Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[DiamondDave]

I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.

I'm all for everybody having a shot at upward mobility. I just believe that conservative values/ideals are the best way to restore that and/or accomplish that. I think liberal values/ideals have been tried for that and have failed. The intentions were often noble and commendable, but the unintended consequences were not.

Some liberal programs have failed, I'd agree. But foxfyre, I'm still waiting to hear what conservatives believe is a solution for childhood poverty, homeless veterans, hunger among the elderly, etc.

Children can become wards of the state.. We veterans are all adults, and what we do to support ourselves is our personal business and personal responsibility.... And as in every case, I believe in voluntary charity to voluntarily help those in need... not some forced charity that only some contribute to for the dispersion of generous feelings to those who actually contributed nothing

Hell.. I donate to several types of charities and would donate MUCH more if I were not having huge chunks of my paycheck stripped and abused in the government red-tape system... and we all know the government is not an efficient user of funds, with the many levels of red tape putting very little into the actual help and very much into greasing it's own gears

 

[DiamondDave]

I would not see a belief that murder or incest should be legalized as either liberal nor conservative. Such would be anarchy that recognizes no human or individual or unalienable rights. And though I think American Conservatives have a much better understanding of unalienable rights than do Liberals--that speaks to my own ideological bias on this of course--I do think both equally do understand and agree on certain standards of what is and is not acceptable human conduct.

The same conflict applies in issues of abortion, gay marriage, parental rights, etc. etc. etc. on which a certain number of conservatives and a certain number of liberals could come down on either side of those issues.

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.

My point simply was that we DO set limits in law or what is legal... Saying that a conservative is an 'intermeddler' alone is disingenuous... all laws meddle on individuals or complete 'freedom'/anarchy
What many liberals don't like is drawing a line where some social activity they support is put on the side of 'illegal'

I agree, Dave. We should parse down the number of laws and regulations in this country and repeal those that we don't need.

* Legalize drugs

* Release all nonviolent drug offenders in prison NOW

* Eliminate the death penalty

Which ones are YOU willing to repeal?

None of those


I do not support parsing down the number of laws for the sake of having less law.... I support smaller government intervention into the legal things we all do in life

 

[Foxfyre]

Some liberal programs have failed, I'd agree. But foxfyre, I'm still waiting to hear what conservatives believe is a solution for childhood poverty, homeless veterans, hunger among the elderly, etc.

If the Federal government was not spread so thin so that it doesn't do anything well, I think there would be sufficient resources, without strapping anybody, to address homeless veterans: perhaps establish housing units attached to the VA hospitals or something as part of providing the common defense. Meanwhile, private charity is doing a far sight better job ministering to those folks than the Federal government is.

The ONLY solution for childhood poverty AND hunger among the elderly is to put the focus and emphasis back on the nuclear traditional family and make that the norm again in America. When you have a mom and dad in the home, there is far less chance the child will be poor, and there is far less chance that the frail elderly will be neglected. Solid conservative values there and you not only reduce poverty, but you also stabilize neighborhoods and property values, reduce crime, reduce substance abuse, dramatically improve education, and generally improve the quality of life for all.

The more the government tries to take over the responsibility of the nuclear family, the more the nuclear family becomes less necessary, less important, less attractive, and everybody suffers the consequences.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prolly the single most appealing theme in conservative thought is "rewarding merit". Only a dumbass would insist there are no undesirable "sense of entitlement" disincentives from some government programs.

However, ladies.....

Here's a few things most conservatives seem unwilling or unable to digest and accept:

* Upward mobility is a highly desirable, highly American value that is fast disappearing as a reality.

* Some people are temporarily or permanently in distress. A society as rich as ours that allows its poor children and elderly etc. to go hungry is in danger of moral bankruptcy.

* "What you earn" as a wealthy person is a function of, in part, government services and the existence of the middle and lower classes. It is a matter subject to debate, not a fixed and observable number.

1. * Upward mobility is a highly desirable, highly American value that is fast disappearing as a reality.

I don't know how you can support that view, as the vast majority of millionaires earned their money, rather than inherited it...
New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ


2. * Some people are temporarily or permanently in distress. A society as rich as ours that allows its poor children and elderly etc. to go hungry is in danger of moral bankruptcy.

More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell.
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - IBD - Investors.com


There's a lot of income mobility in America, so comparing poor families today with the poor families of 10 years ago can be misleading because they're not the same families. Every year hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and the young enter the workforce at "poor" income levels. But the CBO study found that, with the exception of chronically poor families who have no breadwinner, low-income job holders are climbing the income ladder.
When CBO examined surveys of the same poor families over a two year period, 2001-2003, it found that "the average income for those households increased by nearly 45%." That's especially impressive considering that those were two of the weakest years for economic growth across the 15 years of the larger study.
The Poor Get Richer - WSJ.com

I hope that these are not facts that you are "...unwilling or unable to digest and accept."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.

I'm all for everybody having a shot at upward mobility. I just believe that conservative values/ideals are the best way to restore that and/or accomplish that. I think liberal values/ideals have been tried for that and have failed. The intentions were often noble and commendable, but the unintended consequences were not.

Some liberal programs have failed, I'd agree. But foxfyre, I'm still waiting to hear what conservatives believe is a solution for childhood poverty, homeless veterans, hunger among the elderly, etc.

Maddy, one of the principles of conservatives is that data informs policy.
On that basis, I would very much like to see a figure of how much the problems that you have outlined, the needs, would cost.

Consider this:
"1. Today, Americans voluntarily give over $30 billion a year to support higher education, and—thanks in part to philanthropy—America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Even our great flagship state universities depend on private contributions for much of their excellence.

2. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."

https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

With the above in mind, can you calculate the number taken in taxation, and what percentage of same filters down to the needy...
This should be part of the public debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

My point simply was that we DO set limits in law or what is legal... Saying that a conservative is an 'intermeddler' alone is disingenuous... all laws meddle on individuals or complete 'freedom'/anarchy
What many liberals don't like is drawing a line where some social activity they support is put on the side of 'illegal'

I agree, Dave. We should parse down the number of laws and regulations in this country and repeal those that we don't need.

* Legalize drugs

* Release all nonviolent drug offenders in prison NOW

* Eliminate the death penalty

Which ones are YOU willing to repeal?

None of those


I do not support parsing down the number of laws for the sake of having less law.... I support smaller government intervention into the legal things we all do in life

We're pretty much on the same page here and elsewhere. I, however, would not object and would not see it that the government was overstepping to provide minimal group housing for veterans who absolutely cannot fend for themselves or that have nowhere else to go. I think it is the least we could do for those who put their lives at risk for the rest of us. I think most veterans, as you say, are quite capable of supporting themselves in a much better lifestyle than that and most will. And, in truth, probably private charity, if the government got out of the charity business, would be able to handle it much more effectively.

As for 'morality' laws, I don't have any problem with the individual states or communities passing these to accommodate the morality of the people they serve. If folks want a dry county or don't want strip clubs in their community or don't want an adult bookstore or bar next to a school, they should be able to legislate that to suit themselves without interference from anybody else. I don't see a Constitutional basis for the Federal government to get into those kinds of things.

 

[lizzie]

I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

Agree wholeheartedly with the bolded statement, and of course there is an "elite" class, but they don't have a different set of rights from the rest of us, so the difference mostly lies within the ability they may have to affect political power, but those in the less affluent categories have power of the vote to get what they desire as well.

...The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

One of the things I think I am seeing is a growing ideological battle between the middle class and the government-dependent class, because many in the middle class (like myself) are seeing thousands of their hard-earned dollars go toward supporting a high number of people who basically don't want to pay their own way. This could devolve rapidly if we get into a discussion about the disability problem, so I'll just leave it at that. We can't restore the upward mobility until we start producing again, and until we adjust to the new world economy that we now must compete in, that won't happen.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.

There is a reasonable chance, but it requires good decision-making skills and the will to follow-through, and our society seems to lack in those abilities these days.

 

[California Girl]

Prolly the single most appealing theme in conservative thought is "rewarding merit". Only a dumbass would insist there are no undesirable "sense of entitlement" disincentives from some government programs.

However, ladies.....

Here's a few things most conservatives seem unwilling or unable to digest and accept:

* Upward mobility is a highly desirable, highly American value that is fast disappearing as a reality.

* Some people are temporarily or permanently in distress. A society as rich as ours that allows its poor children and elderly etc. to go hungry is in danger of moral bankruptcy.

* "What you earn" as a wealthy person is a function of, in part, government services and the existence of the middle and lower classes. It is a matter subject to debate, not a fixed and observable number.

Why is upward mobility disappearing? Is it coincidence that it is happening with an increasingly 'welfare' and 'entitlement' driven society?

Well, I'm not sure CG. I think the degradation in public education has been a contributing factor. Loss of well-paying factory jobs and shipping out jobs in general. BTW, "welfare" has decreased, not increased. The lifetime ADFC support system has been more or less dismantled. What other "entitlement" programs do you think need to be modified or deleted? I could go for a meaningful conversation about SSDI -- especially SSDI for children.

No one, certainly not conservatives, seeks to ignore children and the elderly going hungry. We just happen to believe that there are better, more efficient, local ways of solving such issues.

Oh really? Cuz hon, sitting in Ohio I just don't see any "state or local solutions". We have terrible hunger problems here....and not all of it is urban.

No one - not an individual who breaks into the home of another and steals, or a government to does it legally - has the right to take what someone has worked for.

This is a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. When a Ken Lay, Warren Buffet or Bill Gates makes a gazillion dollars, how much has he "earned"? How much did he "earn" all by himself...without government services, without the contributions of workers, without the middle and lower classes? I just don't happen to think he has "earned" as much as you might...but neither of us is "wrong".

Not hard. Everyone in this country deserves the same opportunities. What they choose to do with those opportunities is their business. If someone chooses to squander their education, that is not my problem.

This is a lovely sentiment, but only a fool would argue there is no American elite...or underclass. I am not in favor of attempts to "level the playing field"...I don't even think it is possible. Instead, I favor efforts to expand the middle class and support upward mobility.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to post some long diatribe about the ills of the country or how we solve them. It's 2145, I started work at 0500 and I'm still working. However.... you can't 'expand' the middle class. The middle class expands when the economy is solid and provides opportunities for those prepared to work hard, save their money and spend it wisely. You don't become 'middle class' on credit. I have an issue with 'class' anyway.... We were not created as a 'class based' society. The great, and unique thing about America should be that anyone can succeed. No matter what your background, race, color or creed. That was the American Dream.

On the whole 'wealth' thing. Why do you assume thtat everyone who is wealthy has somehow done it by some underhand means. People create their own wealth. Gates started his business in his garage. He worked his way up. He created a product - and those who work for him get paid. What do you think someone who employs others is supposed to do? They provide jobs. That's it. They're not the parents of their employees, they owe them nothing other than a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Some employers - my dad, for instance - goes waaaaaay beyond what is legally required of him as an employer. He's taken on kids that the rest of society dismisses as beyond hope... kids with crap backgrounds, criminal records, little education etc. He gives them the opportunity to turn their lives around - some of them do, a couple do not. He provides health care (before he was told he had to), he treats people who work for him really, really well. Does he have to do that? No. Nor should he be expected to. But he does it because he genuinely respects the people who work for him. In return, they genuinely respect him - and most of them wouldn't leave the company if you paid them to. But it is his business and he is entitled to run it as he sees fit.

 

[Foxfyre]

My point simply was that we DO set limits in law or what is legal... Saying that a conservative is an 'intermeddler' alone is disingenuous... all laws meddle on individuals or complete 'freedom'/anarchy
What many liberals don't like is drawing a line where some social activity they support is put on the side of 'illegal'

I'm still digesting some of your comments guys, and sometimes I don't know what I think until I've thought it through. So please know I'm appreciating all the input even if every post is not referenced or whatever.

For instance I am still thinking about Dave's comments above.

It is true that many liberals don't want a line drawn on certain issues. But that is also true of many conservatives. So we might or might not be able to put various issues on one side or the other--I suspect most controversial issues would come down mostly on both sides--so I'm not sure that pushing legislation that reflects our personal values is necessarily a trait unique to conservatives or liberals.

So......we get back to my (I believe) conservative view that the social contract should always be local and not legislated or adjudicated from the Federal level EXCEPT in cases where Constitutional rights are concerned. For instance, if an incorporated community passed an ordinance that allowed only a Mormon or Islamic or Jewish or Baptist church to be built in that community, that would be a violation of our Constitutional rights. I don't think either Conservatives or Liberals would argue with that.

But the local community should be able to say that NOBODY can establish an adult bookstore or bar next to a school, that NOBODY can open a strip club in their community, or that NOBODY will build a big box store or whatever there. And the Federal government should not be involved in those kinds of decisions. The community and/or property owners should be able to decide whether the fire danger of too much brush too close to a private home outweighs destruction of habitat to some endangered creature that might live in the brush.

If you apply the simple rule of whether your choice violates the rights of anybody else and, if it doesn't, the Federal government has no say in what you can and cannot do, then you're applying a conservative rule.

 

[johnrocks]

I don't really care for labels anymore, the terms are moving targets and the meanings seem to change. In 1979, people like me were called "staunch conservatives", Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater and Robert A. "Mr. Republican" Taft were our political heros and it has gone from that to ex Democrat/FDR supporter Reagan to Bush and McCain being the image of "conservative" while the "libertarian" label is placed on people like me.

Just give me a hell of a lot LESS government and a hell of a lot more freedom, allow me to be in control of my body,my bedroom,my wallet AND my living room and if I screw up , then and only then penalize me, don't treat me like a 12 year old before I ever do anything!

 

[Foxfyre]

And then there is Maddie's comment re how much of their massive wealth does a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett or a George Soros et al actually earn?

When it is somebody like Gates who started with nothing in his home garage and from purely his own ability to figure out how to provide a product that people wanted and would pay to have. . . . .as long as he does it legally and ethically, I say he earned every nickle he has or has ever had. I never looked into how Buffett or Soros made their gazillions, but whether they inherited them, won a major lottery at some point, or found it in the back yard, it doesn't really matter. If they obtained the money legally and ethically it is their money and nobody, certainly not the government, should be able to take it away from them just because they have more than anybody else.

From the conservative perspective, we conservatives are widely divided on whether a sales tax, fair tax, flat tax, flat percentage with some deductions allowed, etc. is the best way to go. But we're pretty unified on the principle that everybody should pay their fair share proportionately or the same as everybody else.

Many liberals also agree that everybody should pay their fair share BUT you have to exempt the really low income folks because it is the rich folks (or some such) who put them into that position . . . or . . .the fair share of the rich should be much much more percentagewise than the fair share of the lower income person.

Liberals see that as 'equitable' because the rich should not be entitled to keep so much when the poor have so little. It is the only compassionate way to structure the system.

Conservatives see making the rich pay a higher percentage as rewarding nonproductivity and punishing productivity and success which is counter productive to positive values and goals and contributes to a vanishing middle class. And they also see it as corrupting both for government and the beneficiaries of the policy.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. The problem is you enourage more and more people to be Paul.

 

[Madeline]

foxfyre wrote in part:

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.

Not sure I follow you, miss. Do you mean liberals are more comfy with federal control while conservatives prefer local?

Yes. That is a point I've argued on numerous occasions, and nobody has been able to talk me out of it yet. Actually nobody has tried.

I do think liberals are much more likely to encourage or support Federal laws to govern all activity, including local, than are conservatives. The drum I beat usually says that conservatives want the Federal government to enact such laws and regulation as is necessary to secure and protect our unalienable rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves in whatever society we wish to form and maintain.

The few liberals who have waded in on this have usually agreed that they trust their federal representatives to govern better than they trust their state and local representatives.

In the broadest concept, I think conservatives do not wish to be governed. They want the ability and right to govern themselves and control their own destiny. I think liberals are more 'European' in that they look to a 'monarch' or central government to watch over them, take care of them, and personal freedoms become less important.

Well, for me it's simple, foxfyre. IMO, if we had the sort of state-centric govenment you envision (a) we would have a different constitution and (b) some states would still have Jim Crow laws in effect. Majority rule doesn't work well for folks out on the margins, and liberals seem to care more about their rights than conservatives do.

 

[Madeline]

I'm all for everybody having a shot at upward mobility. I just believe that conservative values/ideals are the best way to restore that and/or accomplish that. I think liberal values/ideals have been tried for that and have failed. The intentions were often noble and commendable, but the unintended consequences were not.

Some liberal programs have failed, I'd agree. But foxfyre, I'm still waiting to hear what conservatives believe is a solution for childhood poverty, homeless veterans, hunger among the elderly, etc.

Children can become wards of the state.. We veterans are all adults, and what we do to support ourselves is our personal business and personal responsibility.... And as in every case, I believe in voluntary charity to voluntarily help those in need... not some forced charity that only some contribute to for the dispersion of generous feelings to those who actually contributed nothing

Hell.. I donate to several types of charities and would donate MUCH more if I were not having huge chunks of my paycheck stripped and abused in the government red-tape system... and we all know the government is not an efficient user of funds, with the many levels of red tape putting very little into the actual help and very much into greasing it's own gears

The care and (if need be) shelter of our vets is not CHARITY, Dave. It's an obligation we, as a nation, fell down on. We've sat back and allowed the VA to deny Agent Orange claims, etc. We tolerate substandard medical care at VA hospitals. Etc.

As for kids, I dunno what you mean "children can become wards of the state". Are you suggesting the poor should lose custody? Not only is that hugely economically inefficient and completely unconstitutional, it's borderline evil.

Yes, government is inefficient at delivery of care of (almost) any sort. Yes, we could do better (most of the time) if we went private. But here's the thing, Dave. I don't think any American child, vet or elderly person should go hungry. And I think they have a right to food security. So no, I don't think that's charity either.

As for private efforts, all I can tell ya is there are only two food pantries in the Cleveland area. No family can get more than 48 hours' worth of food in any month. Things are even worse downstate, in the rural counties. If that sounds efficient or adequate to you, then you sound like a monster to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not sure I follow you, miss. Do you mean liberals are more comfy with federal control while conservatives prefer local?

Yes. That is a point I've argued on numerous occasions, and nobody has been able to talk me out of it yet. Actually nobody has tried.

I do think liberals are much more likely to encourage or support Federal laws to govern all activity, including local, than are conservatives. The drum I beat usually says that conservatives want the Federal government to enact such laws and regulation as is necessary to secure and protect our unalienable rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves in whatever society we wish to form and maintain.

The few liberals who have waded in on this have usually agreed that they trust their federal representatives to govern better than they trust their state and local representatives.

In the broadest concept, I think conservatives do not wish to be governed. They want the ability and right to govern themselves and control their own destiny. I think liberals are more 'European' in that they look to a 'monarch' or central government to watch over them, take care of them, and personal freedoms become less important.

Well, for me it's simple, foxfyre. IMO, if we had the sort of state-centric govenment you envision (a) we would have a different constitution and (b) some states would still have Jim Crow laws in effect. Majority rule doesn't work well for folks out on the margins, and liberals seem to care more about their rights than conservatives do.

I disagree because Jim Crow laws violate unalienable rights of a group of people. Once we evolved enough to realize that, we fixed it. And I do see it as the prerogative of the government to secure and protect the unalienable rights of every citizen. So the Federal government would be within its constitutional authority to step in if any state or community presumed to pass a law that would deny others their unalienable rights.

This is where I think the Conservative point of view is often different from the Liberal point of view. Conservatives do put a very large value and importance on unalienable rights and know the difference beween our unalienable rights; i.e. that which violates the rights of nobody else and requires no contribution from anybody else--Conservatives see a difference between that and privileges that do require participation by others.

I think Liberals sometimes consider it Citizen B's right to have what Citizen A rightfully earned and worked for and that it is okay for the Federal government to take what Citizen A rightfully earned and worked for and give it to Citizen B. I think most Conservatives see that as not a prerogative of the Federal government.

 

[daveman]

Well, for me it's simple, foxfyre. IMO, if we had the sort of state-centric govenment you envision (a) we would have a different constitution and (b) some states would still have Jim Crow laws in effect. Majority rule doesn't work well for folks out on the margins, and liberals seem to care more about their rights than conservatives do.

Actually, the state-centric government fox envisions is the one mandated by the Constitution we have.

 

[Madeline]

You are entitled to disagree with the Gang of Nine, Dave. It's fruitless, but we all do it occassionally.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I certainly do not and have never advocated Jim Crow laws. I do not support majority rule when it violates the Constitutional, legal, cvil, or unalienable rights of anybody. I do otherwise support majority rule when it comes to a state or community putting together the social contract by which it agrees to live, work, and play.

As a conservative I want the Federal government to secure my rights and then otherwise leave me alone to work out for myself and/or with others what sort of society I will live in.

 

[Madeline]

I did not mean to imply you supported Jim Crow laws, foxfyre. And actually, I tend to agree with you...there are far too many "unfunded mandates" ladled on states and local governments by the feds. The purse strings allowed the feds to bully states into such things as lowering the legal intoxication level and the speed limit -- and local control might have yielded better results.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not mean to imply you supported Jim Crow laws, foxfyre. And actually, I tend to agree with you...there are far too many "unfunded mandates" ladled on states and local governments by the feds. The purse strings allowed the feds to bully states into such things as lowering the legal intoxication level and the speed limit -- and local control might have yielded better results.

Actually I've appreciated your input a lot Madeline and I know you don't think I support Jim Crow laws. If you weren't helping out here making the focus a bit more diverse, I don't think we would be considering some of the stuff that is coming up.

I was just discussing with another member that as vocation or avocation, I've worked with low income and/or down and out people most of my adult life. So I've seen the best, worst, and everything in between related to government low income and poverty programs. Is everything the government does bad? Of course not. But at the end of the day I think the price of government benevolence is simply too high for what we get for the money.

One difference with local charities and local governments providing the helping hand is that it generates response of gratitude from those who just want a hand up. So often they are inspired to not let down the faith their benefactor places in them and also many are inspired to give back to the community that helped them. That isn't true of everybody of course, but generally the free loaders are eventually identified and local folks have a way of dealing constructively with them too.

I haven't seen the same results in Federal program/monies. I don't see the people receiving such impersonal assistance feeling much of anything. They rarely see that it merits any response or duty to make it count. And too often it quickly creates a sense of entitlement and/or dependency. Plus for every dollar the Federal government collects from the taxpayer, a huge percentage of it is swallowed up in the bureaucracy leaving much less for the people who needed it.

And I haven't even gotten started on how corrupting it is for those in government and the beneficiaries when the Federal government has unlimited ability to dispense charity.

When you rob Peter to pay. . . .

 

[Madeline]

I thankies you for the compliment, foxfyre. That was high praise indeed.

Seems to me, one issue that gets lost too often is that any government solution creates a government work force and a new power base for some bureaucrat, etc. I'd argue that under the old welfare system, it was the welfare workers and their bosses who caused more harm than welfare recipients. And I think we all know, HUD's public housing projects have been a disaster...one step up from concentration camps built by the Mob. I can go on like this all nite.

Perhaps some solutions that should be governmental should nonetheless be local or state, and not federal.