68Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteA good read. Yes they won but what did they win and at what cost?
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Moderator
Well matey, since the NYT has reared its resplendent head into this thread allow me to post this bit of verbiage from its Op-ed page. It is totally in line with my prior point about why the liberals are winning; but just as importantly what, exactly, they are winning.
To wit:
“Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.
Consider the Hispanic vote. Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do — one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully — or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children — which is now commonplace for women under 30 — is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.
Or consider the secular vote, which has been growing swiftly and tilts heavily toward Democrats. The liberal image of a non-churchgoing American is probably the “spiritual but not religious” seeker, or the bright young atheist reading Richard Dawkins. But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.
What unites all of these stories is the growing failure of America’s local associations — civic, familial, religious — to foster stability, encourage solidarity and make mobility possible.
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/douthat-The-Liberal-Gloat.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&
What think ye? OMD is not so far off?
Moderator
A good read. Yes they won but what did they win and at what cost?
The modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. OMD
Vice President
Ah, we have the same upbringing. I recall when my uncle who farmed 600 acres of cotton got really sick and planting season arrived. On a monday morning I looked out to see a dozen John Deeres geting his fields ready to plant. It was quite the sight and made you feel good about humanity and the better side of human nature. But oldman, today if a farmer were to get sick, you know how many folks would be there planting his fields, charging him nothing? Those days are gone here in my area, and in most places across the south for several reasons.Originally Posted by OldmanDan
People overall no longer feel they have a responsibility to their neighbors, even in the rural areas of america, although there are pockets left of course that still do. But it is just about gone oldman. And I doubt it will ever return unless a catastrophe happens that forces people into it.
For me this caring for the less fortunate by a civilized nation is based purely upon morality. A nation has to be moral in its actions, they are not exempt as some on the right want business to be exempt from morality. But as another guy gave here, his own reason for social safety nets were for pragmatic reasons. There is every reason to care for the less fortunage and few for not doing so. Because the truth is, we as a nation are more greedy today than in my youth. That is because the less greedy have died out and we are left with the instant gratification generation, the ones that used to shun materialism and are now worse off than the materialism we rebelled against in the 60s. You know what the folks of our youth took care of one another? Because they were less greedy than our generation is. They cared more for other people. We no longer have that to their degree and it's very obvious. So for you want to depend upon charity to care for the folks down on their luck is really to not to want to care for them at all! You know that even when folks were better people, during the great depression, that charities were overwhelmed, which played a role in FDRs social safety nets such as SS.
The only entity that is in a position to provide help to the less fortunate is gov't. It is the most logical entity to use, because it does not depend upon human charity, which is not great enough in the first place. So tax dollars are used to help out the nation as an entity, for the common good, because having poverty with no safety nets creates crime. Even you would steal to feed your children if they were crying from hunger. We should never make it so that a man has to steal to feed his kids, because we know that he will indeed do that. And then tax dollars are spent on him housing and feeding him while he is in prision. Why let it get to that? Then what? His oldest 12 year old boy steals to feed his brothers and sisters and he too goes to jail? No sir, I would rather provided a safety net and keep the family together because broken families spurn greater crime, greater costs to society.
While my own feelings towards this are from a moral principle, the pragmatic aspects of social safety nets outweigh the abuses that infuriates the right side so greatly. You guys are real emotional folks, being infuriated as you are. But you gotta realize that abuses are a given. As lying politicians are a given. You should never stop a system that helps so many just because you have a few criminals abusing the system. That's crazy land.
"Like every other good thing in this world, leisure and culture have to be paid for. Fortunately, however, it is not the leisured and the cultured who have to pay." Aldous Huxley.
Secretary of Defense
I am not sure which programs you are referring to that are only subsidized by the rich. All wage-earners pay taxes towards Social Security and Medicare, which are the largest entitlement programs we have.
I do understand not wanting to subsidized people who make bad choices. Like you, I work very hard for my money.
But I guess the difference between us is that I don't think that most people who receive assistance are lazy or make particularly bad choices. I think most people are trying to do the best they can. And I am more concerned about making sure that they have the basic necessities of life than punishing those who are lazy or stupid.
I think the difference is a matter of scale. My family (liberals all) volunteers at local food pantries, but in a county of ten million the need is huge, and there is only so much that "good neighbors" can do. Also, while I found your example of neighbors doing the chores for an injured farmer particularly touching, I have trouble seeing how it applies on a larger scale. If the lawyer across the street, or special effects technician on the corner, gets in a serious car accident, we can't very well pitch in and take over their legal practice or pyrotechnic duties.As far as taking care of your neighbors in a city, I see little difference. Everyone has friends and neighbors who should look out for each other. Even if you live in a city, you can volunteer to work in a soup kitchen, food pantry, hospital or other place that needs help. I find that liberals would rather have someone else pay for this labor and push plans to accomplish that goal so they can feel good about it.
Although it would probably be fun to try.
(̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ
I don't blame you for getting out of here. Heck, I would if I could, too.
Moderator
Libs no longer feel they have responsibility to their neighbors I do. Libs are happy to give that responsibility to the state as long as someone else pays for it.
People can't afford to help each other because the government takes so darned much of our money. They have not only trapped people in poverty, they have removed the means of the common man helping someone out of it.
And, many of these less fortunate, or under privileged, or unlucky, etc. are there because they made bad choices in life and now want someone else to pay for those bad choices. When their children grow up, they know they can make bad choices and survive because someone took care of their parents. When I give charity, it has strings attached. If someone abuses my charity I cut it off. The government doesn't do that. In fact it simply encourages more bad behavior.
You claim to be looking at all this from a moral perspective but how is it moral to steal from and give to another in exchange for their vote on election day? Yes, I would steal to feed my children it that was the only option but not because it was the first option that came to my head.
The modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. OMD
Secretary of Defense
You seem determined to claim all Liberals are selfish and just just think of themselves.
You do realise the unemployment rate is 8% and not the 50% you seem to think it is. How do you explain the more wealthy democrat voters who are voting for tax rises?
Moderator
There are other lawyers who could do the lawyering and other lighting people. There is a larger number of needy but there are also a hugely larger numbers of people who can help. They don't help because they believe it is the government's job not theirs.
The modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. OMD
Moderator
The cost of winning comes at presiding over the decline.
Secretary of Defense
This is what I'm saying about the inaptness of your small-town farming community analogy in terms of most of the country. Milking a neighbor's cows and taking over someone's legal practice are not really comparable.
You insist, without evidence, that people (or, rather, liberals) do not engage in charitable acts but of course many do. You also insist, illogically, that help via the government doesn't count as help, when of course it does. Just because it is funded through tax dollars doesn't make it any less helpful. Finally, you insist, incorrectly, that all this money comes from solely from the rich, when the biggest safety net programs are paid for by Payroll Taxes, which virtually everyone pays into.There is a larger number of needy but there are also a hugely larger numbers of people who can help. They don't help because they believe it is the government's job not theirs.
(̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ
I wonder:
Would you be saying any of this if Romney had won?
Moderator
Warren Buffet is the perfect example. He pays hardly any taxes because his wealth is all in a charitable trust. He manages the trust. He believes he is better at managing his money than the government but he espouses others pay more taxes. The same goes for the movie stars who espouse paying more taxes but shield as much of their income from taxation as possible.
They vote for Democrats because they know they will not have to pay. It makes them feel good that they are advocating for the poor without the cost.
The modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. OMD
Governor
(My emphasis)
Isn't Buffet a poor choice for this topic? Didn't he pledge $35 billion in charitible giving, mostly to the Gates Foundation? Are you going to say that that doesn't constitute "advocating for the poor"?
see Warren Buffett's Unprecedented Generosity - ABC News.
There is nothing particularly wrong with people minimizing their taxes. It's prudent to pay the minimum - as long as you're not cooking the books or otherwise cheating to do so.
Moderator
What I am saying is that he advocates stealing more money from tax payers, just not him. He wants to manage his own philanthropy as do I.
The modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. OMD
Secretary of Defense
So do you define all taxation as theft?
Moderator
Any taxation not voted on by those taxed, yes.
The modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. OMD
Secretary of Defense
Unless you have a referendum specifically about the tax rate then it will always be set by whoever's in power and Obama won so he has a chance to set it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks