Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes

[Foxfyre]

It is accepted voluntarily by employers who can choose to go into business or not.




the fence riding is hilarious.

Fence riding? I run a small business and, while I do not currently have employees, I have had employees in the fairly recent past. I chose to hire those employees because a) it would benefit me and b) they needed the work. I could as easily have chosen not to hire those employees as that would not have significantly reduced my net income. When I hired them I knew full well that I would be required to pay general liability insurance based on their earnings, I would be required to pay work comp premiums based on their earnings, and I would be required to pay FUTA and SUTA insurance based on their earnings.

I chose to do that. Again I could have easily chosen not to do that as well as choose not to run my own business at all. There were jobs that paid as well available to me and somebody else could have enjoyed all the headaches of being in business.

I chose to do that because I like being my own boss. That is a privilege I do not take lightly. And I accept the responsibilities that come with it.

There's no fence sitting here.

 

[Bern80]

WWJFKD, eh BERN?


So, what other social programs do you want to go on the record in supporting, BERN? Anything specific or shall we continue to play this litte cloak and dagger game of hide and go support you've got going on here while trying to rationalize personal behaviour?

To 'rationalize' I would have to be oppossed to it in the first place? You still don't seem to get all of your snideness and your condescension is based on the notion that I am anti-social programs and for what, the dozenth time now, all i can tell ya is I'm not. I view it as balancing act with legitimate saftety social programs one side and becomeing a nanny state on the other.

 

[Shogun]

There's no fence sitting here.

So, do other businesses whose operation REQUIRES a staff outside of an owner/operator get to make that same CHOICE or are they FORCED to comply?

fence riding indeed.

 

[Shogun]

To 'rationalize' I would have to be oppossed to it in the first place? You still don't seem to get all of your snideness and your condescension is based on the notion that I am anti-social programs and for what, the dozenth time now, all i can tell ya is I'm not. I view it as balancing act with legitimate saftety social programs one side and becomeing a nanny state on the other.

Not necessarily, just willing to perceive your own behaviour as acceptable above the rest of the nation that may or may not enjoy their 6 months of employment vacation.. Indeed, every time you try and poke that WWJFKD finger this way it probably reinforces the balancing act.

Hell, you are probably the ONLY ONE who is willing to mix capitolism and socialism, BERN! None of us lefties have ever been interested in anything but forced marxism at the barrel of the church of Che Guevara!

 

[Bern80]

Not necessarily, just willing to perceive your own behaviour as acceptable above the rest of the nation that may or may not enjoy their 6 months of employment vacation.. Indeed, every time you try and poke that WWJFKD finger this way it probably reinforces the balancing act.

Where have I said other people should not take unemployment?

Hell, you are probably the ONLY ONE who is willing to mix capitolism and socialism, BERN! None of us lefties have ever been interested in anything but forced marxism at the barrel of the church of Che Guevara!

Sarcasm noted and seeing how we are closer to common ground than you seem to believe your tone is rather puzzling.

At the outset this thread wasn't about social programs, who should get them, how much they cost or anything like that. It was about a shift in values and whether it was a good thing as the editorialist in the orginal article seems to think, or a bad thing.

 

[Shogun]

im just razzin ya, Bern. From reading your positions on fiscal issues I've always taken you for someone holding a harder line against percieved threats of socialism. I'm glad to see that I was wrong about that and look forward to defending necessary socialism with you in the future.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, do other businesses whose operation REQUIRES a staff outside of an owner/operator get to make that same CHOICE or are they FORCED to comply?

fence riding indeed.

Nobody is FORCED to go into business. Nobody is FORCED to go into a business requiring a staff. Nobody is FORCED to hire anybody. Nobody is FORCED to live in this country where our Constitution decrees that we will be a people governed by laws passed by representatives we lawfully elect to make those laws. We each have right to speak out against the laws and do what we can to change those we want changed. But by virtue of our choice to live here and avail ourselves of the blessings inherent in that and in peace with our chosen leaders, we agree to abide by the law of the land at the Constitutional, federal, state, country, and local levels.

The law of the land requires those who employ people to pay unemployment insurance to avoid some of the social consequences of temporary unemployment. This is not socialism because it is voluntarily accepted by virtue of those who choose to be in business. The only difference between FUTA/SUTA and any other mandatory insurance is that FUTA/SUTA is administered by the state instead of by private insurance companies.

If you hate FUTA/SUTA though, do you think you will enjoy mandated and government administered health insurance more? Especially when we can't opt out of it?

As for changing social values, there was a time when the people wanted the government to make it possible for them to provide for themselves. That was the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments--to level the playing field to apply the laws and opportunities equitably to everybody.

Liberals now, however, interpret the "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble to mean that the government will PROVIDE all that the people need. Conservatives interpret the intent to be that the goverment will ENABLE the processes through which we all can aspire to provide all that we need.

That is the largest shift in attitudes in fiscal responsibility that I have seen in my lifetime and I think it has been to all of our detriment.

 

[Shogun]

thats some of the absolute dumbest logic i've read all day.


so, by your definition there IS no such thing as a social program because everyone always has the CHOICE not to go into a regulated business or live in a socialist nation.


gotcha.



drinking your brain juice today, eh?




I won't even bother touching on the rest of that giant bowl of stupid...

 

[Foxfyre]

thats some of the absolute dumbest logic i've read all day.


so, by your definition there IS no such thing as a social program because everyone always has the CHOICE not to go into a regulated business or live in a socialist nation.


gotcha.



drinking your brain juice today, eh?



I won't even bother touching on the rest of that giant bowl of stupid...

Well there is nobody so ignorant than one who accuses others of ignorance based on a faulty presumption. I think your presumption of what constitutes socialism needs quite a bit of work. Why don't you work on that and then maybe we can actually have a conversation on it instead of one of us engaging in schoolyard insults?

 

[Shogun]

are you kidding me?


tell me another joke like "unemployemnt is not a social program because employers have the choice to do business or not" and lecture me on which of us needs to figure out a definition or two.




this is a typical reaction of yours, fox.

 

[midcan5]

Maybe I am wrong but I see a divide among rich/educated - poor/less educated among all groups. I think the attempts to destroy the New Deal and Great Society initiatives have affected how we react and live our political lives in a negative sense.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943

"The three GOP groups are highly diverse, and this is reflected in their values. The staunchly conservative Enterprisers have perhaps the most consistent ideological profile of any group in the typology. They are highly patriotic and strongly pro-business, oppose social welfare and overwhelmingly support an assertive foreign policy. This group is largely white, well-educated, affluent and male * more than three-quarters are men."


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

 

[Taomon]

Maybe I am wrong but I see a divide among rich/educated - poor/less educated among all groups. I think the attempts to destroy the New Deal and Great Society initiatives have affected how we react and live our political lives in a negative sense.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943

"The three GOP groups are highly diverse, and this is reflected in their values. The staunchly conservative Enterprisers have perhaps the most consistent ideological profile of any group in the typology. They are highly patriotic and strongly pro-business, oppose social welfare and overwhelmingly support an assertive foreign policy. This group is largely white, well-educated, affluent and male * more than three-quarters are men."


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

They are also the minority, so are we not stepping on their throats?

 

[midcan5]

Taomon, yes, when you look at the classifications, we are all minorities. Liberals largest group at 17%

Key Beliefs:

Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism General Population 51% Liberals 90%

I worry the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality General Population 51% Liberals 88%

Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost General Population 60% Liberals 89%

Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently General Population 52% Liberals 80%

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949

The bold is for RGS and other conservatives who often preach the opposite.

 

[Foxfyre]

are you kidding me?


tell me another joke like "unemployemnt is not a social program because employers have the choice to do business or not" and lecture me on which of us needs to figure out a definition or two.




this is a typical reaction of yours, fox.

I did not say it was not a social program. Of course it is a social program. I said it was not socialism and explained why.

You do know the difference between a social program and socialism don't you?

And I guess I could use your schoolyard means of debate, too, and point out that changing the word or what somebody says to something more easily attacked is a typical tactic of yours, Shogun.

 

[Bern80]

Taomon, yes, when you look at the classifications, we are all minorities. Liberals largest group at 17%

Key Beliefs:

Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism General Population 51% Liberals 90%

Yes I would imagine when we attack the people who want to attack us they probably don't like that a lot.

I worry the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality General Population 51% Liberals 88%

Such as?

Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost General Population 60% Liberals 89%

Sure, accept the side that passes them can't seem to scientifically figure out which laws are warranted and which aren't.

Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently General Population 52% Liberals 80%

A statment that reflects the leftist notion (again) that people have no control over their status in life.

 

[midcan5]

Yes I would imagine when we attack the people who want to attack us they probably don't like that a lot.

Such as?

Sure, accept the side that passes them can't seem to scientifically figure out which laws are warranted and which aren't.

A statment that reflects the leftist notion (again) that people have no control over their status in life.

Bern, this is a survey and reflects the complexity even among similar ideologues on these issues. You assume a liberal therefore they are.

1. Iraq was an illegal immoral war. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/07/trapped-in-wrong-paradigm-three-handy.html
2. I note many in a post above.
3. Look around.
4. No, a statement that reflects reality. No need to go back to the time before FDR's New Deal.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Bern, this is a survey and reflects the complexity even among similar ideologues on these issues. You assume a liberal therefore they are.

1. Iraq was an illegal immoral war. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/07/trapped-in-wrong-paradigm-three-handy.html
2. I note many in a post above.
3. Look around.
4. No, a statement that reflects reality. No need to go back to the time before FDR's New Deal.

In this country, if you are of sound mind and body and you are poor, then you have chosen to be so.....

Will Rodgers...

 

[midcan5]

In this country, if you are of sound mind and body and you are poor, then you have chosen to be so.....

Interesting that you know no people who could be classified as poor but work very hard. I think you need to leave your cave. And poor is not really the issue, lots of people need help at some time in their life, even conservatives as noted above.

 

[Gurdari]

Sure I'll take a crack at it.

The article ties in amazingly well to what I have been saying about the change in people's attitudes for some time. What does a concern for a social safety yet really reflect? I believe it reflects that people are afraid. It doesn't reflect people's concern for their fellow man. It reflects an individuals concern for themsleves. We simply don't value that work hard and achieve mentality as much (that would the social value going by the way side part of the article. Simply, people are more self-centered, we think we are entitled more and at the same time less should be expected of us.

I give a shit about my fellow citizens. And I work hard. Big contradiction, I know. maybe less misery isn't a bad thing... and if people struggle they can get a bit of help instead of the finger. Might make life a bit better for all, like some of those poor socialist hellholes in europe like Denmark. poor bastards.

 

[Foxfyre]

I give a shit about my fellow citizens. And I work hard. Big contradiction, I know. maybe less misery isn't a bad thing... and if people struggle they can get a bit of help instead of the finger. Might make life a bit better for all, like some of those poor socialist hellholes in europe like Denmark. poor bastards.

Nobody is stopping you from giving a bit of help or a lot of help to struggling people. By all means give all you can possibly spare. Volunteer your time and skills. Get busy recruiting others to do likewise. Start your own 501(c)(3) targeted at some group that is not getting sufficient help as you see it. It is your unalienable right to do all these things and, in so doing, you can make a difference; maybe even erase a hellhole or two.

But it is also my unalienable right to choose who I will help and to what extent, or at least it used to be before FDR decided a little government charity was a good thing and those who followed figured if a little was good, a whole lot would be great.

And in well intended efforts to help they destroyed the black institutions and black families that had sustained that minority group; they razed old vital neighborhoods to 'improve the cities' and we now enjoy rat infested projects where the plumbing doesn't work, murder, assault,theft,rape are regular occurrences, and angry young people form gangs to roam the streets and do violence.

I do not trust the government to be the best judge of how to help people, and while a charitable heart is a magnificent thing, to confiscate wealth from Citizen A who lawfully earned it and give it to Citizen B who didn't, is nothing short of socialized immorality.

By all means give until it hurts. But please do it yourself and don't presume to tell me who is most deserving of charity. Don't seek to feel good at my expense.

If Denmark is more to your liking than a country that values personal freedoms and unalienable rights, by all means move there. I'm sure they would have delighted to have you.