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.
I'm 20 and I'm not a liberal or democrat. There are certain social issues I am more liberal towards, but I don't believe social issues are end all be all.
Often times, I actually feel as though young people focus on social issues (and quick to label themselves liberals) because those are the easiest issues to follow and understand. It's easy to sit there and act like an e-warrior for gays, blacks, women etc. Those topics really don't require much thought.
And when you aren't in the work force paying taxes and actually earning your own money, you think life is unfair and that you should somehow be taken care of by the government.
I think in the end the economy matters more than whether or not promiscuous Sally can abort a fetus due to her own irresponsible behavior.
coffeedonuts, you're smart for a 20 year old. We could want to fund all the social issues we want but without a good economy and money it's a pipe dream unless they want debt up to the wazoo. That's the problem, liberals think money grows on trees.
coffeedonuts, you're smart for a 20 year old. We could want to fund all the social issues we want but without a good economy and money it's a pipe dream unless they want debt up to the wazoo. That's the problem, liberals think money grows on trees.
The flip side is where do we make the cuts? What programs are not needed at current levels. With the bad economy, you need welfare. Until we fully pull it off Iraq and Afghanistan, the armed forces can't really be cut much more. I'm yet to see sensible suggestion of cuts, it's all hack and slash cuts on social programs that would do more harm than good in the current situation.
For me personally, I was influenced early on by my dad who is conservative. He's a smart guy and made a lot of sense. Where I began to separate my views with his was when I noticed a few small contradictions, and I realized that maybe he wasn't 100% correct. From there I just tried to fit all the puzzle pieces together so that they fit logically, and eventually came out an anarchist/voluntaryist/agorist or whatever people want to label me. I'm 25 now, so I'm fairly young, but my ideas are based on principles. If you want to change my mind, you have to convince me that my fundamental principles are wrong. For this reason, I don't think that "as I get older, my views will change because I'll have more life experience". Experience will not change the fact that the initiation of force is wrong, or that you own yourself and the effects of your actions.
I think if you have someone you respect growing up, you'll be more emotionally attached to that person's views later in life. So if your parents have certain views and you respect their opinion, you'll have more emotional turmoil accepting differing views when you're older.
If you come to not respect your parents anymore, you'll probably rebel and go the complete opposite direction. I have a friend whose parents were conservative, but were the kind who just repeated what they heard from other conservatives without thinking critically, and since he's a smart guy he realized this and lost respect. His mistake (in my opinion) was that he then thought "well my parents are idiots, and they're conservative, so that must mean that liberal views are correct." He then got a liberal girlfriend and has become emotionally attached to those views now.
Overall, everyone has unique circumstances that shape their ideas. The key for everyone is committing to being as objective as possible and being willing to deal with the negative emotions of being wrong and realizing that people they respect were also wrong. It's not easy for me to disagree with 99% of people, and I have many close to me (and random people on the internet ) reacting very negatively to what I say sometimes, but I'd rather stay consistent than have the comfort of being agreed with.
The flip side is where do we make the cuts? What programs are not needed at current levels.
We don't need a federal department of education. We don't need a department of energy. We don't need a department of commerce. We don't need federal health insurance exchanges. We don't need unemployment benefits lasting for 2 years. We don't need federal involvement in school lunch programs.
Quote:
With the bad economy, you need welfare. Until we fully pull it off Iraq and Afghanistan, the armed forces can't really be cut much more. I'm yet to see sensible suggestion of cuts, it's all hack and slash cuts on social programs that would do more harm than good in the current situation.
Social programs themselves do more harm than good in that they enable multigenerational poverty. They foster a sense of government dependency in people. Social programs should be a temporary safety net for people in need. People should not be able to live for year after year on government checks without getting a job. Does that mean people should be starving in the streets? Of course not. But it means they should be doing something to help themselves.
At 40 I realized how much more money I (and most middle-aged people) can make compared to when I was fresh out of college. On top of that, the tax breaks you get for home ownership, and the ease of life and investments when you have "backup" money. You can take risks with your money, you can save time by hiring people rather than doing it yourself. Having money makes life easy, so what kind of A-hole would I be to start whining about my Federal taxes?
Besides, the Republican party has been some bizarre, uncooperative, destroy-the-other-party, redneck party ever since about Monica Lewinski and the rise of Fox News. They are no longer an option, perhaps they will be again someday, but I think 2024 at the very earliest.
This is quote we've seen many times on this forum and of late I've been thinking about if it's true and how this actually works. For I do think in some ways people get more conservative as they age but I don't think it is true. I think part of it is more younger people vote for Democratic (let's use this for liberal for argument sake) with fewer voting for Republican (let's use this for conservatives for argument sake as well,) while on the older side people tend to typically vote Republican with fewer voting fewer (though more) voting Democratic. So by numbers it would make you believe it could be true but there are people who voted on both sides all along are set in their ways. Also there are some young people who voted Republican and call themselves Republican (I did up until the most recent shutdown) and of course there's old Democrats in Washington and those that continue to vote that way.
With me, I mentioned I voted Republican in both elections despite being a registered independent voter. This year with the state primaries I actually voted for more moderate Republicans and then voted more Democrat on the actual early ballot despite some the US Representative candidates for both the Republican and the Democrat party being the same in particular being against US presence internationally. The only real things they disagreed on was immigration and reproductive rights. Despite my vote, I did have a heart. I just couldn't trust the Democratic options. I actually voted against Prop 102, the Arizona state amendment preventing gay marriage/civil unions despite my Republican votes for officials besides Sheriff Joe.
As for how the whole
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain," quote works if it does, I think it is mainly is that people all of a sudden around their 30s and 40s worry about what their taxes are used for and for free riders. Think about it, when you are 20 and getting paid low, you think of social justice that you should be given money to keep you afloat. Up until recently, by the mid 30s and 40s, people were set and didn't need assistance and complain about higher taxes because they make more and often times people claim with tax increases, the middle class is hurt (when in reality it is upper middle class at best through most increases.)
What does everyone else think?
When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.
When you have a family, an occupation, house, investments and obligations, you have everything to lose.
We don't need a federal department of education. We don't need a department of energy. We don't need a department of commerce. We don't need federal health insurance exchanges. We don't need unemployment benefits lasting for 2 years. We don't need federal involvement in school lunch programs.
Social programs themselves do more harm than good in that they enable multigenerational poverty. They foster a sense of government dependency in people. Social programs should be a temporary safety net for people in need. People should not be able to live for year after year on government checks without getting a job. Does that mean people should be starving in the streets? Of course not. But it means they should be doing something to help themselves.
The department of education and commerce are the only two we really need. I say this for education because I live in a state who doesn't want to fund schools and is fighting a lawsuit to actually bring funding back up from drastic slashes that came in 2011 from fiscal conservatives who thought that school spending and college spending was waste and should be cut below federal standards. I know we shouldn't rely on the federal government but if the state government is ruining the public school system for those that cannot get into charter or other private schools, shouldn't someone step in? With commerce, we live in an interstate commerce world now with eCommerce (though it existed with catalogs for years) and also some want insurance to go beyond statelines which would now bring it to federal scrutiny. Who would watch over these if we decide to remove the department of commerce?
But if there is no social safety nets or if they are temporary why wouldn't they end up on the streets when they are kicked off? I am not sure who looked into the Work and Employment forum but there was a post that if you think about it, is pretty true: If you find a job and apply for it while unemployed for shorter than 3 months, you have the best chance of getting it. If you find a job and apply for it while unemployed between 3 to 6 months, you still have a chance of getting it but it is less likely than being unemployed less than 3 months. find a job and apply for it while unemployed for longer than 6 months and is highly unlikely.
Another issue with jobs is some states have higher per week unemployment pay than the pay given at a potential job. If you work part-time at near minimum wage (a dollar or so up from it) you will actually make more on unemployment even in the state Daily Finance says is the worst state for unemployment, Arizona. Arizona pays $213 per week which if you work at under 27 hours a week at $8 an hour you make less than unemployment BEFORE payroll taxes. In other states, you can make dramatically more by being unemployed and putting in for jobs than you would working that week. We need to fix that. Either we remove the benefit OR if you make under the unemployment rate, you get paid the difference.
The final issue with jobs is if we look at the job seekers, we have a lot of people looking. If we include those that are truly underemployed and working under 30 hours a week not by choice on top of unemployed but looking, it is 5 to 1 between job seekers to jobs, this don't include people who are not underemployed but looking to change jobs. The fact is IF one of the underemployed or unemployed workers were to get the job, there's still four job seekers without the job even if they have a job they are underemployed in. That said, I think it may end up going to the fully employed person jumping ship in all likelihood.
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.
) reacting very negatively to what I say sometimes, but I'd rather stay consistent than have the comfort of being agreed with.
