSED UP period. There has to be a better way; we are all just sitting here watching life get more and more expensive b/c of saying "that's just the way it is..."

I really wish we could make a big stand and stay STOP! To the government... What do you get back from giving the government money? A road (with tons of pot-holes)? The privilage to live in your state? The privilage to live in your town? A school for children you don't have? I think the amount of money we give the government could deff be cheaper.

I officially decided I wish there was a Flat-Rate tax. If I make $xx,xxx a year I pay 1% (lets just say) to the government, if my Dad makes $xxx,xxx a year then he pays 1% to the government... HOW IS THAT NOT FAIR? Know why? Because then there would be no need for the IRS and all of them would be out of work... boo-hoo go get a different job! I know a flat-rate tax will never happen in our life time but know what? I can always hope... And I was thinking... if it does "screw over" the poor somehow, good maybe they will be more driven to become successful?