Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And what exactly does Obama plan to do with "everything" you "work hard for" when he gets it?
And, btw, what is "everything" you work hard for....exactly what does that "everything" include?
Actually, liberals are not using anything as a "ploy" to play on people's emotions......Liberals believe in this thing called SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. We believe that we do have a responsibility to our communities and those less fortunate than we are, therefore, we want to see some of tax money going to help people who need the help. Clearly, conservatives DO NOT BELIEVE IN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; they believe in personal responsibility only. They believe that the world does not work better when we all help each other out; they seem to believe that each individual is solely responsible for everything that happens in that individual's life, and, therefore, no one else in the community will be affected by the circumstances of that individual's life. You guys seem to believe that we all exist in billions of teeny, tiny individual worlds, and that nothing anyone does has any affect on anyone else. What's mine is mine and that's all that counts.
See, it's a difference in who we are and what we believe. Liberals believe that a community of people, made up of individuals, can all have a better life and future if we look out for each other. Conservatives, seem to believe that it is not a good thing to look out for anyone but themselves....personal responsibility only. In fact, the best world is one where people not only take personal responsibility but the ALSO understand that they have a social responsibility for the communities in which they live and their friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. BOTH things are necessary to have the best world.
What you think conservatives seem to believe and what most conservatives actually believe are two different things, which is unfortunately very common among liberals. It makes realistic discussion of the issues impossible.
It's similar to the Democrat propaganda over the healthcare debate where they declared that conservatives who didn't support Obamacare wanted people to die in the streets with no medical treatment. Except here it's you declaring that you feel social responsibility but conservatives just want to take care of themselves and forget everyone else.
The actual issue, devoid of propaganda, is whether the safety net should be pubic sector or private sector and whether public sector safety nets should be done at the federal level or the state level.
Instead of building a fake strawman argument of the greedy and uncaring conservative that you can knock down with your compassion and social responsibility, why don't you just make an actual argument against the real conservative position? This posturing you're doing doesn't accomplish anything.
Friedman and his neo-lib policies, advocates and disciples do just that.
think Thatcher, Reagan, Pinochet, etc....etc...
this is just what they do.
they smash the poor in order to benefit the already rich and upwardly mobile.
then they hide behind lies and sophistry, claiming that they are actually helping the people.
NO, they are only helping themselves and their own power group
The elitist agenda at it finest and vilest!
Provide some evidence that they do that. Not just claims. Show me where a conservative has said if I knock down a poor person's house and build a luxury condo that it helps the poor person.
The only situation I know of that comes even remotely close to what you're claiming in this thread is urban renewal. And in that case the poor people are compensated for their homes, and have the community improved. The entire purpose of urban renewal is to improve the economy and quality of life within that area. And urban renewal is only remotely close to what you're claiming. What you're actually claiming, I have never seen.
I have never seen a quote from Reagan saying that knocking down a poor person's home and building a luxury condo there helps the poor person.
I didn't forget that. I said eminent domain can happen to someone regardless of their socioeconomic status. My point was just that knocking down a person's house to build something else doesn't happen without the owner's consent unless it is being done through eminent domain, in which case the person being poor has nothing to do with it. It would have happened to a rich person whose house was in the same location too. The compensation element to eminent domain just wasn't part of the argument I was making.
some people here on CD seem to think that displacing the poor actually helps them.
someone needs to explain how this is so.
for example, we knock down a load of low income housing, replace it with high end apartments, and miraculously the poor benefit?
I mean, WTF!
so, the rich yuppies move in whilst the original residents are left in a slum somewhere on the edge of town, or maybe sleeping in a tent in the local park.
So what's the benefit here?
It provides motivation. Why should people have it easy? Why should they get food stamps and a check from government which provide no incentive to improve your place in life is government will subsidize your poor choices?
Doesn't mean you shouldn't have a say in where it goes. We don't exist to fund the government. The government exists to service us.
But we don't help them move on in any organized way. People who fall into poverty can use some temporary assistance and work their way back up. But people who are born into poverty to parents who are poor do not receive the grounding in the attitudes and values to be successful. Their parents did not make good choices, and there is nobody pushing them to make good choices. Those kids don't just need food stamps - they need mentoring.
So there you see
1. a significant percentage of people born into poverty remain in poverty
2. this is a cultural phenomenon as evidenced by the fact that immigrants on average do not remain in poverty
I realize this does not comport with liberal philosophy, but it happens to be the truth. The numbers do not say it is a majority of people, but they do say that it is a multigenerational issue for people. Giving people welfare checks does not help generational poverty. They simply take the money and stay poor. And we do nothing to help them. We just send them some aid and assume they're trying their best to move up into self sufficiency and the middle class. And sometimes they are. But if they're not, we don't do anything to break the cycle. These people need counseling, skills training, day care, and job placement assistance.
Well, are the MAJORITY of people on public assistance people who were born into poverty and part of mulit-generational poverty? Do you have any numbers regarding that question? What percentage of people who need public assistance people who have been on public assistance for generations?
The actual issue, devoid of propaganda, is whether the safety net should be pubic sector or private sector and whether public sector safety nets should be done at the federal level or the state level.
Instead of building a fake strawman argument of the greedy and uncaring conservative that you can knock down with your compassion and social responsibility, why don't you just make an actual argument against the real conservative position? This posturing you're doing doesn't accomplish anything.
So are you saying conservatives do feel that everyone does indeed have social responsibility for their communities and the world?
So are you saying conservatives do feel that everyone does indeed have social responsibility for their communities and the world?
Everyone has a responsibility to society to ask not what their country can do for them, but to ask what they can do for their country. A liberal God said that once so it must be true.
some people here on CD seem to think that displacing the poor actually helps them.
someone needs to explain how this is so.
for example, we knock down a load of low income housing, replace it with high end apartments, and miraculously the poor benefit?
I mean, WTF!
so, the rich yuppies move in whilst the original residents are left in a slum somewhere on the edge of town, or maybe sleeping in a tent in the local park.
So what's the benefit here?
It doesn't. conservatives hate poor people. To conservatives the government attempting to serve the needs of poor Americans is fraud, is buying votes, is morally wrong.
To conservatives the interests of the poor really have no place within the government.
So throwing out programs for poor people to conservatives is morally correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
