The Conservative and Progressive Impulses

[dsolo802]

I have a take on what underlies our ideological differences, a take that may make it possible for us to look at ourselves as people and how we approach the challenge of change differently. Please take a look at let me know if any of this rings true for you.

* * *

The focus on ideology does not begin to explain for me how people actually are, and how they function. If you look at people, I think you will see some have a "progressive" impulse and others have a "conservative" impulse. I would explain what I mean by these impulses this way:

Some people are very risk averse. Their great skill naturally developed is in mitigating risk and conserving what fruit of labor has already been produced. That to me at root is what the conservative impulse is about.

Others are naturally very risk tolerant. They see opportunities to expand the good thing that conservative people wish to preserve. They are the folks with the progressive impulse.

So defined if you think about it, you can both understand the tension that naturally exists between conservatives and progressives, and why they are absolutely both needed - in balance and harmony.

As Darwin said, survival depends upon the capacity to adapt to change. But for a thinking creature like man, that is not the only capacity required for survival. If people try to change too much over too short a period of time, the enterprise can fly apart at the seams. Without movement to keep the whole enterprise healthy and adaptable, we stagnate and are overwhelmed by the challenges we needed to meet. Without people inclined and skilled at stabilizing the enterprise, it will just as surely expire by dis-integration.

The most healthy social organisms are those that have the impulses and corresponding forces in balance: Expansion and consolidation. Progressives progress the state of the art. Conservatives consolidate it.

People say there is a time and a place for every purpose under heaven. That seems true to me: Turn, turn, turn and all.

[Peter1469]

I don't think that the difference between conservatives and progressives is risk tolerance. It is about the role of government in our lives. I would say that the desire for more government is a projection of low risk tolerance.

[MMC]

I don't think that the difference between conservatives and progressives is risk tolerance. It is about the role of government in our lives. I would say that the desire for more government is a projection of low risk tolerance.

I would agree with you Pete. The more government is in control of ones daily lives the more chance for that low risk of tolerance. Or the striving for it.

[Conley]

Good post Dsolo. Very thought provoking. I certainly think we have elements of both in us, and that they wax and wane depending on experiences. Sometimes those who are willing to risk the most are those who have the least to lose, while ones who have met success may be more cautious. I believe that also ties into why the young may be more willing to take that leap of faith compared to those who are more seasoned.

[Chris]

Doesn't explain at all why liberals are more intolerant about our environmental future while conservatives are more intolerant about our economic future. We can't live without an environment the one will say and the other we can fix it without an economy. I think too like many you misconstrue what evolution is about, yes, it's about adaptation, but to a changing environment, not a static one towards which we can progress.

Here is I think a "fair" assessment of differences. Perhaps I'm based because this researcher goes beyond the old political dichotomy and allows for another dimension, libertarian v authoritarian.

Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist at the University of Virginia.

Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/science-asks-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/254644/)
Why do people disagree so passionately about what is right?

Why, in particular, is there such hostility and incomprehension between members of different political parties?

...Haidt calls the system he has built to help answer those questions Moral Foundations Theory.... Along with his colleagues, he posits that the moral appeals upon which political cultures and movements are based can be broken down into six basic categories: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. As he puts in it his Reason story, adapted from the book:
Political liberals tend to rely primarily on the moral foundation of care/harm, followed by fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression. Social conservatives, in contrast, use all six foundations. They are less concerned than liberals about harm to innocent victims, but they are much more concerned about the moral foundations that bind groups and nations together, i.e., loyalty (patriotism), authority (law and order, traditional families), and sanctity (the Bible, God, the flag as a sacred object). Libertarians, true to their name, value liberty more than anyone else, and they value it far more than any other foundation.
In an effort to figure out why conversations across the aisle so often degenerate into shouting matches, Haidt (along with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek) asked liberals and conservatives to try on each others' ideological shoes, answering a series of questions as they thought their opponents would:
The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as "one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
Haidt theorizes that this kind of blindness to the real motivations of others is driving discord in Washington and around the country. Our political personalities emerge from a stew of nature, nurture (which is in part a result of feedback from the world on our natures), and the narratives we build up to explain the progression of our own lives and the working of the world around us. But they also wall us off from others:
Morality binds and blinds. This is not just something that happens to people on the other side. We all get sucked into tribal moral communities. We circle around sacred values and then share post hoc arguments about why we are so right and they are so wrong. We think the other side is blind to truth, reason, science, and common sense, but in fact everyone goes blind when talking about their sacred objects. Morality binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.

[Dagny]

Good post Dsolo. Very thought provoking. I certainly think we have elements of both in us, and that they wax and wane depending on experiences.That definitely applies to me. And, it ought to apply to everyone. It demands an open mind....something our polarized nation has lost the ability to conceive of.



Sometimes those who are willing to risk the most are those who have the least to lose, while ones who have met success may be more cautious. I believe that also ties into why the young may be more willing to take that leap of faith compared to those who are more seasoned.

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the 'risk' issue, when defining conservative/progressive political views.

Socially, it's possible to be a conservative liberal. At least, if we're discussing risk.

I guess political labels are nothing more than gross generalizations, that are rarely accurate?

[Stoney]

I agree with Peter that it's more about the role of government, in fact I've come to see "statist" as more descriptive of political opponents than "liberal." As a self described libertarian I find areas of agreement with liberals, but seldom with statists who may well be conservatives or republicans. But I realize that I'm out at the fringes in my philosophy.

I sometimes wonder if the biggest reason for the strife between the left and right is ego, a desire to be correct and an inability to have been seen as wrong or having an epiphany in another direction. I remember years ago on forums seeing and saying that a poster has made good points that have altered opinions. Today you're more apt to see no response, or worse, a name calling fest.

But I also think its frustration due to the polarization that's taken place in our politics. Maybe we've come through a political awakening with some embracing statism, and others seeking to turn back to the direction intended by the founders. Twenty years ago the real difference between Democrats and Republicans was minimal. Today the Independents are still there, but the left and right have drifted further and further apart.

This should be a good thread.

[Mainecoons]

Given the actual performance of government these days, I'd suggest that having more of it is a lot riskier than downsizing it.

I think the difference between conservatives and liberals is simple: Liberals view everything through an emotional filter like little children. Most of us grew out of the "that's not fair" stage of life and got focused on taking care of ourselves and viewing things from the standpoint of whether they achieve the desired result or not. Liberals retain this child-like insistence on feeling good and being treated fairly, which in the real world means it is OK to steal the work of others to try and make the world "fair."

I say "try" because by any measure, just about every liberal ideal of the last 50 years has failed or is failing. All of the entitlement programs are insolvent beyond rescue. The "War on Poverty" basically destroyed the underclass without reducing poverty. "Self Esteem" in education has resulted in a nation of dumbed-down narcissists who can't think or communicate clearly and logically.

The nation is polarized now simply because people in very substantial numbers are rising up to confront the failure of progressivism and the progressives don't like it at all. So, from their bully pulpits in "higher" education, they crank out junk science and pop psychology since they really can't respond with substance when asked to show why their failed ideas shouldn't be junked. Very much, this response reminds me of how the communists used mental hospitals to get rid of their questioners, at least the ones they didn't send to the Gulag.

Look at the typical response of a liberal when called on their failed ideas these days: It is to resort almost immediately to angrily calling their opponents "racists" or far worse. And we are seeing more and more of the kind of blatant manipulation of the media such as the deliberate misrepresentation by NBC of the 911 call by Zimmerman. Or the constant whining and slandering of Fox News, which certainly has its flaws, but the real problem is that it doesn't toe the leftist party line.

Liberals hate free speech other than their own and are constantly trying to restrict it. Unfortunately, there is this thing called the Internet on which their media is rapidly and regularly exposed when it tries to lie to the public. It is no accident that liberals are in the forefront of attempts to impose government control on the Internet.

Some claim that liberalism is a mental illness. I think it is much simpler. They weren't raised very well and just never grew up. Unfortunately, we who did spent all our time working for success for ourselves and our families and weren't paying attention as the inmates took over the assylum. As a result, we have a failed educational system full of unionized idiots who can't pass simple proficiency tests, a government full of overpaid, largely useless and counter-productive bureaucrats led by career politicians, largely leftist, and an unelected court system that has basically tossed the Constitution.

Since I didn't sleep through history nor have the "privilege" of being taught a bunch of liberal-rewritten nonsense in the guise of history, I am all too painfully aware that when great nations or civilizations enter the declining stage (and they all do) there is no turning back. It will be up to some future civilization to resurrect the timeless brilliance that the Founders wrought. The dumbed down population of whining entitlement junkies that largely populate the U.S. today sure isn't going to do it.

[MMC]

That definitely applies to me. And, it ought to apply to everyone. It demands an open mind....something our polarized nation has lost the ability to conceive of.




I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the 'risk' issue, when defining conservative/progressive political views.

Socially, it's possible to be a conservative liberal. At least, if we're discussing risk.

I guess political labels are nothing more than gross generalizations, that are rarely accurate?


:sign13:

[Conley]

That definitely applies to me. And, it ought to apply to everyone. It demands an open mind....something our polarized nation has lost the ability to conceive of.




I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the 'risk' issue, when defining conservative/progressive political views.

Socially, it's possible to be a conservative liberal. At least, if we're discussing risk.

I guess political labels are nothing more than gross generalizations, that are rarely accurate?

I was expanding on the labels of liberal and conservative, going beyond politics and looking at it more as a way of approaching life.

I do think political labels are not particularly useful and whenever possible, we should look at the individual, their words and deeds to determine their beliefs. Even the word conservative politically can mean anything from someone who is frugal with taxpayer money to someone one who believes evolution is the lie. Where is the overlap there?

The labels are a great way of spreading dissension and discouraging a look at the big picture. It's much better for the powers that be to have us each pick a banner and then go to war with the other side rather than stopping to examine the folks running the puppet show.

[MMC]

Well then I think DS is confused about the True Republicans being an extreme. Since it has been clearly shown that such lies within the conservative state of mind. Moreso than Real Republican. One only need look up Conservatism vs Republicanism.

[MMC]

Also when one looks as progressivism. We have to remember that with Progressivism in America. That they are also populists.

[dsolo802]

That definitely applies to me. And, it ought to apply to everyone. It demands an open mind....something our polarized nation has lost the ability to conceive of.

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the 'risk' issue, when defining conservative/progressive political views.

Socially, it's possible to be a conservative liberal. At least, if we're discussing risk.

I guess political labels are nothing more than gross generalizations, that are rarely accurate?Dagny, that is my conclusion too: The political labels and what i'm calling the conservative and progressive impulse today actually have little to do with each other. I know I'm not the first person to suggest that our whoring political parties have actually drifted far away from the values that once made them servants of the People. My intent with the OP is actually to strip away the false rhetoric of ideology, to reveal something that has always been and will always be real underneath.

To this endeavor, I'm bringing the mindset of someone who is responsible for change management and organizational health to a Fortune 500 company - admittedly not the perspective typically brought to bear on the political world. From this perspective, what I have described in the OP appears to be true across the political labels that people apply to themselves. Consider . . .

There are people we would today all call Progressives who desperately want to conserve “America the Beautiful” for future generations.

And there people here, for example, who refer to themselves as true Conservatives, reject economic and environmental policies of Neo-Conservatives today, and hearken back to the views and values of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

Our labels today, and distortions that have been willfully propagated by our paid for political leaders and parties, distort our true values and transform critically serious and daunting national challenges into unsolvable partisan exercises designed to divide the People - and maintain a status quo that no sane American wants. There is no problem or disaster too big or tragic that our so-called leaders will not exploit it to further the interests of the Party over the People. Can anyone really deny that?

Most Americans across political lines actually do not want a tyrannical, all powerful Federal Government, any more than they want an all powerful, unchecked private sector, fouling the air and water our families drink and breathe and embroiling the American workforce in a competition that it cannot possibly win. Who in their right mind thinks the solution for the child labor and sweat shops in Communist China is actually to bring Child labor and slave camps back to America??? Only those who think the single-minded and blind pursuit of money at the expense of every other value we used to hold dear will say this squares with their values.

Dagny, before I return to the question you asked about "risk", one more point about getting back to what's real and what stands in the way. I tend to think of the political parties as concerns hawking competing products. Marlboro vs. Lucky Strike. Again, who is out and who is in is all about the Benjamins - enormously large amounts of them. Ladies and Gentlemen, "product differentiation", the sales strategy that plays up the differences between competing products is extremely destructive when applied as it has been applied to our politics. How can we find common ground if we are all TOTALLY fixated upon the differences that are trumpeted from on high??

It would be bad enough if the differences we scream about were truthful. We have criminal grade dishonesty in our politics that would land people in jail and the poor house if they were selling used cars, instead of pledges and policy. Used car salesmen have better scruples than our politicians.

How can we get to common ground? how can Americans put shoulder to shoulder and work together again, when our parties misrepresent our values, and their idea of product differentiation is to "win" and reign over scorched earth? If we continue to listen to this noise, there is no way for that to happen.

And now back to my notions about organizational health and risk. People are alike the world round. We all need decent food, water, shelter and the ability to care for ourselves and our families. Within our Constitutional framework, as a practical matter, how do we move from where we stand to a place where our people have a realistic chance to take care of themselves?

No one wants to move to a state where a predatory and parasitic private sector reigns supreme over FoxCon like American labor camps. No one wants an all powerful, tyrannical Federal Government. If we can see this clearly, we can begin to meaningfully discuss the huge amount of territory between these two extremes.
Whatever we decide, some pretty fundamental change will be required to navigate there. Good change management, is about advances (progression) and consolidations (consolidation). In both of these aspects of change management, people with conservative and progressive impulses must be in the mix.

Advances
You always want the risk tolerant scouting out the possibilities and making recommendations, and the risk averse hammering on them, improving them, and getting them to the point where they can withstand the rigor of use and the cold, harsh realities of the world as it is. Progressive impulse leads, Conservative impulse validates and approves.

Consolidations
You always want the risk averse to identify every risk to which the enterprise has been exposed as a result of the prior advance and to propose how to mitigate if not eliminate them. The risk tolerant are then asked to make certain that the benefits of the advance are not unduly constrained. Conservative impulse leads, Progressive impulse validates and approves.

In my experience, while every human does have both impulses, in the nature of things it is just not possible for any individual to be both risk averse and risk tolerant. People are most comfortable with one, or the other. If we needed to apply a label to people, I would say the ones who are risk averse and therefore the people who naturally are good at finding and minimizing risk are our true “conservatives”. The folks who are risk tolerant, naturally enjoy and are capable of exploring even options that appear on the surface to be quite risky, they would be our true “progressives.”

In world where change is managed in this way, both conservatives and progressive would be valued and respected, and would work together for the benefit of us all.

[Dagny]

As usual, you've taken the time to delve into the intricacies of the issue. Of course, we probably agree that managing a business, and managing a nation ought to have minor variations. The problem, as I see it, is that our nation is often managed not only BY businesses, but LIKE a business.

Our govt. isn't supposed to turn a profit. In fact, our govt. is burdened with taking on the tasks that private enterprise can't, because there's no room for profit.

As such, as much as I agree wholeheartedly with the aspect of a blended mindset...we never really see that employed in Congress. Nor do we see it when we have these discussions. Moreso because each side it too lazy to dare and investigate the facts that challenge the foundation they stand on.

Why, when the Pentagon is begging for no more obsolete airplanes/engines, do we continue to manufacture them in Boehner's/Cantor's districts?


We hear about conserving tax dollars, until the cuts affect them personally.

You've seen me take ultra 'conservative' stances on a few issues, while remaining in the so called 'liberal' camp with others. Until/unless we all learn to open our eyes to the truth, we'll circle the drain forever.


Re. "Constitutional"....We were founded under a seriously flawed set of rules/regulations, by a group of racist/misogynist/classist individuals.

Of course, they didn't realize it then, because it was socially acceptable. Slowly, we've evolved, with improvements to the rules/regulations.

I've no patience for the 'philosophy' chats re. the Constitution, while the world changes daily, along with the very real issues that our founders could never have fathomed.


As well, we are hopelessly gridlocked with the current group of fools in Congress. 'Playing by the rules' seems less important, than actually accomplishing necessary changes that are long overdue. Every day that they can keep the status quo, is another few dollars they realize on their investments.

It's getting closer and closer to the days of our nation's founding, as opposed to progressing toward reality.



Dagny, that is my conclusion too: The political labels and what i'm calling the conservative and progressive impulse today actually have little to do with each other. I know I'm not the first person to suggest that our whoring political parties have actually drifted far away from the values that once made them servants of the People. My intent with the OP is actually to strip away the false rhetoric of ideology, to reveal something that has always been and will always be real underneath.

To this endeavor, I'm bringing the mindset of someone who is responsible for change management and organizational health to a Fortune 500 company - admittedly not the perspective typically brought to bear on the political world. From this perspective, what I have described in the OP appears to be true across the political labels that people apply to themselves. Consider . . .

There are people we would today all call Progressives who desperately want to conserve “America the Beautiful” for future generations.

And there people here, for example, who refer to themselves as true Conservatives, reject economic and environmental policies of Neo-Conservatives today, and hearken back to the views and values of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

Our labels today, and distortions that have been willfully propagated by our paid for political leaders and parties, distort our true values and transform critically serious and daunting national challenges into unsolvable partisan exercises designed to divide the People - and maintain a status quo that no sane American wants. There is no problem or disaster too big or tragic that our so-called leaders will not exploit it to further the interests of the Party over the People. Can anyone really deny that?

Most Americans across political lines actually do not want a tyrannical, all powerful Federal Government, any more than they want an all powerful, unchecked private sector, fouling the air and water our families drink and breathe and embroiling the American workforce in a competition that it cannot possibly win. Who in their right mind thinks the solution for the child labor and sweat shops in Communist China is actually to bring Child labor and slave camps back to America??? Only those who think the single-minded and blind pursuit of money at the expense of every other value we used to hold dear will say this squares with their values.

Dagny, before I return to the question you asked about "risk", one more point about getting back to what's real and what stands in the way. I tend to think of the political parties as concerns hawking competing products. Marlboro vs. Lucky Strike. Again, who is out and who is in is all about the Benjamins - enormously large amounts of them. Ladies and Gentlemen, "product differentiation", the sales strategy that plays up the differences between competing products is extremely destructive when applied as it has been applied to our politics. How can we find common ground if we are all TOTALLY fixated upon the differences that are trumpeted from on high??

It would be bad enough if the differences we scream about were truthful. We have criminal grade dishonesty in our politics that would land people in jail and the poor house if they were selling used cars, instead of pledges and policy. Used car salesmen have better scruples than our politicians.

How can we get to common ground? how can Americans put shoulder to shoulder and work together again, when our parties misrepresent our values, and their idea of product differentiation is to "win" and reign over scorched earth? If we continue to listen to this noise, there is no way for that to happen.

And now back to my notions about organizational health and risk. People are alike the world round. We all need decent food, water, shelter and the ability to care for ourselves and our families. Within our Constitutional framework, as a practical matter, how do we move from where we stand to a place where our people have a realistic chance to take care of themselves?

No one wants to move to a state where a predatory and parasitic private sector reigns supreme over FoxCon like American labor camps. No one wants an all powerful, tyrannical Federal Government. If we can see this clearly, we can begin to meaningfully discuss the huge amount of territory between these two extremes.
Whatever we decide, some pretty fundamental change will be required to navigate there. Good change management, is about advances (progression) and consolidations (consolidation). In both of these aspects of change management, people with conservative and progressive impulses must be in the mix.

Advances
You always want the risk tolerant scouting out the possibilities and making recommendations, and the risk averse hammering on them, improving them, and getting them to the point where they can withstand the rigor of use and the cold, harsh realities of the world as it is. Progressive impulse leads, Conservative impulse validates and approves.

Consolidations
You always want the risk averse to identify every risk to which the enterprise has been exposed as a result of the prior advance and to propose how to mitigate if not eliminate them. The risk tolerant are then asked to make certain that the benefits of the advance are not unduly constrained. Conservative impulse leads, Progressive impulse validates and approves.

In my experience, while every human does have both impulses, in the nature of things it is just not possible for any individual to be both risk averse and risk tolerant. People are most comfortable with one, or the other. If we needed to apply a label to people, I would say the ones who are risk averse and therefore the people who naturally are good at finding and minimizing risk are our true “conservatives”. The folks who are risk tolerant, naturally enjoy and are capable of exploring even options that appear on the surface to be quite risky, they would be our true “progressives.”

In world where change is managed in this way, both conservatives and progressive would be valued and respected, and would work together for the benefit of us all.

[Chris]

Nice monolog, dsolo.

[dsolo802]

Nice monolog, dsolo.Thanks, I think? Do you really like it?

[wingrider]

As usual, you've taken the time to delve into the intricacies of the issue. Of course, we probably agree that managing a business, and managing a nation ought to have minor variations. The problem, as I see it, is that our nation is often managed not only BY businesses, but LIKE a business.

Our govt. isn't supposed to turn a profit. In fact, our govt. is burdened with taking on the tasks that private enterprise can't, because there's no room for profit.

As such, as much as I agree wholeheartedly with the aspect of a blended mindset...we never really see that employed in Congress. Nor do we see it when we have these discussions. Moreso because each side it too lazy to dare and investigate the facts that challenge the foundation they stand on.

Why, when the Pentagon is begging for no more obsolete airplanes/engines, do we continue to manufacture them in Boehner's/Cantor's districts?


We hear about conserving tax dollars, until the cuts affect them personally.

You've seen me take ultra 'conservative' stances on a few issues, while remaining in the so called 'liberal' camp with others. Until/unless we all learn to open our eyes to the truth, we'll circle the drain forever.


Re. "Constitutional"....We were founded under a seriously flawed set of rules/regulations, by a group of racist/misogynist/classist individuals.

Of course, they didn't realize it then, because it was socially acceptable. Slowly, we've evolved, with improvements to the rules/regulations.

I've no patience for the 'philosophy' chats re. the Constitution, while the world changes daily, along with the very real issues that our founders could never have fathomed.


As well, we are hopelessly gridlocked with the current group of fools in Congress. 'Playing by the rules' seems less important, than actually accomplishing necessary changes that are long overdue. Every day that they can keep the status quo, is another few dollars they realize on their investments.

It's getting closer and closer to the days of our nation's founding, as opposed to progressing toward reality.
I am really curious why you would say that about the Constitution of the United States. This is the very law that has afforded you all the rights you now possess. and yet I get the feeling that you just as soon discard it! and replace it with what? the very fact that you can sit in your home and denounce the Constitution is because of the very first right it gives you... Freedom of speech,, and you can do this without fear of reprisal from the government or basically anyone else.. please tell me if you don't like the freedoms that are afforded you by this document .. what do you wish to replace it with?

[Dagny]

I am really curious why you would say that about the Constitution of the United States. This is the very law that has afforded you all the rights you now possess. and yet I get the feeling that you just as soon discard it! and replace it with what? the very fact that you can sit in your home and denounce the Constitution is because of the very first right it gives you... Freedom of speech,, and you can do this without fear of reprisal from the government or basically anyone else.. please tell me if you don't like the freedoms that are afforded you by this document .. what do you wish to replace it with?

What I'm troubled by, is the fact that after hundreds of years, we've devolved to the point where our leaders have bastardized our system of govt. to the point where years pass, and nothing gets done.

What were once 'checks and balances', are now roadblocks. Lawyers hunting for loopholes, and technicalities.

To your point re. 'freedom of speech'.....Our SCOTUS has now decided that the man with the most money, gets the most freedom of speech.

Just like in the days of our founding.

[Mainecoons]

That is not a failure of the document, that is a failure of the governing elite. The failure of the document is that it didn't have sufficient protections against career politics and judicial re-writing the Constitution, such as the unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause.

The Constitution is a form of contract between the governed and the government. As is true of all contracts, most aren't worth the paper they are written on if either or both of the parties to it don't act with good faith and wisdom.

And that is why the U.S. is in irreversible decline. The contract is a good one but the people involved don't understand it, don't believe in it and don't honor it. First and foremost, its primary intent was to limit government. Instead, government is out of control and rapidly bankrupting the country.

[Chris]

Thanks, I think? Do you really like it?

I prefer an exchange of opinions and ideas, actually.

[Chris]

What I'm troubled by, is the fact that after hundreds of years, we've devolved to the point where our leaders have bastardized our system of govt. to the point where years pass, and nothing gets done.

What were once 'checks and balances', are now roadblocks. Lawyers hunting for loopholes, and technicalities.

To your point re. 'freedom of speech'.....Our SCOTUS has now decided that the man with the most money, gets the most freedom of speech.

Just like in the days of our founding.

The less government does the better. Roadblocks was the intent. SCOTUS struck down BCRA an insult to free speech, just like it will hopefully strike down ObamaRomneyCare. Government is far too intrusive.

[Chris]

This guy saw the inherent problem in democracy:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
~Alexis de Tocqueville

[dsolo802]

I prefer an exchange of opinions and ideas, actually.Well Chris, I get to write what I have to think - which was a response to what Dagny wrote. And now you get to say what you think about what I wrote - even if it is only to dismiss and mock it out of hand. That is an exchange of opinions and ideas, no?

[Mainecoons]

This guy saw the inherent problem in democracy:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
~Alexis de Tocqueville

That's happening right now before your very eyes.

[MMC]

Maybe thats why the Neo Libs & Neo Cons want to change the definition.

[dsolo802]

As usual, you've taken the time to delve into the intricacies of the issue. Of course, we probably agree that managing a business, and managing a nation ought to have minor variations. The problem, as I see it, is that our nation is often managed not only BY businesses, but LIKE a business.Agreed. Supporting economic policies that promote job growth is one thing. Supporting economic policies that subsidize child and slave labor, promote job growth in Communist China at the expense of the American worker, and put the pursuit of profits over every other pursuit and value this nation used to hold dear is quite another.


Our govt. isn't supposed to turn a profit. In fact, our govt. is burdened with taking on the tasks that private enterprise can't, because there's no room for profit.The theory of Free market dynamics as drawn up does not begin to solve every problem a Nation can have. At the beginning of a major shift away from old technology or paradigm to a new one - for example, from fossil fuels to green energy, the vested business interests, those dominant with the status quo, will certainly not take the lead in promoting the change, and rather will always use their position of advantage to thwart it. See also Health Care, Campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform.

To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that our corrupt politicians and the Big Business that corrupts them - that THEY - are capable of functioning in the interdependent way I've described. I'm just saying there is nothing intrinsic to the Progressive and Conservative impulses that require or compel that corruption. In fact, it takes continuous lying and distortion sponsored by those vested interests to keep people from finding ample common purpose and working together to achieve it.


As such, as much as I agree wholeheartedly with the aspect of a blended mindset...we never really see that employed in Congress. Nor do we see it when we have these discussions. Moreso because each side it too lazy to dare and investigate the facts that challenge the foundation they stand on.True, we haven't seen anyone looking to harness these impulses and the genuine value they represent in politics today. I can tell you though I see it all the time in Information Technology and manufacturing.

When it comes to change, no one looks for a better way until the individual disadvantage of sticking with the status quote becomes painfully obvious. For example, scarce jobs, no collective bargaining power, no social mobility, no security, unimaginable pressure on families, polluted water supplies, air we can't - or shouldn't - breathe, genetically engineered un-digestable foods, and on and on and on.

I think we are just about there.


Why, when the Pentagon is begging for no more obsolete airplanes/engines, do we continue to manufacture them in Boehner's/Cantor's districts?

We hear about conserving tax dollars, until the cuts affect them personally.When a cell in the human body wants to thrive independently from and at the expense of the body, we know that's not a good thing. We call it cancer. Eventually it will dawn on people that there are dynamics in our politics and priorities that are every bit as parasitic and lethally cancerous as the most aggressive form of melanoma.


You've seen me take ultra 'conservative' stances on a few issues, while remaining in the so called 'liberal' camp with others. Until/unless we all learn to open our eyes to the truth, we'll circle the drain forever.


Re. "Constitutional"....We were founded under a seriously flawed set of rules/regulations, by a group of racist/misogynist/classist individuals.

Of course, they didn't realize it then, because it was socially acceptable. Slowly, we've evolved, with improvements to the rules/regulations.

I've no patience for the 'philosophy' chats re. the Constitution, while the world changes daily, along with the very real issues that our founders could never have fathomed.Regarding philosophy -- From my vantage point, the Founders were aware enough of their own short-comings to set in motion the perfection of an imperfect Union. They wrote a Constitution expressing ideals and principles at a high level of abstraction, enabling its application against scenarios known then, and also against those left for discovery in "futurity." Others, may read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitution differently. That is why it is critical that no one read out of the Constitution the importance of the Judiciary. For better and for worse, we need a final arbiter. If ObamaCare goes down in flames, I would be willing to bet we won't hear a peep from those who decry the activism of the Judiciary.


As well, we are hopelessly gridlocked with the current group of fools in Congress. 'Playing by the rules' seems less important, than actually accomplishing necessary changes that are long overdue. Every day that they can keep the status quo, is another few dollars they realize on their investments.

It's getting closer and closer to the days of our nation's founding, as opposed to progressing toward reality.At this point I'm more keen on promoting the rediscovery of a common language and framework for collaboration than I am for solving any particular problem. To be frank, that is one of the reasons why I started this thread, to express a vision of how "true" conservatives and "true" progressives could work together for any change we can all get behind.

[Chris]

"Supporting economic policies that promote job growth is one thing. Supporting economic policies that subsidize child and slave labor, promote job growth in Communist China at the expense of the American worker, and put the pursuit of profits over every other pursuit and value this nation used to hold dear is quite another."

What about policies that subsidize and promote dependency like welfare, social or corporate?

[dsolo802]

"Supporting economic policies that promote job growth is one thing. Supporting economic policies that subsidize child and slave labor, promote job growth in Communist China at the expense of the American worker, and put the pursuit of profits over every other pursuit and value this nation used to hold dear is quite another."


What about policies that subsidize and promote dependency like welfare, social or corporate?This is not what I was hoping to discuss in this thread, but I'll bite.

I was for ending welfare which a Republican Congress did with a Democratic President. Let's take a bow for that.

Social Security and Medicare are insurance, not welfare. I privately pay for life insurance. My wife will collect my life insurance when I die. Would you consider her a welfare recipient? I don't think so.

Of course, Congress, the only distinctly criminal class in America, uses our paid for safety net as its private slush fund, but that is another matter.

Health Care for the uninsured is already being paid for by those that have insurance in the form of the most expensive Urgent Care. I'm not keen on continuing that either. We need to be smart about this.

If we want our people and our workforce to be competitive, there has to be a realistic path based upon the sweat of our own brow to get the education and training we need. That should not be welfare either - but it has to be practical and achievable.

As for ending corporate welfare and subsidies, I'm all for it. But when it comes to preventing corruption by killing either the public or private sector you can count me out.

Today the private health insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust regulation. You tell me: why don't private insurance companies have to compete fairly like every other american business?

[Stoney]

"Social Security and Medicare are insurance, not welfare. I privately pay for life insurance. My wife will collect my life insurance when I die. Would you consider her a welfare recipient? I don't think so.

Of course, Congress, the only distinctly criminal class in America, uses our paid for safety net as its private slush fund, but that is another matter."

Semantics doesn't change the fact that the political system encourages politicians to provide services to the voters at prices (whether the "premiums meet the costs or not) that don't pay for those services. I wish it were different, but my wishing doesn't change it. I wish we could vote in more sensible, more reasonable politicians who would be more interested in doing what's right than what gets them elected. I don't see a public solution that includes reality.

[dsolo802]

"Social Security and Medicare are insurance, not welfare. I privately pay for life insurance. My wife will collect my life insurance when I die. Would you consider her a welfare recipient? I don't think so.

Of course, Congress, the only distinctly criminal class in America, uses our paid for safety net as its private slush fund, but that is another matter."

Semantics doesn't change the fact that the political system encourages politicians to provide services to the voters at prices (whether the "premiums meet the costs or not) that don't pay for those services. I wish it were different, but my wishing doesn't change it. I wish we could vote in more sensible, more reasonable politicians who would be more interested in doing what's right than what gets them elected. I don't see a public solution that includes reality.I agree with you Stoney, we need sensible politicians - and practical, sustainable solutions following a robust and honest discussion about our National priorities.

What is clear to me is we will never have a robust and honest discussion about Social Security and Medicare if we continue to erroneously classify those programs as welfare. If the question is what do we do with this "welfare", the answer we'll all arrive at will certainly be different from the answer returned if we are looking to make our retirement insurance sustainable and sufficient.

[Stoney]

I agree with you Stoney, we need sensible politicians - and practical, sustainable solutions following a robust and honest discussion about our National priorities.

What is clear to me is we will never have a robust and honest discussion about Social Security and Medicare if we continue to erroneously classify those programs as welfare. If the question is what do we do with this "welfare", the answer we'll all arrive at will certainly be different from the answer returned if we are looking to make our retirement insurance sustainable and sufficient.

I don't know that we have anything in history to suggest to us that, as a whole, we can do more than hope for "sensible politicians." If we can't, then we can't hope for sensible administration of those programs.

And all of the discussion about Social Security and Medicare that we will have will not cure those problems without the ability to have "sensible politicians."

I'm collecting Social Security and Medicare. I paid into them without thinking that our children would end up left with part of the bill. They are 'welfare" to the extent that we're not paying premiums to the level need to sustain them.

To believe that these programs can be fairly and adequately funded, and become sustainable, we'd have to believe that politicians will do the unpopular, but necessary things needed for those ends. I see no history to believe that's reality.

[dsolo802]

I don't know that we have anything in history to suggest to us that, as a whole, we can do more than hope for "sensible politicians." If we can't, then we can't hope for sensible administration of those programs.

And all of the discussion about Social Security and Medicare that we will have will not cure those problems without the ability to have "sensible politicians."

I'm collecting Social Security and Medicare. I paid into them without thinking that our children would end up left with part of the bill. They are 'welfare" to the extent that we're not paying premiums to the level need to sustain them. You could call them "welfare" - but that would be to tar you, my aged and infirm relatives, and millions of other like people across the country with a brush that is widely and unfairly being used to condemn freeloaders. It seems to me, the word choice here "welfare" is not just semantics, obscuring as it does what I consider to be root cause.

It is not the case that you and all other seniors who paid into the system for decades wish to free-load. The problem is the program has not been properly administered and existing funds have been raided.

There are alternatives than more of the same poor protection and administration of the trust funds on the one hand, and privatization on the other. My fear is that as long as we continue to use inapt and emotionally charged words, these alternatives will not be explored at all, much less meaningfully explored.


To believe that these programs can be fairly and adequately funded, and become sustainable, we'd have to believe that politicians will do the unpopular, but necessary things needed for those ends. I see no history to believe that's reality.A divided people will take what our politicians dish out, and they will take it in the shorts. The only hope I see is for everyone across all of our precious party lines to stand as one and demand as one, from both parties, sensible and sufficient solutions for the People.

[Mainecoons]

The welfare was when the politicians stole the trust funds and pissed them away on stuff like the failed Great Society.

[dsolo802]

The welfare was when the politicians stole the trust funds and pissed them away on stuff like the failed Great Society.So now, what do we do?

What is the responsible thing to do for people that have contributed a very healthy chunk of their pay checks based on the promise that they would be able to retire with some security and dignity?

[Mainecoons]

The first thing is to undo what the Democrats did and return the program to having a stand alone trust fund which should be invested in America, and I don't mean just government bonds. The second thing is to require one to have paid in to the system in order to receive payments for it. The third thing is that it is going to have to be made actuarily sound which no doubt will require a combination of benefit cuts, tax increases, and a better job of earning real money for a real trust fund.

None of this is going to be easy but it will get less and less easy as time goes on.

[dsolo802]

The first thing is to undo what the Democrats did and return the program to having a stand alone trust fund which should be invested in America, and I don't mean just government bonds.Returning the program to having a stand alone trust fund seems like a terrifically prudent idea to me. What besides government bonds are you suggesting?


The second thing is to require one to have paid in to the system in order to receive payments for it.Educate me, Mainecoons, who currently receives benefits without having had to pay in?


The third thing is that it is going to have to be made actuarily sound which no doubt will require a combination of benefit cuts, tax increases, and a better job of earning real money for a real trust fund.Agreed.


None of this is going to be easy but it will get less and less easy as time goes on.Yes.

[Mainecoons]

SSI recipients receive benefits without having had to pay into the fund. One of the abuses is that immigrants bring in elderly family members who then apply for and get SSI without ever having paid into the fund.

Part of the British pension scheme is invested in the private sector there. It might be a good role model for broadening the investment options of a real, not stolen, trust fund.

[Alias]

I am dismayed by the attitude of Congress on the issue of the national debt in this period of recovery from the longest recession since the great depression. What sense is it to cut spending when that is precisely what is needed to stimulate the economy? And to extend tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting benefits for the needy makes no sense at all. It represents a view that is both selfish and shortsighted - an attitude so prevalent among our policymakers today. To put the blame for our improvident spending on Social Security and Medicare only begs the question of our priorities. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? To cut spending on these seems unworthy of the greatest nation of the world.

Whenever I find myself looking narrowly at some social welfare program, I think of the Preamble to the Constitution, which always puts my views in proper perspective. It is "We the People" - not me, me, me. Need must it be so, for the true greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, is not measured by its wealth or power, but by the manner in which it provides for the welfare of its people.

We need jobs, not govt spending. Govt spending doesn't create wealth, jobs create wealth for the treasury. Simple stuff.

[Dagny]

SSI recipients receive benefits without having had to pay into the fund. One of the abuses is that immigrants bring in elderly family members who then apply for and get SSI without ever having paid into the fund.

Part of the British pension scheme is invested in the private sector there. It might be a good role model for broadening the investment options of a real, not stolen, trust fund.
I'm not aware of anyone getting the retirement benefit without paying in, but many receive the disability benefit w/out paying a nickel.

[Mainecoons]

Read up on SSI.

[Peter1469]

I am dismayed by the attitude of Congress on the issue of the national debt in this period of recovery from the longest recession since the great depression. What sense is it to cut spending when that is precisely what is needed to stimulate the economy? And to extend tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting benefits for the needy makes no sense at all. It represents a view that is both selfish and shortsighted - an attitude so prevalent among our policymakers today. To put the blame for our improvident spending on Social Security and Medicare only begs the question of our priorities. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? To cut spending on these seems unworthy of the greatest nation of the world.

Whenever I find myself looking narrowly at some social welfare program, I think of the Preamble to the Constitution, which always puts my views in proper perspective. It is "We the People" - not me, me, me. Need must it be so, for the true greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, is not measured by its wealth or power, but by the manner in which it provides for the welfare of its people.

Government spending more often than not is malinvestment. You are lucky to see a benefit of 60 cents for every dollar spent by the federal government. The Apollo program was one of the only exceptions when you consider the economic spin-offs from various inventions created during the program.

Subtract government debt spending out of the GDP formula for an accurate reflection of economic growth.

[Peter1469]

SSI is the disability portion of Social Security.

[wingrider]

I'm not aware of anyone getting the retirement benefit without paying in, but many receive the disability benefit w/out paying a nickel. so are you advocating the removal of disabled people from society, rather than helping them.?

[keyser soze]

Read up on SSI.
Actually no...show us what you're talking about.

[keyser soze]

so are you advocating the removal of disabled people from society, rather than helping them.?
Translator!!!!!! We need a translator here!!!!

[dadakarma]

Translator!!!!!! We need a translator here!!!!

'Removal'. Sounds kinda ominous. :evil:

[wingrider]

Translator!!!!!! We need a translator here!!!!
se no habla engles, usted es muy loco en la cabesa,

[Alias]

'Removal'. Sounds kinda ominous. :evil:

Coming soon, this November.

[keyser soze]

You don't get SSI even if you've paid into it without substantial waiting and jumping through multiple hoops. If you haven't paid into it you'd have to have a congenital issue or use a parents. I don't know how anyone would get an illegal family member on the rolls...how does an illegal get an illegal family member on the rolls? Show me.

[wingrider]

Coming soon, this November.
maybe sooner , it depends on the Supreme Court decision ..

[wingrider]

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm


actually illegals can get ssi if they meet certain requirements

[dadakarma]

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm


actually illegals can get ssi if they meet certain requirements

If they're "qualified", then they're not "illegal".

[keyser soze]

Thank You dada...I want to see some citations, facts. Something beside "because I say so".

[dadakarma]

Thank You dada...I want to see some citations, facts. Something beside "because I say so".

He proved himself wrong with his own link.

[keyser soze]

I missed it but I'm not surprised...more RWA BS.

[ramone]

Yhow does an illegal get an illegal family member on the rolls? Show me.

Ask any ye shall receive,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79013,00.html


SSI is funded through the payroll taxes of Americans. But you don't have to be an American to receive SSI payments. Like food stamps, Medicaid and almost every other form of social insurance that America has developed to help its citizens, SSI is targeted by people from other countries as a tool to materially improve their lives without work.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79013,00.html#ixzz1rJMCMnpw


Maybe you should check out things, just sayin. A simple search would tell you.................0

[dadakarma]

Ask any ye shall receive,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79013,00.html



Maybe you should check out things, just sayin. A simple search would tell you.................0

Not a single statistic cited in the piece. FAIL

[ramone]

Not a single statistic cited in the piece. FAIL

Not really, it was opinion but if you were not too lazy to look I'm sure you could find the fact. I've yet to see you back up anything so hell, I'm not either. Any problem with me acting like you liberals when it comes to fact based posting. At least i posted an opinion of somebody else other than myself, and I didn't include a smile laughing at you. Should have however since your tactics are funny to me.

[Mainecoons]

You don't need a statistic. The question on the table is whether one can receive SSI without paying into Social Security. The answer is yes. This should be removed from Social Security and if people want to keep it, funded in the general budget. As it is, it is a welfare program that is sapping the resources of SS.

[keyser soze]

I don't believe it. It's like all the voter fraud laws when there isn't any voter fraud. Show me this supposed misuse of our system by illegals.

[dadakarma]

You don't need a statistic. The question on the table is whether one can receive SSI without paying into Social Security. The answer is yes. This should be removed from Social Security and if people want to keep it, funded in the general budget. As it is, it is a welfare program that is sapping the resources of SS.

Just because one of you says it doesn't make it so. Back up what you post. Or don't. You either want to make a verifiable point or you don't. Looks like you don't. Next....

[dadakarma]

I don't believe it. It's like all the voter fraud laws when there isn't any voter fraud. Show me this supposed misuse of our system by illegals.

Don't waste your time. You'll get links to op-eds or 'because I said so' type of bullshit answer. Zero substance, all opinion.

[keyser soze]

Meh

[Mainecoons]

What is it you don't believe? That SSI does not require contribution to the SS system but the funds for it are taken from SS?

Can't help you. You can verify this in any number of places.

Perhaps this will help you understand the problem.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-224.html

It's a little old but it explains how SSI is a welfare program that is a burden on SS.

Here's a more legalistic explanation. Theoretically, immigrants cannot immediately receive SSI. However, look at the part about exemptions to the waiting periord. Like the abuse of SS disability, that is where the problem lies. People are qualifying for exemptions far more than normal statistics would indicate.

http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/publicbenefitbatteredwomen.pdf

Again, my problem with SSI is that it is being funded on the backs of SS instead of being treated as the pure welfare program it is. Welfare programs should not be saddled onto working people who are paying into social security IMO.

[Alias]

What is it you don't believe? That SSI does not require contribution to the SS system but the funds for it are taken from SS?

Can't help you. You can verify this in any number of places.

Perhaps this will help you understand the problem.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-224.html

It's a little old but it explains how SSI is a welfare program that is a burden on SS.

Here's a more legalistic explanation. Theoretically, immigrants cannot immediately receive SSI. However, look at the part about exemptions to the waiting periord. Like the abuse of SS disability, that is where the problem lies. People are qualifying for exemptions far more than normal statistics would indicate.

http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/publicbenefitbatteredwomen.pdf

Again, my problem with SSI is that it is being funded on the backs of SS instead of being treated as the pure welfare program it is. Welfare programs should not be saddled onto working people who are paying into social security IMO.

I agre with you. We should have workfare. If you need welfare and are able to work, then something is provided for you to do. Disability is for those who can't work. People on welfare can take care of the city parks, libraries, etc. No need to have all the govt employees with the outlandish salaries and benefits. Just a few govt dweebs to watch over the place.

[dadakarma]

What is it you don't believe? That SSI does not require contribution to the SS system but the funds for it are taken from SS?

Can't help you. You can verify this in any number of places.

Perhaps this will help you understand the problem.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-224.html

It's a little old but it explains how SSI is a welfare program that is a burden on SS.

Here's a more legalistic explanation. Theoretically, immigrants cannot immediately receive SSI. However, look at the part about exemptions to the waiting periord. Like the abuse of SS disability, that is where the problem lies. People are qualifying for exemptions far more than normal statistics would indicate.

http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/publicbenefitbatteredwomen.pdf

Again, my problem with SSI is that it is being funded on the backs of SS instead of being treated as the pure welfare program it is. Welfare programs should not be saddled onto working people who are paying into social security IMO.

Cato Institute? Are you kidding me?

Did you read the pdf you posted? What part of "qualified immigrants" eludes your comprehension ability?

You can cite SSI illegal boogeyman fears from blogs all goddamn day. Show me stats - not Cato think-tank ponderings.

[Mister D]

This is coming from someone who cites liberal blogs...

[Mainecoons]

I'm not going to show you anything. You are hopelessly biased and closed minded. I was responding to another poster.

BTW did you notice that the second source was very pro SSI? Probably not.

[Captain Obvious]

This is coming from someone who cites liberal blogs...

Liberal blogs are good food.

[dadakarma]

I'm not going to show you anything. You are hopelessly biased and closed minded. I was responding to another poster.

BTW did you notice that the second source was very pro SSI? Probably not.

Have a nice day! :)

[Mainecoons]

Keyser, a lot of data here too:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html

You have to scroll down a ways for more information on SSI costs. What is more significant is the rate of increase of those costs.

[keyser soze]

Unbelievable...they make claims and swear up and down it's true, it's true but don't provide anything to support it but something like CATO...good grief!


The Social Security Administration follows strict medical and work-history guidelines to determine eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. You must have paid into the Social Security system through FICA taxes and have a recent-enough work history (http://www.freedomdisability.com/work-history-required-to-qualify-for-ssdi-benefits/). You also must have a disabling medical condition (http://www.freedomdisability.com/list-of-impairments-per-ssa-blue-book/)that is expected to prevent you from working for 12 months and earning above the level of Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA). The 2010 SGA income level is $1,000 per month and $1,640 per month for the blind and vision impaired. Click to see full list of questions (http://www.freedomdisability.com/social-security-disability-frequently-asked-questions#qhome)





Basic Qualifications for SSI Benefits





To get SSI benefits, a person must:

disabled, blind, or at least 65 years old and have "limited" outside income and resources.
be a resident of the United States and not be absent from the country for more than 30 days; and
be either a U.S. citizen or national, or in one of certain categories of eligible non–citizens.





Details on SSI eligibility and qualifications can be found on the Social Security - SSI Eligibility Requirements web site (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm).







Now show me how the illegal aliens are robbing your pockets....

[dadakarma]

Unbelievable...they make claims and swear up and down it's true, it's true but don't provide anything to support it but something like CATO...good grief!

Or an op-ed from nine years ago. :rofl:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/2618-The-Conservative-and-Progressive-Impulses?p=56289&viewfull=1#post56289

[ramone]

I'm not going to show you anything. You are hopelessly biased and closed minded. I was responding to another poster.

BTW did you notice that the second source was very pro SSI? Probably not.\
Most likely they didn't even read it Main, it's a liberal thing. You know they always know everything without having to research the question. Wish I was that intelligent, Hell i'd be conversing with Hawkin an a daily basis and most likely had I been alive during the time would have schooled Einstein about some of his theorys.

[keyser soze]

Keyser, a lot of data here too:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html

You have to scroll down a ways for more information on SSI costs. What is more significant is the rate of increase of those costs.
So your about the costs or are you about the illegals? Or both? This is getting old...I know costs are up but I don't yet know how you figure the illegals are costing us so much. Most illegals come here to work they don't have the option to lay around they have families waiting on them for that money.

I get irritated with the attitude. I'm not going to spend my time chasing down facts you won't supply yourself, This is it.

I'll look at what you posted.

I looked...
Costs are up for everything...look and medical insurance costs over the last ten years. Fuel, food etc. everything. What are you suggesting...you don't want to help keep Americans alive? Too much effort for your pocket? What?

[dadakarma]

So your about the costs or are you about the illegals? Or both? This is getting old...I know costs are up but I don't yet know how you figure the illegals are costing us so much. Most illegals come here to work they don't have the option to lay around they have families waiting on them for that money.

I get irritated with the attitude. I'm not going to spend my time chasing down facts you won't supply yourself, This is it.

I'll look at what you posted.

Wouldn't it be much easier if they perused their chosen source and c/p'd the section that supported their claims, rather than posting a pages-long file? Hello! One would think....

[Mainecoons]

You're emoting again and missing the main point I'm making, that SSI is a welfare program that should remain in the general budget while SS should be limited to the people who contribute to it and their dependents. I can't find exact figures but, as with Medicare fraud, I would hope that you would not want to see people coming into this country and making claims for bogus exemptions and burdening the SS system.

Or maybe you would, I don't know.

:grin:

[keyser soze]

You're emoting again and missing the main point I'm making, that SSI is a welfare program that should remain in the general budget while SS should be limited to the people who contribute to it and their dependents. I can't find exact figures but, as with Medicare fraud, I would hope that you would not want to see people coming into this country and making claims for bogus exemptions and burdening the SS system.

Or maybe you would, I don't know.

:grin:
Again?! Really? Your full of it. I'm telling you what I think. I'm exercising my 1st amendment rights. Your the one missing the point. They are completely different. Read what I posted. Call it what you will but it's a program to help people who cannot work...not don't want to work...CAN'T WORK! It happens to a lot of people. You going to let them starve? Live on the streets? So many do already...whole families.

I have yet to see you post anything to support your assertion that illegals are coming here to live off the American taxpayer with SSI.

[Alias]

Again?! Really? Your full of it. I'm telling you what I think. I'm exercising my 1st amendment rights. Your the one missing the point. They are completely different. Read what I posted. Call it what you will but it's a program to help people who cannot work...not don't want to work...CAN'T WORK! It happens to a lot of people. You going to let them starve? Live on the streets? So many do already...whole families.

I have yet to see you post anything to support your assertion that illegals are coming here to live off the American taxpayer with SSI.

I don't care what they're coming here for. They need to do it legally.

[dadakarma]

...I can't find exact figures but...

You're wasting your time, Keyser.

[keyser soze]

Grrrrr

[Mainecoons]

You really need to get control of your raging emotions. I haven't advocated eliminating SSI. I have advocated treating it like the welfare program it is and not burdening one class of people, those paying payroll taxes to support their future SS and OASI, with this welfare program.'

You haven't seen me post anything to support that assertion since I didn't make it. I asserted that immigrants are collecting it without having paid anything into SS. I gave you a link from a group that obviously favor SSI explaining how that happens. You inserted the word "illegal" into the discussion. Really, you should calm down and try and read more carefully.

[Stoney]

You could call them "welfare" - but that would be to tar you, my aged and infirm relatives, and millions of other like people across the country with a brush that is widely and unfairly being used to condemn freeloaders. It seems to me, the word choice here "welfare" is not just semantics, obscuring as it does what I consider to be root cause.

It is not the case that you and all other seniors who paid into the system for decades wish to free-load. The problem is the program has not been properly administered and existing funds have been raided.

There are alternatives than more of the same poor protection and administration of the trust funds on the one hand, and privatization on the other. My fear is that as long as we continue to use inapt and emotionally charged words, these alternatives will not be explored at all, much less meaningfully explored.

A divided people will take what our politicians dish out, and they will take it in the shorts. The only hope I see is for everyone across all of our precious party lines to stand as one and demand as one, from both parties, sensible and sufficient solutions for the People.

You still seem to be stuck on the wish that we can have "sensible politicians" when we won't, never have. You hope that we will become of one mind so that we can then put "sensible politicians" in office. That will never happen, has never happened.

I did not paint SS and Medicare with a broad brush. I said that to the extent that we're not paying the cost of the programs they are welfare. Please show me where that's not a fair statement. I'm not condemning the programs. I'm not suggesting that I and others who take it are freeloaders. I'm just pointing out that our representative government will not pay for the programs.

[Mainecoons]

Technically, SS is spending its "trust fund" which doesn't actually exist in reality, so in reality, more debt is now being incurred to pay SS benefits. I believe Medicare is pretty much out of money at this point and is basically being funded with some debt over and above actual receipts from payroll taxes.

[keyser soze]

You really need to get control of your raging emotions. I haven't advocated eliminating SSI. I have advocated treating it like the welfare program it is and not burdening one class of people, those paying payroll taxes to support their future SS and OASI, with this welfare program.'

You haven't seen me post anything to support that assertion since I didn't make it. I asserted that immigrants are collecting it without having paid anything into SS. I gave you a link from a group that obviously favor SSI explaining how that happens. You inserted the word "illegal" into the discussion. Really, you should calm down and try and read more carefully.
My emotions are just find so don't give yourself any credit for making me mad...I wasn't, I went to bed and slept well ... have a great day.

[Mainecoons]

Good. Try and post a little more calmly and dispassionately, and not read stuff into the discussion that isn't there. Like the word "illegal" which you made up along the way.

[dsolo802]

You still seem to be stuck on the wish that we can have "sensible politicians" when we won't, never have. You hope that we will become of one mind so that we can then put "sensible politicians" in office. That will never happen, has never happened.

I did not paint SS and Medicare with a broad brush. I said that to the extent that we're not paying the cost of the programs they are welfare. Please show me where that's not a fair statement. I'm not condemning the programs. I'm not suggesting that I and others who take it are freeloaders. I'm just pointing out that our representative government will not pay for the programs.

Morning Stoney, I know that you and most if not all receiving SS & medicare don't think of yourselves as freeloaders. My observation is many, many people do and it serves to unnecessarily obscure the true issues and divide the people against itself.

I don't have the illusion that if the people reject incendiary rhetoric and we stand together for what we want, that they will suddenly become less corruptible than what they've showed us in the past, just much less able to act on the corrupt impulse. Man, as corruptible as ever can be forced to do the right thing.

I appreciate the conversation that Mainecoons is having with Keyser Sose about what is and is not insurance, and what is and is not welfare. My contention is if we can all see things for what they actually are, the solutions we think of will be better geared to our actual problems, and the chances for consensus and right action will exponentially rise.

[2Ts]

ilegal or immigrant or US citizen... it doesn't appear that we suffer a glut of persons "living" off of SSI at all http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

[dadakarma]

ilegal or immigrant or us citizen... it doesn't appear that we suffer a glut of persons "living" off of ssi at all http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

thank you.

[Alias]

I've been paying into SS and Medicare since 1965. I retired last year. I think I am "entitled". What do you think?

[wingrider]

I've been paying into SS and Medicare since 1965. I retired last year. I think I am "entitled". What do you think? me either alias.. I retired last august on SS and don't feel one bit ashamed of taking money that I paid into since 1963. I am 62 and have worked since I was 14 years old,, so yes I agree with you

[Peter1469]

If privatization of social security had been passed in the 1980s there would be much more money available (forget about the Congressional raiding of the fund for now) even despite the market drops of 1987, 2000, and 2008.

[Alias]

me either alias.. I retired last august on SS and don't feel one bit ashamed of taking money that I paid into since 1963. I am 62 and have worked since I was 14 years old,, so yes I agree with you

Yep, we can speak from a position of "moral authority" as they like to say on this issue.

[Mainecoons]

To justify cutting Social Security because the government misspent the money seems rather disingenuous.

Isn't it equally so to raise taxes because the government misspent the money?

[Stoney]

Morning Stoney, I know that you and most if not all receiving SS & medicare don't think of yourselves as freeloaders. My observation is many, many people do and it serves to unnecessarily obscure the true issues and divide the people against itself.

I don't have the illusion that if the people reject incendiary rhetoric and we stand together for what we want, that they will suddenly become less corruptible than what they've showed us in the past, just much less able to act on the corrupt impulse. Man, as corruptible as ever can be forced to do the right thing.

I appreciate the conversation that Mainecoons is having with Keyser Sose about what is and is not insurance, and what is and is not welfare. My contention is if we can all see things for what they actually are, the solutions we think of will be better geared to our actual problems, and the chances for consensus and right action will exponentially rise.

I'm truly sorry that I can't share your optimism that politicians will become what they have never been.

As for the discussion about welfare and insurance, I might agree that it was the intent and is our intent that the programs would be insurance programs. But insurance programs demand a premium from their clients that pays for the risk involved (if over a broad spectrum of the insured.) Social Security and Medicare do not require participants to pay those costs. I'm not sure that they have become welfare. But they have become programs used by politicians to buy votes with our children's money.

[dsolo802]

I'm truly sorry that I can't share your optimism that politicians will become what they have never been. Politicians are human, capable of doing the right thing when forced to, and just as likely to be corrupted as people with opportunity in the private sector.

Paraphrasing Mark Twain, all I care to know is that a man is human - he can't be worse than that.


As for the discussion about welfare and insurance, I might agree that it was the intent and is our intent that the programs would be insurance programs. But insurance programs demand a premium from their clients that pays for the risk involved (if over a broad spectrum of the insured.) We agree about that. I agree with Mainecoons' and Nemo's suggestions respectively that Social Security and Medicare solvency issues can be addressed by ensuring these programs are actuarially sound and by raising the cap on income subject to payroll and income taxation.


Social Security and Medicare do not require participants to pay those costs. I'm not sure that they have become welfare. But they have become programs used by politicians to buy votes with our children's money.Needless to say, the country's commitment to to our citizens in their retirement must be honored now and going forward.

[dadakarma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IhBa6WL4_vI

[Alias]

Would George Washington be considered a liberal or a conservative today?

[dadakarma]

The real difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are those that are too liberal for their own good; while conservatives are those that are only liberal for their own good. Either way you want to look at it, neither come out looking very good.

Liberals don't suffer from the 'I got mine' disorder at the expense of others, though.

[Alias]

Liberals don't suffer from the 'I got mine' disorder at the expense of others, though.

Oh, for sure, dear. All the liberals are just working stiffs who like paying taxes. LOL. Thanks for the morning chuckle.

[Mainecoons]

Liberals don't suffer from the 'I got mine' disorder at the expense of others, though.

No, liberals suffer from the "I've got yours" disorder.

:grin:

[dadakarma]

Most important things in life depend on making the right choices. To do so requires sound judgment, for which neither intellect nor study may suffice; and, whenever in doubt, one need have resort to good advice. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of "right" or "left," but in choosing rightly and wisely. It’s easy to be blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country.

...as demonstrated by Republican obstructionism in Congress right now.

[Chris]

Blind men and an elephant.

http://i.snag.gy/3bDwr.jpg

[dadakarma]

It is unwise to hold too firmly to one’s views. There are few things written in stone; and much of that debatable. A wise man is flexible in his thinking; he is steadfast in his will, not his mind. Contrariwise, every fool is fully convinced, and will brook no argument against his judgment, however wrongheaded. Indeed, it is the mark of an unbalanced mind to be unwilling to consider opposing views. There are always two sides to everything, and a balanced mind weighs them both.

When I look at the side of racists and bigots, all I see is fear and paralysis leading to hate. Hate isn't worthy of consideration.

[Mister D]

When I look at the side of racists and bigots, all I see is fear and paralysis leading to hate. Hate isn't worthy of consideration.

You appear to have an unbalanced mind, Dada. :grin:

[Mainecoons]

Well Dada, since your party and I suspect your main group of associations on the left are full of racists and bigots, right from the top down, you should have more than a passing familiarity with these types and hence you may be quite right in your observations. Are you enjoying all the racially-motivated beatings and killings that your race baiting has caused over what should have been visualized as a police/criminal matter from the beginning?

You ain't seen nothing yet. Your Racist In Chief's religious mentor of 20+ years really vomited some good stuff for you all last weekend. You all are determined to have a race war and you are going to get it but you are not going to like the outcome.

[dadakarma]

Well Dada, since your party

What party would that be? Are you assuming I'm a Democrat? Cite where I've told you that. Oh, that's right - you can't. Because I'm not Democrat.


and I suspect your main group of associations on the left are full of racists and bigots

Yeah. Your assumptions, prejudgments and suspicions are on display here ad nauseam.


,blah blah blah... racially-motivated...blah blah...your race baiting ...blah blah. Racist In Chief's ...

Are you starting to grasp why your posts get mostly ignored?

[Mainecoons]

I'm sorry. The Democrats are too centrist for you? American Communist Party maybe?

You ignore all the posts you can't handle. Like a good liberal. But I do appreciate your pot stirring, you really do show people what the left is like and you keep things moving on this board. Carry on.

[dadakarma]

I'm sorry. The Democrats are too centrist for you? American Communist Party maybe?

You ignore all the posts you can't handle. Like a good liberal. But I do appreciate your pot stirring, you really do show people what the left is like and you keep things moving on this board. Carry on.

And you keep showing us how bitter, hateful and stupid the birthers are. You're doing a fantastic job! :)

[Mainecoons]

Thank you. Coming from a race baiter and bigot, that's a nice compliment. I'd like to stay and play with you but I have some work to do. Ta Ta!

:grin:

[Conley]

Most important things in life depend on making the right choices. To do so requires sound judgment, for which neither intellect nor study may suffice; and, whenever in doubt, one need have resort to good advice. It is even the more so in politics, for it is not always a question of "right" or "left," but in choosing rightly and wisely. It’s easy to be blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country.

Well said, but what else can we go on besides intellect, study, and good advice?

[wingrider]

...as demonstrated by Republican obstructionism in Congress right now.
can you cite some examples of obstruction by congress that wasn't necessary to stop the spread of socialism and totaltarianism by our president and his cohorts in the House, ?

[dadakarma]

can you cite some examples of obstruction by congress that wasn't necessary to stop the spread of socialism and totaltarianism by our president and his cohorts in the House, ?

When you spout moronic bullshit like socialism and totalitarianism in conjunction with the Obama administration, you piss your own credibility right down the toilet. This dumbed-down horseshit isn't worthy of debate. It's complete garbage spun from whole cloth.

[Alias]

When you spout moronic bullshit like socialism and totalitarianism in conjunction with the Obama administration, you piss your own credibility right down the toilet. This dumbed-down horseshit isn't worthy of debate. It's complete garbage spun from whole cloth.

Why are you raging? Obama is a Marxist. He admitted in his book he enjoyed hanging with Marxist professors while in school. Nothing to be ashamed of is there?

[dadakarma]

Why are you raging? Obama is a Marxist. He admitted in his book he enjoyed hanging with Marxist professors while in school. Nothing to be ashamed of is there?

I'm not raging. I'm calling bullshit what it is. No rage necessary.

[wingrider]

When you spout moronic bullshit like socialism and totalitarianism in conjunction with the Obama administration, you piss your own credibility right down the toilet. This dumbed-down horseshit isn't worthy of debate. It's complete garbage spun from whole cloth.

really? I take it you approve of the NDAA and how they are at this very minute tracking and recording every thing that Americans say, buy and do?

I take it you are ok with nsa stomping allover the 4th and the 5th amendments of the Constitution,?

I take it your ok with expanded war powers and our President going to war without approval of congress?

I take it you ok with our president signing into law a bill that controls 1/6 of the US ecomony?

I take it your ok with expanding war in the middle east and spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money that would be better spent on our own people and infrastructure?

and this is just a small list..

[dadakarma]

really? I take it you approve of the NDAA and how they are at this very minute tracking and recording every thing that Americans say, buy and do?

I take it you are ok with nsa stomping allover the 4th and the 5th amendments of the Constitution,?

I take it your ok with expanded war powers and our President going to war without approval of congress?

I take it you ok with our president signing into law a bill that controls 1/6 of the US ecomony?

I take it your ok with expanding war in the middle east and spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money that would be better spent on our own people and infrastructure?

and this is just a small list..

You 'take it I'm okay' with a lot of stuff that Bush did as well. I didn't vote for Obama. As senator, he revealed things about himself that signaled that the promised 'change' would be minimal. Obama is Bush LITE. There's nothing remotely socialist or leftist about the man or his policies. He pandered to the Left to get elected. He cut hard to the right the day after inauguration. You might do better in an exchange if you brought facts to the table rather than talking points and horseshit.

[wingrider]

You 'take it I'm okay' with a lot of stuff that Bush did as well. I didn't vote for Obama. As senator, he revealed things about himself that signaled that the promised 'change' would be minimal. Obama is Bush LITE. There's nothing remotely socialist or leftist about the man or his policies. He pandered to the Left to get elected. He cut hard to the right the day after inauguration. You might do better in an exchange if you brought facts to the table rather than talking points and horseshit.
when you get over your snit and look at what I actually wrote with an open mind and see the damage that has been done to this country in the Last 12 years maybe then we can have a conversation, you claim that Obama is Bush lite, I say Obama is Bush on Steroids, I didn't like what bush did and I don't like what Obama is doing either,, but you go right ahead and defend Obama, the FActs as you seem to want are listed in my previous post. easily verified.. but I am not going to go to the trouble of searching for them for you.. you are supposed to be an adult.. do your own homework and educate yourself

[dadakarma]

when you get over your snit and look at what I actually wrote with an open mind and see the damage that has been done to this country in the Last 12 years maybe then we can have a conversation, you claim that Obama is Bush lite, I say Obama is Bush on Steroids, I didn't like what bush did and I don't like what Obama is doing either,, but you go right ahead and defend Obama, the FActs as you seem to want are listed in my previous post. easily verified.. but I am not going to go to the trouble of searching for them for you.. you are supposed to be an adult.. do your own homework and educate yourself

And you need to untwist your panties and quit having a tantrum. If what I've posted continues to have enough power to send you into a full meltdown every time I challenge you, then maybe political forums just aren't your thing. So - Neither of us are Obama fans. Glad that's established. The difference between the haters and me is that I don't have to make shit up about Obama in order to be critical of him.

[Mister D]

I see many of our members reject contemporary political terminology (i.e."labels") but do these labels (e.g. conservative and liberal) fail to capture your general disposition?

[wingrider]

And you need to untwist your panties and quit having a tantrum. If what I've posted continues to have enough power to send you into a full meltdown every time I challenge you, then maybe political forums just aren't your thing. So - Neither of us are Obama fans. Glad that's established. The difference between the haters and me is that I don't have to make shit up about Obama in order to be critical of him.
no melt down here . I am just trying to get tyou to understand that Obama and bush are like twos sides of the same coin, and the policies and laws that both have passed and expanded on are detrimental to the liberties of the American people,,

who are you to decide who or who is not allowed to post and or join a political forum?

I never made up one thing about Obama every thing i posted is verifiable as truth, you see I don't hav to make up anything about that POS, he does enough on his own that I don't have to do that..

[Mister D]

I wonder if Dada was as conscientious when Bush was President? We know Keyser wasn't.

[Alias]

I'm not raging. I'm calling bullshit what it is. No rage necessary.

Obama hired Van Jones, an admitted communist. Obama hung with Marxist professors in school by his own admission. Are you ashamed?

[Alias]

You 'take it I'm okay' with a lot of stuff that Bush did as well. I didn't vote for Obama. As senator, he revealed things about himself that signaled that the promised 'change' would be minimal. Obama is Bush LITE. There's nothing remotely socialist or leftist about the man or his policies. He pandered to the Left to get elected. He cut hard to the right the day after inauguration. You might do better in an exchange if you brought facts to the table rather than talking points and horseshit.

So who are you going to support in the next election?

[Alias]

And you need to untwist your panties and quit having a tantrum. If what I've posted continues to have enough power to send you into a full meltdown every time I challenge you, then maybe political forums just aren't your thing. So - Neither of us are Obama fans. Glad that's established. The difference between the haters and me is that I don't have to make shit up about Obama in order to be critical of him.

Looks to me like the tantrum occurred in #121, your words. Looks like a nerve was struck and you reacted in a very raging manner.

[wingrider]

So who are you going to support in the next election? looks like Romney considering santorum dropped out.. anybody but Obama .. I love Paul but he has zero chance and I cannot take the chance of obama winning because of a spit vote, sorry alias, I didn't notice you were asking that of DADA.. guess I should look more closely.

[wingrider]

Looks to me like the tantrum occurred in #121, your words. Looks like a nerve was struck and you reacted in a very raging manner.
exactly.. you know she has called me nothing but names ever since she got here and I don't recall ever responding to her the same way, I try very hard to keep my posts civil, but I don't get the same respect, funny how that works,

[ramone]

I try very hard to keep my posts civil, but I don't get the same respect, funny how that works,

You should know by now how the progressive mind works, They respect nothing unless it is aligned with their thinking. Can't have a civil discussion with one for the most part. A liberal yes, a progressive communist. Not a chance in hell.

[wingrider]

You should know by now how the progressive mind works, They respect nothing unless it is aligned with their thinking. Can't have a civil discussion with one for the most part. A liberal yes, a progressive communist. Not a chance in hell. yep I am seeing that.. should I reduce myself to her level or should I rise above the hate?? I think I will rise above it.. no need to get in the sewer with them

[Mister D]

I see many of our members reject contemporary political terminology (i.e."labels") but do these labels (e.g. conservative and liberal) fail to capture your general disposition?

[Alias]

You should know by now how the progressive mind works, They respect nothing unless it is aligned with their thinking. Can't have a civil discussion with one for the most part. A liberal yes, a progressive communist. Not a chance in hell.

Lefties are tolerant until you disagree with them and refuse to change your mind. Then there is hell to pay.

[dsolo802]

I see many of our members reject contemporary political terminology (i.e."labels") but do these labels (e.g. conservative and liberal) fail to capture your general disposition?
I agree with Peter that most people can have a bit of both: the desire to conserve and fortify the fruit of liberty for those already enjoying it, and the desire to extend liberty and resultant fruit to others. I'm inclined to trust there is a time and a place for both purposes. As I see it, the chief difference between a true conservative and a true progressive is a true conservative tends to err on the side of being too cautious. Whereas the true progressive tends to err on the side of not being sufficiently prudent.

From this vantage point, it comes down to risk appetite, and views that develop based on risk appetite.

[Chris]

"the desire to conserve and fortify the fruit of liberty for those already enjoying it, and the desire to extend liberty and resultant fruit to others."

Disagree, somewhat. To me we all want all to enjoy liberty. The difference is this. Liberals tend to suffer from emotionalism. No, don't mean they're emotional, exactly, but jump to conclusions without sufficient reasoning--so, yes, imprudent, as stated. They see some group who needs help and jump to the conclusion government is the solution, and if you don't agree, you're a heartless, immoral fill-in-the-blank. Such hasty solutions often lead to creating new problems, and again jumping to government as solutions, ad nauseum. Conservatives see the same problem and tend to reason out solutions that take into consideration the consequences of various alternatives, they tend to take smaller, more local, more cautious steps--so, yes, to avoid risk--but also tend to seek free market solutions as alternatives to government ones, or if need be, some mix of private and public solution. In sum, the difference results in liberals giving up responsibility and pushing for more government which results in less liberty, conservatives the opposite, leaving more power, responsibility to society and individuals in society.

[keyser soze]

Oh I see...conservatives have never had a 'blow back', unintentional consequences problem...:rofl:

[Mister D]

Oh I see...conservatives have never had a 'blow back', unintentional consequences problem...:rofl:

What are you referring to, Keyser?

[Alias]

Oh I see...conservatives have never had a 'blow back', unintentional consequences problem...:rofl:

See, this is the problem. Your pals in the leftist media just blew up the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy for political hay. People's lives are now being threatened. Death threats. Black Panthers wanting a race war.

Nice work. It's not funny.

[Chris]

Oh I see...conservatives have never had a 'blow back', unintentional consequences problem...:rofl:

Not what I said now was it. No matter how much effort you put into problem solving and considering consequences, we're all only human and not perfect. But you are more likely to fail jumping to government solutions without reasonable problem solving.

[Mainecoons]

The neocons have had an obvious one: Iraq.

[Chris]

Neocons, liberals mugged by reality. Ex-communists and ex-Troskyites. Interventionists at home and abroad.

[dsolo802]

"the desire to conserve and fortify the fruit of liberty for those already enjoying it, and the desire to extend liberty and resultant fruit to others."

Disagree, somewhat. To me we all want all to enjoy liberty. The difference is this. Liberals tend to suffer from emotionalism. No, don't mean they're emotional, exactly, but jump to conclusions without sufficient reasoning--so, yes, imprudent, as stated. They see some group who needs help and jump to the conclusion government is the solution, and if you don't agree, you're a heartless, immoral fill-in-the-blank.Chris, thanks for the very thoughtful response. I find validity in what you say.

It is not helpful at all that many liberals immediately assume the worst of our Conservative brothers and sisters. And vice versa. This is how we miss each other, and opportunities for working to everyone's benefit.


Such hasty solutions often lead to creating new problems, and again jumping to government as solutions, ad nauseum. Conservatives see the same problem and tend to reason out solutions that take into consideration the consequences of various alternatives, they tend to take smaller, more local, more cautious steps--so, yes, to avoid risk--but also tend to seek free market solutions as alternatives to government ones, or if need be, some mix of private and public solution.In one of my posts in this thread, I tried to describe a kind of interdependent way for true conservatives and true liberals to work with each other; a way that I believe addresses the problem you are indicating.

The fact is, since the days of Clinton, most liberals have moved to a 'hand-up' and away from the 'hand-out' formulation. For this reason, there is ample possibility today for people of good faith to shun purely ideology bound solutions for the pragmatic approach I read in your words today. Why should we consider a government only solution, if a certain configuration of private-public sector collaboration could get the job done? Why should we go to a private-public sector collaboration, if a private sector solution will get the job done?

In order to balance those questions with those of a kind that address the legitimate concerns of liberals, we could also add: what are the actual problems that are decimating the middle class and families in America? Do our economic policies serve to ameliorate those issues, or make the problems worse? By what objective measures can we trust the private sector to regulate itself? If the relevant industry has demonstrably proven incapable of regulating itself, what is the correct amount and type of regulation that we need in place to avoid fraud, deceptive practices and unsafe products and foods from being foisted upon the American public? Can we tether tax breaks or otherwise tax reform to actual job creation that can be objectively validated? How can we be assured that our global economic policies don't unfairly harm our domestic work force by pitting it against child or slave labor or a willingness to destroy the environment else where?

I don't see we get to figuring these things out together, because both sides - at the behest of their party leaders - are too busy demonizing and savaging each other at very personal levels.


In sum, the difference results in liberals giving up responsibility and pushing for more government which results in less liberty, conservatives the opposite, leaving more power, responsibility to society and individuals in society.I find truth in your conclusion. But I would hasten to add this: The problem of concentration of power and the potential for corruption of the public sector man, is just as real with concentrations of power in the captains of our industries in the private sector. Man will be man. So when we leave more power and responsibility to "society", how can we be assured that the working man will not just be chewed up and spit out? How can fairness for the working man, and any semblance of bargaining power, enter so that even a tiny slice of record corporate profits actually do make their way to him? How can we be assured that the promise of equal opportunity and the American Dream itself is not just a cruel hoax?

[Chris]

Chris, thanks for the very thoughtful response. I find validity in what you say.
You're welcome. Though you needn't hesitate to say I was biased, I am. Some of the things Haidt says, I posted him first page of this thread, says it may be natural. But dialog begins with admitting biases. As you say too:

It is not helpful at all that many liberals immediately assume the worst of our Conservative brothers and sisters. And vice versa. This is how we miss each other, and opportunities for working to everyone's benefit.


The fact is, since the days of Clinton, most liberals have moved to a 'hand-up' and away from the 'hand-out' formulation.
Yes, I detect that in the more moderate liberals. And you ask a lot of important questions about policies. But ideologues shout the loudest, as you also say.


I don't see we get to figuring these things out together, because both sides - at the behest of their party leaders - are too busy demonizing and savaging each other at very personal levels.
Yep. One solution there, and I noted in your questions is to, instead of focusing on personalities, Obama, Ryan, say, focus on policies.


In sum, the difference results in liberals giving up responsibility and pushing for more government which results in less liberty, conservatives the opposite, leaving more power, responsibility to society and individuals in society.

I find truth in your conclusion. But I would hasten to add this: The problem of concentration of power and the potential for corruption of the public sector man, is just as real with concentrations of power in the captains of our industries in the private sector.
Yes, I agree 100%. But, private power and corruption comes about only through public power and corruption. Let me distinguish the two to explain better what I mean:

Oppenheimer, The State:
There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior's trade - which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery - constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means."

I equate public with political, private with economic. On at least a theoretical level, corrupting power can exist and grow only by public/political means. Not to say it doesn't happen by private/economic means, just that it cannot survive long and grow there. The private/economic means is parasitic on public/political means.

Only the economic means generates the wealth required to deliver on the promise of equal opportunity and the American Dream. Public/political means is parasitic on private/economic means.

That doesn't mean there is not a proper role and use for government, properly restrained. We could start with the powers enumerated.