Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[Foxfyre]

As to the Cleveland steel mills: the owners knew when they built them they would eventually be obsolete, foxfyre. IMO, this is no different from clawing off the top of a mountain for coal and then walking away, leaving the environment so degraded people who live there get sick. It is wrong and should be illegal.

By contrast, my paint company client did not know at the time they dumped the waste that it was hazardous. Their conduct complied with the law at the time, and when it changed, they quit dumping. Why's it all their fault and expense to clean up a site when the prevailing science did not recognize the need to act differently until later? A big fat "gotcha" that served nobody's interest.

I disagree with you that the government owed it to the American steel industry to assure profitability. What the government should have done, IMO, was run up the expense of shipping jobs off-shore so that American businesses would continue to prefer American steel.

But if you asked 1,001 Cleveland residents about it, you'd get 1,001 answers....reasonable people can disagree.

No you misunderstand. Those who operate within the law, as your paint company did, should not be punished for the unintended consequences of things they legally do. Certainly at the very least the authorities should work with the company to resolve the problem and remove the hazard in a practical manner that produces the best possible outcome for all concerned.

And no the government does not owe it to anybody to ensure profitability. The conservative point of view, however, is that the government does owe to to everybody to not create a climate that unnecessarily hinders profitability.

If the steel mills knew their plants would eventually be obsolete, then so did the authorities that zoned them in and licensed them to operate. I can tick off any number of businesses that have operated profitably for generations by retooling and adapting to changing technology. Those who do that stay in business. Those who don't go out of business. But since the Great Society was implemented, the U.S. government has done no favors to ANY manufacturing industry in the USA with its excessive regulation, requirements, mandates, controls, and ever growing government requiring more and more in taxes etc. etc. etc. that have made it impossible for many to survive in a global market. So many things we once led the world in manufacturing are no longer made at all in the USA.

Wouldn't you think that would be a wake up call to a government who has created an increasingly anti-business environment in this country? But we seem to have a government gung ho to not only continue those destructive policies but are stepping them up.

I'll tell you a true story in my next post.

 

[Foxfyre]

TRUE STORY told to me by a West Virginia farmer the summer we spent in West Virginia:

Coal is major industry in West Virginia that has laws on the books that the coal companys can go after the coal, but they have to restore the land to its original condition after the seam of coal is removed. So the coal company approached the farmer to get the lease to removed the coal from the side of a mountain on the farmer's propety.

A huge wedge was dug out of the mountain leaving a nice flat surface where a steep slope had been. The farmer was thrilled! He was needing a new barn and stock pen but was going to have to give up fertile farmland for the space to put them. The new space dug out of the mountain would accommodate both and he would not have to reduce his crops.

But no. The law was the coal company had to restore the mountain to its original contour and shape. No amount of appeal from both the farmer or the coal company moved anybody so the coal company was forced to incur the considerable expense to put back all that dirt and the farmer had to give up his cropland to make room for the barn and stock pen.

Conservatives would say the property owner should be allowed to make the call.

 

[Madeline]

Without a doubt, some regulation is unnecessary and burdensome. It is equally true that some regulation is inadequate as hell. Consider the oil spill in the Gulf, or the salmonella epidemic in eggs.

American steel and heavy manufacturing has declined for a wide variety of reasons. It's hardly reasonable to lay that blame on government completely, especially while disregarding all the things government did to maintain its profitability.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."

The young woman and her father are both stupid. Neither one of them actually knows what socialism is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Without a doubt, some regulation is unnecessary and burdensome. It is equally true that some regulation is inadequate as hell. Consider the oil spill in the Gulf, or the salmonella epidemic in eggs.

American steel and heavy manufacturing has declined for a wide variety of reasons. It's hardly reasonable to lay that blame on government completely, especially while disregarding all the things government did to maintain its profitability.

The oil spill in the gulf did not occur due to inadequate regulation. The oil spill occurred when the regulators intentionally looked the other way and did not enforce the regulation that is on the books. When you look at the thousands of rigs and platforms out there and the fact that there have been so few damaging incidents says that the regulations are working just fine.

The egg recall was also not due to inadequate regulation. The regulators were able to identify and recall the specific eggs that were a problem. The egg recall was made necessary when somebody used improper procedures re the chicken feed, the chickens, or the handling of the eggs. No amount of regulation will prevent human error or failure to follow mandated procedures.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals move America forward.

Conservatives stand in the way,

and get run over.

So that you won't be seen as a troll, please provide a specific example to illustrate your point of view.

Racial minority rights, workers' rights, women's suffrage, environmental protections, gay rights, for starters,

all causes moved forward by liberals,

running over conservative resistance in the process.

 

[Foxfyre]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."

The young woman and her father are both stupid. Neither one of them actually knows what socialism is.

How do you know? Neither of them mentioned socialism.

 

[Avorysuds]

foxfyre wrote:

I understand the social contract to be the values, principles, and ideals by which a people governs itself. So I took this statement to indicate that liberals look to the government to govern the people. Conservatives do not want to be governed but want their rights secured and then be left alone to govern themselves.

foxfyre, this is a nice sentient, but what does it mean? Conservatives seem to be the ones who oppose legalizing drugs; oppose gay marriage; oppose legal abortion; etc. On social issues, most self-proclaimed conservatives seem to be almighty officious intermeddlers of the first order.

Oh, so it's all the liberals (elected) that are supporting these things right? WRONG.

 

[Madeline]

Without a doubt, some regulation is unnecessary and burdensome. It is equally true that some regulation is inadequate as hell. Consider the oil spill in the Gulf, or the salmonella epidemic in eggs.

American steel and heavy manufacturing has declined for a wide variety of reasons. It's hardly reasonable to lay that blame on government completely, especially while disregarding all the things government did to maintain its profitability.

The oil spill in the gulf did not occur due to inadequate regulation. The oil spill occurred when the regulators intentionally looked the other way and did not enforce the regulation that is on the books. When you look at the thousands of rigs and platforms out there and the fact that there have been so few damaging incidents says that the regulations are working just fine.

The egg recall was also not due to inadequate regulation. The regulators were able to identify and recall the specific eggs that were a problem. The egg recall was made necessary when somebody used improper procedures re the chicken feed, the chickens, or the handling of the eggs. No amount of regulation will prevent human error or failure to follow mandated procedures.

Either we don't have a shared definition of "regulation" or you and I don't share a POV on liability. The Gulf oil spill was caused by gross negligence. The inability to cap it and clean up immediately was caused by crappy science or planning or outright lying. The purpose of regulation is to protect the public from hazards no one man can defend against alone.

The Gulf oil spill is a textbook example of failed regulation, IMO.

 

[Madeline]

Your West Virginia farmer story was great, foxfyre. Most people view real property rights as among the most sacrosanct a man can hold. Under our common law of property, a man owns his land "heaven to hell", meaning he owns the air space above and the mineral rights below.

So the farmer had the common law right to lease his little mountain for mining. He had the right to reshape it to flat land, under common law. He lost that right because of regulation. Was it reasonable? Is there a valid environmental concern that would have made flat land damaging to his neighbor's property?

Probably not. Chances are, the regulation was drawn to prevent the coal company from merely seeding a haircut and leaving it, calling that a restoration. In other words, if that had been a mountain in the Rockies, the regulation would have made sense.

Very often, the regulations and regulators have no fucking sense when dealing with a small business as opposed to the conglomerates they envisioned when the rules were drafted. I suppose this is pretty much how my paint company client got screwed, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Without a doubt, some regulation is unnecessary and burdensome. It is equally true that some regulation is inadequate as hell. Consider the oil spill in the Gulf, or the salmonella epidemic in eggs.

American steel and heavy manufacturing has declined for a wide variety of reasons. It's hardly reasonable to lay that blame on government completely, especially while disregarding all the things government did to maintain its profitability.

The oil spill in the gulf did not occur due to inadequate regulation. The oil spill occurred when the regulators intentionally looked the other way and did not enforce the regulation that is on the books. When you look at the thousands of rigs and platforms out there and the fact that there have been so few damaging incidents says that the regulations are working just fine.

The egg recall was also not due to inadequate regulation. The regulators were able to identify and recall the specific eggs that were a problem. The egg recall was made necessary when somebody used improper procedures re the chicken feed, the chickens, or the handling of the eggs. No amount of regulation will prevent human error or failure to follow mandated procedures.

Either we don't have a shared definition of "regulation" or you and I don't share a POV on liability. The Gulf oil spill was caused by gross negligence. The inability to cap it and clean up immediately was caused by crappy science or planning or outright lying. The purpose of regulation is to protect the public from hazards no one man can defend against alone.

The Gulf oil spill is a textbook example of failed regulation, IMO.

One of the most important principles you learn in management school is that you can't fix a bad system by changing the people, and you can't fix bad people by changing the system. In the fiasco with BP, the problem was not the system and was not the regulations. The problem was people both in government and at BP who sidestepped the regulations. You could have had a million more regulations on that process and it wouldn't have made a whit's bit of difference if the people involved are not willing to enforce them or follow them.

Again the problem was not the regulations. The problem in this case was the people involved.

 

[Madeline]

foxfyre wrote:

One of the most important principles you learn in management school is that you can't fix a bad system by changing the people, and you can't fix bad people by changing the system. In the fiasco with BP, the problem was not the system and was not the regulations. The problem was people both in government and at BP who sidestepped the regulations. You could have had a million more regulations on that process and it wouldn't have made a whit's bit of difference if the people involved are not willing to enforce them or follow them.

Again the problem was not the regulations. The problem in this case was the people involved.

Fair enough. If you mean the written rules were adequate but ignored, I'd say that could be (I don't know enough engineering to judge if the rules need changing). There isn't much doubt the MMS people were shitty at best...malicious at worst. Written rules are obviously meaningless if they are not enforced.

 

[Foxfyre]

foxfyre wrote:

One of the most important principles you learn in management school is that you can't fix a bad system by changing the people, and you can't fix bad people by changing the system. In the fiasco with BP, the problem was not the system and was not the regulations. The problem was people both in government and at BP who sidestepped the regulations. You could have had a million more regulations on that process and it wouldn't have made a whit's bit of difference if the people involved are not willing to enforce them or follow them.

Again the problem was not the regulations. The problem in this case was the people involved.

Fair enough. If you mean the written rules were adequate but ignored, I'd say that could be (I don't know enough engineering to judge if the rules need changing). There isn't much doubt the MMS people were shitty at best...malicious at worst. Written rules are obviously meaningless if they are not enforced.

Yup, and from all indications that is exactly what happened. BP bypassed the required regulated procedures and the regulators allowed them to do that. It was a calculated risk and it backfired. So the regulators can't take BP to court on the liability end without exposing their own incompetence or malfeasance, whichever way that might come down, and BP is doing enough to make restitution to avoid any serious class action. But the long range consequence was an excuse for the administration to shut down all drilling in the gulf which could destroy that industry for decades if it is not remedied soon.

 

[Madeline]

Mebbe so. Mebbe that's an industry we should not have.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

...when the regulators intentionally looked the other way.

Trusting conservatives to enforce government regulations is like trusting Faux News to be objective.

 

[Foxfyre]

You guys coming in with you snarky troll posts, I hope you understand that those of us who really would prefer not to deal with that kind of juvenile behavior will just ignore them? Thank you so much for understanding.

Going back to Madelyn's comment re whether banning all drilling in the gulf is a good thing or bad thing might possibly define a division between liberal and conservative on that though.

In my opinion--which is subject to critique and dispute of course--the liberal mindset often comes down on the side of caution re environmental issues, climate change, and such as that. It will generally be the liberal who will say that even in the face of new discoveries putting it into question, we should forge ahead on combatting global warming just in case it is necessary to slow or stop anthropogenic global warming.

The liberal might say that another blow out in the Gulf is not worth the risk so stop all oil drilling in the gulf.

The conservative will more likely look at the big picture. If the conservative believes combatting climate change is more likely to be an exercise in futility while taking away freedom, choices, options, opportunities from the people, the conservative will resist that until convinced that it is necessary for the greater good.

The conservative looks at the remarkable safety record of thousands of rigs and platforms in the gulf, recognizes oil as the fuel of democracy and human progress, notes that even the BP spill was not the insurrountable disaster as it first appeared, and the more energy dependence we have, the less we are at the mercy of people who might or might not like us very much. So, continued oil production in the gulf is seen as a calculated and necessary risk with any long term negatives being limited and manageable.

Given the problems encountered in the BP spill, however, before a lease could be issued for a deep water well, it would be prudent to initiate an additional regulation that would require having mechanisms in place and ready to go to deal with any accident.

In summary: the liberal wants government to manage it all. The conservative wants the government to enact sufficient laws and regulation necessary to prevent us from doing violence to each other and/or violating the rights of others without heavy consequence and then leave us alone to do our thing to provide services, make things, produce things, etc.

 

[Madeline]

...when the regulators intentionally looked the other way.

Trusting conservatives to enforce government regulations is like trusting Faux News to be objective.

The MMS employees who fucked us over were not motivated by ideas, Micky. They were (from what I can tell) motivated by greed and by an overweening concern for the "happiness" of BP. Regulators who are not kept away from industry and who feel no antipathy towards the regulated persons are just not ever gonna perform well at their jobs.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/118021-10-easy-steps-to-effective-regulation.html

 

[shintao]

No one, certainly not conservatives, seeks to ignore children and the elderly going hungry. We just happen to believe that there are better, more efficient, local ways of solving such issues.

Oh Really? What are these superior ways of solving children ignored & elderly going hungry?

No one - not an individual who breaks into the home of another and steals, or a government to does it legally - has the right to take what someone has worked for.

But of course, as long as you are a US citizen who uses government, you will be subject to taxation to pay for it. You can opt out and avoid taxation.

Not hard. Everyone in this country deserves the same opportunities. What they choose to do with those opportunities is their business. If someone chooses to squander their education, that is not my problem.

 

[Madeline]

You guys coming in with you snarky troll posts, I hope you understand that those of us who really would prefer not to deal with that kind of juvenile behavior will just ignore them? Thank you so much for understanding.

Going back to Madelyn's comment re whether banning all drilling in the gulf is a good thing or bad thing might possibly define a division between liberal and conservative on that though.

In my opinion--which is subject to critique and dispute of course--the liberal mindset often comes down on the side of caution re environmental issues, climate change, and such as that. It will generally be the liberal who will say that even in the face of new discoveries putting it into question, we should forge ahead on combatting global warming just in case it is necessary to slow or stop anthropogenic global warming.

The liberal might say that another blow out in the Gulf is not worth the risk so stop all oil drilling in the gulf.

The conservative will more likely look at the big picture. If the conservative believes combatting climate change is more likely to be an exercise in futility while taking away freedom, choices, options, opportunities from the people, the conservative will resist that until convinced that it is necessary for the greater good.

The conservative looks at the remarkable safety record of thousands of rigs and platforms in the gulf, recognizes oil as the fuel of democracy and human progress, notes that even the BP spill was not the insurrountable disaster as it first appeared, and the more energy dependence we have, the less we are at the mercy of people who might or might not like us very much. So, continued oil production in the gulf is seen as a calculated and necessary risk with any long term negatives being limited and manageable.

Given the problems encountered in the BP spill, however, before a lease could be issued for a deep water well, it would be prudent to initiate an additional regulation that would require having mechanisms in place and ready to go to deal with any accident.

In summary: the liberal wants government to manage it all. The conservative wants the government to enact sufficient laws and regulation necessary to prevent us from doing violence to each other and/or violating the rights of others without heavy consequence and then leave us alone to do our thing to provide services, make things, produce things, etc.

I do not have a deeply held belief about global warming. But I can look at photos of the Gulf and SEE the damage. That oil spill will likely degrade that environment -- OUR Gulf -- permanently. Species will die off. People will be poisoned.

Sometimes, once is enough. How many of the other rigs have been inspected? How many other have similar safety issues? And worst of all...can't we all now see, there IS no effective clean up measure for the deep ocean?

I dunno if you could even call this a conservative vs. liberal issue, foxfyre. I think it's more like a cost benefit analysis....IMO, the cost is WAY too high.

 

[Madeline]

foxfyre, I don't think any of us are best served if we approach our analysis of complex scientific matters with a bias. "I hope business is right"? C'mon. That ain't "conservative". It's magical thinking.