healthy civilization vs. leftist policies

Wrong again. Once again retard go look at what Reagan proposed and Congress passed EVERY year he was President. You will find that, true to their word, for every dollar Reagan added to the military they added to social Programs. NOT ONE budget in Reagan's years was ever passed as he submitted, they were all increased by the democrats. The debt created while Reagan was President is easy to lay at the Democratic Congress's feet. They caused and they are to blame.

More lies...

Reagan was in office during the 97th, 98th, 99th, and 100th congresses. Republicans riding Reagan's coattails made gains in the congressional elections of 1980 and won the Senate majority for the first time in 26 years, but the House of Representatives retained a Democratic majority. Reagan recognized that he would have to work with them, and find ways to win Democrats over to his policy initiatives. He was able to cultivate a group of southern Democrats, nicknamed the "Boll Weevils," after the pests whose larvae are born in cotton bolls and burrow from within to destroy the crop. Despite their party allegiance, their conservative constituents made them sympathetic to Reagan's policy agenda. For the first six years of his administration his personal popularity made all Democrats wary of thwarting his pet projects, lest they lose the support of their own districts.
 
Wrong again. Once again retard go look at what Reagan proposed and Congress passed EVERY year he was President. You will find that, true to their word, for every dollar Reagan added to the military they added to social Programs. NOT ONE budget in Reagan's years was ever passed as he submitted, they were all increased by the democrats. The debt created while Reagan was President is easy to lay at the Democratic Congress's feet. They caused and they are to blame.

Yeah.. that was about the time vietnam vets started hanging out on street corners bumming change...
 
There is a part of this debate in my mind that is completely removed from politics. At the same time there is no escaping that there is an ideological mindset behind the policies that are enacted, bills passed etc. I don't know what a better word for leftist would be, social perhaps?

There is clearly one side of the political spectrum that encompasses that over the other which is what we have termed in our society as liberal. As far the politcal spectrum is concerned liberalism is closer to socialusm than conservatism. Thus policies that provide safety nets, welfar, or just plain bail outs are going to tend to be more leftist than right.

All I am arguing is the danger behind that. Ideas that on the face seem like nices things to do can overtime weaken a culture because of the behaviors they do or don't promote. My opinion remains that leftist policies tend to not promote personal responsibility. If you can argue that they do, I'm all ears.
 
So, I guess the argument is between Government or No Government, because by that logic, any State or social contract is by definition "leftist" because they at least to some degree protect their constitutient from 'adversity' (well, we can make the exception for those that are actually the biggest harm to their constituents).

Sure, I guess you could argue that the creation of States, or any collective organization of individuals, make them invidually weaker. Why have an army? It makes us weaker. A police force? Definitely makes us weaker. If we didn't have these two, we would make sure only the fittest of the fittest will survive. Laws? Throw 'em away. In theory, they protect people on a higher level that individuals would be able to protect themselves, so it makes them weaker to a degree. So to what degree is this "socialism" acceptable?

Statism or Anarchy, they could both go wrong, I guess. Could be a good debate. Not much of a political theorist, though, so I dunno what I'd contribute.
 
Diuretic thought this would be an interesting discussion so here goes.

With the mortgage bail out and Obama championing universal health care I have to wonder the path the left is leading us down.

Very broadely the left seems to continually enact policies that shift personal responsibility from the individual to government. The ramificaations of which are staggering.

As a rule we become smarter, grow stronger, by meeting and overcomeing challenges. Our behavior is governed by the things that negatively impact us. We learn not to repeat behaviors that have a negative impact on us. The ol' the young child doesn't learn it'll hurt to touch the hot stove until he/she burns themselves on the hot stove. Yet in burning themselves the child has gained knowledge. A type of knowledge that is irreplaceable from just say mommy telling you that's gonna hurt. You won't even be curious about it anymore. You now know what will happen if you touch the hot stove, so you don't it again.

The left seems to be overly preoccupied with keeping people from 'burning' themselves. The mortgage bail out is a prime example. How are homebuyers going to learn not to take loans they have financial business taking out, if the government is just going to bail them out? How are banks going to learn to not approve such high risk loans, if the government is going to bail them out?

Under something like universal heatlhcare, how is removing the financal burden of healthcare an insentive for people to change their health habits?

All of these things make us weaker as a civilization because we are prevented from experiencing and responsibily dealing with the consequences of our actions. We don't have to deal with adversity anymore. It's like getting an A for effort. I got an A for trying to learn but not actually learning. Meanwhile the person who actual did learn has just be shown he really didn't need to put that kind of effort forth because he could have gotten an just for trying.


Well, we could let our citizens get sick without treatment, and go broke without a parachute plan. We'd all learn to not do that again, but at the price of much of our economy and workforce.

I don't have to cut my leg off to know I need two to walk.
 
The trouble with the thread assumption is, it has no connection to reality. The idea that one side favors government as Ma is just rhetoric. If you live in the world you would know that people get their hope wishes and aspirations from family class and society and everyone wants to make it. Even the lazy work just not as well. The divisive spin of this idea kills programs that bring hope to people who really do need help. Consider the older people, women especially who worked or raised a family and now need SS because of tragedy or simply aging. America has lost her heart since Reagan, some on the right have made and continue to make America an insecure and rather sad place.

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American
CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End
 
The trouble with the thread assumption is, it has no connection to reality. The idea that one side favors government as Ma is just rhetoric. If you live in the world you would know that people get their hope wishes and aspirations from family class and society and everyone wants to make it. Even the lazy work just not as well. The divisive spin of this idea kills programs that bring hope to people who really do need help. Consider the older people, women especially who worked or raised a family and now need SS because of tragedy or simply aging. America has lost her heart since Reagan, some on the right have made and continue to make America an insecure and rather sad place.

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American
CEPR - America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End

I repeat for the upteenth time. I have no problem with social programs that help those in need. I have a problem with programs and policies that obfiscate people of responsibilty. Yes SS falls under that category. A program that provides people with money automatically at a certain age is a dissinsentive to planning for your future. That program was passed by someone with a liberal ideology. There is no bent here, these are simply the characteristics of the ideology.
 
Well, we could let our citizens get sick without treatment, and go broke without a parachute plan. We'd all learn to not do that again, but at the price of much of our economy and workforce.

I don't have to cut my leg off to know I need two to walk.

It's you guys playing the extremes game, not me, obvioulsy for your own convenience. I have said quit a few times, including the last post that I don't have an issue with programs that help people that need it.
 
Under something like universal heatlhcare, how is removing the financal burden of healthcare an insentive for people to change their health habits?


Universal healthcare doesn't remove a financial burden on most people if it's funded by taxation on income and that's the model I'm used to. Well, it's not so much a financial burden when it's done that way. And those on welfare or self-funded retirees get less of a financial burden. But the purpose of universal health care isn't to use a financial impost to encourage a healthy lifestyle (eg a good diet and avoidance of foods that are, if consumed too much, can be deleterious to health), it's to make health care available to everyone, regardless of income.

most people in America don't feel the same amount of financial stress about haveing money taken out of there pay check in taxes. Not to the same extent that they worry about paying next months rent.

Part of the problem in my opinoin is that we are becomeing less a nation of character. We used to oppose things on principle, now if it doesn't really effect you we seem to care less. Think about it, if someone came up to you and said you must give me $1000 that you earned so we can give it to someone that tried to buy a home they couldn't afford, what would you say? I'm guessing a lot more harshley than if someone just starts sneaking it out of a paycheck.

I think healthy habits are learned (just as unhealthy habits are learned) as children but also they're reinforced (healthy and unhealthy habits I mean) as adults in various ways. This might sound very middle-class but I really think education of children and adults is a better approach to encouraging healthy habits.

Agreed 100%, so don't you think it's a huge disservice when government enacts polices that contradict the good values and behaviors we are trying to instill?

The problem with arguing that there should be a financial burden on people to live healthily is that it only affects the poor and possibly the middle class. Anyway, as I said, I don't think it's a valid argument.

If it's a financial burden to those groups disproportionate to the wealthy shouldn't it be an even greater motivator to change their behavior? Isn't that exactley what we are trying to accomplish?

But on your points about learning to overcome adversity. It's true, adversity is good for us – to a point. And again, without wanting this to seem to be a “bash the rich” exercise, the wealthy and extremely wealthy don't have to worry about adversity. Suggesting that the wealthy and extremely wealthy actually have to face up to real and not imagine or exaggerated adversity reminds me of those great lines from Milton's Areopagitica:

You're partially right. Contrary to what most may think, Paris Hilton is not what constitutes the typically wealthy. Most of them got that way due to their behavior. They typically have extremely high levels of motivation where the drive to attain a goal overrides the difficuluties/adversity in attaining them. That is a characterstic that the majority of people simply lack. They either makes excuses extraneous of themsleves or some just plain don't put in the hard work, because it's DUH hard.

It is nt an incorrect statement to say that liberal policies cater to the latter, so it shouldn't be any wonder why we have this grow divide between have and have nots and why wealth is being heald by smaller and smaller groups of people. It's basic societal evolution. Policies that have been enacted have taught people you will be okay if you don't put forth all of your effort and thus people's behaviors have changed.



I don't think the left are trying to create a dependent nation and I certainly don't think universal health care creates a dependent nation. However, I agree that the nanny state is not good for us as individuals or as societies – but then I suppose that how we define “nanny state” is important.

As I said before on the politica spctrum liberalism falls on the left side of moderate or independant on the politcal spectrum putting it on the same side as socialism or collectivism. Yes a realize there are very different characteristics of each but by their very nature of being left ideologies they have a component of government dependance.
 
The only people dependent on government are the wealthy, as it is they who don't work and rarely create anything. They usually manipulate the system to create ways they can make even more money, examine NAFTA for instance. I realize this isn't all of them, but even Bill Gates and Microsoft destroyed its competitors by unfair business practices and then used the courts to delay and obstruct a fair trial.

The Conservative Nanny State

UBI and the Flat Tax
 
The only people dependent on government are the wealthy, as it is they who don't work and rarely create anything. They usually manipulate the system to create ways they can make even more money, examine NAFTA for instance. I realize this isn't all of them, but even Bill Gates and Microsoft destroyed its competitors by unfair business practices and then used the courts to delay and obstruct a fair trial.

The Conservative Nanny State

UBI and the Flat Tax

You didn't just seriously say wealthy people are dependant on government did you? Please explain how a group of people that can pay for anything they need is dependant.

You are also factually incorrect about how the majority people become wealthy. But I will wait for you to provide some actual evidence anyway.

Tell you what. I will read your book (which from the outset shows a pretty clear politcal bias), if you will read mine......

http://www.profitadvisors.com/millionaire.shtml
 
Last edited:
The only people dependent on government are the wealthy, as it is they who don't work and rarely create anything. They usually manipulate the system to create ways they can make even more money, examine NAFTA for instance. I realize this isn't all of them, but even Bill Gates and Microsoft destroyed its competitors by unfair business practices and then used the courts to delay and obstruct a fair trial.

The Conservative Nanny State

UBI and the Flat Tax

Ah so the people on wealthfare (otherwise known as GOVERNMENT assistance) aren't depeding on government?

Okay if the wealth didn't work for it how did they beome wealthy in youre skewed notion of reality. I'm still waiting for you to provide some actual evidence of your total bull shit.

P.S. Get around to any research yet?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top