You would let your son starve, homeless on the street? Sorry. I am obligated to help others no matter what.


As long as we are still a republic, the government is made up of and represents individuals.


OK. Good! One conservative finally admits that he doesn't support democracy! Thank you for being so honest!


It was a ballpark figure, like you 40%.


I hope you realize that includes Republicans.


It seems to be doing alright.


It's called realism. Unfortunately, peopel like me can't afford to live in fantasy worlds of "feelings" and have to look at the world as it really is, warts and all.

Ah, I see. You think that "deserve" has something to do with needing or lacking things.

It doesn't. "Deserve" has to do with being worthy of something, or having earned it, or being entitled to it. I don't know about you, but IMO, God is worthy of all praise. He is worthy of our obedience. He is worthy of our love. He "deserves" it.

Simply having needs or lacking "something" doesn't automatically make one deserving of having it.

"Deserve" has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Then I'm afraid you haven't been paying sufficient attention to my words.


I'm not aware of anyone bringing concepts of good and evil into this discussion. It does, however, make them ineffective and inefficient, which, in turn, means that they should be re-organized, revamped, or eliminated. As a conservative, I look for any such programs to be located as close to home as possible, preferably not managed and implemented by "government" at all. That doesn't mean they are verboten... conservatives have driven more of the REAL social reform and progress movements over the years than any other group - but the smaller the fed, the better and more efficient it, and the programs that may be deemed necessary by smaller, more local entities are likely to be.


Who is suffering? Who is anybody proposing should suffer? Honestly, I feel like you just make up what other people are saying sometimes so that you can knock down that little straw man. And no, decent people don't have to suffer. Of course, that is in part because many of those people found jobs and turned their lives around before the program became corrupted. 

Like my sister-in-law, who is now a nurse because of EFFECTIVE welfare reform (before, as I said, it was corrupted here in WI).


And I think the point has been made - only if you want to see the program bankrupted.


Have you, now? Since there aren't actually any real details out there, that's a fascinating statement. A basic framework that has seen very little "fleshing out" is hardly "details." He can't even agree with himself on its basic tenets - how in the world do you know what they are?


Didn't you say that you are a history instructor, or have a history degree or something? I don't need to look into the future to see how plans in the past have slid down that slippery slope.

Incidentally, Obama himself has stated that it would be opt-in, but then he said that he doesn't think there are any people who CHOOSE not to take insurance (the number is somewhere around 14 million, I believe), and he has said on one had that nobody would be forced to take the option, then later that, eventually, people WOULD probably have to be forced if they don't CHOOSE to take it on their own.

Simply put, he doesn't know what he's going to do... but the handwriting is on the wall.

People will opt-in... the govt will set up its own little HMO and will create a scenario like in Germany where certain doctors may ONLY accept govt plan patients... more people will be forced to accept the plan because they haven't purchased their own, creating higher demand for more doctors to be govt approved, forcing more people to opt into the govt plan to stay with their own doctors, forcing the private insurance companies to take measures to compete or fail... people paying taxes for this health insurance from which they don't even benefit (because Congress will implement a universal tax since the taxes paid by the initial beneficiaries of the plan will not come anywhere near covering its costs) will opt in, because it's not like it's going to cost them more, and they can eliminate the private insurance premium - even if it does mean less convenience, forcing private insurance companies to take even more measures... but they can't compete with a program that is perfectly willing to bankrupt itself on the backs of people who aren't even participants in it, so the insurance companies will start to fail.

And, eventually, we'll have slid into Canada.

It's not psychic... it's realistic.

But feel free to pooh-pooh the concerns that people have with it right out the window.


Clearly, we disagree.


Ah, yes... one of Al Gore's huge mistakes - using the phrase "zero sum game" without a) being correct, or b) realizing that the vast majority of Americans zoned out at that moment because they didn't have a clue what that meant.

But, anyway... a market economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just the opposite, actually... it not only IS possible for both parties of an exchange to "win," it is expected.

It's rather pessimistic to propose that every person who fights and works his way out of the ghetto somehow forces someone else into it - and I don't think that is even remotely accurate. Sure, there is a finite amount of cash in the world, so for someone to have more of it, someone else must have less than they perhaps otherwise would have... but that doesn't mean one of them fails or loses. You don't doom someone to poverty by working your way out of it... but taken at face value, that certainly appears to be what you are claiming.

I thought that was pretty much common knowledge...


How do you know? I suggest that it IS happening, and could be happening more, except the fed decides that it is in charge and quashes everyone and everything else. Limit the fed, and I think you'd be shocked at just what gets done a lot closer to home... nobody's willing to limit the fed, though, because of this delusion that nobody else will do anything.


I have made no such suggestion.


You really should read what I say instead of assuming you know what I believe. You might be surprised at how different the two are - and how many things you accuse me of saying and believing that I have not only not even hinted at, but outright don't believe.

Should there be a safety net in place for people who need it? Absolutely... should it be a federal program? Absolutely not - keep it as local as possible. Should it have tools in place to compel and assist people in getting back into the viable workforce? Absolutely.


Try it sometime... I suspect your opinion will alter a bit... and consider that there are a lot of difficulties with implementing anything on as large a scale as we have here, not to mention the paradigm shift that is necessary for such an implementation, and quite frankly - it is not pretty.


That doesn't mean that both parties benefit equally from the exchange. [/quote]

No, but both parties DO benefit. Thus, it's not zero sum.


No wonder you hate capitalism... you have such a pessimistic attitude about it. That is NOT the "only way to get ahead," and is actually generally NOT the way people do it these days. Except maybe in advertising, self-ceilinged middle managers, and those oh-so-realistic hollywood movies. 


Umm... not really.


Again... in the real world, it just doesn't work like that. Sometimes, sure... but it's hardly a "rule." Frankly, that's more like academic theory than actual observation - and in practice, the academics simply don't seem to do a very good job of representing reality.

I guess that depends on your definition of "successful." I am not aware of any successful social programs... but it's a matter of public record that the conservative groups in this country drive the anti-slavery movement, civil rights, etc...


I've lived in France... as I recall, it was among the higher-rated countries on Metis' list a week or so ago... and the health care system is generally pretty terrible. The number of French natives who would bemoan the miserable state of their country's health care (late '90s) was almost shocking, considering that I was just some American student (sort of... my wife and I were a bit nontraditional ) living in the country for several months... but I had an instructor whose son was a doctor, and she must have given us an earful about how much he hated being a doctor in France. In addition to everything else she told us, my language teacher made significantly more money than her doctor son did... Everyone is going to have their opinions, and they will be formed (as I'm sure mine are to a certain extent) based on national pride, but it is my opinion based on my own experience that we don't have it half bad... EVERYONE can get the care they absolutely need, and we can get it when we need it. Like it or not, much of the rest of the world cannot say that...



First off, that is NOT a "zero sum game." Secondly, the benefits aren't weighted all that heavily to the employer in real life... they are to certain extent, because the employer is in business to make a profit, but people are compensated for their work, and that compensation often tends to be the lion's share of a corporation's cost of doing business, especially in the service industries.


No, not really. The vast majority of those who "have more" do not parade around, presuming themselves superior and rubbing the collective noses of the "less fortunate" in it. A few do, to be sure... and I agree that Al Gore should be embarrassed by his behavior in that regard... but the poor example of the few is not logically applicable to the masses. No more than a few criminal gang members are truly representative of all New York City residents...


I'm well aware of all that. Not sure what the point or relevance is, though. Are you seriously trying to maintain that the only people who get rich are the ones who exploit foreign workers who are willing to accept a wage dramatically lower than anyone in this country would - or even would be ALLOWED to accept? Sorry, but, once again, that's just not how the real world works. Some people do get rich like that, but most of the relatively wealthy in the US did it without farming the work out to China.


So, in a nutshell, your worldview is that, in order to protect ourselves from the terrible, horrible, awful people, we have to trust the terrible, horrible, awful people?

Or is there some sort of litmus test of "not terrible, horrible, awful people" and only those folks are allowed inside the wagon circle?

In all seriousness, I don't see that as a particularly "liberal" worldview. I have a similar philosophy, except mine is less spiteful of everyone else in the world - power hungry, self-righteous egomaniacs want to subjugate and dominate me and my fellow people, so we need to stick together, support one another and provide for each other's needs, circling the wagons, one for all and all for one. In this manner, we can maintain these important things like government and charity close to home, where we have the most control and influence, thereby keeping the predators and vampires at bay.

Not so different, really... 

That's all nice and situational... but in terms of the people who promoted this freedom and liberty, the record is pretty clear.


And employees can generally find other work quite easily. And if the employer alienates too many employees, especially in a specialized industry, that employer is going to find itself on some pretty rocky ground. Nobody is saying the two sides are on exactly equal footing... but BOTH sides benefit from the relationship.


Interesting perspective. I guess all I can say to that is that we disagree on multiple points of that sentence.



And, we disagree again...


So you're willing to enjoy the luxuries of wealth, you just don't want anyone else to?


Interesting... because I've known quite a few pretty lousy, indecent, dishonest people who also happen to be American workers. I don't think the wealthy have any monopoly on scum.

And, yet, I understand that that's not what they were considered, or considered themselves. Not that it matters all that much...



Yes, for a few days here and there. It's shockingly easy to find work in this country. I guess that's why the unemployment rate is so low.


Corporate behomoths carry some weight, but they do not employee the majority of Americans, nor do their compose the majority of the businesses in America. Not even close on both counts.


Other than what has been given us, I agree! I don't really see the point, though... but I'll read on...


Why? People are different by nature. We are, by nature, born into different situations. Life is a lot of things, and it's full of opportunities... but no matter how you slice it, it ain't fair. Raging against the machine doesn't change that one bit. And it never will... it will only make you angry, spiteful, and impatient.


I guess that depends on your definition of "just." Personally, I don't agree. We play the hands we are dealt. If, by some accident of birth, we have a tougher road ahead than someone else, well - that's just the way it is and we have to deal with it. It's not a matter of "justice." It's a matter of recognizing that life is not always easy... for anybody - and that tough situations just mean that we have to step up to handle them, or wallow in self-pity and our everlasting failure.

Life isn't "fair." And it's never going to be as long as we aren't identical clones of one another who live in a bubble with no uniqueness whatsoever of any kind.


That's unfortunate, because that's just the way things are, have always been, and will always be. Even if it just boils down to the mental abilities and perspectives


I beg to differ... people should be judged on the strength of their character, not the thickness of their wallet.

Would you care to list some self-proclaimed conservative abolitionists and civil rights leaders?


The current unemployment rate if 5.5%. My ex lost his job in March of 2001 and was not able to find another one until October of that year -- and the one he eventually did find was outside of his field and a pay cut.


Nothing has been "given" to anyone.


Why? Because human beings are supposed to be created equal. You can't have doctrines like that while at the same time allowing the rich to enjoy luxuries that the poor will never know. Either get rid of the rich or admit that all this garbage about "equality" is just a lie to fool people into believing in the sham of democracy.


Life is easy for the rich. Why should they not deserve to have the road toughened up for them, to knock them down off their high horses to wallow in the mud like the rest of us?


Is that true, or is that just a defeatist attitude cultivated to uphold the injustice of the status quo?


More defeatism. I guess if you're rich, you can afford to just accept the way the world is -- it benefits you to do so. Why anyone who is not rich would buy into this tripe, I can't understand.


Yes, they should. And it is a law of nature that the thicker the wallet, the weaker the "character" but they have set up the rules of the game to always favor them.

But then again, as the book of Ecclesiastes so eloquents point out, none of this means anything. We all end up in the grave, rich and poor alike, and everything we may choose to do with our lives is nothing but emptiness and vanity. It doesn't make sense, in a way, why we should bother living in the first place. It would seem that the best course of action would be murder/suicide -- off oneself and try to take as many others with you as you can.

In what way would you consider Lincoln to be conservative? He used the military to preserve and increase the supremacy of the federal government over the states. His rhetoric shifted the prevailing emphasis on the Constitution and its limitation of powers to the Declaration of Independence and its expansive emphasis on rights and freedom -- and showed no hesitation in using the power of the federal government to enforce those rights and freedoms. He used the power of the federal government, backed up by the army, to deprive American citizens of their Constitutionally-protected property.


You're right: equality doesn't demand that we be identical. That's an irrelevant straw-man argument. Why, however, is it justified for some people to lay claim to more of the world's resources than others?


If you are not rich yourself, why are you so intent on defending them? And I'd be more than happy to walk in a rich person's shoes for a while. The rich person I work for spends maybe 15 hours a week in his office; the rest of the time he's either in is 50-acre country estate, in his villa in Anguilla, buying antiquities to add to his private collection, playing with his zebras and exotic birds, attending fancy parties, or travelling all over the world. Why are you parroting lies that the rich make up so to pretend that they have their problems, too, and that money can't buy happiness?


Again with the straw man. Ability, talent, intelligence, willpower, dedication, and muscle are natural differences. Money is a social distinction. The two ought to have nothing to do with one another. It doesn't matter if you're not a world-class athlete; everyone has their own talents and abilities. However, it doesn't make any sense why one person's talents and abilities should get them millions of dollars and the luxury to travel and experience all the world's pleasures while another person's talents and abilities do not.


Are you honestly claiming that the rich don't have more rights and freedoms than the poor, that the rich don't have more influence in politics than the poor?

Why on earth should a 78 yr old partially disabled grandma have to work at all!?!  She should be on a comfortable pension so that someone younger can have those jobs.