The two parties opposite agendas

[Bfgrn]

You will note that I did not say that the unemployed were lazy... I said conservative/republicans believe... making the unemployed get off their asses. I did not say the unemployed were lazy.

Since I am one of those unemployed individuals, I honestly wish I knew what to do. You are correct, most of us are not lazy. The job market sucks right now. Finding a job in this environment has not been easy. I'm nearing 50 years old and I suspect that the few interviews I have gotten have not turned into jobs partly because of my age. But there are other reasons as well, such as for every job offered there are hundreds of resumes received. I know what kind of work I want to do and I have also considered changing my career and/or going back to school. But, I have to tell you, that if it were not for the unemployment checks I have been receiving, I might have already gone about this job search in a different manner and who knows maybe that would have provided some type of employment even in the interim. I could go to work for myself too, but I don't see myself as having the entrepreneurial spirit.

Unfortunately, neither party really gives a crap about the unemployed except for in how they can get votes from them.

My honest opinion is that tough love provides the better results in the long run. However, you can't just leave people high and dry until they find a job either. Not when as you say there is one job out there for every five unemployed individuals.

Immie

Immie, I wish you luck finding a job. It's tough out there. It's a buyers market for employers, and it will remain that way for a decade or more. Just some of the unintended consequences of Wall Street leveling our economy. I try not to be cynical, but I have read up on 'Disaster capitalism' and Republican guru Grover Norquist did say: ""We're going to crush labor as a political entity" and he wants to "drown government in a bathtub"... if that is really the Republican's intent, then it couldn't have worked out ANY better. This may be 'starve the beast' in action.

I keep hearing from Republicans and right wing talking heads: 'The worst thing you can do is raise someone's taxes during a recession.' Well I have something that trumps that by a long shot; cutting off someone's lifeline when they are hanging on by their fingernails is way beyond that. It is criminal. We are willing to spend more money helping Iraqis than Americans. We have wasted so much blood and treasure with Bush's war of ideology, defense spending that is bloated with waste and cronyism, Fatherland Security which was one of the most egregious BIG government inventions in history.

What is ALWAYS missing from conservatives solutions and rhetoric is people. The human cost and suffering. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s public works and assistance programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Ted Sorensen's quote is a lie. I take it that Ted Sorensen is just another frigging politician. Republicans do not care more about property and Democrats do not care more about people. They are about the same in both categories. The difference is the solutions they come up with. For instance, as I said, Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child. I can only say that in my opinion spoiled children grow up to be spoiled adults who expect others to provide for them everything they need and when this happens they get exactly what they deserve... just enough to survive on. On the other hand, the disciplined child, learns how to make it on his/her own. They have to work harder, but the end result is that they earn what they get and they generally get much more out of life than the spoiled child.

Quite frankly, I fall on the side of tough love over spoiling the child. The results in the long run work out better for the child. On the other hand, the parent that uses the tough love approach is seen as not loving or caring about the child. But, who really cares more, the one that bites the bullet and uses some discipline or the one that spoils the child?

Politically and Economically, I suppose I am somewhat in the middle here. Because I believe in the idea of Capitalism, but I do not believe it should be unfettered. I believe that those who will risk their capital should be rewarded for doing so. I believe that we should encourage and reward those risks, but I do not believe that we can afford to let the entrepreneur have free reign because greed is a powerful force and the greedy person seems to forget that we all live in this world and have to drink the water that he would not think twice about polluting.

I believe we need the right combination of liberals AND conservatives leading the country, because both sides have good ideas and to go full bore progressive would utterly destroy economic and political freedom in this country yet too much the other way would stagnate and choke off our freedoms as well.

Health care reform is a good example of this. I cannot think of too many people that do not agree that we needed some kind of reform to the system we had. I have been saying for 10 years or more that the system needed to change or we were going to suffer an economic meltdown. The capitalists believe that the market will correct itself when things get out of hand. It did not and it would not have. In this case, the insurance companies were eating us alive. The free market was never going to correct itself because honest competition was squashed mostly due to the size of the current players and the economic/legal environment we had that prevented alternatives. Yet, the liberal idea which is to simply let the government have full control is in itself a frigging nightmare that will require huge tax increases loss of jobs and loss of our freedom in and of itself.

Something had to be done and the free market was not going to do it, but IMHO big government is not the answer either. I do not want Nancy Pelosi running my health insurer. I don't trust her or any of her cohorts regardless of party. I do not believe that in this particular instance, government control is the answer. It is a step closer to socialism.

I don't have the answer as to how to fix Health Care, but I don't think the free market will fix it and I damn sure don't want to live in a socialistic country, so I don't want Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama providing their version of the quick fix either, because their quick fix makes me think of the Third Reich. Go to jail for not having health insurance!! Was she born in America or NAZI Germany?

As for raising taxes, I hear people promote "trickle down" economics and then I hear people promote President Obama's "flood the basement" economics. Everyone seems to praise one of these and condemn the other. I think they both work at different times. When taxes are too high, cutting taxes and opening up investment opportunities may very well work to boost tax revenues. However, when taxes are low, as they are today trickle down doesn't do squat for the economy. By the way, President Obama's "flooding the basement" hasn't done squat either and it won't always work even if it did. For the time being though regardless of which theory works in the here and now, boosting revenue is not going to accomplish a damned thing when congress simply spends the increase. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will work is to boost tax revenues and CUT SPENDING!

Congress refuses to do more than pay lip service to cutting spending so we're screwed... by the way, it doesn't seem to matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican controlled congress. Neither side seems to want to be the fiscally responsible disciplined side and cut spending.

Immie

Unfortunately Immie, Ted Sorensen's words are spot on. It's not 'tough love' when the love is missing. Human beings are mortal creatures that can be harmed and extinguished. And I see and hear no trace of empathy in the right's actions, rhetoric or in their DNA. When conservatives do talk about people, it is always how something affects them personally. When they do mention others, it is never about protecting them, it is why we must dismiss them. And conservatives are not tough on crime, they are tough on freedom and liberty. I see it in this world, in our country and I see it every single day on this board. It has been that way forever, but it has reached the point today where many people who call themselves conservative are really authoritarians. The GOP has become the authoritarian party of punishment and cruelty. Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners". I recall a thread about the Kent State student killings here a number of months ago. A huge number of 'conservatives' on this board were able to fully justify killings 4 young people because student protesters torched an ROTC building on campus. The murdered students weren't even part of the protests and the ROTC building was already boarded up and scheduled for demolition.

Here is a more clinical explanation by a professor of linguistics

The progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

From that framework, I can see why Schwarzenegger appealed to conservatives.

Exactly. In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy. With Schwarzenegger, it's in his movies: most of the characters that he plays exemplify that moral system. He didn't have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's going to take it to the people. He's not going to ask permission, or have a discussion, he's going to do what needs to be done, using force and authority. His very persona represents what conservatives are about.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

 

[Harry Dresden]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

i know what your saying .....but when does it stop?......and i am being serious....how long should benefits go on?

i find it funny that those whom bitch and show so much concern for the Unemployed never seem to want to answer this question....and its a fair question.....

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, I wish you luck finding a job. It's tough out there. It's a buyers market for employers, and it will remain that way for a decade or more. Just some of the unintended consequences of Wall Street leveling our economy. I try not to be cynical, but I have read up on 'Disaster capitalism' and Republican guru Grover Norquist did say: ""We're going to crush labor as a political entity" and he wants to "drown government in a bathtub"... if that is really the Republican's intent, then it couldn't have worked out ANY better. This may be 'starve the beast' in action.

I keep hearing from Republicans and right wing talking heads: 'The worst thing you can do is raise someone's taxes during a recession.' Well I have something that trumps that by a long shot; cutting off someone's lifeline when they are hanging on by their fingernails is way beyond that. It is criminal. We are willing to spend more money helping Iraqis than Americans. We have wasted so much blood and treasure with Bush's war of ideology, defense spending that is bloated with waste and cronyism, Fatherland Security which was one of the most egregious BIG government inventions in history.

What is ALWAYS missing from conservatives solutions and rhetoric is people. The human cost and suffering. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s public works and assistance programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Ted Sorensen's quote is a lie. I take it that Ted Sorensen is just another frigging politician. Republicans do not care more about property and Democrats do not care more about people. They are about the same in both categories. The difference is the solutions they come up with. For instance, as I said, Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child. I can only say that in my opinion spoiled children grow up to be spoiled adults who expect others to provide for them everything they need and when this happens they get exactly what they deserve... just enough to survive on. On the other hand, the disciplined child, learns how to make it on his/her own. They have to work harder, but the end result is that they earn what they get and they generally get much more out of life than the spoiled child.

Quite frankly, I fall on the side of tough love over spoiling the child. The results in the long run work out better for the child. On the other hand, the parent that uses the tough love approach is seen as not loving or caring about the child. But, who really cares more, the one that bites the bullet and uses some discipline or the one that spoils the child?

Politically and Economically, I suppose I am somewhat in the middle here. Because I believe in the idea of Capitalism, but I do not believe it should be unfettered. I believe that those who will risk their capital should be rewarded for doing so. I believe that we should encourage and reward those risks, but I do not believe that we can afford to let the entrepreneur have free reign because greed is a powerful force and the greedy person seems to forget that we all live in this world and have to drink the water that he would not think twice about polluting.

I believe we need the right combination of liberals AND conservatives leading the country, because both sides have good ideas and to go full bore progressive would utterly destroy economic and political freedom in this country yet too much the other way would stagnate and choke off our freedoms as well.

Health care reform is a good example of this. I cannot think of too many people that do not agree that we needed some kind of reform to the system we had. I have been saying for 10 years or more that the system needed to change or we were going to suffer an economic meltdown. The capitalists believe that the market will correct itself when things get out of hand. It did not and it would not have. In this case, the insurance companies were eating us alive. The free market was never going to correct itself because honest competition was squashed mostly due to the size of the current players and the economic/legal environment we had that prevented alternatives. Yet, the liberal idea which is to simply let the government have full control is in itself a frigging nightmare that will require huge tax increases loss of jobs and loss of our freedom in and of itself.

Something had to be done and the free market was not going to do it, but IMHO big government is not the answer either. I do not want Nancy Pelosi running my health insurer. I don't trust her or any of her cohorts regardless of party. I do not believe that in this particular instance, government control is the answer. It is a step closer to socialism.

I don't have the answer as to how to fix Health Care, but I don't think the free market will fix it and I damn sure don't want to live in a socialistic country, so I don't want Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama providing their version of the quick fix either, because their quick fix makes me think of the Third Reich. Go to jail for not having health insurance!! Was she born in America or NAZI Germany?

As for raising taxes, I hear people promote "trickle down" economics and then I hear people promote President Obama's "flood the basement" economics. Everyone seems to praise one of these and condemn the other. I think they both work at different times. When taxes are too high, cutting taxes and opening up investment opportunities may very well work to boost tax revenues. However, when taxes are low, as they are today trickle down doesn't do squat for the economy. By the way, President Obama's "flooding the basement" hasn't done squat either and it won't always work even if it did. For the time being though regardless of which theory works in the here and now, boosting revenue is not going to accomplish a damned thing when congress simply spends the increase. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will work is to boost tax revenues and CUT SPENDING!

Congress refuses to do more than pay lip service to cutting spending so we're screwed... by the way, it doesn't seem to matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican controlled congress. Neither side seems to want to be the fiscally responsible disciplined side and cut spending.

Immie

Unfortunately Immie, Ted Sorensen's words are spot on. It's not 'tough love' when the love is missing. Human beings are mortal creatures that can be harmed and extinguished. And I see and hear no trace of empathy in the right's actions, rhetoric or in their DNA. When conservatives do talk about people, it is always how something affects them personally. When they do mention others, it is never about protecting them, it is why we must dismiss them. And conservatives are not tough on crime, they are tough on freedom and liberty. I see it in this world, in our country and I see it every single day on this board. It has been that way forever, but it has reached the point today where many people who call themselves conservative are really authoritarians. The GOP has become the authoritarian party of punishment and cruelty. Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners". I recall a thread about the Kent State student killings here a number of months ago. A huge number of 'conservatives' on this board were able to fully justify killings 4 young people because student protesters torched an ROTC building on campus. The murdered students weren't even part of the protests and the ROTC building was already boarded up and scheduled for demolition.

Here is a more clinical explanation by a professor of linguistics

The progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

From that framework, I can see why Schwarzenegger appealed to conservatives.

Exactly. In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy. With Schwarzenegger, it's in his movies: most of the characters that he plays exemplify that moral system. He didn't have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's going to take it to the people. He's not going to ask permission, or have a discussion, he's going to do what needs to be done, using force and authority. His very persona represents what conservatives are about.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

I have never heard of George Lakoff before, and I have to tell you that the fact that this man is a professor at Berkeley disturbs me. Obviously, he has no intention of honest discussion. After reading most of the link you provided and actually thinking about it, I can tell you that I put no stock in anything this man says. He is as biased, if not more so, than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (throw in left wing pundits Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow) combined.

I mean progressives are "nurturant" parents? Come on!

About the only thing I saw in your link that had even an ounce of truthfulness to it was this quote:

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

i know what your saying .....but when does it stop?......and i am being serious....how long should benefits go on?

i find it funny that those whom bitch and show so much concern for the Unemployed never seem to want to answer this question....and its a fair question.....

Here's my answer Harry...STAY THE COURSE! We could spend $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute in Iraq extinguishing human life. So I say at least double it to save American families. How long? As LONG as it fucking takes. There is ONE job for every FIVE unemployed.

So Obama and Congress should do what FDR did. Invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. Start a new WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.


If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[rdean]

Simply because the two parties have differing philosophies, does not mean that one cares and the other does not.

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

That being said, I don't really think any of the politicians really give a rat's ass about the rest of us, all they care about is convincing enough of us to vote for their side and the power they achieve when we do.

Immie

Then who are Republicans helping giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires?

How many ultra rich join the military? Why shouldn't they contribute in other ways? Like paying taxes?

How many jobs will be moved to China before we stop cutting their taxes?

And the apology to BP proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, the right cares nothing for the American Middle Class. Nothing at all. The Republican leadership can hardly say the words, "Middle Class". It gets "stuck".

 

[Flopper]

You will note that I did not say that the unemployed were lazy... I said conservative/republicans believe... making the unemployed get off their asses. I did not say the unemployed were lazy.

Since I am one of those unemployed individuals, I honestly wish I knew what to do. You are correct, most of us are not lazy. The job market sucks right now. Finding a job in this environment has not been easy. I'm nearing 50 years old and I suspect that the few interviews I have gotten have not turned into jobs partly because of my age. But there are other reasons as well, such as for every job offered there are hundreds of resumes received. I know what kind of work I want to do and I have also considered changing my career and/or going back to school. But, I have to tell you, that if it were not for the unemployment checks I have been receiving, I might have already gone about this job search in a different manner and who knows maybe that would have provided some type of employment even in the interim. I could go to work for myself too, but I don't see myself as having the entrepreneurial spirit.

Unfortunately, neither party really gives a crap about the unemployed except for in how they can get votes from them.

My honest opinion is that tough love provides the better results in the long run. However, you can't just leave people high and dry until they find a job either. Not when as you say there is one job out there for every five unemployed individuals.

Immie

Immie, I wish you luck finding a job. It's tough out there. It's a buyers market for employers, and it will remain that way for a decade or more. Just some of the unintended consequences of Wall Street leveling our economy. I try not to be cynical, but I have read up on 'Disaster capitalism' and Republican guru Grover Norquist did say: ""We're going to crush labor as a political entity" and he wants to "drown government in a bathtub"... if that is really the Republican's intent, then it couldn't have worked out ANY better. This may be 'starve the beast' in action.

I keep hearing from Republicans and right wing talking heads: 'The worst thing you can do is raise someone's taxes during a recession.' Well I have something that trumps that by a long shot; cutting off someone's lifeline when they are hanging on by their fingernails is way beyond that. It is criminal. We are willing to spend more money helping Iraqis than Americans. We have wasted so much blood and treasure with Bush's war of ideology, defense spending that is bloated with waste and cronyism, Fatherland Security which was one of the most egregious BIG government inventions in history.

What is ALWAYS missing from conservatives solutions and rhetoric is people. The human cost and suffering. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s public works and assistance programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Ted Sorensen's quote is a lie. I take it that Ted Sorensen is just another frigging politician. Republicans do not care more about property and Democrats do not care more about people. They are about the same in both categories. The difference is the solutions they come up with. For instance, as I said, Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child. I can only say that in my opinion spoiled children grow up to be spoiled adults who expect others to provide for them everything they need and when this happens they get exactly what they deserve... just enough to survive on. On the other hand, the disciplined child, learns how to make it on his/her own. They have to work harder, but the end result is that they earn what they get and they generally get much more out of life than the spoiled child.

Quite frankly, I fall on the side of tough love over spoiling the child. The results in the long run work out better for the child. On the other hand, the parent that uses the tough love approach is seen as not loving or caring about the child. But, who really cares more, the one that bites the bullet and uses some discipline or the one that spoils the child?

Politically and Economically, I suppose I am somewhat in the middle here. Because I believe in the idea of Capitalism, but I do not believe it should be unfettered. I believe that those who will risk their capital should be rewarded for doing so. I believe that we should encourage and reward those risks, but I do not believe that we can afford to let the entrepreneur have free reign because greed is a powerful force and the greedy person seems to forget that we all live in this world and have to drink the water that he would not think twice about polluting.

I believe we need the right combination of liberals AND conservatives leading the country, because both sides have good ideas and to go full bore progressive would utterly destroy economic and political freedom in this country yet too much the other way would stagnate and choke off our freedoms as well.

Health care reform is a good example of this. I cannot think of too many people that do not agree that we needed some kind of reform to the system we had. I have been saying for 10 years or more that the system needed to change or we were going to suffer an economic meltdown. The capitalists believe that the market will correct itself when things get out of hand. It did not and it would not have. In this case, the insurance companies were eating us alive. The free market was never going to correct itself because honest competition was squashed mostly due to the size of the current players and the economic/legal environment we had that prevented alternatives. Yet, the liberal idea which is to simply let the government have full control is in itself a frigging nightmare that will require huge tax increases loss of jobs and loss of our freedom in and of itself.

Something had to be done and the free market was not going to do it, but IMHO big government is not the answer either. I do not want Nancy Pelosi running my health insurer. I don't trust her or any of her cohorts regardless of party. I do not believe that in this particular instance, government control is the answer. It is a step closer to socialism.

I don't have the answer as to how to fix Health Care, but I don't think the free market will fix it and I damn sure don't want to live in a socialistic country, so I don't want Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama providing their version of the quick fix either, because their quick fix makes me think of the Third Reich. Go to jail for not having health insurance!! Was she born in America or NAZI Germany?

As for raising taxes, I hear people promote "trickle down" economics and then I hear people promote President Obama's "flood the basement" economics. Everyone seems to praise one of these and condemn the other. I think they both work at different times. When taxes are too high, cutting taxes and opening up investment opportunities may very well work to boost tax revenues. However, when taxes are low, as they are today trickle down doesn't do squat for the economy. By the way, President Obama's "flooding the basement" hasn't done squat either and it won't always work even if it did. For the time being though regardless of which theory works in the here and now, boosting revenue is not going to accomplish a damned thing when congress simply spends the increase. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will work is to boost tax revenues and CUT SPENDING!

Congress refuses to do more than pay lip service to cutting spending so we're screwed... by the way, it doesn't seem to matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican controlled congress. Neither side seems to want to be the fiscally responsible disciplined side and cut spending.

Immie

I agree with most of your points, particularly your point that trickle down economics just doesn't work when taxes are at the current level. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not necessary spur investment that creates jobs. Today, the wealthy invest money primarily in tax free investments, treasures, and foreign countries that do little to create jobs in the US.

As a country we are in a tough position. Taxes are just too low to be used as a tool to stimulate the economy. With interest rates at historic lows, the fed has few options. The only option available to us is pumping money into the economy via job bills and bank stimulus. These might slow the loss of jobs, but aren't going to create permanent good jobs.

IMHO We have built up a lot of excesses in the economy, poor lending practices, lack of government oversight, and business's focus on current earnings as opposite to long term growth. If you take a look at the largest companies that were involved in the current mess, you will see we are slowly eliminating the excess. It will all work out. It will just take a few years. The long term solution to returning to the growth rates of the 20th century is significant reductions in the deficit, moderate tax rates, and smarter trade agreements however this has to be a slow process as the economy improves.

Good luck on the job front. Been there, done that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ted Sorensen's quote is a lie. I take it that Ted Sorensen is just another frigging politician. Republicans do not care more about property and Democrats do not care more about people. They are about the same in both categories. The difference is the solutions they come up with. For instance, as I said, Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child. I can only say that in my opinion spoiled children grow up to be spoiled adults who expect others to provide for them everything they need and when this happens they get exactly what they deserve... just enough to survive on. On the other hand, the disciplined child, learns how to make it on his/her own. They have to work harder, but the end result is that they earn what they get and they generally get much more out of life than the spoiled child.

Quite frankly, I fall on the side of tough love over spoiling the child. The results in the long run work out better for the child. On the other hand, the parent that uses the tough love approach is seen as not loving or caring about the child. But, who really cares more, the one that bites the bullet and uses some discipline or the one that spoils the child?

Politically and Economically, I suppose I am somewhat in the middle here. Because I believe in the idea of Capitalism, but I do not believe it should be unfettered. I believe that those who will risk their capital should be rewarded for doing so. I believe that we should encourage and reward those risks, but I do not believe that we can afford to let the entrepreneur have free reign because greed is a powerful force and the greedy person seems to forget that we all live in this world and have to drink the water that he would not think twice about polluting.

I believe we need the right combination of liberals AND conservatives leading the country, because both sides have good ideas and to go full bore progressive would utterly destroy economic and political freedom in this country yet too much the other way would stagnate and choke off our freedoms as well.

Health care reform is a good example of this. I cannot think of too many people that do not agree that we needed some kind of reform to the system we had. I have been saying for 10 years or more that the system needed to change or we were going to suffer an economic meltdown. The capitalists believe that the market will correct itself when things get out of hand. It did not and it would not have. In this case, the insurance companies were eating us alive. The free market was never going to correct itself because honest competition was squashed mostly due to the size of the current players and the economic/legal environment we had that prevented alternatives. Yet, the liberal idea which is to simply let the government have full control is in itself a frigging nightmare that will require huge tax increases loss of jobs and loss of our freedom in and of itself.

Something had to be done and the free market was not going to do it, but IMHO big government is not the answer either. I do not want Nancy Pelosi running my health insurer. I don't trust her or any of her cohorts regardless of party. I do not believe that in this particular instance, government control is the answer. It is a step closer to socialism.

I don't have the answer as to how to fix Health Care, but I don't think the free market will fix it and I damn sure don't want to live in a socialistic country, so I don't want Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama providing their version of the quick fix either, because their quick fix makes me think of the Third Reich. Go to jail for not having health insurance!! Was she born in America or NAZI Germany?

As for raising taxes, I hear people promote "trickle down" economics and then I hear people promote President Obama's "flood the basement" economics. Everyone seems to praise one of these and condemn the other. I think they both work at different times. When taxes are too high, cutting taxes and opening up investment opportunities may very well work to boost tax revenues. However, when taxes are low, as they are today trickle down doesn't do squat for the economy. By the way, President Obama's "flooding the basement" hasn't done squat either and it won't always work even if it did. For the time being though regardless of which theory works in the here and now, boosting revenue is not going to accomplish a damned thing when congress simply spends the increase. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will work is to boost tax revenues and CUT SPENDING!

Congress refuses to do more than pay lip service to cutting spending so we're screwed... by the way, it doesn't seem to matter whether it is a Democrat or a Republican controlled congress. Neither side seems to want to be the fiscally responsible disciplined side and cut spending.

Immie

Unfortunately Immie, Ted Sorensen's words are spot on. It's not 'tough love' when the love is missing. Human beings are mortal creatures that can be harmed and extinguished. And I see and hear no trace of empathy in the right's actions, rhetoric or in their DNA. When conservatives do talk about people, it is always how something affects them personally. When they do mention others, it is never about protecting them, it is why we must dismiss them. And conservatives are not tough on crime, they are tough on freedom and liberty. I see it in this world, in our country and I see it every single day on this board. It has been that way forever, but it has reached the point today where many people who call themselves conservative are really authoritarians. The GOP has become the authoritarian party of punishment and cruelty. Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners". I recall a thread about the Kent State student killings here a number of months ago. A huge number of 'conservatives' on this board were able to fully justify killings 4 young people because student protesters torched an ROTC building on campus. The murdered students weren't even part of the protests and the ROTC building was already boarded up and scheduled for demolition.

Here is a more clinical explanation by a professor of linguistics

The progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

From that framework, I can see why Schwarzenegger appealed to conservatives.

Exactly. In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy. With Schwarzenegger, it's in his movies: most of the characters that he plays exemplify that moral system. He didn't have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's going to take it to the people. He's not going to ask permission, or have a discussion, he's going to do what needs to be done, using force and authority. His very persona represents what conservatives are about.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

I have never heard of George Lakoff before, and I have to tell you that the fact that this man is a professor at Berkeley disturbs me. Obviously, he has no intention of honest discussion. After reading most of the link you provided and actually thinking about it, I can tell you that I put no stock in anything this man says. He is as biased, if not more so, than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (throw in left wing pundits Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow) combined.

I mean progressives are "nurturant" parents? Come on!

About the only thing I saw in your link that had even an ounce of truthfulness to it was this quote:

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

Immie

Immie, you don't see it, but this is another Jeremiah Wright 'fear', but much, much bigger. And, it explains why 99% of conservatives would never, ever watch that Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright. I was really impressed that you watched the video. I was floored when you intimated your 'fears' and internalized images of 'Black Theology'. So far, you admit 'by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.' But do you ask yourself HOW conservatives were able to do it? George Lakoff who's an expert on language and linguistics provides a sound explanation in his article and books. But what deeply disturbs me is; much of what I believe you are repeating is exactly HOW they are able to do it.

Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. And not just a weapon to stifle debate, but to have words alone create fears and internalized images used to dismiss anything 'liberal'...When you saw 'professor at Berkeley'...did it create an 'image' that urges you dismiss everything George Lakoff says Immie?

One reason I suspect that's the case is what George Lakoff said and what you are saying is really the same thing, just a matter of words, language and semantics.

Immie: Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child.

Lakoff: conservative moral system has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system, progressives are "nurturant" parents

BTW, you mentioned the health care debate earlier. I have an interview Moyers did with an insurance executive that will put Wright's to shame. It shines a totally different light from what we've been hearing.

 

[Immanuel]

I have never heard of George Lakoff before, and I have to tell you that the fact that this man is a professor at Berkeley disturbs me. Obviously, he has no intention of honest discussion. After reading most of the link you provided and actually thinking about it, I can tell you that I put no stock in anything this man says. He is as biased, if not more so, than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (throw in left wing pundits Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow) combined.

I mean progressives are "nurturant" parents? Come on!

About the only thing I saw in your link that had even an ounce of truthfulness to it was this quote:

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

Immie

Immie, you don't see it, but this is another Jeremiah Wright 'fear', but much, much bigger. And, it explains why 99% of conservatives would never, ever watch that Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright. I was really impressed that you watched the video. I was floored when you intimated your 'fears' and internalized images of 'Black Theology'. So far, you admit 'by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.' But do you ask yourself HOW conservatives were able to do it? George Lakoff who's an expert on language and linguistics provides a sound explanation in his article and books. But what deeply disturbs me is; much of what I believe you are repeating is exactly HOW they are able to do it.

From what I have seen, George Lakoff is no different than Rush Limbaugh. Just a liar from a different perspective. Not really worth the time it took to read your link.

You ask if I ask myself how conservatives were able to do it? I'd have to ask you what it is, because, Lakoff is as biased as Limbaugh. I do see that conservatives use language against liberals, but I also see how well liberals use language against conservatives. The debate on abortion is one very good example. Liberals are literally disgusting in the way they turn that argument around. Yet, Lakoff seems not to realize that liberals are just as good at turning conservatives words against them as conservatives are at doing it to liberals.

Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. And not just a weapon to stifle debate, but to have words alone create fears and internalized images used to dismiss anything 'liberal'...

Do you honestly believe that you, yes you, and other liberals do not do the exact same thing to conservatives?

When you saw 'professor at Berkeley'...did it create an 'image' that urges you dismiss everything George Lakoff says Immie?

No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said. It was such a blatant and biased lie that he was effectively dismissed as a left wing Limbaugh.

One reason I suspect that's the case is what George Lakoff said and what you are saying is really the same thing, just a matter of words, language and semantics.

Immie: Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child.

Lakoff: conservative moral system has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system, progressives are "nurturant" parents

No, Lakoff is saying spoiling your children makes you a superb parent while being strict makes you evil. There is no way in hell you can construe my words as equaling Lakoff's words.

BTW, you mentioned the health care debate earlier. I have an interview Moyers did with an insurance executive that will put Wright's to shame. It shines a totally different light from what we've been hearing.

Really? Do you by any chance have a quick link to it? I would like to see it. I can't today... I have something to do this morning and football this afternoon, but if you have it available and would not mind linking to it here or PM'ing me the link, I would really appreciate it.

Immie

 

[rdean]

No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said.

And yet, it's the conservatives who don't want the government to help anyone except the very wealthy. They have an "every man for himself" approach.

They insist nothing good can come from government and work hard to make sure that is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Conservatives have an "either/or" outlook on life. Black/white, good/evil.

Then there's the people they "forgive". It's seems random at first. Here is a perfect example:

Sarah Palin - married to a separatist, a man who belongs to an organization who has called the US a tyrant with it's foot on the neck of the "COUNTRY" of Alaska. A parent whose daughter gave birth without the benefit of marriage. Sarah allowed herself to have "spells of protection" woven around her by a domestic terrorist who tried to rile an entire town to kill an old woman who barely escaped. In spite of these glaring issues, Saint Sarah is worshiped by a right wing she has let down again and again.

Then compare her with Rev. Wright. A man who joined the Marines during Vietnam, who received an Honorable Discharge after his entire six year commitment, who received three White House commendations, who also was part of the team who performed surgery on then President L.B. Johnson.

This man served his country better than 99.9% of conservatives. He has never been married to someone who called for secession from the US or prayed with someone who called for an old lady to be ran out of town or killed.

Instead, Wright,s crime was that he was one of the Pasteurs of President Obama's church and he said "God Damn America". Do right wingers even know why he would say something like that? They don't even care, I know. They forgive Sarah and she never apoligized. But they don't care if Wright apologizes or not.

So what could be some of the reasons he might say that? After watching videos of Rodney King being brutalized? After the discovery that the US government carried out secret syphilis experiments on hundreds and hundreds of unsuspecting black men and their families over generations watching them die in agony even though they had the cure?

Sarah is white, she can be forgiven. After all, the Republican Party is 90% white.

 

[Immanuel]

No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said.

And yet, it's the conservatives who don't want the government to help anyone except the very wealthy. They have an "every man for himself" approach.

They insist nothing good can come from government and work hard to make sure that is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Conservatives have an "either/or" outlook on life. Black/white, good/evil.

Then there's the people they "forgive". It's seems random at first. Here is a perfect example:

Sarah Palin - married to a separatist, a man who belongs to an organization who has called the US a tyrant with it's foot on the neck of the "COUNTRY" of Alaska. A parent whose daughter gave birth without the benefit of marriage. Sarah allowed herself to have "spells of protection" woven around her by a domestic terrorist who tried to rile an entire town to kill an old woman who barely escaped. In spite of these glaring issues, Saint Sarah is worshiped by a right wing she has let down again and again.

Then compare her with Rev. Wright. A man who joined the Marines during Vietnam, who received an Honorable Discharge after his entire six year commitment, who received three White House commendations, who also was part of the team who performed surgery on then President L.B. Johnson.

This man served his country better than 99.9% of conservatives. He has never been married to someone who called for secession from the US or prayed with someone who called for an old lady to be ran out of town or killed.

Instead, Wright,s crime was that he was one of the Pasteurs of President Obama's church and he said "God Damn America". Do right wingers even know why he would say something like that? They don't even care, I know. They forgive Sarah and she never apoligized. But they don't care if Wright apologizes or not.

So what could be some of the reasons he might say that? After watching videos of Rodney King being brutalized? After the discovery that the US government carried out secret syphilis experiments on hundreds and hundreds of unsuspecting black men and their families over generations watching them die in agony even though they had the cure?

Sarah is white, she can be forgiven. After all, the Republican Party is 90% white.

If you had even an ounce of integrity, you would admit that while the conservatives are much of what you have indicated above, liberals have their own faults. Until you are willing to admit this, you qualify as being among the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

The fact is that conservatives are simply not perfect people and, in fact, you can attack "conservative" leaders of this world all you want. I, as a conservative, do not associate with the so called "conservative" leaders. They no more represent me, than Nancy Pelosi. Most conservatives that I know personally care very much for the needy. That is why they donate to charities as much as they do. In fact, most "liberals" that I know are pretty good people too. They also care about the needy. The difference between them is what they perceive works best for the needy.

You and your liberal friends think you help more by spoon feeding the hungry and guaranteeing that they will always be hungry. I and my conservative friends see the need of feeding the hungry but also see that just simply handing them just enough food to survive on does them no good at all.

It has been a while since I watched that sermon by Rev. Wright. However, I did feel that the conservative pundits that blasted him for his sermon only did so in order to attack Barack Obama. That message could have very easily been given in a conservative church and received a much different critique from the right.

As for the 90% of Republicans are white, that is because of what I said earlier, liberals have used language to attack and destroy conservatives especially in the eyes of the poor and needy. Liberals have used fear mongering to convince the poor and needy that conservatives all have goat horns on their heads and come from hell.

Neither side is without its faults. If and when you people (both sides) learn that, America might have a chance of surviving.

BTW: it is not government from which nothing good comes... it is the corrupt individuals of both parties from which nothing good comes.

Immie

 

[rdean]

No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said.

And yet, it's the conservatives who don't want the government to help anyone except the very wealthy. They have an "every man for himself" approach.

They insist nothing good can come from government and work hard to make sure that is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Conservatives have an "either/or" outlook on life. Black/white, good/evil.

Then there's the people they "forgive". It's seems random at first. Here is a perfect example:

Sarah Palin - married to a separatist, a man who belongs to an organization who has called the US a tyrant with it's foot on the neck of the "COUNTRY" of Alaska. A parent whose daughter gave birth without the benefit of marriage. Sarah allowed herself to have "spells of protection" woven around her by a domestic terrorist who tried to rile an entire town to kill an old woman who barely escaped. In spite of these glaring issues, Saint Sarah is worshiped by a right wing she has let down again and again.

Then compare her with Rev. Wright. A man who joined the Marines during Vietnam, who received an Honorable Discharge after his entire six year commitment, who received three White House commendations, who also was part of the team who performed surgery on then President L.B. Johnson.

This man served his country better than 99.9% of conservatives. He has never been married to someone who called for secession from the US or prayed with someone who called for an old lady to be ran out of town or killed.

Instead, Wright,s crime was that he was one of the Pasteurs of President Obama's church and he said "God Damn America". Do right wingers even know why he would say something like that? They don't even care, I know. They forgive Sarah and she never apoligized. But they don't care if Wright apologizes or not.

So what could be some of the reasons he might say that? After watching videos of Rodney King being brutalized? After the discovery that the US government carried out secret syphilis experiments on hundreds and hundreds of unsuspecting black men and their families over generations watching them die in agony even though they had the cure?

Sarah is white, she can be forgiven. After all, the Republican Party is 90% white.

If you had even an ounce of integrity, you would admit that while the conservatives are much of what you have indicated above, liberals have their own faults. Until you are willing to admit this, you qualify as being among the Rush Limbaughs of the world.

The fact is that conservatives are simply not perfect people and, in fact, you can attack "conservative" leaders of this world all you want. I, as a conservative, do not associate with the so called "conservative" leaders. They no more represent me, than Nancy Pelosi. Most conservatives that I know personally care very much for the needy. That is why they donate to charities as much as they do. In fact, most "liberals" that I know are pretty good people too. They also care about the needy. The difference between them is what they perceive works best for the needy.

You and your liberal friends think you help more by spoon feeding the hungry and guaranteeing that they will always be hungry. I and my conservative friends see the need of feeding the hungry but also see that just simply handing them just enough food to survive on does them no good at all.

It has been a while since I watched that sermon by Rev. Wright. However, I did feel that the conservative pundits that blasted him for his sermon only did so in order to attack Barack Obama. That message could have very easily been given in a conservative church and received a much different critique from the right.

As for the 90% of Republicans are white, that is because of what I said earlier, liberals have used language to attack and destroy conservatives especially in the eyes of the poor and needy. Liberals have used fear mongering to convince the poor and needy that conservatives all have goat horns on their heads and come from hell.

Neither side is without its faults. If and when you people (both sides) learn that, America might have a chance of surviving.

BTW: it is not government from which nothing good comes... it is the corrupt individuals of both parties from which nothing good comes.

Immie

Liberals and conservatives have their own faults, but because they are concentrated in the Republican Party, they are much larger. The Democratic Party, being a party of coalitions has it's faults spread out and watered down. Sure, some Black Christians in the Democratic Party hate the gays and are against gay rights. Many Democratic conservatives even agree, but "hate the gays" is not a message from the majority of the party.

Republicans are much more likely to follow their leadership without question than Democrats. Republicans would never see anything different. It's almost like "Noah's Ark". The majority of Republicans believe in the story of "Noah's Ark" and that's it. No amount of evidence will ever change their minds. Period.

The Democrats want to make education available to everyone so everyone has a chance. Republicans, for the most part, don't even like education, so they see making it available for everyone as "giving to the poor and not expecting anything back".

It's Republicans who say, "We want OUR country back". Back from other Americans. Republicans see "us" and "them", not "all of us together". It's just the way it is.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Here's my answer Harry...STAY THE COURSE! We could spend $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute in Iraq extinguishing human life. So I say at least double it to save American families. How long? As LONG as it fucking takes. There is ONE job for every FIVE unemployed.

So Obama and Congress should do what FDR did. Invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. Start a new WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.

ok fair answer....and as far as the money being spent in Iraq.....i agree...spend it here,...i too would rather give it to our Unemployed as jobs to rebuild the Countries Infrastructure.....i know here in California the States roads are getting pretty shitty.....but as far as repairing and building a better infrastructure around the Country,im all for it....especially the Electrical grids...every month that goes by.....they get worse....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Liberals and conservatives have their own faults, but because they are concentrated in the Republican Party, they are much larger. The Democratic Party, being a party of coalitions has it's faults spread out and watered down. Sure, some Black Christians in the Democratic Party hate the gays and are against gay rights. Many Democratic conservatives even agree, but "hate the gays" is not a message from the majority of the party.

Republicans are much more likely to follow their leadership without question than Democrats. Republicans would never see anything different. It's almost like "Noah's Ark". The majority of Republicans believe in the story of "Noah's Ark" and that's it. No amount of evidence will ever change their minds. Period.

The Democrats want to make education available to everyone so everyone has a chance. Republicans, for the most part, don't even like education, so they see making it available for everyone as "giving to the poor and not expecting anything back".

It's Republicans who say, "We want OUR country back". Back from other Americans. Republicans see "us" and "them", not "all of us together". It's just the way it is.

Republicans are much more likely to follow their leadership without question than Democrats.

first off....why do you follow the FAR Left crowd without question?....and dont tell me you dont Dean.....i have never seen you question anything they do.....you just defend it......


Republicans, for the most part, don't even like education

and i wanna see ,once again your link that shows how Republicans dont like Education.....since every Republican Parent i know gets on their kids when they do shitty in school....


Republicans see "us" and "them", not "all of us together". It's just the way it is.

yea and Democrats are just so full of togetherness and never use the us and them bullshit...BULLSHIT!!!

 

[rdean]

Liberals and conservatives have their own faults, but because they are concentrated in the Republican Party, they are much larger. The Democratic Party, being a party of coalitions has it's faults spread out and watered down. Sure, some Black Christians in the Democratic Party hate the gays and are against gay rights. Many Democratic conservatives even agree, but "hate the gays" is not a message from the majority of the party.

Republicans are much more likely to follow their leadership without question than Democrats. Republicans would never see anything different. It's almost like "Noah's Ark". The majority of Republicans believe in the story of "Noah's Ark" and that's it. No amount of evidence will ever change their minds. Period.

The Democrats want to make education available to everyone so everyone has a chance. Republicans, for the most part, don't even like education, so they see making it available for everyone as "giving to the poor and not expecting anything back".

It's Republicans who say, "We want OUR country back". Back from other Americans. Republicans see "us" and "them", not "all of us together". It's just the way it is.

Republicans are much more likely to follow their leadership without question than Democrats.

first off....why do you follow the FAR Left crowd without question?....and dont tell me you dont Dean.....i have never seen you question anything they do.....you just defend it......


Republicans, for the most part, don't even like education

and i wanna see ,once again your link that shows how Republicans dont like Education.....since every Republican Parent i know gets on their kids when they do shitty in school....


Republicans see "us" and "them", not "all of us together". It's just the way it is.

yea and Democrats are just so full of togetherness and never use the us and them bullshit...BULLSHIT!!!

To right wing Republicans, everything not right wing is always "far left". Try to say what that "far left" means and what you get is a mishmash of "bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate".

Republicans don't like education. Depends on how you define "education". If that means "Bible study", then some like it and some don't. If you are talking about a competitive education that will compete with other countries that includes the evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, then no, conservatives are not really into it. You can't put lipstick on a pig. They are simply not into it. And unfortunately, for conservatives, many that do get such an education, tend to become liberals.

Conservatives tend to have less eduction, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher poverty, more STDs. Worse, they siphon away money from Blue states destabilizing the government.

Red Families v. Blue Families
Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture
Naomi Cahn and June Carbone

Oxford University Press: Red Families v. Blue Families: Naomi Cahn

Yet, the changing economy is rapidly eliminating the stable, blue collar jobs that have historically supported young families, and early marriage and childbearing derail the education needed to prosper. The result is that the areas of the country most committed to traditional values have the highest divorce and teen pregnancy rates, fueling greater calls to reinstill traditional values.

Argument about higher divorce and teen pregnancy rates in red state regions is explosive, and is already generating controversy

 

[American Horse]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.
<SNIP>

The House is still in Democrat hands:
"Measure to extend unemployment benefits fails House vote
The legislation would have allowed the unemployed to continue to receive benefits until Feb. 28. The benefits are now set to expire at the end of this month.
November 19, 2010|By Michael A. Memoli and Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington BureauReporting from Washington — Legislation that would have extended unemployment benefits for an additional three months failed to earn the required supermajority in the House of Representatives on Thursday.

The final vote was 258-154, ordinarily sufficient to pass legislation. But Democrats brought the measure to the floor using a legislative tactic that required approval from two-thirds of the House"

It's failure was, not only anticipated, it was by design.

The GOP proposed that any extension of the current 99 weeks of unemployment insurance be funded from unspent stimulus funds. The money is readily available whereas there were not and are not now any shovel ready project for which the stimulus funds were appropriated.

Furthermore, surveys clearly demonstrate that most people do not begin seeking re-employment until they are within two months of the end of unemployment insurance.
Extending un-employment insurance to over two years does nothing to motivate one to seek a job. Need and want do just that. An unending government hand-out simply makes people dependent and needy government pawns.

However, the Democrats could have embraced the GOP proposal in a gesture of bi-partisonship and the extension would have passed. It was the Democrats not the GOP who killed the extension through their refusal to compromise

 

[Greenbeard]

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said. It was such a blatant and biased lie that he was effectively dismissed as a left wing Limbaugh.

It sounds like on a personal level you rely on exactly the same family metaphor Lakoff laid out in Moral Politics. "Tough love" is the conceptual basis of the strict father model.

 

[rdean]

Those people are going to have to move to China to find a job. Isn't there where the Republican Leadership help send them?

From FOX:

U.S. lawmakers taking aim at China's currency policy were given more ammunition Tuesday by a study claiming that the trade deficit with China cost more than 2.4 million U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2008.

The report by the Economic Policy Institute prompted senators to vow to move quickly on bipartisan legislation to require the Obama administration to get tough on China.

U.S. Lost Over 2.4 Million Jobs From Trade Gap With China

What's hilarious here is that FOX says it's "bipartisan". That means when Republicans block the legislation, FOX can say it simply "failed".

 

[Bfgrn]

I have never heard of George Lakoff before, and I have to tell you that the fact that this man is a professor at Berkeley disturbs me. Obviously, he has no intention of honest discussion. After reading most of the link you provided and actually thinking about it, I can tell you that I put no stock in anything this man says. He is as biased, if not more so, than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (throw in left wing pundits Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow) combined.

I mean progressives are "nurturant" parents? Come on!

About the only thing I saw in your link that had even an ounce of truthfulness to it was this quote:



Immie

Immie, you don't see it, but this is another Jeremiah Wright 'fear', but much, much bigger. And, it explains why 99% of conservatives would never, ever watch that Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright. I was really impressed that you watched the video. I was floored when you intimated your 'fears' and internalized images of 'Black Theology'. So far, you admit 'by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.' But do you ask yourself HOW conservatives were able to do it? George Lakoff who's an expert on language and linguistics provides a sound explanation in his article and books. But what deeply disturbs me is; much of what I believe you are repeating is exactly HOW they are able to do it.

From what I have seen, George Lakoff is no different than Rush Limbaugh. Just a liar from a different perspective. Not really worth the time it took to read your link.

You ask if I ask myself how conservatives were able to do it? I'd have to ask you what it is, because, Lakoff is as biased as Limbaugh. I do see that conservatives use language against liberals, but I also see how well liberals use language against conservatives. The debate on abortion is one very good example. Liberals are literally disgusting in the way they turn that argument around. Yet, Lakoff seems not to realize that liberals are just as good at turning conservatives words against them as conservatives are at doing it to liberals.



Do you honestly believe that you, yes you, and other liberals do not do the exact same thing to conservatives?



No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said. It was such a blatant and biased lie that he was effectively dismissed as a left wing Limbaugh.

One reason I suspect that's the case is what George Lakoff said and what you are saying is really the same thing, just a matter of words, language and semantics.

Immie: Republicans believe in the tough love approach while Democrats believe in spoiling the child.

Lakoff: conservative moral system has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system, progressives are "nurturant" parents

No, Lakoff is saying spoiling your children makes you a superb parent while being strict makes you evil. There is no way in hell you can construe my words as equaling Lakoff's words.

BTW, you mentioned the health care debate earlier. I have an interview Moyers did with an insurance executive that will put Wright's to shame. It shines a totally different light from what we've been hearing.

Really? Do you by any chance have a quick link to it? I would like to see it. I can't today... I have something to do this morning and football this afternoon, but if you have it available and would not mind linking to it here or PM'ing me the link, I would really appreciate it.

Immie

Ironic Immie, YOU have no trouble insulting liberal parenting as weak and wrong headed, but you get all hot and irrational when Lakoff says conservatives believe in the 'strict father' model, which is the same as your 'tough love'. God, I wish you could have told my liberal mother she was spoiling me when I was a kid. I still remember having to go lay on the bed, pull down my pants and wait for her to come in with the belt.

If you had read the article, liberals clearly don't have the structures in place that conservatives have, and Lakoff says liberals just don't get it when it comes to framing issues.

What is really a dangerous place for this country is making knowledge and propaganda equal. You crossed that line Innie. You may disagree with professor Lakoff, but he is not a Rush Limbaugh...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the health care interview...enjoy

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

 

[Harry Dresden]

To right wing Republicans, everything not right wing is always "far left". Try to say what that "far left" means and what you get is a mishmash of "bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate".

Republicans don't like education. Depends on how you define "education". If that means "Bible study", then some like it and some don't. If you are talking about a competitive education that will compete with other countries that includes the evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, then no, conservatives are not really into it. You can't put lipstick on a pig. They are simply not into it. And unfortunately, for conservatives, many that do get such an education, tend to become liberals.

Conservatives tend to have less eduction, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher poverty, more STDs. Worse, they siphon away money from Blue states destabilizing the government.

To right wing Republicans, everything not right wing is always "far left". Try to say what that "far left" means and what you get is a mishmash of "bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate".

kinda looks like what many here have been saying about you Dean for quite a while now.....to you,everything NOT Left Wing is FAR RIGHT.....and of course your Stereotyping of those people shows us your bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate........


Republicans don't like education. Depends on how you define "education". If that means "Bible study", then some like it and some don't. If you are talking about a competitive education that will compete with other countries that includes the evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, then no, conservatives are not really into it. You can't put lipstick on a pig. They are simply not into it. And unfortunately, for conservatives, many that do get such an education, tend to become liberals.


and of course a stereotyping delusional hate filled asshole like you,would buy such Bullshit from your FAR Left leaders.......

Conservatives tend to have less eduction, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher poverty, more STDs. Worse, they siphon away money from Blue states destabilizing the government.

so do those Ghettos filled up with the minorities that you guys keep there under the guise of HELPING them,when all your doing is using their ignorance for the express purpose of getting their votes.....

 

[rdean]

To right wing Republicans, everything not right wing is always "far left". Try to say what that "far left" means and what you get is a mishmash of "bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate".

Republicans don't like education. Depends on how you define "education". If that means "Bible study", then some like it and some don't. If you are talking about a competitive education that will compete with other countries that includes the evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, then no, conservatives are not really into it. You can't put lipstick on a pig. They are simply not into it. And unfortunately, for conservatives, many that do get such an education, tend to become liberals.

Conservatives tend to have less eduction, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher poverty, more STDs. Worse, they siphon away money from Blue states destabilizing the government.

To right wing Republicans, everything not right wing is always "far left". Try to say what that "far left" means and what you get is a mishmash of "bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate".

kinda looks like what many here have been saying about you Dean for quite a while now.....to you,everything NOT Left Wing is FAR RIGHT.....and of course your Stereotyping of those people shows us your bigotry, delusional imaginings and hate........


Republicans don't like education. Depends on how you define "education". If that means "Bible study", then some like it and some don't. If you are talking about a competitive education that will compete with other countries that includes the evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, then no, conservatives are not really into it. You can't put lipstick on a pig. They are simply not into it. And unfortunately, for conservatives, many that do get such an education, tend to become liberals.


and of course a stereotyping delusional hate filled asshole like you,would buy such Bullshit from your FAR Left leaders.......

Conservatives tend to have less eduction, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher poverty, more STDs. Worse, they siphon away money from Blue states destabilizing the government.

so do those Ghettos filled up with the minorities that you guys keep there under the guise of HELPING them,when all your doing is using their ignorance for the express purpose of getting their votes.....

Everything I've said I've backed up with data and evidence. I'm sorry you don't like the message, but don't shoot the messenger.

If conservatives were into evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, more than 6% of our scientists would be Republicans. You yourself know this to be true.

so do those Ghettos filled up with the minorities that you guys keep there under the guise of HELPING them

And yet, Republicans don't help them at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it.