Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[Mr. Shaman]

I've seen various versions of that PC and it still impresses me as what 'conservatism' is all about.

I think the Conservative begins with valuing reward for honorable productivity and allowing consequences for a choice not to be productive. The emphasis is not necessarily rejection of a hand up, but on the necessity of the individual taking responsibility for his own productivity.

I think the Liberal begins with concern for the nonproductive, criticism for the unfairness of factors that made him/her non productive, and emphasis on correcting those factors. The motivation of the nonproductive is immaterial and only external factors should be the concern.

To add to your unbiased opinions....we also need to recognize:​

"Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said."

Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking​

A good example of "conservatives'" inability to think-on-their-feet is this....

...Alzheimers Test...

....that takes very-little-effort, for those who take calculated-risks (and, challenge themselves), on a daily-basis!!​

 

[zeke]

Conservatives WANT people to be educated and taught how to think critically and creatively and to be encouraged to acquire marketable skills and to be encouraged to live their lives so as to be desirable and employable and largely increase their prospects to live the American dream.

LMAO. That must be why they want to cut education loans. And teach creationism as science. And on marketable skills, how hard is it to teach a middle class young person how to flip a burger? And middle class living the American dream. As another poster puts it so well; you gotta be asleep to believe that rethugs offer the American dream.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives WANT people to be educated and taught how to think critically and creatively and to be encouraged to acquire marketable skills and to be encouraged to live their lives so as to be desirable and employable and largely increase their prospects to live the American dream.

LMAO. That must be why they want to cut education loans. And teach creationism as science. And on marketable skills, how hard is it to teach a middle class young person how to flip a burger? And middle class living the American dream. As another poster puts it so well; you gotta be asleep to believe that rethugs offer the American dream.

At least conservatives are embarrassed to write things like you just wrote. I know a LOT of conservatives and know not a single one who thinks Creationism is science, much less wants to teach it as science. Do not confuse a very tiny group of religious zealots as conservatism.

Also I can't think of a single Republican President or Congress since education loans became a government initiative who has wanted to cut them. Make sure that they are used to educate people, yes. Cut them? No. So, you'll have to provide some kind of reliable source to be credible on that one too.

Conservatives do know that young people taking jobs, even burger flipping jobs, teaches a work ethic, helps young people acquire marketable skills, and references that can get them started on a solid career of their choice. Conservatives oppose any government policy that makes it more difficult for young people to do that or that discourages them from doing that, most especially liberal snobs and/or free loaders who think that is somehow beneath them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

The debate must IMO be focused on today, the contemporary world is one inconceivable to 16th and 17th century thinkers. Within the framwork of these hallowed words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Consider for example health care. Let's assume a blue state supports universal health care and a red state does not. Let's suppose Joe the Conservative and his wife Sarah have a child and learn the child has type 1 Diabetes. Joe is a plumber and lives in a
Right to Work state, he and his wife must purchase their own private insurance and soon learn that the cost of treatment for little Jorah will be more than they can afford, and with the limits set by their provider will require a monthly outlay which will seriously impact their lives. Furthermore, knowing this they realize 1) they cannot afford to have more children, 2) as practicing Catholics birth control is out of the question and 3) since Jorah will not be covered after she turns 18 it is unlikely she will be able to provide medical care for herself due to the pre existing condition.

Once a responsible parent to do? Sell the house, quit the job and head to a state where the people decided to take car of each other, of course. So once again the blue states subsidize the red.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

The debate must IMO be focused on today, the contemporary world is one inconceivable to 16th and 17th century thinkers. Within the framwork of these hallowed words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Consider for example health care. Let's assume a blue state supports universal health care and a red state does not. Let's suppose Joe the Conservative and his wife Sarah have a child and learn the child has type 1 Diabetes. Joe is a plumber and lives in a
Right to Work state, he and his wife must purchase their own private insurance and soon learn that the cost of treatment for little Jorah will be more than they can afford, and with the limits set by their provider will require a monthly outlay which will seriously impact their lives. Furthermore, knowing this they realize 1) they cannot afford to have more children, 2) as practicing Catholics birth control is out of the question and 3) since Jorah will not be covered after she turns 18 it is unlikely she will be able to provide medical care for herself due to the pre existing condition.

Once a responsible parent to do? Sell the house, quit the job and head to a state where the people decided to take car of each other, of course. So once again the blue states subsidize the red.

No, because once Joe and his family move to the blue state, they are then no longer red staters but are blue staters where they buy and sell and contribute to the economy as well as work and pay taxes for the benefits they receive.

Just as the red state won't suffer if the blue stater becomes weary of paying ever higher taxes to support an unsustainable universal healthcare system and moves to the red state with a free market system.

Where it starts getting screwed up, however, is when the federal government decides to try to fit everybody into the same system and the choices for everybody begin drying up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

The debate must IMO be focused on today, the contemporary world is one inconceivable to 16th and 17th century thinkers. Within the framwork of these hallowed words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Consider for example health care. Let's assume a blue state supports universal health care and a red state does not. Let's suppose Joe the Conservative and his wife Sarah have a child and learn the child has type 1 Diabetes. Joe is a plumber and lives in a
Right to Work state, he and his wife must purchase their own private insurance and soon learn that the cost of treatment for little Jorah will be more than they can afford, and with the limits set by their provider will require a monthly outlay which will seriously impact their lives. Furthermore, knowing this they realize 1) they cannot afford to have more children, 2) as practicing Catholics birth control is out of the question and 3) since Jorah will not be covered after she turns 18 it is unlikely she will be able to provide medical care for herself due to the pre existing condition.

Once a responsible parent to do? Sell the house, quit the job and head to a state where the people decided to take car of each other, of course. So once again the blue states subsidize the red.

No, because once Joe and his family move to the blue state, they are then no longer red staters but are blue staters where they buy and sell and contribute to the economy as well as work and pay taxes for the benefits they receive.

Just as the red state won't suffer if the blue stater becomes weary of paying ever higher taxes to support an unsustainable universal healthcare system and moves to the red state with a free market system.

Where it starts getting screwed up, however, is when the federal government decides to try to fit everybody into the same system and the choices for everybody begin drying up.

When one or two families do so maybe this 'free market' ideal exists; not when tens of thousands of 'freeloaders' move into a community solely to get the medical care they need, paid for by those who resided in the community for years.

I'm off for an appointment, I look for ahead to reading more on the ISSUE (not of health care, per se, but on the perspective of others).

 

[Foxfyre]

The debate must IMO be focused on today, the contemporary world is one inconceivable to 16th and 17th century thinkers. Within the framwork of these hallowed words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Consider for example health care. Let's assume a blue state supports universal health care and a red state does not. Let's suppose Joe the Conservative and his wife Sarah have a child and learn the child has type 1 Diabetes. Joe is a plumber and lives in a
Right to Work state, he and his wife must purchase their own private insurance and soon learn that the cost of treatment for little Jorah will be more than they can afford, and with the limits set by their provider will require a monthly outlay which will seriously impact their lives. Furthermore, knowing this they realize 1) they cannot afford to have more children, 2) as practicing Catholics birth control is out of the question and 3) since Jorah will not be covered after she turns 18 it is unlikely she will be able to provide medical care for herself due to the pre existing condition.

Once a responsible parent to do? Sell the house, quit the job and head to a state where the people decided to take car of each other, of course. So once again the blue states subsidize the red.

No, because once Joe and his family move to the blue state, they are then no longer red staters but are blue staters where they buy and sell and contribute to the economy as well as work and pay taxes for the benefits they receive.

Just as the red state won't suffer if the blue stater becomes weary of paying ever higher taxes to support an unsustainable universal healthcare system and moves to the red state with a free market system.

Where it starts getting screwed up, however, is when the federal government decides to try to fit everybody into the same system and the choices for everybody begin drying up.

When one or two families do so maybe this 'free market' ideal exists; not when tens of thousands of 'freeloaders' move into a community solely to get the medical care they need, paid for by those who resided in the community for years.

I'm off for an appointment, I look for ahead to reading more on the ISSUE (not of health care, per se, but on the perspective of others).

You know what the conservative solution to free loaders is? Don't give them anybody to freeload off of.

In a former community, in a state with almost no welfare system at all, I was the program administrator for an Episcopal Diocese, and therefore had oversight of programs to provide assistance for people in need. I had previously been Executive Director of a large agency that, among other things, also had programs for the less advantaged and, in that role, I worked closely with all other agencies in town. So based on that experience, and my position with the Diocese, (and with permission of the Bishop), I was drafted as a volunteer coordinator of a central clearing house in which all city and social agencies in town used to cull out those in real need from those who were just milking the system.

Whenever somebody came in wanting assistance they were referred to that clearing house which would run a quick Police background check, verify the person's identity, etc. before providing them with what they needed if it was determined that they were in fact in need.

Needless to say most of the transients who showed up at my desk did not want to undergo a background check or produce any identify which, remarkably, almost every single one of them did not have due to being just previously 'mugged and robbed." Almost all were enroute to another state where they would have a job waiting if they could just get there, but couldn't provide a name or phone number of who they would work for. Nor could they give me a single name or phone number of a person who could vouch for them.

Rather than take the risk of turning away a hungry man or leaving a family stranged, I arranged with a nearby cafe to accept our vouchers so that the person could order anything on the menu they wanted to eat and we would pay the cafe. And I had a another voucher for 5 gallons of gasoline at a nearby station that would at least get 'the stranded family' on down the road.

In 3 years that I kept track, I gave out maybe 300 vouchers for food and/or gasoline. One of the food vouchers was cashed in. Two of the gasoline vouchers were cashed in.

Meanwhile, those people assisted by the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Good Will, etc. etc, etc, generally were only temporarily in need of help and were almost all returned to productive employment and self reliance.

In my opinion, if the Federal Government got entirely out of the business of providing charity in any form to any person, group, or entity, we would have a tremendous lot less need for such charity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, because once Joe and his family move to the blue state, they are then no longer red staters but are blue staters where they buy and sell and contribute to the economy as well as work and pay taxes for the benefits they receive.

Just as the red state won't suffer if the blue stater becomes weary of paying ever higher taxes to support an unsustainable universal healthcare system and moves to the red state with a free market system.

Where it starts getting screwed up, however, is when the federal government decides to try to fit everybody into the same system and the choices for everybody begin drying up.

When one or two families do so maybe this 'free market' ideal exists; not when tens of thousands of 'freeloaders' move into a community solely to get the medical care they need, paid for by those who resided in the community for years.

I'm off for an appointment, I look for ahead to reading more on the ISSUE (not of health care, per se, but on the perspective of others).

You know what the conservative solution to free loaders is? Don't give them anybody to freeload off of.

In a former community, in a state with almost no welfare system at all, I was the program administrator for an Episcopal Diocese, and therefore had oversight of programs to provide assistance for people in need. I had previously been Executive Director of a large agency that, among other things, also had programs for the less advantaged and, in that role, I worked closely with all other agencies in town. So based on that experience, and my position with the Diocese, (and with permission of the Bishop), I was drafted as a volunteer coordinator of a central clearing house in which all city and social agencies in town used to cull out those in real need from those who were just milking the system.

Whenever somebody came in wanting assistance they were referred to that clearing house which would run a quick Police background check, verify the person's identity, etc. before providing them with what they needed if it was determined that they were in fact in need.

Needless to say most of the transients who showed up at my desk did not want to undergo a background check or produce any identify which, remarkably, almost every single one of them did not have due to being just previously 'mugged and robbed." Almost all were enroute to another state where they would have a job waiting if they could just get there, but couldn't provide a name or phone number of who they would work for. Nor could they give me a single name or phone number of a person who could vouch for them.

Rather than take the risk of turning away a hungry man or leaving a family stranged, I arranged with a nearby cafe to accept our vouchers so that the person could order anything on the menu they wanted to eat and we would pay the cafe. And I had a another voucher for 5 gallons of gasoline at a nearby station that would at least get 'the stranded family' on down the road.

In 3 years that I kept track, I gave out maybe 300 vouchers for food and/or gasoline. One of the food vouchers was cashed in. Two of the gasoline vouchers were cashed in.

Meanwhile, those people assisted by the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Good Will, etc. etc, etc, generally were only temporarily in need of help and were almost all returned to productive employment and self reliance.

In my opinion, if the Federal Government got entirely out of the business of providing charity in any form to any person, group, or entity, we would have a tremendous lot less need for such charity.

In my example Joe and Sarah were people in need. People forced to move to another state do to circumstances beyond their control. They're not freeloaders in the sense of people gaming the system. When AFDC was replaced by TANF much of the fraud disappeared

People will always need emergency aid and some emergencies are the result of catastrophic events, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, and even epidemics (1918 Flu) which far exceed the ability of the charities you describe to provide assistance and even individual states.

I don't believe the solution to the many problems or issues of national scope is one to be solved by ideology; we need pragmatic individuals to develop policies which protect everyone. Great wealth is not a prophylactic, the very rich got and died from the flu epidemic of 1918, and the richest of the Japanese died in the Quakes and Tsunami of 2011. Tomorrow cannot be predicted, but we can plan for worst case scenarios - IMO liberals understand this and so do conservatives. It's the fringe of both sets who want more and more for themselves, and less and less to go to others.

 

[Foxfyre]

When one or two families do so maybe this 'free market' ideal exists; not when tens of thousands of 'freeloaders' move into a community solely to get the medical care they need, paid for by those who resided in the community for years.

I'm off for an appointment, I look for ahead to reading more on the ISSUE (not of health care, per se, but on the perspective of others).

You know what the conservative solution to free loaders is? Don't give them anybody to freeload off of.

In a former community, in a state with almost no welfare system at all, I was the program administrator for an Episcopal Diocese, and therefore had oversight of programs to provide assistance for people in need. I had previously been Executive Director of a large agency that, among other things, also had programs for the less advantaged and, in that role, I worked closely with all other agencies in town. So based on that experience, and my position with the Diocese, (and with permission of the Bishop), I was drafted as a volunteer coordinator of a central clearing house in which all city and social agencies in town used to cull out those in real need from those who were just milking the system.

Whenever somebody came in wanting assistance they were referred to that clearing house which would run a quick Police background check, verify the person's identity, etc. before providing them with what they needed if it was determined that they were in fact in need.

Needless to say most of the transients who showed up at my desk did not want to undergo a background check or produce any identify which, remarkably, almost every single one of them did not have due to being just previously 'mugged and robbed." Almost all were enroute to another state where they would have a job waiting if they could just get there, but couldn't provide a name or phone number of who they would work for. Nor could they give me a single name or phone number of a person who could vouch for them.

Rather than take the risk of turning away a hungry man or leaving a family stranged, I arranged with a nearby cafe to accept our vouchers so that the person could order anything on the menu they wanted to eat and we would pay the cafe. And I had a another voucher for 5 gallons of gasoline at a nearby station that would at least get 'the stranded family' on down the road.

In 3 years that I kept track, I gave out maybe 300 vouchers for food and/or gasoline. One of the food vouchers was cashed in. Two of the gasoline vouchers were cashed in.

Meanwhile, those people assisted by the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Good Will, etc. etc, etc, generally were only temporarily in need of help and were almost all returned to productive employment and self reliance.

In my opinion, if the Federal Government got entirely out of the business of providing charity in any form to any person, group, or entity, we would have a tremendous lot less need for such charity.

In my example Joe and Sarah were people in need. People forced to move to another state do to circumstances beyond their control. They're not freeloaders in the sense of people gaming the system. When AFDC was replaced by TANF much of the fraud disappeared

People will always need emergency aid and some emergencies are the result of catastrophic events, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, and even epidemics (1918 Flu) which far exceed the ability of the charities you describe to provide assistance and even individual states.

I don't believe the solution to the many problems or issues of national scope is one to be solved by ideology; we need pragmatic individuals to develop policies which protect everyone. Great wealth is not a prophylactic, the very rich got and died from the flu epidemic of 1918, and the richest of the Japanese died in the Quakes and Tsunami of 2011. Tomorrow cannot be predicted, but we can plan for worst case scenarios - IMO liberals understand this and so do conservatives. It's the fringe of both sets who want more and more for themselves, and less and less to go to others.

That is true but we give up too much when the Federal Government chooses who will and will not receive assistance, and more importantly when it chooses who will and who will not be required to provide that assistance. When the Federal Government has such power, we have no rights at all.

I have no problem with a FEMA ready to move in on major disasters, help clear roads, and provide necessary life saving immediate assistance. I have no problem with it receiving, coordinating, and distributing voluntary contributions of money, goods, services, and labor. The American people are the most generous people on Earth and quick to respond for calls for help when local services are overwhelmed.

Large, every more unwieldy, inefficient, and excessively expensive bureaucracies are never the best way to get anything done.

Which brings us back to some basic differences between conservativism and liberalism as understood in modern day America. Conservatives know that big government gradually absorbs more resources than it will ever deliver and is rarely the most efficient, effective, and economical means to get things done.

Liberals look more to the federal government as the benevolent monarch that owns and distributes the wealth of the nation and takes care of all the needs of the people.

 

[The T]

You know what the conservative solution to free loaders is? Don't give them anybody to freeload off of.

In a former community, in a state with almost no welfare system at all, I was the program administrator for an Episcopal Diocese, and therefore had oversight of programs to provide assistance for people in need. I had previously been Executive Director of a large agency that, among other things, also had programs for the less advantaged and, in that role, I worked closely with all other agencies in town. So based on that experience, and my position with the Diocese, (and with permission of the Bishop), I was drafted as a volunteer coordinator of a central clearing house in which all city and social agencies in town used to cull out those in real need from those who were just milking the system.

Whenever somebody came in wanting assistance they were referred to that clearing house which would run a quick Police background check, verify the person's identity, etc. before providing them with what they needed if it was determined that they were in fact in need.

Needless to say most of the transients who showed up at my desk did not want to undergo a background check or produce any identify which, remarkably, almost every single one of them did not have due to being just previously 'mugged and robbed." Almost all were enroute to another state where they would have a job waiting if they could just get there, but couldn't provide a name or phone number of who they would work for. Nor could they give me a single name or phone number of a person who could vouch for them.

Rather than take the risk of turning away a hungry man or leaving a family stranged, I arranged with a nearby cafe to accept our vouchers so that the person could order anything on the menu they wanted to eat and we would pay the cafe. And I had a another voucher for 5 gallons of gasoline at a nearby station that would at least get 'the stranded family' on down the road.

In 3 years that I kept track, I gave out maybe 300 vouchers for food and/or gasoline. One of the food vouchers was cashed in. Two of the gasoline vouchers were cashed in.

Meanwhile, those people assisted by the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Good Will, etc. etc, etc, generally were only temporarily in need of help and were almost all returned to productive employment and self reliance.

In my opinion, if the Federal Government got entirely out of the business of providing charity in any form to any person, group, or entity, we would have a tremendous lot less need for such charity.

In my example Joe and Sarah were people in need. People forced to move to another state do to circumstances beyond their control. They're not freeloaders in the sense of people gaming the system. When AFDC was replaced by TANF much of the fraud disappeared

People will always need emergency aid and some emergencies are the result of catastrophic events, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, and even epidemics (1918 Flu) which far exceed the ability of the charities you describe to provide assistance and even individual states.

I don't believe the solution to the many problems or issues of national scope is one to be solved by ideology; we need pragmatic individuals to develop policies which protect everyone. Great wealth is not a prophylactic, the very rich got and died from the flu epidemic of 1918, and the richest of the Japanese died in the Quakes and Tsunami of 2011. Tomorrow cannot be predicted, but we can plan for worst case scenarios - IMO liberals understand this and so do conservatives. It's the fringe of both sets who want more and more for themselves, and less and less to go to others.

That is true but we give up too much when the Federal Government chooses who will and will not receive assistance, and more importantly when it chooses who will and who will not be required to provide that assistance. When the Federal Government has such power, we have no rights at all.

I have no problem with a FEMA ready to move in on major disasters, help clear roads, and provide necessary life saving immediate assistance. I have no problem with it receiving, coordinating, and distributing voluntary contributions of money, goods, services, and labor. The American people are the most generous people on Earth and quick to respond for calls for help when local services are overwhelmed.

Large, every more unwieldy, inefficient, and excessively expensive bureaucracies are never the best way to get anything done.

Which brings us back to some basic differences between conservativism and liberalism as understood in modern day America. Conservatives know that big government gradually absorbs more resources than it will ever deliver and is rarely the most efficient, effective, and economical means to get things done.

Liberals look more to the federal government as the benevolent monarch that owns and distributes the wealth of the nation and takes care of all the needs of the people.

Road to Serfdom...where the lazy that can't handle thier own Liberty wish to be...Giving up thier rights for safety and security...and a paycheck in the hands of politicians that could give a crap about those they represent...

And look who's beind the wheel?