A progressive, yet inexpensive place to live don't go together - do they? (friendly, state)

[modhatter]

To me both words carry the same meaning (liberal/progressive) I think politically speaking, it usually refers to the same thing. Literally, it could have different meanings. Yes, I consider myself liberal in all social issues. However, I am also extremely concerned with the US deficit, which I think is both a Republican and Democrat concern. How we solve the deficit is of some contention.

I support more government regulation as opposed to less in areas of health, banking and wall street, safety, pollution and environmental health issues and trade policies to name a few.

I am for separation of church and state, which has largely been ignored. On the other hand, I am also aware of government waste which is an inherent problem with any organization of it's size. Do I think the private sector can do it better. Perhaps, in some select cases, if there were no "self policing" which seems to be inherent with private companies.

I think one of the major problems with government agencies is that they are seldom any severe consequences at higher levels for unethical or plain "poor performance". This would not cut the mustard in private industry where there was a financial bottom line. (which creates it's own separate inherent problems) In private industry, if you do a lousy job, your out. In government, not so much so. It is difficult to fire government workers. This does little to improve performance. (Not to suggest there are not some terrific government workers)

So the long and the short of it is. I think we all have the same goals in what we would like to see for our country. We just have different views on how to get there. I think there is a very valid place for government in our lives. I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the baby water.

I think we can instead enact strong clean up measures to address all the problems. Get rid of tenure, prohibit any hiring practices that involve any crossover either from the government or the industry they are monitoring.

Any government agency or individual caught not acting in the best interest of the citizens and colluding with other agencies should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This should extend of course to politicians and executives in for profit corporations. Not so now. Not much incentive to do the right and legal thing these days. Goldman seems to be untouchable by anyone.

Then I'd like to limit our campaign times to no more than 30 days (instead of two years)(Brittan has two weeks) in which time we will have access to a serious of debates and random call in questions before election time.

A fixed amount of campaign funds allotted to each candidate collected every year at tax time from all citizens based on their income to go into a single pot and divided evenly for future candidates. (much less money spent)

The Fair Act reinstated in any news stations, providing equal time for each side. I'm beginning to sound like I'm running for office now. I think the system we have right now is badly broken, but I don't believe we should throw it out. I think we need to fix all the areas that make it inefficient and corrupt. It's called problem solving. I don't blame government. I blame what government has become, and I believe it is fixable.

The BIG difference between the two parties, I believe is that the Republican party really represents the interest of the big corporations and the wealthy, and it is their job to make sure we (those interested in making these changes) are not able to accomplish our goals. I think Conservatives still believe Capitalism still exists and I (along with many historians and economists) don't. I don't believe "trickle down" economics works in today's times, and I believe we are now living in an Oligarchy society. I don't expect too many Conservatives to agree with my analogy, and there lies the difference.

I see things much more to the Left, but do understand some concerns on the Right as well. So as far as labels go, and understanding that nothing or no one is ever 100% anything, I think it is safe to say, I am a Left leaning Progressive/Liberal.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by modhatter

...I support more government regulation as opposed to less in areas of health, banking and wall street, safety, pollution and environmental health issues and trade policies to name a few.

I am for separation of church and state, which has largely been ignored. On the other hand, I am also aware of government waste which is an inherent problem with any organization of it's size. Do I think the private sector can do it better. Perhaps, in some select cases, if there were no "self policing" which seems to be inherent with private companies. ...

OK, with the exception of (possibly) passive separation of church and state - an activist, heavy regulating government means relatively a lot of government employees, who get paid from taxes.

If you only favor private sector rather than government provision of services in "select cases", any area that features this, I dare say won't have a thriving business community. That means fewer jobs, smaller and fewer businesses in the tax base, and little incentive for new businesses to move into the area.

I'm not judging what you want, you want what you want - but what you want is not likely to be found on the cheap. You can't support a California like state government on Mississippi levels of taxation. Apparently, you can't even support a California like state government on California levels of taxation, but that's a different topic.

[newenglandgirl]

Originally Posted by modhatter

To me both words carry the same meaning (liberal/progressive) I think politically speaking, it usually refers to the same thing.

I see those two words differently than others do.

To me "liberal" is tolerant of all kinds of people, perhaps not too judgemental, open and accepting of new and different ideas, creative. "Liberal parenting" can be seen to be either a good or not so good thing, but it definitely doesn't mean strict.

"Progressive" is a relative term to me. A Republican could conceivably be progressive if s/he endorsed renewable energy sources, new and more effective methods of agriculture that preserve the soils and environment, someone who envisions effective, well-designed communities that integrate all levels of life including seniors. Someone who uses innovation in problem solving, someone who's not status quo or good old boy, someone who truly cares about the quality of life on the planet. This kind of person could be pro or anti abortion, or pro or anti tax breaks for the rich, so terms can get complicated.So far the only folks I've met in this category are Dems, but I suppose there's an elephant or two out there who subscribes to progressive ideas.

[modhatter]

Actually Newengland girl, I do agree with you. I tend to lump both terms together, and I guess they can have different meanings. After your initial post, and mine, I looked up on Google "Differences between Liberal and Progressive". What it said, in a very general sense was Liberals tend to be more willing to "throw money at a problem" to make it better, and Progressives tend to look for ways to make it cheaper and more affordable. (Very over simplified definition, I think)

So taken that interpretation, I would say I definitely fall more into the Progressive category. Being a business owner for most of my life, I look at problems, as something that needs to be solved and how can I do it. On the other hand, I am not opposed to subsidizing poor people in need either, as long as it does not become a way of life (unless physically or mentally disabled). I would be more supportive of welfare for a shorter period of time, and paying instead day care centers, to enable a parent to work. I believe wholeheartedly in social security and medicare. But would be open to it being means tested if necessary.

My feelings of live and let live would have to be considered Liberal when it comes to social issues. Gays, marriage, abortion (with some reservations on abortion)

M3 Mitch. I don't disagree that government intervention cost money. It does take money to monitor private industry and regulations can cost industry - who then pass it on to the consumer. I just think that you have to weight the alternatives. I happen to think that it can be money well spent when it comes to things like pollution, health, child safety, food safety, the disabled etc. There are some things I guess I consider priceless. And if we have to raise taxes to provide for these important safe guards, (in the words of beloved speaker of the house) "So Be It".

But I look at the the US expenditures like a priority shopping list. There are things at the top of that list that I don't think we should have to live without, and then there is item #2, 3, 4, etc etc. Somewhere down the list we have to start saying "This we will have to live without" because we don't have enough money to buy everything we want.

You mention California. I could spend a day telling you where California needs to cut their spending. California has become a welfare state on many different levels. But that's another thread. A beautiful state with fantastic weather with many fine progressive ideas, but way too many social programs it can not sustain.

[pict]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

I re-read Wilson's words which you quoted three times looking for the bigotry and verbal violence you find there and could not find them. What I found was his asking for more clarification of the OP's meaning. Does pointing out that people who vote Republican can be decent people constitute bigotry and verbal violence for you? (FWIW I am not a Republican). I think your words say more about yourself than they say about poster Wilson, because they reflect your extreme intolerance of views different from your own, an intolerance which I find chilling because it masquerades as its opposite. Orwellian double-speak is now the norm in our brave new world, I suppose. Heaven help us (a turn of phrase only, as I am not an adherent of any organized religion).

The original poster was quite clear about what she was looking for. And it had NOTHING to do with ANY of what Wilson suggested were progressive traits. Wilson was obviously not looking for clarification. He was attempting to belittle both the poster and "progressives" in general. Wilson betrayed his bigotry by redefining a progressive place as someplace where the government is dominant, that is pro-abortion, that encourages open homosexuality, where the neighbors drive electric cars, listen to Ipods, and jog in expensive workout wear. He further suggested that the poster was merely looking for a place where she could be on the winning side. Pointing out that such accusations are bigoted and verbally violent is NOT double-speak. Nor is professing intolerance of intolerance double-speak. And OBVIOUSLY I was not criticizing him for suggesting that republicans can be decent people. So you are way out of line to suggest that that is what I was doing. (FWIW I am not a democrat.) It is not republicans that I take exception to. It is ignorance and bigotry that I lack tolerance for, and I make no attempt at all to pretend my intolerance for such behavior is anything other than what it is. So your claim that I am masquerading is, again, way out of line and brings into question which of us is really guilty of the Orwellian double-speak which you so ironically pray to heaven to save us from.
I was drawn to this topic by the hope of getting information about potential places to retire. I found Wilson's attack of the OP to be very distasteful and NOT in the spirit of what the thread was supposed to be about - and I can say the same about your post to me. And attacking the attacker does NOT make me guilty of double-speak. Choosing to not fight at all is worth considering. But once having decided to fight back... well... bring it.

[pict]

IN my experience, the more "progressive" places to live do tend to be more expensive. We could debate the reasons why. Perhaps college towns tend to be both more progressive and more expensive. I live in Charlottesvile, VA - one of the progressive islands in Virginia - and also one of the more expensive places to live in VA (though not as expensive as a number of the other places mentioned so far in this thread). Still, I am hoping to find someplace cheaper. And I think that living in a progressive community may be less important to me than it once was. But I am perhaps better than some at just ignoring, or withdrawing from people/situations I find distasteful (not that I don't sometimes choose to fight the good fight). And it is true that there are good people everywhere. And the allure of living around lots of college students has lost A LOT of its appeal. Certainly, though, I would not want to live someplace where it would be wise to keep my opinions to myself. And (at the risk of being accused of either double-speak or merely wanting to be on the "winning side") it would be nice to live someplace where there was at least a reasonable chance that my elected representative might actually make some effort to represent my viewpoints. As far as Oregon being a progressive place - that is basically only true for Portland, Eugene, and Ashland. Other parts of the state are largely right-leaning (though again, there are good people everywhere and I will be exploring options in Klamath Falls, Coos Bay, Astoria, and other coastal locations - Bend is gorgeous but expensive and snowy). If money was no object, then I would go to Mendocino, CA. I may end up staying in C'ville. But I will look elsewhere, including NW Arkansas and N Ala (thanks for the suggestions).

[ConeyIsBabe]

Originally Posted by pict

IN my experience, the more "progressive" places to live do tend to be more expensive. We could debate the reasons why. Perhaps college towns tend to be both more progressive and more expensive. I live in Charlottesvile, VA - one of the progressive islands in Virginia - and also one of the more expensive places to live in VA (though not as expensive as a number of the other places mentioned so far in this thread). Still, I am hoping to find someplace cheaper. And I think that living in a progressive community may be less important to me than it once was. But I am perhaps better than some at just ignoring, or withdrawing from people/situations I find distasteful (not that I don't sometimes choose to fight the good fight). And it is true that there are good people everywhere. And the allure of living around lots of college students has lost A LOT of its appeal. Certainly, though, I would not want to live someplace where it would be wise to keep my opinions to myself. And (at the risk of being accused of either double-speak or merely wanting to be on the "winning side") it would be nice to live someplace where there was at least a reasonable chance that my elected representative might actually make some effort to represent my viewpoints. As far as Oregon being a progressive place - that is basically only true for Portland, Eugene, and Ashland. Other parts of the state are largely right-leaning (though again, there are good people everywhere and I will be exploring options in Klamath Falls, Coos Bay, Astoria, and other coastal locations - Bend is gorgeous but expensive and snowy). If money was no object, then I would go to Mendocino, CA. I may end up staying in C'ville. But I will look elsewhere, including NW Arkansas and N Ala (thanks for the suggestions).

While driving up the coast about 20 years ago, I stopped in Mendocino for lunch and to walk around ~ and I remember it to be exceptional beautiful. Can you elaborate why you would go there (if money was no object) ?? What's it like there today???

I'm of the opinion that one can always find more "affordable" dwellings even in upscale (and progressive/liberal) areas ~~ and that is my goal for relocation ~ similar to the OP !!

[mysticaltyger]

An unfortunate by product of being progressive is that they like government policies that drive up the cost of living (eg zoning restrictions that limit housing supply & drive up rents/home prices, taxes to support various social programs, etc). You can't have it both ways.

[newenglandgirl]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

An unfortunate by product of being progressive is that they like government policies that drive up the cost of living (eg zoning restrictions that limit housing supply & drive up rents/home prices, taxes to support various social programs, etc). You can't have it both ways.

I think you mean "liberal"

[modhatter]

Just curious mysticaltyger. What kind of social programs do you think a progressive town might have in comparison to a not so upscale progressive town. This is one i can't figure out. The only cost factors that comes to mind for more progressive towns is more sidewalks and perhaps bike paths. (besides the natural beauty) There would be more architectural control over business and shopping centers, but that cost is usually born by the business owner. (Example: McDonalds may be required to be architecturally in tune with overall theme of the town.) I find there are parks in both poor and upscale areas. Farmers markets bring revenue to a city. Libraries might be larger and have a larger selection of available books and media. I don't know as there would be better public transportation. In some bigger cities yes. There might be a play house or theater or cultural center. It would probably have a healthy supply (in normal times) of high paying jobs, or it could just be a very beautiful place with a heavy artsy population (Example: Santa Fe, New Mexico or Key West, Fl or Big Sur) Then as real estate values escalate, real estate taxes also rise, and the city then has more revenue to spend on those niceties.

In other words, it would have to offer something special to make it desirable and therefore attract people to it. And supply and demand would be the factor that would drive prices up for the most part, and secondly government policies would follow.

Why are these places usually progressive must have a correlation to wealth. I am not suggesting poor people or middle class people can not be progressive, nor am I suggesting that all wealthy people are progressive. I am just saying it is more likely.

And as pict pointed out in one of his/her responses. It is not that I seek to live in an area with only Progressive Democrates or void of Conservatives. I just don't want to live in an area where I will be chastised for my views. Being in a Progressive town gives me more freedom to voice my own opinions freely without worry of being ostracized or not accepted. A progressive personality generally does not try and force their views down your throat. They are accepting of you, and value you based on the person you really are, not your political, sexual or religious views. Some Conservative can and do hold these same beliefs, and I can get along splendidly with them. It's just the bigoted, self righteous, judgmental people I would prefer to not live amongst. As a case in point. It is rare for someone like me to voice my liberal views without someone attacking in some way or another (subtle as it may be) on an open forum. However, I must admit that this thread has earned at least a B+ for it's non judgmental contributions and suggestions from people from most likely both sides of the isle, and I am appreciative of that.

Labels and stereotypes can be very muddy water, as no one size fits all and holding to a particular view on a subject does not define a whole person. But sometimes for brevity sake, we talk in generalities.