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.
That's your problem. Independent. Losers.
Nice you can swing whichever way you wish, my state only has 2 parties, it's what we have for "choices", and, like I said, independents are losers, I can name at least one, which is a thorn in the democrat's arse.
Fiscally conservative means you're republican to me. Doesn't matter though, you'd have the other option of not voting at all in New mexico.
The only people conservatives are selfish to are people who do not think like they do, which to me = republican.
Sounds to me like you're too concerned with pinning everyone down to a party label... It's time to give your FULL respect to "issue voters" in this country and thumb your nose and hard-core, goose-stepping, party-line voters...
Pelosi has said several times she believes there's about $500 billion in waste in these programs. Yet Congress does little to nothing to reign that waste in. That's a lot of money no matter how you look at it.
But I will say she's never gone into details. I've only heard her say that when asked how other programs will get funded and that's her reply.
I'm no fan of Pelosi and you're right, she has not given details. The waste, fraud and abuse does not usally come from the recipient side. There are numerous docs who defraud Medicare/Medicaid; it's not the patients "overusing" they system, to give just one example.
Generally speaking "conservatives" dont give to food banks and homeless shelters.
When times are tough for these "conservatives" and it would impact their tax situation negatively they dont give at all.
I'd rather they didnt give at all, yes indeed, because their hearts arent there.
Why don't you tell that to the people in need who would die because of the lack of funds to charities instead of to me?
You really would rather less money go to charities just because someone's heart isn't in it? I personally care more about seeing my community improve and get the supplies/care they need. I don't care why they get the money, I am just grateful that it is given.
Your attitude is willingly causing people in need to suffer just so you can hold up your superiority complex over conservatives.
All the "conservatives" who still cling to your cherished belief in "welfare queens" the way medieval peasants used to believe in fairies and imps, look at this.
Over a period of about five years, Reagan told the story of the "Chicago welfare queen" who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for "four nonexisting deceased husbands," bilking the government out of "over $150,000." The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually convicted for using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to use his version of the story even after the press pointed out the actual facts of the case to him.
Why not print more of the actual facts. The following comes from the Wikipedia article to which you linked;
Quote:
In addition, the Associated Press reported on March 8, 1977[9] that "Joel Edelman, executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid, has said his committee found that from early 1973 until mid-1974, [the woman] 'used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps.' Edelman said, 'She went from district to district. She had a collection of wigs and was a master of disguise. She organized people and upwards of 100 aliases were used.'"
I know that's still not 80 names, but let's not suggest that this woman was unfairly characterized, shall we? Just because she wasn't CONVICTED doesn't mean she didn't do it. OJ never got convicted of murder either.
Generally speaking "conservatives" dont give to food banks and homeless shelters.
When times are tough for these "conservatives" and it would impact their tax situation negatively they dont give at all.
I'd rather they didnt give at all, yes indeed, because their hearts arent there. And it's thanks to "conservatives" that there are hungry kids on the street in the first place.
Actually delusianne I and several of my peers have given up on giving actually money to any of these organizations. Instead myself and several friends show up with tangible donations. Ones that cannot go into anyone's pocket as "administrative/advertising" cost.
Food pantry - cases of canned goods
Humane Society - cases/bags of dog food
Local grass roots events - we have Coats for Kids every winter and it directly goes to local families who get coats for their kids every winter. Done by a local cleaners and backed by local business.
This is good donation IMHO. I've learned that sending a check doesn't equate to really helping people as I'm turned off from all these organizations that spend a good chunk on advertising and events that are unnecessary.
I looked long and hard to donate for the Haiti relief and finally found an organization that had little overhead and a good rep from what I researched. C.A.R.E. got my money.
I think the media has distorted individual's understanding of "conservatives", "liberals", etc. by focusing on the fringe extremists on either side of any political issue. As a result, people become so polarized with "all or nothing thinking" regarding other's values. As previous posters noted, "conservatives" or "republicians" routinely give more to charity than "liberals" or "democrats" but, often those contributions are to religious organizations for which many "liberals" may be uncomfortable giving. Still, I think most people, regardless of their political views are willing to help (either with money or time) those in need. Simply because someone does not support government programs or entitlements does not equate to being selfish. Some folks distrust government, some distrust religous or non-profit organizations--that doesn't mean they are selfish, only that they choose to offer their support by some other means. I personally tend toward being socially liberal in my beliefs and fiscally conservative. I support entitlement programs with limits but recognize the current system is broken. That said, I understand why people would rather donate time or money to their church or other private organization to help those less fortunate, even though I'm not religous myself. The bottom line is, we need to stop being so judgmental of people whose political and religous views differ from our own. Just because we don't always agree, doesn't mean they are selfish, "hater's", or whatever. In times of crisis there are plenty of people from all sides willing to pitch in and help those in need. We need to start focusing more on what we have in common than areas in which we differ. I only wish Congress would get on board!
Well the media distorts ANYTHING to make a buck and nothing makes more bucks than the current partisan left vs right stuff which is the bulk of cable news programming these days.
However, it is actually more than just media distortion, the political parties core beliefs have also changed. The values, principles, and concepts the comprised the political philosophies of Conservatism and Liberalism aren't exactly what they are today. This past election was a good example, when the two most traditional political views of Conservatism and Liberalism were treated like Lyme disease. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, both hold very classical political views, but were held in such disdain as to be seen as completely irrelevant and I find this a damn shame. They both have something worthy to contribute to the political debate.
At the same time political parties have morphed, so too the countries attitudes have as well. The rise of the "ME" generation, gross consumption, and American exceptionalism that promotes and holds above all the idea that he who dies with the most toys wins. Sadly, this has eroded Americans sense of civility, and civic mindedness in which people of either side of the political aisle were willing to reach out and help their fellow countrymen.
With the rise of the internet age, the promulgation of the "its all about me" escalates and speeds up as we become more individually isolated while at the same time we become more 'connected' to the rest of the world. We are fast losing the sense of community and I find it rather sad.
I'm sure some view my efforts to that of beating a dead horse but I think that it is important that we keep language and definition accurate, especially in the political realm. It is also the reason you will not see me use terms like Libertards, Repukes, etc... because we then not only resort to absolutist positions, we begin to view them in terms of good and evil. I don't see Liberals or Conservatives, Democrat or Republican as good or evil, but as political philosophies which I may agree or disagree with. The importance in this is that we can't expect to instill a sense of community, fellowship or national dialog when we view things in such simplistic terms as good and evil. (even if it does sell a lot of papers and gets better ratings for media outlets)
i don't really believe a true conservative, is basing the movement on selfishness...
when you get comments like you're refering to, "take care of themselves" or I don't want my money to take care of anyone else", those comments stem from seeing people abusing the welfare system...which basically allows people capable of taking care of themselves, not to do so, b/c they in essence don't have to.
the idea is, to truly help people in need, that don't have the capability to help themselves. i think both liberals and conservatives can agree there. how we help those people is where the arguements stem from...
One of the tenants of the conservative movement seems to be lowering government spending through the limitation of social welfare programs. Understanding that there is often waste and abuse in these programs but also acknowledging that these programs (which run the gamut from Headstart to AFDC to food stamps) have children as a major or even primary beneficiary, is it selfish to want to eliminate these programs as is often espoused on here?
An offshoot to the frequently written argument on CD that people need to "take care of themselves" seems to be "I don't want my money to take care of anyone else." Isn't this selfish? Would this be a better country if we had a more community oriented approach and all took care of each other?
The responses to your post from the conservative perspective have demonstrated the truth of this proposition.
Why not print more of the actual facts. The following comes from the Wikipedia article to which you linked;
I know that's still not 80 names, but let's not suggest that this woman was unfairly characterized, shall we? Just because she wasn't CONVICTED doesn't mean she didn't do it. OJ never got convicted of murder either.
But see, Bill, that's the problem. One woman. You're citing one report from one place, talking about one woman -- one, unique case.
BUT, you people THRIVE on the fantasy that most of your tax dollars go to thousands if not millions of these women, who dont exist.
I think whatever base instincts you all have that predispose you to believing in this fairy tale are encouraged by your right wing media. And your man Reagan lied. Yes he did, he lied, lied, lied like a rug.
He also said "Well, heh, ketchup is a vegetable." Bet you all loved that too, right?
Social programs (welfare, foodstamps, housing, medical) are supposed to be a safety net to help people temporarily until they get on their feet or back on their feet.
When it becomes a lifestyle and the demands from those programs become greater than just food, clothing, shelter, healthcare (cellphones for example) then the programs have gone amuck.
There's also many restrictions within those programs to keep those people living like that as the minute they earn a bit more than the limit but really not enough to make it on their own they are thrown off the programs.
The programs need to get back to their roots...a temporary helping hand, not a lifelong way of life you hand to your children.
I don't think you'll find too many people to disagree with you but it's pretty hard to lift your family out of poverty if you have a minimum wage job.
That's why many liberals are for a living wage.
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.
