The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

[Sundial]

Here's a reality check, it all boils down to this:

Today's conservatives believe that it boils down to self sufficiency & hard work

Today's liberals believe it is our obligation to create opportunities for everyone

Close. I think. It's phrased to sound like liberals don't value hard work and sufficiency. We do. Very much. But we also know that that is pointless without an opportunity to use it.

That's where another disconnect occurs. Liberals believe that most people don't have any opportunities unless government steps in to essentially give them that opportunity, conservatives believe that every opportunity is out there for the taking without government help.

Also, liberals may value hard work, but they sure don't promote it. 2 years worth of unemployment checks, unions that ensure you do as little work as possible, making laziness as comfortable as possible. How does that promote hard work ethics?

Liberals tend to believe people who are unemployed would like very much to work, and would work, if they could, but that there are simply not enough jobs for everyone.

Unemployment checks are not meant to make laziness comfortable. They're meant to ensure that people who lose their jobs are able to keep a roof over their heads until they're able to find work again.

They also tend to reduce the severity of recessions, because those people are able to pay their rent, their utilities, buy food and clothes and etc. Otherwise the landlords, utility companies, grocery stores, and department stores all lose customers, which causes them to lose money, which causes them to lay more people off, which means they lose more customers, etc.

 

[tonystewart1]

Liberals view govt as good. They see govt as a force that could bring good to the world. Ease the suffering of those that suffer. They feel that those who are wealthy have an obligation to those without. They dont trust that peoples self intrest can direct the economy in a good way. They distrust human desire and despise greed.

Am I getting close to a liberal mindset in a non judgemental way.

Close. Government can be a force for good, or not, depending on who's in charge. If you have bad leaders the government will be bad as a result. If you have a good government, it will be a force for good.

A lot of liberals distrust human desire if you mean desire for material things. Many would say that the accumulation of stuff for the sake of accumulating stuff is unhealthy, and that if you're rich, you have an obligation to give something back.

Wealth redistribution.

 

[Google]

It may sound harsh to many, but I'm all good with that. Do we have a moral obligation to support those that CANNOT work? Sure! But it should not be legislated & enforced at the point of a sword...

It does sound harsh. It also sounds like a recipe for a weak economy. Much of what I think in relation to helping the downtrodden is based on economics. People without money and without opportunities don't benefit the economy. In fact, they tend to turn to desperate measures to support themselves, like drugs and robbery. Not good. We could spend money on cops and jails, or we could spend money on giving those people opportunities. I vote for opportunities.

But also, those who cannot work should be taken care of. We all agree on this. However, virtually no conservative thinks that should be the responsibility of the government. They almost all want the family or the church to do the supporting. That's all fine and good, but in a modern America, it's just not realistic. More and more people don't belong to churches, not that churches these days could support that many people, and, again, economically, many families simply can't support someone like they could in the 1950s. It would bankrupt them and that's not good for the economy or the country.

Economics? These are the same economics that have inspired statements like "food stamps benefit the economy". How many billions, trillions perhaps, have been spent on policies that were supposed to address the issues you raised? How many billions have been wasted on a failed public school system--school systems that have failed the black community the most? Poverty creates these desperate situations, and nothing you have stated would fix that poverty.

The fundamental difference between you and I, is that I believe jobs not food stamps are beneficial to the economy.

 

[Google]

It may sound harsh to many, but I'm all good with that. Do we have a moral obligation to support those that CANNOT work? Sure! But it should not be legislated & enforced at the point of a sword...

It does sound harsh. It also sounds like a recipe for a weak economy. Much of what I think in relation to helping the downtrodden is based on economics. People without money and without opportunities don't benefit the economy. In fact, they tend to turn to desperate measures to support themselves, like drugs and robbery. Not good. We could spend money on cops and jails, or we could spend money on giving those people opportunities. I vote for opportunities.

But also, those who cannot work should be taken care of. We all agree on this. However, virtually no conservative thinks that should be the responsibility of the government. They almost all want the family or the church to do the supporting. That's all fine and good, but in a modern America, it's just not realistic. More and more people don't belong to churches, not that churches these days could support that many people, and, again, economically, many families simply can't support someone like they could in the 1950s. It would bankrupt them and that's not good for the economy or the country.

A recipe for a weak economy?!?! Watch the damned news and read the legislation passed by the 111th Congress and you'll see a recipe for the economy we have now.

 

[initforme]

Today the US is more divided and polarized than ever. One side wants all the wealth for themselves and the other side wants everything handed to them. That leaves the middle class in the middle to carry the burden as one side doesnt pay taxes and the other side cries and whines when they have to. Class warfare is picking up and is going to become more pronounced in the next few years. SHould be interesting.

 

[mudwhistle]

From an experiment performed by some social scientists in 2001..

An experiment by a bunch of libs sucking on the government tit?

You've already lost whatever credibility you were hoping for.

They had subjects identify themselves as either liberals or conservatives... The groups filled out questionnaires about their own beliefs and how they interpreted the beliefs of their opposition. They then rated how much insight their opponents possessed. The results showed liberals believed they knew more about conservatives than conservatives knew about liberals. The conservatives believed they knew more about liberals than liberals knew about conservatives. Both groups thought they knew more about their opponents than their opponents knew about themselves.

I believe I do know more about conservatives than they know about liberals. Here are three elemental principles, or fundamental beliefs, of conservatives:

• Our economic system is fundamentally fair. It rewards hard work and initiative, and punishes laziness and ineptitude. Rich people deserve to be rich, and poor people deserve to be poor.
  
• The government is fundamentally bad. First because it disrupts the natural outcomes of the free market, and second because it lacks free market discipline, and is therefore inefficient and corrupt.
  
• When the government disrupts the natural outcomes of the market, it disincentivizes hard work and initiative, and creates a "free ride" mentality among the people.

There are more, of course, but these are three that more or less unite conservatives. (Others divide them.)

My predictions are these: 1.) That the majority-conservatives on this board may nit-pick, but they'll agree that these are three fundamental beliefs of the conservative movement; and 2.) that few, if any, of the conservatives on this board will be able to articulate liberal principles in a way that liberals themselves will agree to.

The last claim is true because liberals are in denial. They constantly deny that they are socialists or that they want to control people. Yet, all we see from them is more socialism and incessant attempts to control people.

Liberalism is a pack of lies, so it stretches credibility to expect honesty from them.

 

[Immanuel]

It may sound harsh to many, but I'm all good with that. Do we have a moral obligation to support those that CANNOT work? Sure! But it should not be legislated & enforced at the point of a sword...

It does sound harsh. It also sounds like a recipe for a weak economy. Much of what I think in relation to helping the downtrodden is based on economics. People without money and without opportunities don't benefit the economy. In fact, they tend to turn to desperate measures to support themselves, like drugs and robbery. Not good. We could spend money on cops and jails, or we could spend money on giving those people opportunities. I vote for opportunities.

But also, those who cannot work should be taken care of. We all agree on this. However, virtually no conservative thinks that should be the responsibility of the government. They almost all want the family or the church to do the supporting. That's all fine and good, but in a modern America, it's just not realistic. More and more people don't belong to churches, not that churches these days could support that many people, and, again, economically, many families simply can't support someone like they could in the 1950s. It would bankrupt them and that's not good for the economy or the country.

Minimally, we should set it up so that the MOST financial benefit that ANYONE can hope for through welfare or GOVERNMENT MANDATED charity (welfare, or whatever you want to call it) is equal to no more than 70% of what one could make with a full 40 hour week at minimum wage...

Damn! Sign me up.

I have been unemployed for 18 months. Eighteen months ago, I was making $5,308/month. Today on unemployment I make $1100/month. I have been looking for work religiously, but every time I get lucky and actually talk to an employer, I am told that he/she got 500 resumes for one job. I am told I am over qualified. Job postings that are basically the job I have been doing for 15 years now demand a CPA and/or a Master's degree (my Bachelor's degree is not adequate) and they only want to pay $35,000/year.

You want to know the God's only truth? I'd take the frigging $35k a year if they would offer it to me.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Liberals view govt as good. They see govt as a force that could bring good to the world. Ease the suffering of those that suffer. They feel that those who are wealthy have an obligation to those without. They dont trust that peoples self intrest can direct the economy in a good way. They distrust human desire and despise greed.

Am I getting close to a liberal mindset in a non judgemental way.

Close. Government can be a force for good, or not, depending on who's in charge. If you have bad leaders the government will be bad as a result. If you have a good government, it will be a force for good.

A lot of liberals distrust human desire if you mean desire for material things. Many would say that the accumulation of stuff for the sake of accumulating stuff is unhealthy, and that if you're rich, you have an obligation to give something back.

That is where the nanny state/redistribution of wealth idea comes from. You don't approve of the accumulation of "stuff" so you decide it is in our best interest to take that stuff away from us.

I'm okay with you giving your "stuff" to others. Heck, I used to give some of my stuff to others. I am not okay with you deciding that I have too much stuff and therefore I have to give my stuff to others. That simply is not your decision to make.

Note: in that example "you" and "I" are not to be seen as literally meaning you and I but rather liberals and society.

Immie

 

[dcbl]

Damn! Sign me up.

I have been unemployed for 18 months. Eighteen months ago, I was making $5,308/month. Today on unemployment I make $1100/month. I have been looking for work religiously, but every time I get lucky and actually talk to an employer, I am told that he/she got 500 resumes for one job. I am told I am over qualified. Job postings that are basically the job I have been doing for 15 years now demand a CPA and/or a Master's degree (my Bachelor's degree is not adequate) and they only want to pay $35,000/year.

You want to know the God's only truth? I'd take the frigging $35k a year if they would offer it to me.

Immie

It's hard on everyone right now. I own a direct mail company, my revenues are down dramatically.

My wife is a school teacher (15 + years on the job) - she told a heart wrenching story the other day. A girl in her class had a severe asthma attack that required a trip to the emergency room.

The girl cried & begged for her mother to NOT be called because her mom had just landed & started a new job & the child did not want to create trouble & screw up something she knew her family needed...

the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.

That is $268.25 cents a week when you take out 7.5% for socialist insecurity. You are taking home $62.41 a month less than that.

Unemployment benefits are arguably a little different that straight up welfare, as your previous employer had to pay into a pool that is supposed to cover that.

I hate what you are going through & wish you success in finding something...

 

[yidnar]

why do liberals give less to charity,donate less blood,and less volunteer work than conservatives in the same income brackets??......on average 35% less!!

 

[Sundial]

It does sound harsh. It also sounds like a recipe for a weak economy. Much of what I think in relation to helping the downtrodden is based on economics. People without money and without opportunities don't benefit the economy. In fact, they tend to turn to desperate measures to support themselves, like drugs and robbery. Not good. We could spend money on cops and jails, or we could spend money on giving those people opportunities. I vote for opportunities.

But also, those who cannot work should be taken care of. We all agree on this. However, virtually no conservative thinks that should be the responsibility of the government. They almost all want the family or the church to do the supporting. That's all fine and good, but in a modern America, it's just not realistic. More and more people don't belong to churches, not that churches these days could support that many people, and, again, economically, many families simply can't support someone like they could in the 1950s. It would bankrupt them and that's not good for the economy or the country.

Minimally, we should set it up so that the MOST financial benefit that ANYONE can hope for through welfare or GOVERNMENT MANDATED charity (welfare, or whatever you want to call it) is equal to no more than 70% of what one could make with a full 40 hour week at minimum wage...

Damn! Sign me up.

I have been unemployed for 18 months. Eighteen months ago, I was making $5,308/month. Today on unemployment I make $1100/month. I have been looking for work religiously, but every time I get lucky and actually talk to an employer, I am told that he/she got 500 resumes for one job. I am told I am over qualified. Job postings that are basically the job I have been doing for 15 years now demand a CPA and/or a Master's degree (my Bachelor's degree is not adequate) and they only want to pay $35,000/year.

You want to know the God's only truth? I'd take the frigging $35k a year if they would offer it to me.

Immie

70% of a minimum wage full-time job = $812/month.

 

[Immanuel]

Minimally, we should set it up so that the MOST financial benefit that ANYONE can hope for through welfare or GOVERNMENT MANDATED charity (welfare, or whatever you want to call it) is equal to no more than 70% of what one could make with a full 40 hour week at minimum wage...

Damn! Sign me up.

I have been unemployed for 18 months. Eighteen months ago, I was making $5,308/month. Today on unemployment I make $1100/month. I have been looking for work religiously, but every time I get lucky and actually talk to an employer, I am told that he/she got 500 resumes for one job. I am told I am over qualified. Job postings that are basically the job I have been doing for 15 years now demand a CPA and/or a Master's degree (my Bachelor's degree is not adequate) and they only want to pay $35,000/year.

You want to know the God's only truth? I'd take the frigging $35k a year if they would offer it to me.

Immie

70% of a minimum wage full-time job = $812/month.

Hehe,

Caught me. I was thinking 70% of what they could be making.

My mistake, I read that way too fast.

Immie

 

[Sundial]

Liberals view govt as good. They see govt as a force that could bring good to the world. Ease the suffering of those that suffer. They feel that those who are wealthy have an obligation to those without. They dont trust that peoples self intrest can direct the economy in a good way. They distrust human desire and despise greed.

Am I getting close to a liberal mindset in a non judgemental way.

Close. Government can be a force for good, or not, depending on who's in charge. If you have bad leaders the government will be bad as a result. If you have a good government, it will be a force for good.

A lot of liberals distrust human desire if you mean desire for material things. Many would say that the accumulation of stuff for the sake of accumulating stuff is unhealthy, and that if you're rich, you have an obligation to give something back.

That is where the nanny state/redistribution of wealth idea comes from. You don't approve of the accumulation of "stuff" so you decide it is in our best interest to take that stuff away from us.

I'm okay with you giving your "stuff" to others. Heck, I used to give some of my stuff to others. I am not okay with you deciding that I have too much stuff and therefore I have to give my stuff to others. That simply is not your decision to make.

Note: in that example "you" and "I" are not to be seen as literally meaning you and I but rather liberals and society.

Immie

People are taxed for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc. The idea that liberals support higher taxes on the rich because they're "jealous" or because they just don't approve of people being rich is not true.

 

[mudwhistle]

Close. Government can be a force for good, or not, depending on who's in charge. If you have bad leaders the government will be bad as a result. If you have a good government, it will be a force for good.

A lot of liberals distrust human desire if you mean desire for material things. Many would say that the accumulation of stuff for the sake of accumulating stuff is unhealthy, and that if you're rich, you have an obligation to give something back.

That is where the nanny state/redistribution of wealth idea comes from. You don't approve of the accumulation of "stuff" so you decide it is in our best interest to take that stuff away from us.

I'm okay with you giving your "stuff" to others. Heck, I used to give some of my stuff to others. I am not okay with you deciding that I have too much stuff and therefore I have to give my stuff to others. That simply is not your decision to make.

Note: in that example "you" and "I" are not to be seen as literally meaning you and I but rather liberals and society.

Immie

People are taxed for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc. The idea that liberals support higher taxes on the rich because they're "jealous" or because they just don't approve of people being rich is not true.

 

[Sundial]

why do liberals give less to charity,donate less blood,and less volunteer work than conservatives in the same income brackets??......on average 35% less!!

I don't believe that. I'd be curious to see a link.

I do believe that conservatives give more to their churches, however, because they're more likely to go to church. And I believe that making $60k in San Francisco is not the same as making $60K in Omaha. So if you did a study that compared liberals in New York or SF to conservatives in Texas or Missouri, and you counted church donations as charity, your results would be badly skewed.

 

[Immanuel]

Close. Government can be a force for good, or not, depending on who's in charge. If you have bad leaders the government will be bad as a result. If you have a good government, it will be a force for good.

A lot of liberals distrust human desire if you mean desire for material things. Many would say that the accumulation of stuff for the sake of accumulating stuff is unhealthy, and that if you're rich, you have an obligation to give something back.

That is where the nanny state/redistribution of wealth idea comes from. You don't approve of the accumulation of "stuff" so you decide it is in our best interest to take that stuff away from us.

I'm okay with you giving your "stuff" to others. Heck, I used to give some of my stuff to others. I am not okay with you deciding that I have too much stuff and therefore I have to give my stuff to others. That simply is not your decision to make.

Note: in that example "you" and "I" are not to be seen as literally meaning you and I but rather liberals and society.

Immie

People are taxed for things like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc. The idea that liberals support higher taxes on the rich because they're "jealous" or because they just don't approve of people being rich is not true.

Tell that to your friends on Capital Hill and some of your compatriots on this site as well.

I agree with you that many liberals are reasonable; however, there are many that seek to punish the rich for nothing more than being rich. They seek to use the Progressive Income Tax System to punish the rich. Of course, they deny that, but that is what they promote. Taxation should not be used as punishment, but it is.

And, for the record, I am one of the few "conservatives" that agree that we need to raise taxes on the rich and even the middle class. We must bring down the debt. That will require that we increase revenue and decrease spending. Unfortunately, when Congress sees an increase in revenue they believe that automatically justifies a larger increase in spending. That has to stop!

Immie

 

[code1211]

From an experiment performed by some social scientists in 2001.

They had subjects identify themselves as either liberals or conservatives... The groups filled out questionnaires about their own beliefs and how they interpreted the beliefs of their opposition. They then rated how much insight their opponents possessed. The results showed liberals believed they knew more about conservatives than conservatives knew about liberals. The conservatives believed they knew more about liberals than liberals knew about conservatives. Both groups thought they knew more about their opponents than their opponents knew about themselves.

I believe I do know more about conservatives than they know about liberals. Here are three elemental principles, or fundamental beliefs, of conservatives:

• Our economic system is fundamentally fair. It rewards hard work and initiative, and punishes laziness and ineptitude. Rich people deserve to be rich, and poor people deserve to be poor.
  
• The government is fundamentally bad. First because it disrupts the natural outcomes of the free market, and second because it lacks free market discipline, and is therefore inefficient and corrupt.
  
• When the government disrupts the natural outcomes of the market, it disincentivizes hard work and initiative, and creates a "free ride" mentality among the people.

There are more, of course, but these are three that more or less unite conservatives. (Others divide them.)

My predictions are these: 1.) That the majority-conservatives on this board may nit-pick, but they'll agree that these are three fundamental beliefs of the conservative movement; and 2.) that few, if any, of the conservatives on this board will be able to articulate liberal principles in a way that liberals themselves will agree to.

Addressing each point in turn:

1. Our economy is fundamentallly fair. All people deserve to be rewarded in ways that the society will provide. A guy who can catch a football will make plenty. Same with a second baseman who can hit a curve ball. It is fair in that if you have something to sell and can find a buyer, you are free to make the deal that benefits you.

If all you have to sell is your time and sweat, you can still make a living and have a good life. If you are very young, very old or infirm, the rest of society owes you the care you need. If you are just lazy or envious, starve in the street. Outcomes are not equal, but they are fair. Fairness and equality are not synonyms.

2. In your bizzaro world understanding of the world, you have the right ingrediants, but think that the causes are the effects and the effects are causes.

The government is fudamentally bad because it is inefficient and corrupt. The exercise of power by those who are inefficient and corrupt is what disrupts the free markets which are, by necessity, not free but are regulated and, ideally, the regulation shold make them more fair. They are not and do favor some while punishing others for no other reason than the agenda of the powerful, inefficent and corrupt government officials.

I grew up in a state that actively campaigned against industry because they had an unrelated agenda. Industry left and thousands were on the street out of work. This is the result of your benevolent government.

3. By disrupting the connection between risk and reward, the government can disincentivize the movers and the shakers who will then pull in their horns and sit on their cash instead of investing and promoting. When this happens, for any reason, the rest of us suffer because opportunity and wealth are not naturally occurring. They are created by the folks that know how to do it.

When the government announces its intention to eliminate the reward for risk, why risk? When the government announces its intention to raise taxes on profits declared in the US, why not declare them in a less punitive country? When the government sues a company for creating 2000 jobs and shuts down another company for creating 400 jobs, all of these jobs non-union, what might other companies gleen from this?

The "free ride" tripe is just progressive slogan making. If there are jobs out there, Americans will work. As long we have an anti business Socialist in the White House who is actively and energetically working to undermine business, there will be no jobs growth nationally.

As far as articulating Liberal Principles, I don't think most Liberals know what they believe beyond a vague impression of striving for justice or some other nebulous crap. I don't really care. It's taken me most of my life to figure out what I think. Figuring out what you think is your job. By the way I read your impression of the world above, you have some distance to make up.

Putting aside what is thought, let's look at what is said. Class warfare is what Liberals deal in what will ultimately produce defeat for the country. You imply it 4 times in your definition of conservatives above. Our President cannot stop himself from setting up everything he thinks,says or does in an us vs. them scenario.

A house divided and so on. Wiser men than I and you know the rest.

 

[mudwhistle]

why do liberals give less to charity,donate less blood,and less volunteer work than conservatives in the same income brackets??......on average 35% less!!

I don't believe that. I'd be curious to see a link.

I do believe that conservatives give more to their churches, however, because they're more likely to go to church. And I believe that making $60k in San Francisco is not the same as making $60K in Omaha. So if you did a study that compared liberals in New York or SF to conservatives in Texas or Missouri, and you counted church donations as charity, your results would be badly skewed.

Seems you're prone to assumptions.

There are still conservatives living in New York and San Francisco.

You haven't chased them all out.

 

[Ernie S.]

why do liberals give less to charity,donate less blood,and less volunteer work than conservatives in the same income brackets??......on average 35% less!!

I don't believe that. I'd be curious to see a link.

I do believe that conservatives give more to their churches, however, because they're more likely to go to church. And I believe that making $60k in San Francisco is not the same as making $60K in Omaha. So if you did a study that compared liberals in New York or SF to conservatives in Texas or Missouri, and you counted church donations as charity, your results would be badly skewed.

Seems you're prone to assumptions.

There are still conservatives living in New York and San Francisco.

You haven't chased them all out.

Despite former governor Patterson's attempts.
When a millionaires tax was passed in New York, Rush Limbaugh and others left the city and state.

Patterson' response:

“If I knew that would be the result, I would’ve thought about the taxes earlier.”

 

[yidnar]

why do liberals give less to charity,donate less blood,and less volunteer work than conservatives in the same income brackets??......on average 35% less!!

I don't believe that. I'd be curious to see a link.

I do believe that conservatives give more to their churches, however, because they're more likely to go to church. And I believe that making $60k in San Francisco is not the same as making $60K in Omaha. So if you did a study that compared liberals in New York or SF to conservatives in Texas or Missouri, and you counted church donations as charity, your results would be badly skewed.

oh it's true alright !!studies conducted believe it is attributed to the fundamental christian belief in helping your fellow man.but cry me a river because the truth is liberals want others to give but hold out on their end of the responsibilities !!!irresponsible libs go figure!!and when you find out the truth that libbs don't give much to charity will you still embrace your left wing hypocritical party??