Where are the Belief Corner Liberals?

[TENAC]

Re: shame about asking for help, government programs/entitlements, etc.

A huge issue here is all the children who may not get medical care, food, shelter, etc.  Then there are people with various conditions/disabilities.

I am not saying government has no role, but it should be limited as much as possible.  I would prefer to see things as VLin put in the thread regarding home, neighborhood, community, city, state before we enact further federal legislation to be bungled and misspent.

Another issue is that a government program might spend more time/effort/money on job training, etc., with emphasis on transitional assistance, and this would NOT be a permanent entitlement.

The closest thing to eternity on earth is a temporary government program.

And yet another issue is that these aspects of government programs really don't cost as much as a lot of the CORPORATE WELFARE and the WASTE in the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.... for perspective

.

Waste in the military is a given.  It IS a government program.  While it should be monitored, there can be no question as to the efficacy of where our military is and what it is capable of.

Could you give an example of corporate welfare?

I.e., conservatism can certainly be a 'ism', an ideology that puts blinders on minds and abstract notions over human concern or prudence.

On the conservatism vs. liberalism thread I mention the problem of either liberalism or conservatism unchecked.

I prefer to draw out what is BEST from either.

While I think I disagree with your bold above, I do agree you cannot have either one run amuck.

[VLinvictus]

Conservative
Reagan on the other hand cut taxes, made it possible for upward mobility of ALL Americans.  Blacks enjoyed their greatest rise economically, moving from poverty to middle class, business entrepreneurship, home ownership.

My family did not experience any upward mobility during the Reagan era, nor were we able to own our own home.

Government dependence is expected of socialists.

Proof, please?

Republican congress brought BCiinton kicking and screaming to sign welfare reform that featured a five year limitation (1994 or 95).  Amazingly as people were dropped off the rolls, they found jobs, much to the chagrin of liberals who predicted doom and gloom to this mean piece of legislation.

As I recall, Republicans were furious that Clinton appropriated part of their platform.




Proof, please? [/quote]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/charitable_giving_liberals_vs_conservatives/

That article doesn't claim conservatives give more than liberals; it just claims that conservatives do give to charity. Well, duh.

I thought this bit was interesting:
Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish.

That is the problem with "charity." It's all about "voluntary sacrifice by individuals." What's important is how the giver feels when giving, because its a virtue and is something one does out of the goodness of one's heart. The problem, though, is what if one does not want to or feel like giving? Then the poor miss out.

Jews don't do "charity." We have tzedakah which translates to "righteousness" or "that which is right in itself because the law requires it." Giving money to help the poor is no some nice thing we do because it makes up feel good; it's something we are obligated to do. It it meritorious for us to do so willingly and gladly and to feel good about it, but it's more important that the money and help get to the people who need it regardless of how the giver feels.

This is the great chasm in the two philosophies.  Liberals are more reluctant to give to charities by their nature.  It is something they feel government should be doing.

There is no significant difference here. "Giving to charity" is all well and good, but what matters is getting as much aid to as many people as possible. Charities, being numerous and small, can only do so much. Why should we, as a society, not use the tool of government to administer aid?

It makes perfect sense.  The democrats have to be very careful not to offend, black Americans, asian Americans, gay Americans, greenie Americans, etc.  how many ways can they slice it?  Literally, the democrats are the  only ones to bring up race ever.  Without their racism, they could never win an election.

Are you saying that it's good to offend people and bad to be sensitive to people's feelings? And how are you defining "racism" here? Another statement that makes no sense.

Is there any difference in hearing a single argument that says one should vote for obama because he is black, or they will tell you not to vote for obama because he IS black?

Huh? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

[VLinvictus]

Re: Corporate Welfare.

I would recommend this study, from the conservative Cato Institute no less. Of course I don't agree with all of the author's premises, but he is correct that government subsidies to businesses counteract market forces and create "an incestuous relationship between business and government."

The recent bailout of Bear Stearns is an major event of corporate welfare that comes to mind.

The government is of the people for the people -- for citizens. Corporations are not people. I recognize a social obligation to support individual persons in times of economic distress -- no one should risk losing their home or going hungry because of the capricious whim of the market -- but corporations, fictional persons, should not be accorded the same protections.

[SquirleyWurley]

Thanks VL for the link re: corporate welfare.

I.e., conservatism can certainly be a 'ism', an ideology that puts blinders on minds and abstract notions over human concern or prudence.

While I think I disagree with your bold above, I do agree you cannot have either one run amuck.

One of the ways conservatism can run amuck, is when principles of tradition or of caution are used so abstractly or rigidly taht human concerns are ignored/dismissed and/or prudence is undermined.  When people cling to an abstract principle to such a point of rigidity, I see ideology at work.  Perhaps you use the term ideology differently, that that was my point.

[jacknky]

"Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues."

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally believe that paying taxes is the price for living in our country which is a pretty complex society and we need the government to organize the different aspects. I don't mind paying taxes (OK, it can hurt but nothing is free). What I do mind is HOW much of our tax dollars are spent (like on an unneccessary war).

I question the assumption that smaller government is always more efficient. Looking at my own state and local government I REALLY question that assumption. I also question whether business is that much more efficient, if any, than government. I know the assumption about profits but the other side of the coin is that business is subject to market forces that government isn't. Does anyone here think Exxon is making record profits because they're now more efficient?

[TENAC]

I would recommend this stujavascript:void(0);
Kissdy, from the conservative Cato Institute no less. Of course I don't agree with all of the author's premises, but he is correct that government subsidies to businesses counteract market forces and create "an incestuous relationship between business and government."

For the most part I agree with the report. 

The recent bailout of Bear Stearns is an major event of corporate welfare that comes to mind.

Bear Stearns is no more.  So who got bailed out?

The government is of the people for the people -- for citizens. Corporations are not people. I recognize a social obligation to support individual persons in times of economic distress -- no one should risk losing their home or going hungry because of the capricious whim of the market -- but corporations, fictional persons, should not be accorded the same protections.

[/quote]

Ok, so we yank out those subsidies (and I tend to agree with you).  These corporations shouldnt be protected so we let these corporations who are not people go bankrupt and shut their doors.

Oh, but people like you and me and our friends and neigbors often work at these corporations who are not people.  So they go under too and lose their homes?

[VLinvictus]

Oh, but people like you and me and our friends and neigbors often work at these corporations who are not people.  So they go under too and lose their homes?

Of course not. Instead of providing subsidies to corporations, we provide subsidies to individuals. We already do in the form of unemployment insurance, but that's generally not nearly enough because the payments made are generally well below the average cost of living in the area. I think the maximum one can get in New York City is $400 a month -- and even in a modest outer-borough apartment that would barely even make the rent.

So, unemployment insurance payments must be higher. Now, lest anyone decry that as a creating dependency, unemployment insurance programs have limits. The maximum here is 26 weeks. Now, ideally, someone should be able to find a job in that length of time, but that's not guaranteed. I had an acquaintance who lost his job in the recession of 2001 and was not able to find a new job for a year and a half. He lost his apartment and had to move in with his brother. Why should anyone be subjected to that for no reason other than the capricious whim of the market?

The bottom like is that "the market" is not some holy divine force that can be trusted to always lead to the right decision. It's raw Darwinian selection, red in tooth and claw: the strong thrive while the weak perish. However, most people would agree that when it comes to human beings the weak and the unfortunate deserve help from the strong and wealthy -- most of our religions inculcate that principle. Human lives and livelihoods should not be subject to market forces, and so it should be a social obligation to prevent people who have been ejected from their employment by the Invisible Hand from losing their homes, from having to choose between shelter and food, or the like.

[Thorolf]

My family did not experience any upward mobility during the Reagan era, nor were we able to own our own home.

Yet, statistically, your family was not all of America. And, statistically, was apparently not representative of America, either.

That article doesn't claim conservatives give more than liberals; it just claims that conservatives do give to charity. Well, duh.

Actually, that article was commentary on a blogger who was writing about a book by Syracuse Prof. Arthur C. Brooks entitled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."

There have been quite a few articles about it. Here's one by George Will: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Here's an excerpt for you: http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/excerpt.html

[VLinvictus]

Yet, statistically, your family was not all of America. And, statistically, was apparently not representative of America, either.

Well, why should I care that other Americans got "upward mobility" (whatever the hell that means. Knighthood? A baronetcy? A life peerage? I didn't think we had such things) if my family didn't?

Honestly: If didn't benefit from the wonderful superduper magical all-holy policies of the the Most Worshipful Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan the Great, why should I care one bit if anyone else did? If I didn't benefit from them, then it is, to me, as practical and meaningful as if they never occurred.

[VLinvictus]

I still am curious how a CEO/brain surgeon has so much time on his hands that he can waste it on an internet discussion forum... 

[TENAC]

the wonderful superduper magical all-holy policies of the the Most Worshipful Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan the Great,

Ok.

We're good here.

[SquirleyWurley]

It takes a lot of energy, creativity, determination, etc. to go into certain fields or businesses and succeed, and it is to be commended when someone does so.

I think it's natural for some to assume that if they can do something, others would be able to do so, and this may be cause for a general sense of optimism about the ability to change and take advantage of opportunities.

I also think it's natural for someone who has always been in situations where few succeed and many who are exceptional do not, where the options are so generally limiting, where people have been seen to try to take opportunities to succeed and they just couldn't make it despite lots of hard work, to be a bit more sensitive to the negatives and perhaps to develop a sense of pessimism about the ability to change and take advantage of opportunities.

But the reality is that some people really can improve their lot by hard work, and others are jealous of them and disregard their success, etc., while other people really do work hard to move up and situations just aren't such that they succeed through no fault of their own, and others look down upon them as if they are just losers.

[Acumen]

I appreciate the response and I agree for the most part, however, I don't think the number of those who continually work hard end up in much need, not in America.

Even if a hard worker ends up in true need it typically doesn't extend through the rest of his/her life (unless severely maimed) and most definitely doesn't, or shouldn't, extend through multiple generations, not in America.

These situations are not a result of trial and error, just error and more error and then a sense of entitlement.

Well said.

[SquirleyWurley]

It's easy to find examples of people who try and try and try and are still poor, underinsured, hit by psychological of physical conditions which devastate them and finally destroy them financially, etc.

It's easy to find examples of people who try and try and try and just skim by, or else achieve some considerable measure of stability and success.

It's harder to assess how often either is the case, and under which conditions, given the variety of people and their circumstances.

Order and Stability of Society

In the interest of social ORDER and STABILITY, it isn't advantageous for our society to have too many people devastated financially, especially if they have children.  Culturally, in terms of the MORALE and the ORDER of society, again, it isn't good for whole groups of people to feel there are no options, and for it to be so extremely difficult to take advantage of options that they are demoralized.

One can argue on such conservative principles that certain kinds of (flexible) safety nets, certain kinds of education and job training/opportunities (particularly in poor rural and urban areas), will help prevent crime, child poverty, etc., and therefore stabilize and order society.

Appalachia, the Ghetto, Etc.

Someone lives in a poor Appalachian region, or the ghetto in some city, and they have few options.  So many are on welfare.  The community college which was proposed near Galax Virginia (Appalachia) was opposed by that town's furniture factory.  Decades later that factory pulled out of town and now Galax has neither it's major employer nor access to the sort of nearby college/vocational training that the community college would have provided.  I wish it were easier for people to move out of such regions to those where there are more opportunities, and take advantage of such opportunities.  Think of a ghetto kid who is beat up for being too studious, his parents can't afford to move.  Think of another ghetto kid whose friends decide to band together to deal with the bullies who are on the street on the way to the bus, and then one of the kids thinks they ought to sell drugs.  How to get kids out of these situations?  I wish it were easier to leave certain regions, find the right sort of educational/vocational program to get a real start, start a new business, find a stable job.

Solutions?

Some social programs are developed to deal with such situations, situations which the private sector and charitable groups have only partly dealt with.  Serious problems which lead to many many people living destitute lives and having children born into such devastation.  If the private sector and charities had done a good enough job to handle such situations, we wouldn't be asking about government programs.

I wish I could convince poor people to have their tubes tied or to have vasectomies.  I wish I could convince them to use condoms.  I wish I could convince them to leave their area and get the determination and focus and energy to live on the street while working some crappy food service or retail job saving to afford rent with a room-mate.

But I'm not a magician.  And neither is the private sector, neither are charity groups, and neither is the government.

Some combination of all can help deal with the systemic gaps.

[SquirleyWurley]

I just don't agree.  I do believe those cases are out there, I just do not believe that there are enough of those cases to claim that there needs to be a major overhaul in the American way.

Well I didn't say anything about a need for a major overhaul.  Some adjustments may be helpful.

I know of a couple good people who have severe anxiety and depression issues, who have had trouble holding a consistent job, who are currently on disability.  I know of one who is working to get off of disability, but it is very hard.  I know of another who wants to work but doesn't know just what will work for him, but he's trying courier work.  I hope it works for them, but you never know.  Someone can want to get off of disability, and have great trouble doing so.  In their case, their families and disability payments will be there for them if they fail, and they are doing their best to work despite the fact that no one is making them do so, in fact some in their lives encouraged them NOT to do so for fear of them loosing their disability benefits, failing, etc.

I know of someone who lives in a tent in the woods and worked 50+ hours at a fast food place, for several months, until they burned out.  Before that he worked some months at a retail job stocking shelves.  He used to rely upon landscaping jobs.  He says he prefers to live in a tent rather than spend money on rent.  I wish he would not burn bridges by quitting jobs so quickly, so that he could afford to be a room-mate for someone, and be more reliable.  It worries me that he could take better care of his health.  But I don't know what would help him.

Having been to Galax, visiting someone I know very well who grew up there and now lives there and used to live in my home town, and living in a major city, it seems to me that in Galax as well as in the inner cities, there just aren't all that many job opportunities for those who are poor and don't have special skills, and it may be extremely difficult for them to get special skills in their situation, without moving and facing living on the streets.

Luckily, some do take advantage of charitable housing, or of educational/vocational opportunities, and work very hard.  Unfortunately, they may always be very poor, despite such hard work.  I don't know how many of them have or can afford appropriate medical treatments.

[SquirleyWurley]

Happy studying.  Yes, I have to get to studying too.

I don't mean to be offensive but 99 times out of a 100, anecdotes = excuses.

A lot of the time anecdotes are excuses.

What I'm talking about are situations which can and do exist, and the fact that there are various ways to handle them.

Anecdotes, of which I, nor yourself, have all the info related to the cases so they really shouldn't play a role in this argument.

I think they should play SOME role, but I agree with you in the sense that anecdotes should not be over-used.  Anecdotes which convey some information about the situations people face in life, can help us to identify some of the problem areas, some of the potential solution areas, some of the practical realities that are involved.

Don't you think some people deserve the situation they are in...ever?

Yes.

The vast majority of people are smart enough and physically capable of doing what they need to do in order live a "good" life, and healthcare is not a right it's a luxury.

I mentioned child poverty, children not receiving adequate care, and how this can lead to a situation which is not conducive to social ORDER and STABILITY.

You think people should be given a pass because something may come by the hard way, I say that's what makes a person live life to the fullest...to take what you get and make something out of it, otherwise don't plan on anyone else living it for you or giving your sorry excuses the time of day.

I said nothing about a free pass.

[Acumen]

It's easy to find examples of people who try and try and try and are still poor, underinsured, hit by psychological of physical conditions which devastate them and finally destroy them financially, etc.

Really?  I guess I would inquire how you define poor?  I don't see many people "below poverty level" that try and try to succeed in life, but still remain below poverty despite their best efforts.  And therefore, their only hope is social programs. 

What I do see, however, are people deprived of social and financial means who continually make poor decisions in life that serve as a significant counterweight to the few good decisions they make that might have led them out of the pit of poverty. 

You see, I see poverty everyday in my profession - EVERY DAY.  Their lives are marked by bad decisions and a refusal to learn from mistakes.  My philosophy is simple, if some poverty-stricken, undereducated, and unhealthy folks can strive for success and eventually break the cycle of dependence, then most can.  Social programs cannot inculcate ambition, responsibility, self correction, and good judgment.  No, it sends a message that mommy government is here for you regardless whether you piss away your minuscule funds on habit forming drugs, expensive shoes, glimmering car rims, and or just bad investments in general at the expense of the people who work their butts off every day.     

[SquirleyWurley]

You see, I see poverty everyday in my profession - EVERY DAY.  Their lives are marked by bad decisions and a refusal to learn from mistakes.

No doubt there are many in that category.  I think there is a danger of over-generalizing.  I tire of liberal as well as conservative caricatures of those who aren't so well off, but I suppose we all speak from some of the patterns we either see in our experience or hear about, and go from there.

My philosophy is simple, if some poverty-stricken, undereducated, and unhealthy folks can strive for success and eventually break the cycle of dependence, then most can.

I don't see how you can get from 'some' to 'most' so easily.

My outlook is more that if some can do it, then it ought to be encouraged, with an eye on what seems to have been of practical help to those who did it, with an eye on the diversity of ways such people succeeded, and with a realistic appraisal of the individual challenges facing someone who is trying to improve their lot.

Social programs cannot inculcate ambition, responsibility, self correction, and good judgment.

An individual can encourage or guide people, or perhaps help someone discover these qualities within themselves, point them to such inner resources, whether it is a stranger, a person working for a charity, a psychologist, a social worker, etc.

I don't see why a social worker/counselor/psychologist, etc., couldn't try to do this, rather than inculcate the other sorts of attitudes.  Good ones do this.

[Thorolf]

Yet, statistically, your family was not all of America. And, statistically, was apparently not representative of America, either.

Well, why should I care that other Americans got "upward mobility" (whatever the hell that means. Knighthood? A baronetcy? A life peerage? I didn't think we had such things) if my family didn't?

Honestly: If didn't benefit from the wonderful superduper magical all-holy policies of the the Most Worshipful Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan the Great, why should I care one bit if anyone else did? If I didn't benefit from them, then it is, to me, as practical and meaningful as if they never occurred.

Interesting... so if it doesn't benefit you directly, then it's not worth discussing?

From things you have mentioned, it doesn't appear you have trouble with health care. So why do you care about it?

I'm sure there are plenty of things you care about that don't impact you directly... so don't you think your previous comment is rather... convenient?

[Some Darn Xian]

WOW!

I didn't realize that the conservative view of the world was dependent upon the presence of the Liberal Socialists of the world.

I mean, really, it is so nice to know that you really care!!!!!!!!

As for were I have been, I have been busy bettering myself by surrounding myself with the liberal garbage that can only come from a university education.   

After I have been more fully indoctrinated and more unpalatable for the conservatives of the world, I will return with a vigor that should inspire in inflame... JKJKJKJKJKJKJKJKJK