No seriously. This is like insect repellant for republicans. Have you ever, in a million years, seen a conservitive on AG? You know, like a die hard, Arizona, John McCain type Conservative?
Sorry Strop I really should have made myself clearer, rookie error I suppose!
[/quote](though it is, statistically speaking, more likely seeing as educational level and political alignment is actually one of the US' strongest demographic associations)[quote] I was trying to ask more about your views on the demographics of the AGers regarding education. I found it very weird to hear the generalisation that a conservative has a lower level of education. I don't want to sound like I'm baiting here, I'm just curious if you have any links or references for some interesting reading
I'm actually thankful for more political parties in Australia. I mean sure we have fundamentalist nutjob (and I don't use that term much) parties here, as well as a small secret network of Nationalistic white-supremacist organisations here... but we also have parties that have been developing and lying dormant for years that have suddenly come to the fore here... actually the reason I like that is because the most powerful of them is strongly social liberal and caters to my beliefs :P
I was trying to ask more about your views on the demographics of the AGers regarding education. I found it very weird to hear the generalisation that a conservative has a lower level of education. I don't want to sound like I'm baiting here, I'm just curious if you have any links or references for some interesting reading
Oh okay! Yes, I was basing this comment off a paper I read earlier this year (or last year), however it's a controversial area of discussion (for obvious reasons: people generally don't like to be told their voting rationale is bunk and that most of the determinants of their voting has nothing to do with what they think), and I'll have to find the paper again, as most articles only really comment that more educated people are more likely to vote (which kinda complicates my claim about education, unless there's some inherent kind of liberal voting bias towards in the US, which I'm not convinced of!)
If I can't find it then I'll have to assume that I misread something (but my memory of the article is so clear!!!) It's also possible that the article I read was commenting on voting lines in Australia and not the US, but that would be weird because the two major parties here are so ideologically similar as to be essentially indistinguishable.
Yeah, but that idea sounds a bit closed-minded. I mean, if the population does want a party such as that to gain power, then so be it, it is democracy. I'm saying that there should be wider options than just Democrat or Republican.
Surely you don't want a party gaining power with whom you don't agree with any policy they have, but because majority rules, you are stuck with? I don't know what both of those offer as I'm not even remotely informed about American politics so.. xD
I'm actually thankful for more political parties in Australia. I mean sure we have fundamentalist nutjob (and I don't use that term much) parties here, as well as a small secret network of Nationalistic white-supremacist organisations here... but we also have parties that have been developing and lying dormant for years that have suddenly come to the fore here... actually the reason I like that is because the most powerful of them is strongly social liberal and caters to my beliefs :P
Well then you're one of the lucky ones XD But say if one of those nutjob parties got into power, wouldn't be good for anything.
Greed is not helping yourself. It is taking from others.
I would call that greed, taking from other is stealing.
But, if I worked for my money and I have a lot of it and I don't give it away, and if that makes me greedy, then I believe I should have a right to be greedy with my own property.
The problem is those with more to put into the system often want to shunt that burden onto those who don't have it to put into the system.
Liberals believe in a big government that can force people to participate in different programs to help everyone for the greater good.
just to be fair from the same source. "conservatism Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability."
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that everyone should focus on helping themselves through a system that will require them to help others without government forcing them to do so. Basically, everyone focuses on their own needs, but to acquire those needs, they must help others.
Yet it seems to be done more often then not by stepping on others. Also what of those who can't fend for themselves, are we to just say tough luck you should have been rich?
The left often supports protecting people's jobs by allowing the government to bail out big businesses.
Government restrictions on business often make it harder for small businesses to run. This is why so many big businesses rely on outsourcing. It's cheaper to gain goods and services from foreign workers because big business today must offer so many benefits to their workers.
I have to agree the government bail outs of big business has gotten out of hand. however this ball got started while conservatives were still in power.
I would gladly decline added bonuses if it meant having an opportunity to work more, and in turn make more money. Of course, the people trying to help me gain benefits and make more money are the ones who hurt me. Because of them, there are other people working min. wage beside me so they can cut our hours. It's not the business's fault, they probably aren't big enough to afford paying extra benefits!
You really think that extra money from not having benefits would get funneled into the pockets of the workers and not bonuses for the upper few running those corporations?
This is why government should not get involved with corporations.
The problem here is big business has proven to be unable to regulate itself.
In a free market, you don't have to ask other companies for permission to start your own business. This is a result of a controlled market, not free market. This is the result of government involvement with businesses both big and small.
Those points sound more like the result of corruption on both government and big corporations. The government shouldn't be making concessions to big businesses.
Yeah, but that idea sounds a bit closed-minded. I mean, if the population does want a party such as that to gain power, then so be it, it is democracy. I'm saying that there should be wider options than just Democrat or Republican.
I think we should eliminate the party system altogether.
To me, what defines conservatism is the tenet of repsonsibility. All ideologues see something that is wrong with the world, and come up with a solution. For conservatives of any cloth, people aren't acting responsibly for themselves and self reliance is the solution.
Now on the first count, I agree that there are many people who don't take responsibility for themselves. Where I diverge from conventional toryism is that I feel people have a responsibility to others as well as themselves.
Why do I think conservatives have it wrong here? Conservatism as an ideology was born out of an age of discord and strife after the civil war in England when there was no conception of welfare let alone a desire for a system that catered to other people's needs. Thus the self reliant philosophy made a lot of sense at the time. However in an age where we are aware of and have abundant evidence to suggest that people are not poor because they are feckless or lazy, but because of unfair circumstance, those of us in life blessed with inhrited wealth and therefore access to good education have a duty to the poorer in society.
I suppose I am expounding a typically Disraelite one nation toryism here, but I would not label myself as one because I am too socially liberal for that, and again believe it to be a little anachronistic.
Why do I think conservatives have it wrong here? Conservatism as an ideology was born out of an age of discord and strife after the civil war in England when there was no conception of welfare let alone a desire for a system that catered to other people's needs. Thus the self reliant philosophy made a lot of sense at the time. However in an age where we are aware of and have abundant evidence to suggest that people are not poor because they are feckless or lazy, but because of unfair circumstance, those of us in life blessed with inhrited wealth and therefore access to good education have a duty to the poorer in society.
We can't cater to the poor by taking from the middle class. Why share wealth when you can have your own? I know, I know, I'm being a selfish greedy bastard because I want everyone to be entitled to their own possessions.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The whole welfare thing is FUCKING the middle class over. Sure, some people are poor due to bad circumstances. You know what I have to say? Tough shit. Do something about it.
Most people who are poor are irresponsible. The few people who are poor purely due to bad circumstances can either get a welfare check and leach off the hard working middle class, or we can do the conservative thing by GIVING THAT PERSON A JOB. D :
JOB?! Who would have ever imagined that jobs would be the solution?!
Get off your noble steed, work, and look at your paycheck. If you want to share YOUR wealth, go on ahead. Don't force me to give MY money away because I am the one who worked for it.
I'm currently a student with almost no money in my bank. I am poor. However, I will work my way up before I leech off my fellow brothers and sisters in this country.
So STOP talking about how we need to be "fair". By being "fair" to the poor, you're screwing over the rich.
By being fair to those who lost money due to bad circumstances, you are allowing even more people to abuse the system. All of which, at this time, you are taking from the working class. No matter what, the working class loses.
So STOP talking about how we need to be "fair". By being "fair" to the poor, you're screwing over the rich.
I'm sorry, you're screwing over the working class. Some of them saved their money and can be considered rich while others are middle class and lower middle class. Those are all the people who deserve their money the most.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I am a London boy currently living in Berlin. It have been to the US many times and have relatives there. I can safely say that European social democracies are much more functional than the neo con US model. If you have any evidence to the contrary please share it with me.
I ask you this. If the welfare state is so unpopular, then why do the vast majority of people in Europe support it in opinion polls, including the middle classes?
Most people who are poor are irresponsible.
Most people are poor because their parents were poor. Most people are rich because their parents are rich. To ignore this correlation is infantile. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since neo liberalism and Reagan/Thatcher, the poor are even less likely to climb the ladder than before. Economic liberalism has failed in its aims. It's time people realised that.
JOB?! Who would have ever imagined that jobs would be the solution?!
Democratic socialists perhaps? You clearly have no idea how a welfare system works. It's not handouts. You have to do community service and skills training to get your money, and you have to be able to prove you are actively seeking work. The sad fact is, people who are unemployed are generally from poor backgrounds, and have had less access to good education, and as such need low skilled jobs. Sadly there aren't enough of those around any more. That doesn't make them lazy or at fault for their employment status though.
If you want to share YOUR wealth, go on ahead. Don't force me to give MY money away because I am the one who worked for it.
Wake up. You don't get to choose how much you're taxed or how that tax is spent. If this were the case I doubt anyone would opt in, and then where would we be? You'd be surprised at how many services are reliant on public money to function. Even the richest would be affected by this.
All of which, at this time, you are taking from the working class. No matter what, the working class loses.
Progressive taxation and the welfare state has beneftitted the working class in Britain immesurably since it's introduction in 1908. Before that, the quality of life for workers was worse than the Middle Ages. Since the reforms average living standards increased massivey without a massive offset in taxes for the middle and upper classes.
Please don't lecture me on how bad a welfare system is when you clearly have no understanding of how they work or the history of them.
Most people are poor because their parents were poor. Most people are rich because their parents are rich. To ignore this correlation is infantile. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since neo liberalism and Reagan/Thatcher, the poor are even less likely to climb the ladder than before. Economic liberalism has failed in its aims. It's time people realised that.
Boo hoo. We shouldn't all be born at the same poverty level. Anyone who wishes for this is just a jealous idiot. Rather than wish happiness for as many people as possible, you wish for equality, even if it means less happy people.
You're born. You grow up. You have children. You give your children everything you can to help them with their life.
You sound like someone who does not support inheritance. That is the most unfair thing there is. Rather than giving your children something, the state takes it and gives it to someone else?
I am tired of these statist views.
As for your welfare argument, you took what I said out of context. The welfare system is often abused and I know it's a good thing to help people get back on their feet.
Regardless, you can't be unfair to people who work honestly to make a living to cater to those who are poor.
Wake up. You don't get to choose how much you're taxed or how that tax is spent. If this were the case I doubt anyone would opt in, and then where would we be? You'd be surprised at how many services are reliant on public money to function. Even the richest would be affected by this.
I know taxes are great, but only when used appropriately. I don't want to waste money on any more wealth distribution programs. I am also tired of paying taxes to cover drug war costs.
The amount of taxes we pay should be small and the people should have a say of what is and is too much.
I don't owe the poor money because they were unfortunate. That's BS. I would owe the poor money if they work for me, if I buy from them, or if I stole from them. I should not owe someone money simply because they are poor. That's not fair FOR ME.
So stop talking about fair. There is no method that is "fair" to the poor except one where the poor can work for money, then keep it.
