Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes

[Foxfyre]

That has to be one of the most bizarre, ahistorical comments I have ever read. Even for a conservative that boggles one's sense of the real. Have you ever studied the situation before FDR? Do you know what it was like for Americans? Is there any accident he was elected over and over? Is the public reaction the Social Security reform any hint for you?


http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/depress/depress.html

"In a country with abundant resources, the largest force of skilled labor, and the most productive industry in the world, many found it hard to understand why the depression had occurred and why it could not be resolved. Moreover, it was difficult for many to understand why people should go hungry in a country possessing huge food surpluses. Blaming Wall Street speculators, bankers, and the Hoover administration, the rumblings of discontent grew mightily in the early 1930s. By 1932, hunger marches and small riots were common throughout the nation.

However, not all citizens were caught up in the social eruptions. Many were too downtrodden or busy surviving day to day to get involved in public displays of discontent. Instead, they placed their hope and trust in the federal government, especially after the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency in 1932."

Bern, more of those lazy Americans you know so well. And a counterpoint from the CG.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02jobs.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all/&oref=slogin

"...what is left unstated here is how many company’s have off-shored their customer service departments to ‘lower cost’ labor markets leaving US workers ‘twisting in the wind’."

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/1519

Well let's review social security as one example. The program FDR pushed through came with the following promises:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual income into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

4.) That the money would be put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Congress has significantly violated every single one of those promises, violation of No. 5 occurring during the Clinton administration.

And yet nobody to this day can exist on social security benefits and live above the poverty guidelines.

And THAT is why government should not be in the business of any form of charity.

 

[Bern80]

You did not answer the question, you speculated on their life choices. Consider how inept that argument is for a minute. Who would choose to be poor? But you would argue they made poor choices? But again I ask, who would choose to make dumb choices. People are not poor/rich because they have the opportunity to pick.

Whether they are what you want me to say is heavily dependent on the choices they have made. Yes if you asked a 100 people if they would choose to be poor of course all would say no. That doesn't mean if they did find themselves poor that it isn't a result of their own actions. Who would choose to make dumb choices? No one would conciously choose to do that. That doesn't change the fact that poor can be and often are the result of the choices they've made, just as the rich can be, and often are rich due to the choices they've made.

The people in the news story made choices based on what they could do, they did what everyone does, they lived their life and tried the best they could. If a level playing field existed we could buy your inept argument. But also it is UHC that is missing not how people come to be rich or poor.

There isn't a single amount truth to anything there. You don't know how hey made their choices. You don't know if they made it to their full potential or if they tried to reach it. Those statements are based on assumption that you can't possibly confirm.

Again do these American working people appear to be dependent on the nanny state? I am not asking you to analyze their every move through life.

They don't appear to be. And they technically aren't even depending on the state.

 

[midcan5]

Well let's review social security as one example.

And yet nobody to this day can exist on social security benefits and live above the poverty guidelines.

And THAT is why government should not be in the business of any form of charity.

Not true, many live on SS alone. If you are old and need care, many facilities will accept you along with SS. And living at the poverty level is better than starving.

And while government is not perfect, G is that thing that maintains order and structure. As a liberal I am all for individual rights but you need to recognize without G those rights have no foundation. Ironically it is G that gives us freedom and not the jungle. Look at Iraq as an example, the inability to form a stable unifying government is the reason there is chaos.

Our first president said it well.

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address

 

[midcan5]

They don't appear to be. And they technically aren't even depending on the state.

Thanks, a sorta answer. So then will you reconsider your personal prejudices and recognize economic reality as something more than lazy people?

 

[Bern80]

Thanks, a sorta answer. So then will you reconsider your personal prejudices and recognize economic reality as something more than lazy people?

No. Perhaps your preception is better than mine. Unfortunately from the few minutes of face time that a couple of people received out of a few hundred people there I was not able to ascertain how they came to that point in life. The operative word would be 'appear', which is not 'truth'.

What you don't get is that economic reality has nothing to do with personal potential. Will it be harder for some than others? Of course.

Now you answer my question. How do you know they aren't where they are as a result of their actions?

This is so simple Midcan, that it's stupid. One side wants to blame this on some invisible force, corporate america or whatever creating this divide and can't possibly fathom how that the collective change in mentality might just have something to do with it. You also don't seem to understand the ramifications of your position, or the other positions you woudl have to accept.

You would have to accept that:

1) For a majority of people, where they are in life is simply fate.

2) That most wealthy people are wealthy because of sheer luck.

3) That most people that are poor are not respsonsible for being poor.

You know that if you wanted to become wealthy you could. Some obstacles would be harder to overcome than others, but you have to know about yourself that there are few if any impossible obstacles. I know that to be true of myself and i don't see that you or I major exceptions to what constitutes the 'average' individual. Don't you get how absolutely depressing and defeatist your position is?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not true, many live on SS alone. If you are old and need care, many facilities will accept you along with SS. And living at the poverty level is better than starving.

And while government is not perfect, G is that thing that maintains order and structure. As a liberal I am all for individual rights but you need to recognize without G those rights have no foundation. Ironically it is G that gives us freedom and not the jungle. Look at Iraq as an example, the inability to form a stable unifying government is the reason there is chaos.

Our first president said it well.

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/washington-farewell-address

Our first President also was quite clear that not everyone who asks for charity deserves it. Nor did he ever advocate that the government provide it.

I did not say that nobody lives on social security alone. I said nobody lives on social security alone who lives well. I will back down sufficiently to say it is possible in some areas of the country that a few former high wage earners might be a mite above the poverty level, but most will not.

Attitudes of some of the Founders and former presidents on government largesse:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

Now, however, if the government should make a provision by which I can save a portion of my income for my retirement tax free--wait, they sort of did that with IRAS, 401Ks, etc.--I would be able to provide for myself. And if all the social security the average person pays into the system was similarly invested, a person could easily retire a millionaire after working for 40 or 50 years and pass the unused portion on to his/her spouse or heirs. As it is, the average social security recipient receives $1000/month or less and if you die before you draw all you paid in, tough. The government keeps the rest. And the system is going broke because the government has added so many more charitable benefits paid from the system to people who have paid little or nothing into it.

Tell me again how government is the best vehicle to manage these sorts of things? And how the Founders and most of our former Presidents were not very wise men?

 

[midcan5]

Now, however, if the government should make a provision by which I can save a portion of my income for my retirement tax free--wait, they sort of did that with IRAS, 401Ks, etc.--I would be able to provide for myself. And if all the social security the average person pays into the system was similarly invested, a person could easily retire a millionaire after working for 40 or 50 years and pass the unused portion on to his/her spouse or heirs. As it is, the average social security recipient receives $1000/month or less and if you die before you draw all you paid in, tough. The government keeps the rest. And the system is going broke because the government has added so many more charitable benefits paid from the system to people who have paid little or nothing into it.

Tell me again how government is the best vehicle to manage these sorts of things? And how the Founders and most of our former Presidents were not very wise men?

Sorry but again not true. System was solvent till Congress raided it. And you could end up poorer as this demonstrates:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

Also SS is insurance it helps many not just in retirement.

G manages by being the force that enforces the rules. Simple as that, nothing complicated about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry but again not true. System was solvent till Congress raided it. And you could end up poorer as this demonstrates:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html

Also SS is insurance it helps many not just in retirement.

G manages by being the force that enforces the rules. Simple as that, nothing complicated about it.

The article is badly flawed I think. He is not taking into account that the self invested fund doesn't stop growing when you start drawing from it as social security does. Based on the performance of the Dow of the last several decades, if you have a million invested, you could live perhaps not lavishly, but comfortably without even touching the principle and the cost to support you would not require a dime from anybody else. He also isn't taking into account that if you die, the government keeps the money. You can't pass it on to your heirs.

He also is not considering the extra cost to you if you continue to work when you start drawing social security as many seniors do because they can't or don't want to live on a social security pittance. Thanks to the Clinton administration, up to 85% of social security earnings will likely be taxed.

The government simply has no track record of doing anything more economically, efficiently, or effectively than what can be accomplished in the private sector.

I think the New Deal resulted in a major shift in political values and core attitudes by changing a mindset of supporting oneself and ones family to one of feeding at the government nipple and depending on government for our most basic needs. Benjamin Franklin warned us of this phenomenon early on: the principles of the Constitution would be unworkable when the people found they could vote themselves money from the public treasury. It perhaps didn't become unworkable right away but is always threatened when Congress confiscates our property and uses it to control us.

 

[midcan5]

I think the New Deal resulted in a major shift in political values and core attitudes by changing a mindset of supporting oneself and ones family to one of feeding at the government nipple and depending on government for our most basic needs.

I had that discussion with Bern and I simply do not see it anywhere except in the rhetoric of the Right. In the world, people are people are people and the rich are as lazy as the poor and the poor are as hard working as the rich.

In order to make the kind of money you talk about, here is a question, guess how many years in the life of the stock market it gained between 8 to 12%? Do you know without looking it up.

 

[Foxfyre]

I had that discussion with Bern and I simply do not see it anywhere except in the rhetoric of the Right. In the world, people are people are people and the rich are as lazy as the poor and the poor are as hard working as the rich.

In order to make the kind of money you talk about, here is a question, guess how many years in the life of the stock market it gained between 8 to 12%? Do you know without looking it up.

I don't base solid investments on the stock market as a whole. I judge solid investments against how they perform against the market as a whole. Anybody with even a modicum of investment savvy and/or who gets good advice should be able to beat the market without taking excessive risk. Even that is beside the point. Either we want the government to confiscate our property and dole it back out to us should it choose to do so--don't forget that social security payments could be cancelled to any of us by a simple majority vote of Congress--or we want the right to work and invest the money we legally and honorably earn in whatever way we see fit. I don't accept that the government will do a better job of taking care of me than I am able to do for myself.

In your other analogy, what difference does it make whether a person is industrious or lazy? Please explain a rationale for how it is moral for government to confiscate the property of Citizen A who prepared himself to succeed and worked hard to earn it and then give that property to Citizen B who did not?

Otherwise you are entirely avoiding the issues of whether the government should confiscate a hefty percentage of everybody's paycheck so that it can dole out a near starvation stipend to them in their old age. You are avoiding the issue that once the government confiscates our money, it is no longer ours, and we won't see a penny of it nor will it benefit our heirs should be die before we are eligible to apply for that meager stipend. You are avoiding the issue that the government has violated every single guarantee it has ever made to us re social security as previously posted and there is no reason to believe that situation won't continue to get worse.

Now that we have allowed the government to make so many people dependent on social security, however inferior a retirement plan it is, we can't just stop it without heaping terrible hardship on millions. But we sure as heck could start slowly but intentionally phasing it out in a way that would not heap that hardship on so many. There are many things the government can do to encourage and facilitate people helping themselves without making us slaves to that government.

 

[mattskramer]

The article on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes" seems to be accurate.

The article on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes" seems to be accurate. Who is running for president now and has a good chance of winning? It is McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Those more conservative contenders left the race. It seems as though few people care about conservative values anymore. Otherwise, the conservative Republicans would still be in the race. You have a liberal maverick Republicans and a couple of Democrats. Bye bay Miss American Pie. What more can I say?

 

[Foxfyre]

The article on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes" seems to be accurate.

The article on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes" seems to be accurate. Who is running for president now and has a good chance of winning? It is McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Those more conservative contenders left the race. It seems as though few people care about conservative values anymore. Otherwise, the conservative Republicans would still be in the race. You have a liberal maverick Republicans and a couple of Democrats. Bye bay Miss American Pie. What more can I say?

I just can't believe that. I do think the media is so deep in the pocket of the Left that they can make it look that way to those who don't use other sources for their basic information. But I believe if you went issue by issue, point by point, with a good cross section of the American public, you would find that conservative values are still alive and well and most Americans are more conservative than they are liberal. The Mainstream Media won't allow that fact to be on the front page, and they do a great job of making sure that no hot button issues are in the public mind when their candidate(s) of choice are presented. Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all three media darlings, though the MSM will turn on McCain once the general campaign begins. Right now, they will keep him off the front page as much as possible and make sure Obama and Clinton are the only visible 'leaders'.

 

[mattskramer]

I just can't believe that. I do think the media is so deep in the pocket of the Left that they can make it look that way to those who don't use other sources for their basic information. But I believe if you went issue by issue, point by point, with a good cross section of the American public, you would find that conservative values are still alive and well and most Americans are more conservative than they are liberal. The Mainstream Media won't allow that fact to be on the front page, and they do a great job of making sure that no hot button issues are in the public mind when their candidate(s) of choice are presented. Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all three media darlings, though the MSM will turn on McCain once the general campaign begins. Right now, they will keep him off the front page as much as possible and make sure Obama and Clinton are the only visible 'leaders'.

I have more faith in the concerned voting public to find out the candidates’ positions for themselves. The fact remains that Huchabee and Romney (two conservative Republicans) dropped out. The mainstream media does not tell people whom to vote for. The voters Google the candidates, learn from different sources, and decide for themselves. The people don’t want conservatives.

 

[midcan5]

I don't accept that the government will do a better job of taking care of me than I am able to do for myself.

Hopefully not and not relevant to SS as it is insurance and help for other Americans who aren't so lucky.

In your other analogy, what difference does it make whether a person is industrious or lazy? Please explain a rationale for how it is moral for government to confiscate the property of Citizen A who prepared himself to succeed and worked hard to earn it and then give that property to Citizen B who did not?

People do not decide one day to be industrious or lazy they are combinations of both and those characteristics are common to all classes of people.

Otherwise you are entirely avoiding the issues of whether the government should confiscate a hefty percentage of everybody paycheck so that it can dole out a near starvation stipend to them in their old age.

Not at all, they should confiscate it - as you say - and again it's not just for retirement and it can be a cushion or supplement for people who have worked hard all their lives.

Now that we have allowed the government to make so many people dependent on social security, however inferior a retirement plan it is, we can't just stop it without heaping terrible hardship on millions.

The way you characterize things forms the way you think about them.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I had that discussion with Bern and I simply do not see it anywhere except in the rhetoric of the Right. In the world, people are people are people and the rich are as lazy as the poor and the poor are as hard working as the rich.

In order to make the kind of money you talk about, here is a question, guess how many years in the life of the stock market it gained between 8 to 12%? Do you know without looking it up.

A significant percentage of the poor are either mentally or physically handicapped, an afliction they cannot help and as such, are worthy candidates for some degree of public charity.

Another significant group are substance abusers. That is predominantly an affliction of personal choice. All society really owes these people is the opportunity to kick their addiction via publically funded treatment clinics. Some may say we don't even owe them that but that is much cheaper and effective use of resources than just locking them all up.

The rest are or were simply LAZY either now or at during a significant portion of their past. They failed to take advantage of all the public educational assistance to obtain advanced skills and have never made an effort to better themselves. The country is too full of single mothers with kids in tow managing to get an education or vocational skill and making a success of themselves. I have not pity on these people and we, as a society, owe them nothing but continued opportunities to better themselves through educational grants and training programs.

 

[Bern80]

I had that discussion with Bern and I simply do not see it anywhere except in the rhetoric of the Right. In the world, people are people are people and the rich are as lazy as the poor and the poor are as hard working as the rich.

I would imagine the reason that is, is that you have yet to ask some honest questions about these people you have observed. There simply is no way you can honestly say that for the majority of people where they find themselves is unavoidable and has nothing to do with their actions and choices they've made. If you do, then you need to start seriously looking at the ramifications of such a position.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A significant percentage of the poor are either mentally or physically handicapped, an afliction they cannot help and as such, are worthy candidates for some degree of public charity..

Another significant group are substance abusers. That is predominantly an affliction of personal choice. All society really owes these people is the opportunity to kick their addiction via publically funded treatment clinics. Some may say we don't even owe them that but that is much cheaper and effective use of resources than just locking them all up.

The rest are or were simply LAZY either now or at during a significant portion of their past. They failed to take advantage of all the public educational assistance to obtain advanced skills and have never made an effort to better themselves. The country is too full of single mothers with kids in tow managing to get an education or vocational skill and making a success of themselves. I have not pity on these people and we, as a society, owe them nothing but continued opportunities to better themselves through educational grants and training programs.[/QUOTE]

The totality of reasons is quite deep.

Suffice to say, private charities are far more efficient

Those who prefer govt charity, are either into having power and control, are simply misguided, or are of the "better safe than sorry" idea. Better safe than sorry simply isnt true, and is not what this nation was founded on, and we all know that better safe than sorry means NOTHING ever gets accomplished except that which already has been.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Another significant group are substance abusers. That is predominantly an affliction of personal choice. All society really owes these people is the opportunity to kick their addiction via publically funded treatment clinics. Some may say we don't even owe them that but that is much cheaper and effective use of resources than just locking them all up.

The rest are or were simply LAZY either now or at during a significant portion of their past. They failed to take advantage of all the public educational assistance to obtain advanced skills and have never made an effort to better themselves. The country is too full of single mothers with kids in tow managing to get an education or vocational skill and making a success of themselves. I have not pity on these people and we, as a society, owe them nothing but continued opportunities to better themselves through educational grants and training programs.

The totality of reasons is quite deep.

Suffice to say, private charities are far more efficient

Those who prefer govt charity, are either into having power and control, are simply misguided, or are of the "better safe than sorry" idea. Better safe than sorry simply isnt true, and is not what this nation was founded on, and we all know that better safe than sorry means NOTHING ever gets accomplished except that which already has been.[/QUOTE]

Why all these left wing posters here think that government is always the solution to any problem. I can't think of a single social ill the government has EVER solved. Yet private charities do more with far less than any governmental agency ever does. Your local food pantries, shelters, and kitchens feed FAR MORE hungry people than any governmental agency does. New Orleans after Katrina is a prime example of how well government does anything. Why so many people are so willing to think government can solve anything is beyond me. The school lunch program for instance spends 75% of it's budget on administrative costs and only 25% actually gets to kids.

 

[midcan5]

The rest are or were simply LAZY either now or at during a significant portion of their past. They failed to take advantage of all the public educational assistance to obtain advanced skills and have never made an effort to better themselves. The country is too full of single mothers with kids in tow managing to get an education or vocational skill and making a success of themselves. I have not pity on these people and we, as a society, owe them nothing but continued opportunities to better themselves through educational grants and training programs.

So the children don't matter to you? I'm never sure what lazy means and lots of single moms work hard and have full time jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2004.pdf

2004 statistics are above and oddly it demonstrates people get lazier during republican administrations? Can you explain that?

Clinton did alright though, as the figures below attest.

"In 2000, 31 million people, or 11.3 percent of the population lived at or below the official poverty level—1.1 million fewer than in 1999. While the bulk of these individuals were children and adults who did not participate in the labor force, about 6.4 million were classified as the “working poor.” This was 445,000 fewer than in 1999, continuing a 7-year downtrend. As defined for this report, the working poor are individuals who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (working or looking for work), but whose incomes fell below the official poverty level. Of all persons in the labor force for at least 27 weeks, 4.7 percent were classified as working poor in 2000, down 0.4 percentage point from the previous year."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm

 

[Zoomie1980]

So the children don't matter to you? I'm never sure what lazy means and lots of single moms work hard and have full time jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2004.pdf

2004 statistics are above and oddly it demonstrates people get lazier during republican administrations? Can you explain that?

Clinton did alright though, as the figures below attest.

"In 2000, 31 million people, or 11.3 percent of the population lived at or below the official poverty level—1.1 million fewer than in 1999. While the bulk of these individuals were children and adults who did not participate in the labor force, about 6.4 million were classified as the “working poor.” This was 445,000 fewer than in 1999, continuing a 7-year downtrend. As defined for this report, the working poor are individuals who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (working or looking for work), but whose incomes fell below the official poverty level. Of all persons in the labor force for at least 27 weeks, 4.7 percent were classified as working poor in 2000, down 0.4 percentage point from the previous year."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm

Ask yourself why there are "working poor". Do you know what these louts do for a living and more important, WHY they do it? Do you even understand why pay for flipping burgers, picking up trash, digging holes for sewers and such, pays what it does and performing neuro-surgery pays what it does? Any clue at all? Would you care if your burger was cooked by a 16 year old kid or a neuro-surgeon (they'd come out about the same) vs have an uneducated, untrained 16 year old operating on your brain.

Or is your brain completely mush and thus inoperable at all?

And no, I don't give a damn about children, except for my own. All the others are their own parents' problem.