How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?

[big brown horse]

To all - let's drop the dripping sarcasm, it isn't helping either side.

I agree. I enjoy a good debate, but the sarcasm is painful to read.

My post contained no sarcasm.

I'm sorry Sylvie, I was refering to other posts. I should have said, "SOME of the sarcasm is painful to read." My bad y'all.

Peace out.

 

[bibliophile birds]

And yet other conservatives, who preferred to keep it to PMs, comprehended exactly what he was saying, too. I'm telling you, the difference in philosophies is telling here. The conservatives who are reading this are all on the 'same page' - while the more 'liberal' people here are obviously on their 'same page' - so you can contend that it isn't so, Pat, yet it seems to really be true - the picking apart of Scott's posts is obvious, at least to those of us on the conservative side.

i think the problem here, really, isn't that we're on one page or another, but that different groups have different ways of talking about things. linguistically, all groups construct their own lexicon so that they may speak to one another with clear understanding. that seldom means that they make sense to others. think about medical or technical jargon- it's almost indecipherable to the average person. the same thing happens with political groups (or leanings rather, since it's true that most people don't fit totally on one side or another).

i encounter this everyday with my conservative family. we start talking about something and get into a huge debate when we were actually saying pretty much the same thing, just not in the same way. that's not any of us trying to draw a line in the sand, it's just the way we think of things.

i don't think asking for clarification should be viewed as an attack. but i also see that some of those requests for clarification could be worded more neutrally. i understand most of what the "liberals" on here are trying to say because i speak their language, not because i wholeheartedly agree with them.

 

[loriwy]

My thoughts on this are. The currant administration leans toward fascism;
http://news.google.com/news?q=fasci...news_group&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CDcQsQQwCg
To quote Kissinger; He who controls the food, controls the people. Monsanto is one of the leaders. So to be SS you need the obvious. Food (home grown) Heat (make your own). What happens when they are taxed or banned?
Gore is now trying to get light bulbs outlawed.
First meat:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
http://nonais.org/
Then home grown veggies;
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/11/q-will-the-passage-of/
Then taxes on your wood stove;
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news55.htm
And its already starting in NY.
http://www.woodsmokefreeny.com/
Where does that leave us?
These laws arent being passed by the right or left but by extremists. While the silent majority pay the bills. I do not believe in the global warming theories being crammed down our throats. I think the politicians go with it because it alows the to pass more bills to control the american people. Without commiting political suicide. History show that the Vickings lived and grew food in Greenland. They were growing grapes in northern England. People and plants in history thrived during the warming periods of history. After all CO2 is plant food.
I do believe people are making an impact,don't get me wrong on that. But I believe that it's the cutting down of rain forests,polluting our water sources and draining of our wetlands that is doing the harm.
I do still have the fundelmentalist belief in capitolism. Handouts should be community and state. Not forciably taken from the tax payer.

 

[patandchickens]

Based on some of the comments made on here, it looks like the liberals/progressives think that conservatives don't care for the down trodden. You know, because they typically don't want big government social programs.
Everyone, is what you think?

Can anyone remember (I can't) the title of the thread we had, oh, sometime over the summer I think (?), in which this particular issue was pretty thoroughly explored? I want to refer you to that thread Scott, I just can't remember which it IS, sorry

But the upshot was something like this:

Conservatives kept exclaiming that it was terrible that gov't programs were floating people who should be swimming for themselves, so to speak.

Liberals (I hate using these broad categories, b/c there really are a lot of *important* differences that these two terms obscure and blur, but I hope I can be forgiven for summarizing the thread in these terms) kept exclaiming that there are lots of people who through no fault of their own, *can't* swim, either permanently or just at the moment, and genuinely deserve help.

We all nattered back and forth at each other somewhat inconclusively for, like, I dunno, twenty-some pages and then it seemed to become clear that the real situation is more like:

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree there is a lot of poor 'filtering' of the recipients of gov't aid, and that many people recieve it who oughtn't, and that this is a real problem that should be more vigorously addressed.

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree that there are some folks out there who genuinely need and deserve gov't programs to help them out in some particular ways, and that it is GOOD to have such gov't assistance.

The disagreement on the thread seemed to be on just two main things:

1) A difference in emphasis. Conservatives spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people gettin' things they don't need, whereas liberals spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people needing (genuinely) things and being left in the lurch by gaps in private aid and gov't programs.

2) A difference in how half-full or half-empty you see the glass, in terms of whether gov't programs are laudably performing a valuable role for many people even tho yes, regrettably there are also some cheaters, or whether gov't programs may help a few who genuinely need it but are *mostly* just supporting parasites.

Based on that thread (and to an extent others), it seems to me that there really is not much disagreement in *principle* between the two sides, it is basically a (partly legitimate, and partly based-on-gut-feeling-not-actual-data) disagreement over the IMPLEMENTATION of ideas.

(edited to add: to answer the original question more directly, Scott, speaking as a non-conservative [but not really a liberal either, call me an independant thinker], in that thread I'm mentioning and in other previous ones here and on other forums, it sure did seem VERY MUCH to me that conservatives WERE saying that it was fine to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that the gov't had no real obligation to help the needy. Truthfully, this IS what it sounded like. I found that thread quite enlightening, because once the conservative contingent was finally CLEAR (sound familiar?) on what aspects of these programs they were for and against -- once someone finally *articulated* that they do favor the gov't helping out those who *genuinely* need it -- the whole thing looked quite different in a retrospective light. So now, while I still think that some, not all, conservatives are sometimes, not always, underestimating the number and seriousness of people out there who truly deserve a bit of help, I at least now DO think that most conservatives here DO "care for the downtrodden" to a reasonable degree)

JMHO,

Pat

 

[noobiechickenlady]

Way to go, Pat! Great post!

 

[Wifezilla]

I think it comes down to defining "help".

One group thinks government programs are the way to provide help. The other group sees government as one of the least efficient ways to provide help and open to money diversion and corruption.

Many conservatives (and libertarians) prefer to give one on one, or to a local church or private charity rather than supporting a monolithic gvmnt entity. We (as in libertarians and conservatives like me that I have discussed this with) also want the option to NOT give. If a programs proves to be not helpful (DARE is a good example), we want to say "no more".

 

[FarmerChick]

 

[inchworm]

I dropped out of the discussion because I've been busy being self-sufficient, not because I've been cowering in the corner. Sheesh! How do you guys find the time to follow this thread?

This is me: ____________



A squashed little inchworm

 

[FarmerChick]

I think it comes down to defining "help".

One group thinks government programs are the way to provide help. The other group sees government as one of the least efficient ways to provide help and open to money diversion and corruption.

Many conservatives (and libertarians) prefer to give one on one, or to a local church or private charity rather than supporting a monolithic gvmnt entity. We (as in libertarians and conservatives like me that I have discussed this with) also want the option to NOT give. If a programs proves to be not helpful (DARE is a good example), we want to say "no more".

and when ya'll say no more

when you all don't give to charity to help?


where does that leave "all the citizens who do need some real help"



not saying that everyone is the same----but when you rely on the goodwill of people, it can fall short. therefore programs are put in place taking a little from everyone to support what "should have been supported by all voluntarily" but was not.

govt. is to help protect those that can't (at least it started out that way..lol)

not everyone wants to give. many do not. if this country relied on "us all" giving we would be worse off big time.

 

[bibliophile birds]

I think it comes down to defining "help".

One group thinks government programs are the way to provide help. The other group sees government as one of the least efficient ways to provide help and open to money diversion and corruption.

Many conservatives (and libertarians) prefer to give one on one, or to a local church or private charity rather than supporting a monolithic gvmnt entity. We (as in libertarians and conservatives like me that I have discussed this with) also want the option to NOT give. If a programs proves to be not helpful (DARE is a good example), we want to say "no more".

i think that the discrepancy is that when you give one on one or through a local organization, you often see how your money is spent. that is a great thing. Americans are, if nothing else, quite good at spotting abuses of their personal funds.

but i believe the answer isn't to stop government programs but to make them much much more fiscally responsible. that means that we need clearer budgets and to know how our government spends our money. regardless of which party is at the helm, we need to demand that useless programs, such as DARE and many others, are reevaluated or done away with. that will mean that more money goes where it should- to the people who genuinely need it.