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?
I just wanted to add something to my old post that crossed my mind and I haven't read from anyone else. The types of welfare that I think should be managed by the federal government are:
#1 As MrWalker stated, veterans benefits. I apologize to MrWalker and all veterans by not mentioning this because it's just something I assume should always be available. I do think the US government should improve the VA Hospital system and distribute funds quicker to our veterans than it does.
#2 Other social welfare programs such as mental health is always, along with education the first programs to be cut when budgets are tight. This is unacceptable. The people who are born with mentally illness, diminished mental capacity or the ones suffering severe head/spinal injuries are totally dependent on others for their care and protection. These programs need and deserve improvement along with vision and hearing impaired people that can not work.
#3 Not all poor people are poor because they are lazy and selfish but I agree with Nemo that the majority of abuse to the welfare system, in America, are ones who could and should work.
I take it as the first time I've seen Nemo cop out.
Be nice.
Not all poor people are poor because they are lazy and selfish but I agree with Nemo that the majority of abuse to the welfare system, in America, are ones who could and should work.
Not sure if this relates to the quote, but I've been driving around my town and see a few people waiting around the busy highways holding up signs and asking for resources, most of which is money. They look able-bodied. They should be able to sign up for work, any work that's available. If that man had no legs or hands to work with, I would show great pity for his loss and give him $100. Otherwise, he should be able to work where work is needed--even a fast-food restaurant or an assembly-line factory would suffice. It works both ways when you work. You get money, you spend money, you get money back.
#3 Not all poor people are poor because they are lazy and selfish but I agree with Nemo that the majority of abuse to the welfare system, in America, are ones who could and should work.
I don't really think there would be a good welfare system that couldn't be exploited by some. Now the question is how many who are on it, really deserve it, and how many are on it who don't? If most of the people who are on it deserve it, then I'm fine with a few leeches slipping through the cracks. If it's the other way around then we need to make changes. Another thing, how would we tell which way it is? Those who are just leeching aren't exactly going to come forward so we can gather accurate statistical data.
I take it as the first time I've seen Nemo cop out.
Beware of the Ban Hammer..... there were a couple in the past which he and Drace duked it out =p
Now the question is how many who are on it, really deserve it, and how many are on it who don't?
You can check to see many job interviews they had each month. Or look at their medical records or something. Maybe then we can determine who wants to succeed and who is just leeching off taxpayer money. I'm just throwing out ideas for discussion.
Beware of the Ban Hammer..... there were a couple in the past which he and Drace duked it out =p
I'd hate to think that users felt they shouldn't attempt to argue against a moderator because they thought the moderator would resort to the banhammer.
I don't really think there would be a good welfare system that couldn't be exploited by some.
Any system, whether it's an unregulated capitalism or a wealth-redistribution scheme, is liable to exploitation.
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?
Yes, a few of the older (age, not time registered) users are who I'd consider to be conservatives, at least from what I can deduce from their posts. It figures really. As my father said to me, the young probably shouldn't be conservative, since it is the ideology of personal responsibility and pessimism. Young people should be optimistic, progressive, and creative in their political thinking.
There I definitely agree with him, since we all end up being crusty tories by the time we are 40 anyway, we might aswell cling to the hope of utopia whilst we still can!
As my father said to me, the young probably shouldn't be conservative, since it is the ideology of personal responsibility and pessimism. Young people should be optimistic, progressive, and creative in their political thinking.
The idea of personal responsibility is a bad idea? And conservatism is not the idea of pessimism, because optimism and pessimism both do not play a role when it comes to where you stand on politics. I believe liberals are pessimistic because they have no faith in humanity to solve their own problems, as if they are so stupid they need big brother to watch over them. However, that statement would also be unfair.
Young people should be optimistic by making their own choices, not having a government controlled list of options for them to choose from because they are too stupid to make their own choices, but because the government will know better, it's better to live in an authoritarian society?
Progressive are the conservatives who believe in economic freedom. Progressive are the liberals who believe in personal freedom. To be honest, both are becoming more authoritarian, so I believe both of them are failing with progression.
Creative political thinking? Liberal thinking is no more or no less creative than conservative thinking. Capitalist thinking is no more or no less creative than socialist thinking or communist thinking. Creative thinking is not the ideas that are created, but the ability to link ideas together so they make sense.
Creative thinking is the depth of thinking, not the specific views. Otherwise, creative thinking is nothing more than an excuse that is tossed around so one may make positive an idea without reason.
There I definitely agree with him, since we all end up being crusty tories by the time we are 40 anyway, we might as well cling to the hope of utopia whilst we still can!
Utopia is a pseudo-condition derived from the possibility of absolute peace, which is impossible when placed in relevant terms with things such as mankind, human beings, homo sapiens, etc... To create a utopia, the concepts of chaos, dissolution, destruction, betrayal, and corruption must be non-existent, which is impossible seeing as each one stems from the neurological mess that is every human's brain. To dismiss these concepts is to dismiss free will and thought, and to create a utopia is to dismiss what makes a human a human.
The idea of personal responsibility is a bad idea?
No, it's just not one that appeals to the young.
And conservatism is not the idea of pessimism, because optimism and pessimism both do not play a role when it comes to where you stand on politics.
It defines your view of human nature, and therefore has a profound affect on your political thinking. Young people are generally more optimistic than older people, and so are less attracted to conservatism, an ideology with a decidedly pessimistic view of human nature.
I believe liberals are pessimistic because they have no faith in humanity to solve their own problems, as if they are so stupid they need big brother to watch over them. However, that statement would also be unfair.
That statement would also be incorrect. Liberals stand for freedom and abhor unnecessary government intervention.
Young people should be optimistic by making their own choices, not having a government controlled list of options for them to choose from because they are too stupid to make their own choices, but because the government will know better, it's better to live in an authoritarian society?
I don't quit eunderstand what you're getting at. More left wing does not equal more government intervention, especially not in a social sense. Economic liberalism is also pro small government.
Progressive are the conservatives who believe in economic freedom. Progressive are the liberals who believe in personal freedom. To be honest, both are becoming more authoritarian, so I believe both of them are failing with progression.
Progressivie doesn't refer to anyone's subjective criteria of what they think is economically/socially desirable. It can be defined in a political sense as someone who wants to help others through direct means (see progressive taxation). Of course, in political terms, this means being more economically left wing.
Creative political thinking? Liberal thinking is no more or no less creative than conservative thinking. Capitalist thinking is no more or no less creative than socialist thinking or communist thinking. Creative thinking is not the ideas that are created, but the ability to link ideas together so they make sense.
Creativity is coming up with new ideas and ways to better the world. Conservatism is probably the least creative, because it is empirical. It answers every question posed by drawing on cumulated wisdom from history. Whilst this may be effective, it certainly doesn't appeal to young innovative people who wish to utilise modern advances in both science and social thinking.
Utopia is freedom.
So says you. Freedom to me means anarchy. I wouldn't call that a utopia.
What I was referring to though, was that conservatism is the one ideology with no utopian ideal. All other ideologies are rational theories, with an unprecedented utopia as an end goal. For communists it is equality, for anarchists freedom. For any true empiricist conservative utopias are artificial dream worlds, the pursuit of which can only lead to, at best, the abandonment of pragmatism, and at worst, tyranny.
Liberals want the government to provide for the people. If the government is providing, it is big government. Liberals want bigger government, at least when it comes to economics. Conservatives want smaller government when it comes to economics, not bigger. However, conservatives believe people need restrictions to their personal freedoms.
Both want some form of big government control.
I am not liberal or conservative. Both of them support the government having some form of huge role when it comes to either economics or personal liberties.
For some reason, people associate big government as right and small government as left. This is simply untrue. Generally, big government is on the left, but not always. Because you can't really determine how big government is with right and left alone, you have to add a second dimension where left the top is person and economic freedom, the bottom is purely statist, the left is for personal freedom with little economic freedom, and the right with a lot of economic freedom and little personal freedom.
Liberals want the government to provide for the people. If the government is providing, it is big government. Liberals want bigger government, at least when it comes to economics.
Liberals? No liberals want that, except perhaps social liberals, although they are merely democratic socialists by another name.
This really is a fascinating insight into the American political spectrum. The primary goal of liberalism is the maximisation of freedom, both socially and economically. This was hijacked by Reagan and Thatcher in the 80s, in the so called neo liberal era, which was essentially liberal economics combined with conservative social policies. Make no mistake, what you are describing as conservatism is only one strand of a very broad ideology, and although it has become fairly dominant in America, it is certainly not what could be described as orthodox conservatism.
For some reason, people associate big government as right and small government as left. This is simply untrue.
I think this is because the further right you go on the political spectrum, the more the government tells you what is morally and socially acceptable. It takes a hell of a lot more government authority to educate and enforce a moral code upon its subjects than it does to hand out welfare cheques.
Conservatism would not lead to tyranny. Statism or authoritarianism would.
Which is exactly why conservatives have no utopian ideals, since they perceive the pursuit of a utopia the road to tyrannical government.
This really is a fascinating insight into the American political spectrum. The primary goal of liberalism is the maximisation of freedom, both socially and economically.
The definition has changed. We call those people libertarians now.
I think this is because the further right you go on the political spectrum, the more the government tells you what is morally and socially acceptable.
This is true, and this does better describe a conservative. However, liberals want to have more economic restrictions that make the government big when it comes to economic affairs, which I do not support.
Which is exactly why conservatives have no utopian ideals, since they perceive the pursuit of a utopia the road to tyrannical government.
Both liberals and conservatives are moving towards a statist government. Liberals want personal freedoms, but they want the government to get involved with businesses and even control some of them. Conservatives believe in having a truly free market that has very little government intervention, however they believe people must have restrictions when it comes to their moral codes.
Like I said, today you would call someone who wants small government all around a libertarian or, in extreme cases, anarchist. However, libertarians do believe in some government programs that differ from person to person and they also believe that the government should have the power to intervene when people's rights are infringed by someone else, may it be their personal rights or economic rights.
