HamiC

When I listen to the radio, read the newspaper, and read many of the threads posted here, it is hard to escape the animosity between Liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans in the US.

Each group (or its advocate) passionately jockeys for a dominant position. I would argue that the amjority of the population would be best served if neither party became particularly dominant.

In the same way that the three branches of the US government prevent certain abuses of power, roughly equal power in each of the two primary parties arguably tempers the excesses of each.

I do not necessarily buy that "that government which governs best, governs least"........but I sure do appreciate a government that moves slowly, with deliberation, and with care.

Without a strong "other" party, we would soon find ourselves racing down some slippery slopes without any brakes.

The_Dude

i'm a real civil liberties freak. as i've looked at many issues on liberties, i see that the democrats are much more for civil liberties than repub's, libertarians even more, but they cant get anything done. i'm also for a limited welfare state, provide basic services to those who cant or wont provide for themselves. i'm talking real basic here, not much luxuries. i just dont wanna let people starve to death.

i sure hope they get some power soon, but w/ the 2 major parties so deeply in power, they're not exactly thrilled about giving up their power. look @ issues like campaign financing.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

SecretMethod70

HamiC I do agree with you completely. Personally, I'd like to see a return to the days when the Vice President was the runner-up in the presidential race. Not TONS of power but enough to provide a check. Of course, I don't want to see that until we have a 3rd or even 4th party in the fold.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

seretogis

The Democratic party supported attempts to force the Boy Scouts to allow gay scoutmasters, which, in my opinion, is a violation of their liberties as a private organization. If they don't want gay members, fine, start up a "Rainbow Scouts" program if there is enough interest. As for whether or not the Boy Scouts should receive federal funding after such a declaration is debatable but I would vote "Yes" since they are an organization that still makes a positive impact on many boys' lives.

Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same, in a general sense. They are both federalists, though they cater to different corporations and different moral systems (or lack thereof). They both want an omnipotent government which can see into the minds and bedrooms of the populace and dictate what is right with selective thought-policing. Neither know of a way to solve a problem without creation of yet another Federal organization.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

The_Dude

if boy scouts want federal funds, they should should discriminate using federal money. same thing w/ religious institutions that do charity, dont discrimnate on hiring if you're giong to receive fed money!

and the republicans are way more into dictating what you can do in the bedroom, just to point it out. there are numerous quotes from diff republicans about gays. and ACLU endorses dem's more times than not

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Liquor Dealer

Dude - The Republican party is much more likely to leave you alone. I think what you see as libertarian and the way you attempt to tie it to the Democrats is much closer to socialism than it is Democrat or Republican. But - perhaps many of us also believe that the Democrats are much much closer to Socialism than we care to go.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

seretogis

I agree. As a liberatarian, I really don't understand how you can say that Republicans are significantly more intrusive than Democrats in the bedroom. Democrats are the ones proposing legislation to force people to accept homosexuality as a "lifestyle", which is thought-policing imho. "Hate crimes" are just as ridiculous.

As for the value of endorsements by the ACLU, it is a rich political organization and that is what guides it -- politics -- not civil liberties.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Kadath

This thread presented as evidence that neither side here can appreciate anything about the other.

__________________
it's quiet in here

The_Dude

hold up.

dem's are for the right to privacy, aka the right to choose

dem's are for gay rights, repub's are way against it and have come out and condemned it in extreme terms.

dem's are much more for a seperation of church and state.

i can think of a couple of things that the dem's are for that are not that good : affirmative action, double tax and i disagree a lil bit on economic policy.

but, the rights listed in the beginning are much more important to me than the othesr.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

HamiC

Does that not bolster the argument that because the two primary ideological sides have become so far apart on issues, an evenly drawn stalemate between two roughly equal parties (not total gridlock) is actually good for the majority who reside somewhere in the vast middle?

The majority -- those who do not exist at the ideological edges of the spectrum -- are best served by parties that are able to check the extremist tendencies of their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We may tend to agree more with one party over another, but do we really want either party in complete control? I prefer that both parties have healthy oppositions.

Kadath

Yes, HamiC, that's true, but there are two other results. First, that a third party is impossible because the people who might support that party instead spend their vote "against" that major party that offends them more. Second, that the two parties don't make any great strides an any direction, but are rather tethered around what they perceive to be the centrist gravity point.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

And dems are for taking money from those who want to work and giving to those who won't work.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

seretogis

You mean, unless said choice goes against the Democratic platform. You can choose, as long as you don't choose to be a white upper-middle-class fundamentalist Christian. You can choose, as long as you don't hire someone based on their skills and experience, but instead based on their gender or the color of their skin. You can choose, as long as you don't want to choose a private school that actually teaches your children how to be responsible adults over our incredibly broken public school system.

Yeah, Ronald Reagan was a real opponent of gays and lesbians. You are confusing Republicans (the Republican platform specifically) with the (imo misinterpreted) funamentalist Christian beliefs. Republicans oppose hate crime legislation not because of a deeply-rooted hatred for minorities or gays/lesbians, but because the very idea of policing people's thoughts is frighteningly wrong. Murder is murder, regardless of if someone "hated" the other, or if it was for profit. Try to find anywhere in the Republican platform where they state that they do not endorse/condone homosexuality. You won't find it.

The intent of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is to prevent establishment of a national or government-sponsored religion -- not to stop a non-denominational optional prayer-in-schools program.

Agreed, affirmative action just divides the populace, when it should be brought together. It brings attention to differences in skin tone when it should be ignoring them.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Kadath

So your solution is just not to give money to anyone? I agree that we shouldn't give money to people who can but won't work, but those who flat out can't, due to disability? Or perhaps those who need a leg up in order to get up to the level where they can be a productive member of society? It's fucking hard for me to find a job, and I have a degree from a prestigious college. What about a kid who dropped out of his inner city school in ninth grade because it was what his friends and parents encouraged him to do? Should we give him nothing, forcing him to stick with crime to feed himself?

__________________
it's quiet in here

seretogis

People, even those without jobs, make a conscious choice to commit a crime for money or to settle for a minimum wage job until they find something better.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Kadath

I am exhausted being tagteamed by you two. Where is the ref?
What kind of choice is there between working Mickey D's for $5.25 an hour versus making two grand a week tax-free selling drugs? A person flat out cannot live on minimum wage. 10K a year is not going to fly. So they get two minimum wage jobs, assuming they can. Ooh, 20K. Now they're rolling in it. How do you find something better without even a GED? How do you have time for education working 16 hours a day to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself?

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

The choice between a chance to better yourself in honest work as opposed to being a criminal and ending up in jail or dead?

At least, that's my guess.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

So Kadath shouldn't have used the word "force"; is that the point you are both trying to make?

Assuming the person doesn't believe that working a minimum wage job will make him or her have a better life and considering our society judges its members by their abilities to consume are you surprised that people would choose not to work?

Given the fact that crime seems to hurt the victims much more than the criminals at what point do you start to accept the burden of increasing the life chances of the impoverished?

I mean, you could certainly continue to hold to some moral conviction that impoverished people who would otherwise choose crime instead of "honest" work are not entitled to government assistance--but that is apparently and ultimately self-defeating. After all, don't you then pay for them to sit in prison, their supervision, and the entire police structure to aprehend them in the first place?

The question might more accurately become which is the better investment--spend money on educating the poor and/or providing certain assistance or continue the expansion of the prison industry. Both cost money and the latter is reactive (and doesn't come into action until innocent citizens are harmed) while the former is proactive (and occurs before the citizen violates the norms of our society).

Lebell

MMM,

I don't believe you and I are far separated on this, but you've made the assumption that I believe in cutting off assistance all together.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In a nutshell, I believe in helping those who want to make it as much as we can without bankrupting those who have made it.

And I agree fully with your prison cost vs. assistance cost example.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

Actually Lebell I think that most of the US is closer than is commonly assumed.

I can't even remeber if it's this thread or one right around her but I'll make the point:

Extreme left and right wings don't "check" each other--they rub each other off behind closed doors, late at night.

Then they use political discourse to shape (polarize) mainstream discussion and keep the majority of the population in divisive arguments.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

seretogis

*huggles*

I did for a year at 17 years old as an intern programmer at a local ISP. I started at minimum wage and after "proving myself" got a 200% raise, which was still a crap salary according to you. I had no college degree and no solid programming experience so I had to make sacrifices in order to get said experience. No car, no fancy new clothes, no dinner at restaurants every night, but I got a foot in the door and my next job was the most pleasurable work experience yet.

Now, if you want to discuss college expenses / scholarships on another thread, I'd be glad to, but it is a separate issue. Locally, at least, there is a community college that has night classes and classes on Saturday for those who work full-time during the week. It would take longer than going to school full-time of course, but it would be possible to get an education on Saturday while working two jobs.

As for public assistance, I am not against it to some degree, on a locally (state)-sponsored level. The problem that I have is with welfare-families who have lived for generations off of the system, and have more and more children in order to increase their benefits. Abuse of the system needs to be dealt with, and it currently isn't (in Minnesota at least).

It is an important distinction. Claiming that someone is "forced" into one thing because the other will be challenging, is flawed yet seems to be the Democratic stance on many things. Pointing out the difference between force and conscious wrong-doing is important, imo.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

rogue49

Both parties have a habit, of interfering with you (just on different issues)
Both parties have a habit of spending money (just on different things)
Both parties when they DO something, it usually to an extreme (just on different items)

I like that they argue
I like that they sabotage each other
I like that it takes time for an issue to get through.
In the chaos, sooner or later the better laws get passed.
When one dominates...expensive, selfish laws get passed.

I like a balance,
Those way idiots have to work for their ideas.

Lebell

I like that rogue's posts always read like prose

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Liquor Dealer

We might as well put some life back into this! There is 895,233.9 miles between CAN'T and WON'T .

A person who can, and will not, deserves to starve to death. I'll help anyone who cannot help their self - I owe absolutely positively nothing to someone who can, but refuses to help himself!

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Kadath

Already you have diverged. You got yourself an internship programming because you had access to a computer, yes? Most likely in your home, perhaps even your very own. My hypothetical guy doesn't live in a home with a computer; they struggle to put food on the table. Now, are there local ISPs in the inner city, looking to hire high school dropouts? Oh, and a 200% raise would be 3 times minimum wage, a figure I did not address. But I figure you meant a 100% raise.
Agreed that this is a separate issue. According to my calculations, it's going to take this guy two and a half years working 16 hours a day and going to school for 8 hours on saturday, year round, to get an associate's degree. I agree it can be done, but most human beings don't have that kind of ænima. That's a hard load, friend. You try just working 18 hours a day, not counting commutes for two and half years, having weekends off. I guess our boy does all his homework on saturdays and sundays. That's no kind of life.

Finally, something which we agree on. I am not trying to come out in support of people who sit on welfare. When I lost my job I refused unemployment because I didn't want to live on someone else's dollar. I'm able-bodied, and that money should go to someone who needs it more. So if we can just reform the welfare system, maybe it won't get such a bad rap.

__________________
it's quiet in here

smooth

The idea that the drain on resources stems from poor abusers of the system is a myth. True, abuse does occur, however, it only account for maybe millions of dollars (and I gave you a huge cushion--how many people do you know personally who have "lived off the system for generations" and had "more kids to increase benefits"?).

The actual abuse comes from a concept we social scientists call "wealthfare"--which accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of abuse. For example, one type of "welfare" is subsidized housing insurance--insurance that would normally cost a few hundred thousand a year (and sometimes a few mil). This partcular insurance is so high because the residence is in a "risky" area--e.g., a cliff overlooking the ocean (presumably because it can fall in the ocean). Now, obviously poor people will never be able to abuse that condition, they likely won't ever possess a home, much less a second one.

If you examine the pool of "welfare" money you will find that billions of dollars are paid out to wealthy individuals every year. I ran a google on the term just to see what popped up and various entities also define the concept as military, argibusiness, and other various subsidies (including tax evasion practices).

I'm not claiming that in this argument--those are debatable concepts. I'm talking about the instances of blatant abuse that actually fall right under the welfare code still being the bulk of the fraud.


Your other point regarding going to college, and etc. is valid--for your life experiences.

Keep in mind, however, that inner-city schools do not have current textbooks (in fact, some don't even have textbooks) and the poverty stricken individuals me and Kadath are referring to likely haven't even ever seen a computer (very foreign idea in our culture, isn't that?), even if they did, don't know how to read, and there isn't a community college anywhere near them.

Of course, you would never have even considered college had your parents, teachers, counselors, others you saw (maybe even on television) hadn't explained to you that college was an investment in your future. Even understanding that wouldn't have gotten you very far because you wouldn't have been prepared for college had you not received special training throughout your school career--training that related to your class level and the color of your skin. (We refer to these concepts as "gatekeeping" and "tracking").

That's great you were able to pull yourselve up by your bootstraps. Anecdotal stories like these perpetuate the illusion that everyone in the US can succeed if they just try hard enough. This view fails to address the structural issues that prevent someone from even knowing the options that are available to them, much less addressing whether those options actually are available.

reconmike

True story;
I was in a local supermarket and watched a woman get groceries with a families first welfare card, then she bought dog food and cigarettes with cash, she then proceeded to get into her brand new Cadilac Escilade and drive away. Some thimg wrong with this picture?

Take the time to drive through any urban area during a work day and see how many able bodied people are just hanging out.

In todays Newark Star ledger, there are many labor jobs paying atleast $8+ dollars an hour that will go unfilled, why?
Because hand-outs corrupt, thats why, the old addage of give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he feeds himself.
These welfare abusers have great opportunities to get free job training while on publis assitance but refuse.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

smooth

Yeah, somethings wrong. She shouldn't have a pet if she can't provide for her family (is that the point of that?)

She shouldn't be buying a pack of one of the most addictive but legal substances known to humankind (exacerbated by tobacco industry chemicals); is that your point?

She definately shouldn't be driving a new Cadi when neither of us can afford one (I agree with you here, but the car almost definately belongs to someone else and/or is purchased with black/grey market dollars).

Of course, the part that sticks out most to me is that her children recieved food. That's the point of food stamps. At this point, I don't give a shit that she used her money for something besides feeding her kids. They didn't do anything wrong, they aren't lazy just because some fucknuts wants to waste her money--and they shouldn't starve.

smooth

I don't know the exact reasons why--it's definately more comlex than "there are jobs, therefore people must be too lazy to work."

That stated, assuming for the sake of discussion that those people are too lazy to work, let's see what would happen if they did:

40 hours per week @ $8 dollars an hour = $320 dollars per week x 4 weeks = $1280 per month (before taxes).

Accepting this job eliminates elligability for subsidized housing and food stamps.

When I was making minimum wage my taxes were close to 30%. Even if I got it back I still had to pay it out of my paycheck. That would leave just under $1000 dollars per month. Do you have state taxes? Social security taken out? Are those labor openings closed to non-union workers?

I think we're safe to say that the worker will only pull $1000 dollars home after taxes, but if you don't agree with that figure stay with the $1200.

Can you feed a family on $10 a day (let's limit it to a husband, wife, and one kid; "able-bodied men" aren't elligable for food-stamps by the way)--that's $300 dollars a month (but only $3 a day per person--that's one dollar per meal per person per day).

Using the absolute top figure ($1200 w/o taxes) a family eating on a dollar a day is left with an absolute top of $900. If taxes are being pulled it's between $900 and $600 left to live on (my guess is that's the cost of rent, and we haven't even started on transp, clothes, utilities, day care, health care, likely court fines (taken out at the start of the check), etc.

I can't go much further without your help, I don't know how much an apartment is without looking in the same paper. They have to get to work--let us know gas prices and the price of a montly bus pass so we can run the numbers both ways--with and without a vehicle.

Let us know how much rentals are in the area you are talking about, please.

smooth

If we follow through on the point I'm making right above this then we will most likely find that teaching someone to fish is going to take more than paying them $8 dollars an hour. (It's pretty obvious already that 5.25 [or 6.50 as the case in Oregon] isn't going to enable people to provide for themselves or their families--then we'd have to start the figures at a high of ~$960 (before taxes!); and this isn't even taking into account that 40 hour work weeks are increasingly harder to find in the low wage market since full-time employees are entitled to benefits).

Most of us don't know that though, non-hourly wage earners are worked upwards of 50+ hours per week.

The_Dude

the country absolutely needs a limited welfare system

as many people have said, people cant just surivive on a min wage job, and a couple of dollars above that doesnt make ends meet either.

-----

and as for my earlier statement about feeding the people that wont work.

i'm not saying send them to a fancy resteraunt every night, make 'em stay at a penthouse, buy 'em a rolls royce.

i'm talking REAL BASIC necessities. something to surivie, something to get by. if they want any luxuries, make 'em work for it. just keep 'em alive, that's the welfare i want for the people that wont work.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Lebell

Excellent! We agree on three things

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Liquor Dealer

Dude - this is not a welfare state. Some of the more liberal democrats would like to make it a welfare state but they haven't succeeded yet! Hopefully they never will. We do not live in a socialistic society and hopefully never will. Areas where even limited socialism are perevalent see a decline in services and a drastic increase in taxes - ask the Canadians abot their health system. In the Scandanavian countries where they have socialized everything their taxes are astronomical. Somewhere you have to decide - are you working for yourself - or are you working so others don't have to.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Kadath

Could there be anything more selfish than a true capitalist? Maybe my upbringing didn't harden my heart sufficiently against the suffering of others, but I'd like to think that those people who are well off should want to help those who aren't, even if it's for as terrible a reason as being able to sleep easier at night. I'm not for true socialism -- it doesn't work, because people are assholes. But I don't think wanting to help your fellow citizens should be construed as anything other than patriotic. The nation grows stronger together, not as individuals.

__________________
it's quiet in here

The_Dude

even adam smith wouldnt wanna let people starve!

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Liquor Dealer

Isn't he the one that said something about "a fair days wage for a fair days work" or do I have him mixed up with one of the other Smiths?

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!