Is Liberalism Genetic?

[smh23]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it. I think the less intelligent should at least take into consideration what their smarter countrymen say and think with regard to public policy. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives. Whenever an economist is talking I listen, because whatever his politics, he is far more qualified to speak on the topic than am I.

It isn’t rich vs. poor or white vs. blue collar. In the end it is all about understanding the issues and having the intellectual and perceptive acumen requisite to fix them. If we all forgot knee-jerk politics for a minute and committed to understanding the complexities and REALITIES (for the distortion of reality is one of the primary weapons of the politician) of the problems facing us today, our world would be far better.[/quote]

The problem is, we’re not fixing problems. Our politicians fight about how much we’re going to spend on the band aid instead of working on the cure.

We’re an “advanced civilization” in the mightiest nation of the world and we still have:

A health care problem;
Homelessness;
Hunger; and
A justice system that creates career criminals;

to just name a few of our ills…
[/quote]

I’m in complete agreement.

We throw money around as if it is worthless to us. A huge amount of that money is being dutifully tossed into the infinitely hungry furnace that is our defense budget. We outspend our competitors by ridiculous and unnecessarily large margins (not that we have any true competitors on the field of hard military power anyway) while having wasted literally trillions of dollars on two ambiguously-justified quagmires thousands of miles away.

How we will be able to justify to our grandchildren the fact that we spent billions on shiny new fighter jets while our schools collapsed and our children failed to learn mathematics is beyond me. How we will justify spending time talking about cutting programs for home heating oil for the poor while we have a costly standing army stationed all around the world including in fucking Europe is beyond me.

If an intelligent extraterrestrial came to observe Earth he would stand here scratching his head in disbelief wondering how the fuck we came to accept such an illogical status quo in “the greatest country on the planet”.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Simple, those with “higher” education believe they can rely on their reason alone. However, the po’ po’ free peasants of the Red States know better. We know that’s impossible to rely on reason alone because we know the weakness of our reasoning faculties, so we rely on tradition.

We’ll take the word of 10,000 free men then the word of one lunatic with a degree.[/quote]

I think we should trust the experts as much as we can. I trust engineers to design and build the bridges that I drive on every day. I trust my doctors to figure out what ails me and fix it. I think the less intelligent should at least take into consideration what their smarter countrymen say and think with regard to public policy. This goes for liberals as well as conservatives. Whenever an economist is talking I listen, because whatever his politics, he is far more qualified to speak on the topic than am I.

It isn’t rich vs. poor or white vs. blue collar. In the end it is all about understanding the issues and having the intellectual and perceptive acumen requisite to fix them. If we all forgot knee-jerk politics for a minute and committed to understanding the complexities and REALITIES (for the distortion of reality is one of the primary weapons of the politician) of the problems facing us today, our world would be far better.[/quote]

The problem is, we’re not fixing problems. Our politicians fight about how much we’re going to spend on the band aid instead of working on the cure.

We’re an “advanced civilization” in the mightiest nation of the world and we still have:

A health care problem;
Homelessness;
Hunger; and
A justice system that creates career criminals;

to just name a few of our ills…
[/quote]

I’m in complete agreement.

We throw money around as if it is worthless to us. A huge amount of that money is being dutifully tossed into the infinitely hungry furnace that is our defense budget. We outspend our competitors by ridiculous and unnecessarily large margins (not that we have any true competitors on the field of hard military power anyway) while having wasted literally trillions of dollars on two ambiguously-justified quagmires thousands of miles away.

How we will be able to justify to our grandchildren the fact that we spent billions on shiny new fighter jets while our schools collapsed and our children failed to learn mathematics is beyond me. How we will justify spending time talking about cutting programs for home heating oil for the poor while we have a costly standing army stationed all around the world including in fucking Europe is beyond me.

If an intelligent extraterrestrial came to observe Earth he would stand here scratching his head in disbelief wondering how the fuck we came to accept such an illogical status quo in “the greatest country on the planet”. [/quote]

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet.

[MaximusB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math.

[Cortes]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If they find a religious gene I’m getting a t-shirt that says “I’m not religious, but my Priest is.” Then I’m going to lead a campaign on campus against religious-phobes ( self-hating closeted religious people, really). If everyone’s getting a predisposition/orientation, I want mine, too.[/quote]

Finest poster? You are telling me that a bigot is the best we got? Really? I didn’t look him up, maybe he makes Samuel Silvio look like Mary Poppins but a bigot is a bigot. Atheists are “closeted religious” people? How does that even make sense?
[/quote]

So, when it finally hits you that you simply didn’t get the joke, and that, indeed, the meaning of the post went sailing over your head, will Sloth still be a bigot? And what will it make you?
[/quote]

I’m wondering if he will ever get it at this point.[/quote]

So is this about his not getting an inside reference to PWI? Are we a bunch of school children here?[/quote]

Speak for yourself.

Sarcasm and a basic command of the English language isn’t exactly Advanced Calculus level stuff. Or did you not get it, either?
[/quote]

I know I speak for myself, but thanks for reminding me.

And we all know you’re just trying to bait me once again. That’s common commerce here in PWI apparently. So, let me rephrase - the personal attacks hearken back to a time in the 4th grade playground.

As for calculus and such, I do not know the poster in question, and frankly found the post unintelligible at first glance and since I did not actually read the OP reference, I may very well indeed have “missed something”. Now let’s see if you can use that admission in a clever attempt to attack me or imply you’re smarter than me or something - because apparently, that’s what the “new T-man” does on the internet. [/quote]

Boo.

Freakin.

Hoo.

I never knew bodyguards were such whiners.

Personal attacks? On PWI? Oh the humanity!

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If they find a religious gene I’m getting a t-shirt that says “I’m not religious, but my Priest is.” Then I’m going to lead a campaign on campus against religious-phobes ( self-hating closeted religious people, really). If everyone’s getting a predisposition/orientation, I want mine, too.[/quote]

Finest poster? You are telling me that a bigot is the best we got? Really? I didn’t look him up, maybe he makes Samuel Silvio look like Mary Poppins but a bigot is a bigot. Atheists are “closeted religious” people? How does that even make sense?
[/quote]

So, when it finally hits you that you simply didn’t get the joke, and that, indeed, the meaning of the post went sailing over your head, will Sloth still be a bigot? And what will it make you?
[/quote]

I’m wondering if he will ever get it at this point.[/quote]

So is this about his not getting an inside reference to PWI? Are we a bunch of school children here?[/quote]

Speak for yourself.

Sarcasm and a basic command of the English language isn’t exactly Advanced Calculus level stuff. Or did you not get it, either?
[/quote]

I know I speak for myself, but thanks for reminding me.

And we all know you’re just trying to bait me once again. That’s common commerce here in PWI apparently. So, let me rephrase - the personal attacks hearken back to a time in the 4th grade playground.

As for calculus and such, I do not know the poster in question, and frankly found the post unintelligible at first glance and since I did not actually read the OP reference, I may very well indeed have “missed something”. Now let’s see if you can use that admission in a clever attempt to attack me or imply you’re smarter than me or something - because apparently, that’s what the “new T-man” does on the internet. [/quote]

Boo.

Freakin.

Hoo.

I never knew bodyguards were such whiners.

Personal attacks? On PWI? Oh the humanity![/quote]

LMFAO. A couple of salient points here. When I saw your name last in this thread (and the other), I KNEW you were yet again “stalking” me and not replying to the topic. I also knew it would not contain a reply on point, but only another personal attack. Once again, in case you haven’t noticed, a few people are actually having a discussion and here you are again, maligning me. Is this a weird stalking thing?

Wasn’t our “introduction” to one another your unsolicited defense of Pat in another thread where I simply typed the words “stop” because I did not agree with his position? And because I disagreed with Pat, didn’t you make the preposterous assertion that I was “stalking” him even though my reply to his post was the first reply of mine in PWI in a very very long time?

I’m not whining. I’m merely responding to your personal attacks on the internet

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

I’m not defending what you refer to as “liberals” with the following question to you. I think I’ve quite clearly expressed that I do not agree with throwing money at problems as opposed to spending the money on fixing them.

Do you find that your political leanings are in any way antithetical or inconsistent with your religious beliefs? If I understand correctly, the theological interpretation for Christian charity is not the same as the common use of the term. But unarguably, the Church is in the business of collecting donations (benevolent giving - the common use definition of charity) and distributing them to those in need. The Church itself makes no such distinction that we attempt to make when discussing needs in the political sense. You give because people need. And hence my question to you.

[smh23]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

Firstly, I did not in earnest mean to defend the claim that liberals are generally more educated–I just meant it as a shot back at the equally (actually, far far more) ridiculous claim that liberalism is a mental disorder.

But since you decided to go after it: the blanket statement “the more educated tend to be more liberal” is not really controversial–it has for about a decade now been supported by study after study, including the one from 2008 that I cited above. Now, the relationship between correlation and causality is usually not direct or simple or unambiguous. While not completely devoid of meaning, studies such as these can help us to paint a rough sketch of our political landscape rather than a clear, perfectly realistic panoramic photograph. So, I wouldn’t suggest that from the data one could confidently make the claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives. However, the claim that “studies have shown education to correlate positively with likeliness to vote liberal,” stands.

And your response: an anecdote about Pelosi? An anecdote about a stupid thing a liberal said once? Fucking really?

Your single anecdote does absolutely nothing up against my large-scale study. Nothing. And if it did: I wonder how many similar anecdotes about conservatives I could type out? Hundreds? Thousands? Your 2008 vice presidential candidate alone would provide me with enough material for the next couple of hours.

There are stupid people in each party. And smart people.

[smh23]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Exactly. And he’d be further puzzled by this: as individuals we tend to treat each other with compassion or at the very least cordiality. If I have a dispute with my neighbor I am expected to talk it out or seek the help of an unbiased third party–chasing him around with a shovel is generally frowned upon. At the personal level we aren’t so bad after all (mostly).

And at the national level? If I am a sovereign state and so is he? Fuck, if I like my neighbor’s blueberry bushes I’ll hop right over his fence and take them the goddamn things. If he tries to stop me I’ll stab him in the fucking dick. If I feel like it I’ll make up some bullshit story about him keeping weapons in his house and then start dropping fire from the sky right over his fucking kids’ rooms.

Any sane observer would be puzzled at the fact that we as Americans are expected to (and usually do) treat our neighbors with respect or, at the very worst, cordial indifference. Meanwhile we allow our governments to act like petulant children, spitting in each others faces and brushing out the toilet bowl with each others toothbrushes on the sly.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And he’s probably scratch his head at all those imaginary boundaries on a map. Humanity is the whole. American, Canadian, South American, African, European, et als. are meaningless labels. We are all related in some fashion and we’re all inhabiting the same planet. [/quote]

Exactly. And he’d be further puzzled by this: as individuals we tend to treat each other with compassion or at the very least cordiality. If I have a dispute with my neighbor I am expected to talk it out or seek the help of an unbiased third party–chasing him around with a shovel is generally frowned upon. At the personal level we aren’t so bad after all (mostly).

And at the national level? If I am a sovereign state and so is he? Fuck, if I like my neighbor’s blueberry bushes I’ll hop right over his fence and take them the goddamn things. If he tries to stop me I’ll stab him in the fucking dick. If I feel like it I’ll make up some bullshit story about him keeping weapons in his house and then start dropping fire from the sky right over his fucking kids’ rooms.

Any sane observer would be puzzled at the fact that we as Americans are expected to (and usually do) treat our neighbors with respect or, at the very worst, cordial indifference. Meanwhile we allow our governments to act like petulant children, spitting in each others faces and brushing out the toilet bowl with each others toothbrushes on the sly.[/quote]

LOL an interesting perspective. We both know that foreign policy is a bit more complicated, especially because man is want to do evil upon his fellow man, but it certainly not need be that complicated. Mankind is curious indeed and your point about the continuum from personal interaction and interaction among larger numbers is indeed profound.

[MaximusB]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

I’m not defending what you refer to as “liberals” with the following question to you. I think I’ve quite clearly expressed that I do not agree with throwing money at problems as opposed to spending the money on fixing them.

Do you find that your political leanings are in any way antithetical or inconsistent with your religious beliefs? If I understand correctly, the theological interpretation for Christian charity is not the same as the common use of the term. But unarguably, the Church is in the business of collecting donations (benevolent giving - the common use definition of charity) and distributing them to those in need. The Church itself makes no such distinction that we attempt to make when discussing needs in the political sense. You give because people need. And hence my question to you. [/quote]

I don’t impose my religious beliefs with my political leanings. There are many examples of religious people who are beyond fucked up, and also examples of atheists who are very nice people. At the end of the day, people will do what they want, and whether it’s good or bad, I will not assume that they attribute their actions to a higher being, or the dirt on the side of the road.

My political positions are more on the fiscal issues, socially I don’t care who you marry, who you fuck, or whether you’re gay in the military or not. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s place to determine who you can or cannot be with. I just believe in being responsible with money (yes I would GTFO out of Iraq and Afghanistan if I were POTUS.)

[MaximusB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

Firstly, I did not in earnest mean to defend the claim that liberals are generally more educated–I just meant it as a shot back at the equally (actually, far far more) ridiculous claim that liberalism is a mental disorder.

But since you decided to go after it: the blanket statement “the more educated tend to be more liberal” is not really controversial–it has for about a decade now been supported by study after study, including the one from 2008 that I cited above. Now, the relationship between correlation and causality is usually not direct or simple or unambiguous. While not completely devoid of meaning, studies such as these can help us to paint a rough sketch of our political landscape rather than a clear, perfectly realistic panoramic photograph. So, I wouldn’t suggest that from the data one could confidently make the claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives. However, the claim that “studies have shown education to correlate positively with likeliness to vote liberal,” stands.

And your response: an anecdote about Pelosi? An anecdote about a stupid thing a liberal said once? Fucking really?

Your single anecdote does absolutely nothing up against my large-scale study. Nothing. And if it did: I wonder how many similar anecdotes about conservatives I could type out? Hundreds? Thousands? Your 2008 vice presidential candidate alone would provide me with enough material for the next couple of hours.

There are stupid people in each party. And smart people.[/quote]

Your last statement undermines your entire purpose to this thread, and the graph you posted.

If you want a HUGE study, look at California. The more Democratic areas that are also highly educated (look at the Bay area with Stanford/Berkeley), you will find some of the worst spending policies in the state as well as the entire country. You have “smart people” who have invoked statewide Global Warming laws (when the data is mediocre at best), trying to pass statewide universal health care, with no regard for the cost.

You have Dems who have controlled Cali for the past 30 years even with Republican Governors (who were really RINOS if there ever were any), have increased government to an unsustainable level.

I have come from a Socialist country, and the thought that it could work here ALWAYS fails. This is why…

In places like Europe, where you have huge taxes, you actually get alot of that in return in the sense of health care, public services, and education (college is very cheap because it is successfully subsidized.) Here in America, we do not have a government honest enough with our money to return or provide those services back to the people.

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

I’m not defending what you refer to as “liberals” with the following question to you. I think I’ve quite clearly expressed that I do not agree with throwing money at problems as opposed to spending the money on fixing them.

Do you find that your political leanings are in any way antithetical or inconsistent with your religious beliefs? If I understand correctly, the theological interpretation for Christian charity is not the same as the common use of the term. But unarguably, the Church is in the business of collecting donations (benevolent giving - the common use definition of charity) and distributing them to those in need. The Church itself makes no such distinction that we attempt to make when discussing needs in the political sense. You give because people need. And hence my question to you. [/quote]

I don’t impose my religious beliefs with my political leanings. There are many examples of religious people who are beyond fucked up, and also examples of atheists who are very nice people. At the end of the day, people will do what they want, and whether it’s good or bad, I will not assume that they attribute their actions to a higher being, or the dirt on the side of the road.

My political positions are more on the fiscal issues, socially I don’t care who you marry, who you fuck, or whether you’re gay in the military or not. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s place to determine who you can or cannot be with. I just believe in being responsible with money (yes I would GTFO out of Iraq and Afghanistan if I were POTUS.)[/quote]

Thanks, but I’m not sure you understood my question. Do your religious beliefs at all guide your political leanings and, if not, why? Let’s start with the basic concept of providing for those in need. In a political structure that is very polarized on “welfare” type of spending, do your religious beliefs at all guide you?

I understand perfectly your finding the way we spend the money repugnant, and I share that view, but often, voting for the guy that would spend less ends up not taking care of those in need. Do you see where I’m coming from? How do you reconcile that with your religious underpinnings?

If it were a choice between “spend spend and spend some more” (allegedly democratic behavior) v. “let’s pour the money into the front-end, and fix the problem” - the choice is clear. But when it’s merely “spend” v. “spend less, but not address the problem” - do you not feel any ethical conflict with your religious beliefs?

I hope I was a bit clearer this time.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?[/quote]

And this is a problem the PEOPLE must fix. I just don’t think it will happen in my life time.

[smh23]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

In places like Europe, where you have huge taxes, you actually get alot of that in return in the sense of health care, public services, and education (college is very cheap because it is successfully subsidized.) Here in America, we do not have a government honest enough with our money to return or provide those services back to the people.

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?[/quote]

You have assumed that I am a liberal, which is partially true. I tend to have progressive values and I tend to vote Democratic (mainly because, since I became of age to vote, all of the republican tickets for the presidency have been painfully and pathetically full of shortcomings that I couldn’t overlook). That said, I am a tad more fiscally conservative than the average liberal.

I too have lived in a socialist country. I wouldn’t want for us to cash in our chips and turn completely toward socialism, but I do think (as you seem to) that we could learn a lot from the Europeans, especially with regard to public goods like health care and transportation. Those things require money and the money comes from taxes. An income tax hike that amounts to a three-percentage-point raise is not socialism in my opinion.

I do agree that if we were to adopt some aspects of European socialism here, we would need to seriously change some basic aspects of our government so as to make it trustworthy enough to handle our money.

[MaximusB]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Statistics also do not explain cause and effect relationships. [/quote]

Yes I know. Some of the most intellectual people I know are fiscal conservatives. I was using the data as a quick “fuck you” to the notion of liberalism as a mental disorder, not as something I think truly meaningful/worthy of a lot of serious consideration.[/quote]

You failed.

There is something about providing something for someone for no cost, versus teaching them to provide for themselves.

When Pelosi said, “For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck.” I nearly fell over.

All Liberals must show they are able to do simple math. [/quote]

I’m not defending what you refer to as “liberals” with the following question to you. I think I’ve quite clearly expressed that I do not agree with throwing money at problems as opposed to spending the money on fixing them.

Do you find that your political leanings are in any way antithetical or inconsistent with your religious beliefs? If I understand correctly, the theological interpretation for Christian charity is not the same as the common use of the term. But unarguably, the Church is in the business of collecting donations (benevolent giving - the common use definition of charity) and distributing them to those in need. The Church itself makes no such distinction that we attempt to make when discussing needs in the political sense. You give because people need. And hence my question to you. [/quote]

I don’t impose my religious beliefs with my political leanings. There are many examples of religious people who are beyond fucked up, and also examples of atheists who are very nice people. At the end of the day, people will do what they want, and whether it’s good or bad, I will not assume that they attribute their actions to a higher being, or the dirt on the side of the road.

My political positions are more on the fiscal issues, socially I don’t care who you marry, who you fuck, or whether you’re gay in the military or not. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s place to determine who you can or cannot be with. I just believe in being responsible with money (yes I would GTFO out of Iraq and Afghanistan if I were POTUS.)[/quote]

Thanks, but I’m not sure you understood my question. Do your religious beliefs at all guide your political leanings and, if not, why? Let’s start with the basic concept of providing for those in need. In a political structure that is very polarized on “welfare” type of spending, do your religious beliefs at all guide you?

I understand perfectly your finding the way we spend the money repugnant, and I share that view, but often, voting for the guy that would spend less ends up not taking care of those in need. Do you see where I’m coming from? How do you reconcile that with your religious underpinnings?

If it were a choice between “spend spend and spend some more” (allegedly democratic behavior) v. “let’s pour the money into the front-end, and fix the problem” - the choice is clear. But when it’s merely “spend” v. “spend less, but not address the problem” - do you not feel any ethical conflict with your religious beliefs?

I hope I was a bit clearer this time. [/quote]

Yes I think we should provide for those who are less fortunate, but also to a point. There also needs to be some kind of emphasis on getting these people off the public dime. Here in California, we are the only state that does not abide by welfare laws (which limit the amount of time someone can be on welfare.) Since these people continually get money, there is no incentive for them to look for a job. Not ironic how California has 35% of the welfare in the country, yet only 12% of the population. Thank you Democruds.

[MaximusB]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

In places like Europe, where you have huge taxes, you actually get alot of that in return in the sense of health care, public services, and education (college is very cheap because it is successfully subsidized.) Here in America, we do not have a government honest enough with our money to return or provide those services back to the people.

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?[/quote]

You have assumed that I am a liberal, which is partially true. I tend to have progressive values and I tend to vote Democratic (mainly because, since I became of age to vote, all of the republican tickets for the presidency have been painfully and pathetically full of shortcomings that I couldn’t overlook). That said, I am a tad more fiscally conservative than the average liberal.

I too have lived in a socialist country. I wouldn’t want for us to cash in our chips and turn completely toward socialism, but I do think (as you seem to) that we could learn a lot from the Europeans, especially with regard to public goods like health care and transportation. Those things require money and the money comes from taxes. An income tax hike that amounts to a three-percentage-point raise is not socialism in my opinion.

I do agree that if we were to adopt some aspects of European socialism here, we would need to seriously change some basic aspects of our government so as to make it trustworthy enough to handle our money. [/quote]

I think what this ultimately comes down to, (and I also this to be a comment on Bodyguard’s post too), is that we as a people do not have a trustworthy government.

This is the root problem, the very foundation of our political system is so fucking corrupt, that we as a people actually have to defend ourselves against our own government.

Corruption fucks over any government system you implement, but with Capitalism, if you are able to keep taxes low, I think the damage can be less noticeable.

The best politicians are the ones who cannot be bought, who do not let their lives revolve around the making of a dollar, but who are willing to make the best common sense decisions in the best interest of the people. I have not seen that in my lifetime, and doubt I ever will.

The thing with Europe is that they do not want to be the global leader in economy, and Socialism certainly isn’t designed to provide that. Their system is designed to let people enjoy a somewhat peaceful life, letting their gov’t provide alot (and they actually do because they are more honest than ours), yet that doesn’t provide the best environment to let someone create wealth for themselves.

People wonder why you see Europeans sipping espressos all day at a caffe, well why not in their system? If you are taxed at 70%, why bother working hard? If you got a raise, the amount you actually took home would be so low, it would not be worth the effort to chase a raise. Their union structure also is very powerful, more so than here I think. They are truly successful at shutting down a country when they go on strike.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Yes I think we should provide for those who are less fortunate, but also to a point. There also needs to be some kind of emphasis on getting these people off the public dime. Here in California, we are the only state that does not abide by welfare laws (which limit the amount of time someone can be on welfare.) Since these people continually get money, there is no incentive for them to look for a job. Not ironic how California has 35% of the welfare in the country, yet only 12% of the population. Thank you Democruds.[/quote]

We agree in principal but is it truly a matter of democrat and republican? I’m not asking this rhetorically either. Is there any ethical merit to arbitrarily limiting when someone has to “get off the dime” if you’re not providing them with the means to do thrive (fixing the problem)? Are the republicans (or any party for that matter) dedicated to “fixing the problem”? Or just spending less and being more “conservative”? If it’s the latter, they are just two sides of the same coin, and they both perpetuate the problem, while placating the masses with slogan-type “solutions”. And who gets fucked? We do - by both parties.

We just don’t fix problems in this country. Let’s look at a simple issue that should resonate with you personally. People break the law, are punished and “pay their debt” - allegedly. Except, financially, in terms of life-long occupational outlook, as a criminal your debt is NOT paid - it’s a debt in perpetuity. This is part of the problem that creates career criminals and adds to the cycle of need. In addition, we know that recidivism is a major problem. Have we addressed it? No. Instead, we are privatizing many prison systems not because they can do it “better” but because they are willing to do it cheaper. We have done virtually nothing to address the problems of our prison system. Nothing. But every second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year - we release those that were institutionalized to live among us - and the only time we give a fuck is when the commit another crime. Where are the teachings of Jesus in this? Don’t we largely align our country’s image with Christianity?

Health care? A fucking joke. There was someone on my FB page today drumming up support for a friend that had cancer but no insurance. This happens ever single day. Is Obama’s plan the answer? I don’t have an opinion on that. But the answer SHOULD BE that no one in this country of vast wealth be without adequate health care. And lest we believe this is an issue affecting only those “on the dime”, it’s actually an issue that affects those that DO work, but their employers do not provide needed coverage. Is this the message of Jesus? Fuck you and die if you’re not employed with health coverage?

I know you think we disagree on religious issues but spiritually speaking, my leanings are not that far from your beliefs. I merely reject the dogma of the Church and I believe I have sound reasons for doing so. However, I do not reject the idea of God or the principals that Jesus taught. Against that shared spiritual background, how do we justify anyone in this world of over-abundance and wealth ever being without shelter, health care or food?

Now, someone might read this in a certain context and conclude, “that fucking liberal socialist democrat”. But would you be surprised that most that know me consider me a republican because I rail against throwing money at problems? LOL

I cannot be defined by a label. I (and everyone else) should not exist in this box of “republican”, “democrat”, “liberal”, “conservative”, etc. I say leave that to the moral atheists among us that would try to figure out how to “equitably” and “justly” (figuring out when to “stop the dime”) help our fellow man, instead of heeding the teachings of our wisest spiritual men and just to render help, and fix the problems.

End rant.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

In places like Europe, where you have huge taxes, you actually get alot of that in return in the sense of health care, public services, and education (college is very cheap because it is successfully subsidized.) Here in America, we do not have a government honest enough with our money to return or provide those services back to the people.

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?[/quote]

You have assumed that I am a liberal, which is partially true. I tend to have progressive values and I tend to vote Democratic (mainly because, since I became of age to vote, all of the republican tickets for the presidency have been painfully and pathetically full of shortcomings that I couldn’t overlook). That said, I am a tad more fiscally conservative than the average liberal.

I too have lived in a socialist country. I wouldn’t want for us to cash in our chips and turn completely toward socialism, but I do think (as you seem to) that we could learn a lot from the Europeans, especially with regard to public goods like health care and transportation. Those things require money and the money comes from taxes. An income tax hike that amounts to a three-percentage-point raise is not socialism in my opinion.

I do agree that if we were to adopt some aspects of European socialism here, we would need to seriously change some basic aspects of our government so as to make it trustworthy enough to handle our money. [/quote]

I think what this ultimately comes down to, (and I also this to be a comment on Bodyguard’s post too), is that we as a people do not have a trustworthy government.

This is the root problem, the very foundation of our political system is so fucking corrupt, that we as a people actually have to defend ourselves against our own government.

Corruption fucks over any government system you implement, but with Capitalism, if you are able to keep taxes low, I think the damage can be less noticeable.

The best politicians are the ones who cannot be bought, who do not let their lives revolve around the making of a dollar, but who are willing to make the best common sense decisions in the best interest of the people. I have not seen that in my lifetime, and doubt I ever will.

The thing with Europe is that they do not want to be the global leader in economy, and Socialism certainly isn’t designed to provide that. Their system is designed to let people enjoy a somewhat peaceful life, letting their gov’t provide alot (and they actually do because they are more honest than ours), yet that doesn’t provide the best environment to let someone create wealth for themselves.

People wonder why you see Europeans sipping espressos all day at a caffe, well why not in their system? If you are taxed at 70%, why bother working hard? If you got a raise, the amount you actually took home would be so low, it would not be worth the effort to chase a raise. Their union structure also is very powerful, more so than here I think. They are truly successful at shutting down a country when they go on strike. [/quote]

Very insightful and agreed.

The problem is our government.

We should take care of basic needs while preserving capitalism. I firmly believe that capitalism is the force behind the growth of man kind. But with that growth, we should provide for our fellow man.

[smh23]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

In places like Europe, where you have huge taxes, you actually get alot of that in return in the sense of health care, public services, and education (college is very cheap because it is successfully subsidized.) Here in America, we do not have a government honest enough with our money to return or provide those services back to the people.

Think about it, who trusts the government to spend our money wisely? So why give them more money just to go fuck it off?[/quote]

You have assumed that I am a liberal, which is partially true. I tend to have progressive values and I tend to vote Democratic (mainly because, since I became of age to vote, all of the republican tickets for the presidency have been painfully and pathetically full of shortcomings that I couldn’t overlook). That said, I am a tad more fiscally conservative than the average liberal.

I too have lived in a socialist country. I wouldn’t want for us to cash in our chips and turn completely toward socialism, but I do think (as you seem to) that we could learn a lot from the Europeans, especially with regard to public goods like health care and transportation. Those things require money and the money comes from taxes. An income tax hike that amounts to a three-percentage-point raise is not socialism in my opinion.

I do agree that if we were to adopt some aspects of European socialism here, we would need to seriously change some basic aspects of our government so as to make it trustworthy enough to handle our money. [/quote]

I think what this ultimately comes down to, (and I also this to be a comment on Bodyguard’s post too), is that we as a people do not have a trustworthy government.

This is the root problem, the very foundation of our political system is so fucking corrupt, that we as a people actually have to defend ourselves against our own government.

Corruption fucks over any government system you implement, but with Capitalism, if you are able to keep taxes low, I think the damage can be less noticeable.

The best politicians are the ones who cannot be bought, who do not let their lives revolve around the making of a dollar, but who are willing to make the best common sense decisions in the best interest of the people. I have not seen that in my lifetime, and doubt I ever will.

The thing with Europe is that they do not want to be the global leader in economy, and Socialism certainly isn’t designed to provide that. Their system is designed to let people enjoy a somewhat peaceful life, letting their gov’t provide alot (and they actually do because they are more honest than ours), yet that doesn’t provide the best environment to let someone create wealth for themselves.

People wonder why you see Europeans sipping espressos all day at a caffe, well why not in their system? If you are taxed at 70%, why bother working hard? If you got a raise, the amount you actually took home would be so low, it would not be worth the effort to chase a raise. Their union structure also is very powerful, more so than here I think. They are truly successful at shutting down a country when they go on strike. [/quote]

Good post.

I for one would hate to see hard word disincentivized to such an extent. I want the opportunity to be extremely rich and I want all Americans to have it.

However, I also want a public transportation system that doesn’t look and feel like it’s sixty years old. The high speed railways snaking their way through Europe and Asia put us to absolute shame. I want health care to be universally accessible as well.

As you say, we need to fix our government at a fundamental level if we are going to ever make such dreams a reality. If, after that is done, we need to pay a few extra percentage points in taxes, I’m alright with that.

If I end up making $500,000 annually (fingers crossed lol) and have to pay a 39% (or 42 or whatever) instead of 36% income tax, I’d be happy to–as long as we can get our system straightened out to such an extent that our money is put to good and proper use.

That, to me, isn’t liberal or conservative. I want an efficient government (as should we all) and I want it to use my money for good (as should we all). Before throwing ourselves headlong into bullshit wars, I want my roads and railways and medical services in order. And I’m willing to sacrifice a bit more in such a pursuit.

[smh23]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

We should take care of basic needs while preserving capitalism. I firmly believe that capitalism is the force behind the growth of man kind. But with that growth, we should provide for our fellow man. [/quote]

This is my feeling exactly.