This is what makes Republicans and Democrats so different

[Lursa]

What?
I support government assisting others who may have the potential to be self sufficient and contributing members of society at some point but I am opposed to subsidizing people who seem permanently unwilling or unable to assist themselves. That is not the role of government but rather the role of private charity. The Bible tends to be anti-wealth and overly concerned about the sick and poor. OK for religions but not for secular government. We have more cost effective things to invest in.

As to social sciences and economics, a fundamental principle of economics is that people are rational economic beings and make decisions as such. And that capital accumulation is needed for investments in infrastructure and R&D. Psychology teaches us that people respond to operant conditioning. Sometimes politicians forget that if you want to encourage a behavior you should be cautious about taxing it, like savings and investing. And if you want to discourage behavior you should be cautious about rewarding it, like single parenthood and unemployment. Basic stuff.

100% disagree and would go with the opposite. I support the govt helping those that are unable to do so and prefer to see them use other incentives to get those 'capable' of supporting themselves to do so.

Govt programs and subsidization provide jobs, public assistance, training, occupational therapy, group homes, etc for many people that otherwise *are not* supported by private charities yet with that govt assistance, manage to get jobs, be self-sufficient, be mainstreamed into society, and/or not end up on the streets.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

100% disagree and would go with the opposite. I support the govt helping those that are unable to do so and prefer to see them use other incentives to get those 'capable' of supporting themselves to do so.

Govt programs and subsidization provide jobs, public assistance, training, occupational therapy, group homes, etc for many people that otherwise *are not* supported by private charities yet with that govt assistance, manage to get jobs, be self-sufficient, be mainstreamed into society, and/or not end up on the streets.

Its worth pointing out that most charitable giving does not go towards helping the poor but rather goes towards various University and Arts Endowments, Churches and so on.

 

[sangha]

That is overly broad and represents kinda the extreme, but not entirely inaccurate. I think it would be more true to say that liberals see the government as more of a possible solution to a problem, while conservatives sees the government as more often a hindrance to solving problems. Even that is not really right though, and it depends alot on who the particular liberal or conservative is.

"not really right" is a gross understatement. When it comes to certain issues (like terrorism, immigration, abortion, etc) the right is just as likely to look to the govt for a solution as the left is when it comes to other issues (like the environment, checking the power of Big Business, etc)

 

[sangha]

are you sure

read the article

seems like every democrat wanted something for themselves....didnt they?

i know...truth hurts

No, they don't

I want a higher Minimum Wage even though it will increase the labor costs of my businesses and decrease my profits.

I want Paid Family even though it will increase the labor costs of my businesses and decrease my profits.

I support same sex marriage even though I will never marry anyone of the same sex (or the opposite sex)

I support abortion rights even though I will never have an abortion.

 

[sangha]

And they don't have any workable non-governmental ideas for solving those problems either so consequently the problems are ignored, fester and become worse. I don't know how often we have to let "letting the private sector handle it" fail before we get that this is just ideological cant.

The notion that the republicans don't believe in govt intervention or the govt having a role in health care specifically is proven to be nonsense when you just look at what the repubs have in their health care proposals. If you do look you'll see things like tort reform, paying subsidies to help people purchase health insurance, govt high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, fed block grants to states to pay for Medicaid expansion....all of which involve the govt intervening in the health insurance market.

 

[Eric7216]

100% disagree and would go with the opposite. I support the govt helping those that are unable to do so and prefer to see them use other incentives to get those 'capable' of supporting themselves to do so.

Govt programs and subsidization provide jobs, public assistance, training, occupational therapy, group homes, etc for many people that otherwise *are not* supported by private charities yet with that govt assistance, manage to get jobs, be self-sufficient, be mainstreamed into society, and/or not end up on the streets.

Not very different from what I wrote. Nothing wrong with government hiring people to do jobs that help society, occupational therapy that has the goal of getting people back to work, helping people become self sufficient, early education to train people. Government programs must justify themselves on that basis-of getting people into productive status. Not social justice, not emotional appeals about the poor and sick, not some envy crap about income inequality. You did not include any of that in your response so I would be in agreement with you. Justify programs with cost-benefit, not emotions.

 

[Eric7216]

If you are middle class or for that matter even upper middle class, you would undoubtably need the government to provide you with Medicare upon retirement as someone in their late 60s and older is actuarily impossible to insure in the private sector at premium levels that just about anyone that isn't a millionaire could afford. So that is one thing you are going to need from the government. Of course you also need security, environmental protection and conservation, infrastructure and so on from the government as well.

BTW, I grew up in poverty - not just poor, but in poverty - and am in what would be considered upper middle class today. I have never taken any government benefits, not even unemployment, but I am realistic to know that at some point in my life even I will at minimum need some kind of highly subsidized medical coverage in retirement no matter how much of my income I currently put towards retirement investments.

Extremely hard to believe that you have never taken any government benefit. No public education, no use of roads, no use of communication infrastructure, law and order, commercial regulations. I am always in favor of wholesale government programs that provide security, environmental protection, infrastructure, etc. Those met the greatest good for the greatest number standard and help everyone. My beef is with retail government programs that go to individuals, for such things as insurance, housing, food, etc. Provide for the common good, not the individual good.

Medicare is supposed to be paid for by participants through FICA taxes. Of course, since the government refuses to take out sufficient taxes to actually support the program it is a government aid program but it is somewhat unfair to accuse a medicare or soc security recipient of government aid when they paid into the program for 40 years. It is easy to call someone a hypocrite for accepting Medicare and SS but people did pay into the program and should not be blamed because idiots in government suspend payroll taxes and don't charge the fair sustainable amount. And it is debatable how much of the extremely expensive US medical system is due to government meddling. One option, which millions of Americans do, is retire overseas and pay as you go for medical treatment where it is affordable.

 

[Divergent]

Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10759874/republicans-democrats-different

I think in general, this assessment is probably right. For example, just speaking of my personal ideology, I obviously vote Democrat more than I do Republican. Although I do vote for moderate Republicans in state and local elections. My motivations when I vote are not based on any real principles at all, but are instead entirely issue based. For example, I am big into backpacking, fishing, and trail running. I really enjoy spending time in the backcountry. So I always support candidates at the national level that are strong on conservation and public lands. Abstract concepts like principles really don't factor much into my voting.

I am a cyclist and bike to work often, so at the local level I support candidates that share my views on bike lanes, green-space, trails, and so on. Sure there are other issues I care about, but those are my main issues generally (and I realize the others might have completely different priorities).
Most of my conservative friends are much more motivated by more general principles when they vote. I am not saying there is anything right or wrong about the different motivations (specific issues vs general principles), but rather just pointing out the real differences in how those on the center left to left side of the political spectrum are wired up vs those on the center right to right side.

Anyway, what do others think? Lets try to avoid insulting liberals or conservatives in this one by stereotyping them with crap like: "liberals always vote based on what the government can give them in handouts" or "conservatives vote on ridiculous principles and are too stupid to realize the rice are getting over on them" or any crap like that.

I think the ONLY thing that separates the Right from the Left is the ability to see something that isn't there. It's why most artists are Left wingers. Most auto body techs are Right wingers because they have a laid out plan on how to work on the car. Some Right Wingers can't even imagine their living room organized differently until you do it. They certainly can't visualize themselves as being born a different skin color in a different situation. That would take visualization.

 

[Paleocon]

Everything you do is because of selfish motivations. Even when someone does the right thing or something totally altruistic, they are ultimately doing so out of selfish motivations.

Yeah, I know. Everyone acts selfishly, and the people who don't act selfishly are really just acting selfishly, and your unique powers of mind-reading allow you to know this.

 

[Lursa]

Not very different from what I wrote. Nothing wrong with government hiring people to do jobs that help society, occupational therapy that has the goal of getting people back to work, helping people become self sufficient, early education to train people. Government programs must justify themselves on that basis-of getting people into productive status. Not social justice, not emotional appeals about the poor and sick, not some envy crap about income inequality. You did not include any of that in your response so I would be in agreement with you. Justify programs with cost-benefit, not emotions.

Please dont backpeddle but if that's what you meant, you should have written it.

Otherwise, what I wrote is 180 degrees opposite of what you 'wrote.'

And any justification? None. WHile some of the examples I gave would indeed provide 'cost benefit,' I was listing and supporting...those in NEED that may or may not ever meet any 'cost benefit' standards you would recognize. The elderly, the mentally and physically challenged, the very young, etc.

... but I am opposed to subsidizing people who seem permanently unwilling or unable to assist themselves. That is not the role of government but rather the role of private charity.

 

[Dittohead not!]

and a facist for appointing Joseph Swing as head of the INS and conducting massive immigration raids, by the left...

you can't rally compare 1950s politics to those of today in a direct comparison.

No, you really can't, nor can you neatly categorize unrelated issues into "right" and "left". Whose to say that immigration, or the enforcement of immigration laws is a right wing or left wing issue? Neither side has advocated that we actually enforce those particular laws until fairly recently.

 

[Eric7216]

Please dont backpeddle but if that's what you meant, you should have written it.

Otherwise, what I wrote is 180 degrees opposite of what you 'wrote.'

And any justification? None. WHile some of the examples I gave would indeed provide 'cost benefit,' I was listing and supporting...those in NEED that may or may not ever meet any 'cost benefit' standards you would recognize. The elderly, the mentally and physically challenged, the very young, etc.

Please don't backpeddle. You agreed with what I wrote. You justified government expenditures when the cost benefit analysis supports it. You did not write trying to justify non-cost benefit supported assistance.

By the way, SS and Medicare is not government assistance. It was designed to be a forced insurance program that people pay for with their FICA taxes. It is the opposite of welfare. Of course, the government is failing to do its job and raise the taxes sufficiently but it is supposed to be a program paid by the recipients.

 

[Eric7216]

Everyone selfishly votes on what they perceive are the self interests. Liberals tend to see their self interests being met by specific issues while conservatives by more abstract principles, but don't kid yourself to think that either side doesn't vote on their own self interests. Moreover, both sides think the positions they support are for the good of the country.

And not everyone votes on what they perceive as their self interests. I don't. Attempting to pander to me and talk about what you think my self interest are and you will not get my vote.
And I do not understand your contention that some vote on abstract principles and not on specific issues. It seems to me that if you are voting on abstract principles you are not voting on self interest but on what you think is best, regardless of whether you personally benefit or not. If you believe that accumulation of capital is required for business development and R&D you are voting on an abstract principle, not specific interest because most of us don't build our own business. If you support a strong defense and are not in any way connected to the military you are voting on abstract principles and not special interests.
And I seriously doubt that many who vote on their own special interests really give much thought that their view is for the good of all. As a backcountry enthusiast you must realize that only a handful of people enjoy the backcountry and that spending takes away from more popular issues. Hard to justify as good for the country when so few benefit. Which is why funding has been cut significantly, at least in forest service lands. It is not considered high priority.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And not everyone votes on what they perceive as their self interests. I don't. Attempting to pander to me and talk about what you think my self interest are and you will not get my vote.
And I do not understand your contention that some vote on abstract principles and not on specific issues. It seems to me that if you are voting on abstract principles you are not voting on self interest but on what you think is best, regardless of whether you personally benefit or not. If you believe that accumulation of capital is required for business development and R&D you are voting on an abstract principle, not specific interest because most of us don't build our own business. If you support a strong defense and are not in any way connected to the military you are voting on abstract principles and not special interests.
And I seriously doubt that many who vote on their own special interests really give much thought that their view is for the good of all. As a backcountry enthusiast you must realize that only a handful of people enjoy the backcountry and that spending takes away from more popular issues. Hard to justify as good for the country when so few benefit. Which is why funding has been cut significantly, at least in forest service lands. It is not considered high priority.

You must never have visited the national forests on the first day of deer season or on Memorial Day Weekend.

The reason the the Forest Service doesn't have the same resources that they had back in the '70s is that most of what they have goes to fire suppression. So many people have built in fire prone areas that the demand is for the impossible: To keep fire from burning off overgrown land that has been periodically burned for centuries.

So, the self interest of the homeowner is to keep the status quo. The self interest of the logger, the hunter, the outdoorsman, is to let nature take its course. That's just one example of a conflict of interest.

Now, let's see.. which one is liberal and which one is conservative? Seems to me the line has become blurred.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And not everyone votes on what they perceive as their self interests. I don't. Attempting to pander to me and talk about what you think my self interest are and you will not get my vote.
And I do not understand your contention that some vote on abstract principles and not on specific issues. It seems to me that if you are voting on abstract principles you are not voting on self interest but on what you think is best, regardless of whether you personally benefit or not. If you believe that accumulation of capital is required for business development and R&D you are voting on an abstract principle, not specific interest because most of us don't build our own business. If you support a strong defense and are not in any way connected to the military you are voting on abstract principles and not special interests.
And I seriously doubt that many who vote on their own special interests really give much thought that their view is for the good of all. As a backcountry enthusiast you must realize that only a handful of people enjoy the backcountry and that spending takes away from more popular issues. Hard to justify as good for the country when so few benefit. Which is why funding has been cut significantly, at least in forest service lands. It is not considered high priority.

Less than 1% of federal outlays goes to public lands, it hardly detracts from anything else. Moreover, there is not a society on earth with a good quality of life that does not take care of its remaining wildlands and environment. So it is an issue that improves the quality of life for everyone.

As to self interests. If you vote on abstract principles, you are still doing so out of what you perceive to be in your self interests. For example, one might think that a very limited federal government is good for society and thus in their self interest as well. Another individual might think that worker protections are good for society and thus in their self interests as well. Everything that everyone does is based on what they perceive on some level to be in their self interests regardless of whether they are conscious of that or not.

 

[Lursa]

Please don't backpeddle. You agreed with what I wrote. You justified government expenditures when the cost benefit analysis supports it. You did not write trying to justify non-cost benefit supported assistance.

By the way, SS and Medicare is not government assistance. It was designed to be a forced insurance program that people pay for with their FICA taxes. It is the opposite of welfare. Of course, the government is failing to do its job and raise the taxes sufficiently but it is supposed to be a program paid by the recipients.

No, please write or quote where I wrote that about cost-beneift or even implied it, in my first post. Helping those that 'cannot' help themselves should and often does have nothing to do with what we get out of it.

And I never said SS and medicare were public assistance. SS most certainly is not.

 

[the_recruit]

As I stated earlier, everyone is selfish. Everything you do in life is for selfish reasons. Even if you give to charity, its for selfish reasons in that you feel good by doing so.

When I say our motivations are always selfish I am pointing out a pillar of modern psychology. Everything you do for yourself or others is ultimately for selfish motivations regardless of how giving you are or how good thing you do is. That is just human nature.

Not so. This premise even has a name - psychological egoism - and is certainly not a "pillar of modern psychology". On the contrary it's been thoroughly discredited by modern psychology and virtually no such experts take it seriously as a theory anymore. Individuals have a myriad of concerns - concern for oneself is one of but many.

 

[digitusmedius]

Kennedy..'Ask not...'

Good grief.

People lap up fluffy motherhood type lines on both the left or right. No one could beat a conservative like Churchill for one liners. I'm sure we could find all types of Hitler and Stalin sound bites we could cheer over if we didn't know the source.

It's one of the ways rightwingers have tried to co-opt Kennedy pretending he was really one of theirs all along (never mind the hate-filled rhetoric he got from the right wing when he was in office as every dem president receives automatically). But their awareness of Kennedy's politics and policies is so thin they don't even know what those words referred to and absurdly try to make them seem like some kind of libertarian clarion call. But ignorance never stopped them from blathering about everything.

 

[Eric7216]

No, please write or quote where I wrote that about cost-beneift or even implied it, in my first post. Helping those that 'cannot' help themselves should and often does have nothing to do with what we get out of it.

And I never said SS and medicare were public assistance. SS most certainly is not.

You originally wrote:

Govt programs and subsidization provide jobs, public assistance, training, occupational therapy, group homes, etc for many people that otherwise *are not* supported by private charities yet with that govt assistance, manage to get jobs, be self-sufficient, be mainstreamed into society, and/or not end up on the streets.

You were nice enough to quote me, in my original post:

... but I am opposed to subsidizing people who seem permanently unwilling or unable to assist themselves. That is not the role of government but rather the role of private charity.

And you highlighted in bold the "unable to assist themselves" part but not the whole sentence. "opposed to subsidizing people who seem permanently unwilling or unable to assist themselves". Maybe that is too subtle for you. I support programs to assist people temporarily but at some point I believe government should give up on people and not throw good money after bad. People get one or two or three chances. Free primary and secondary education. Subsidize college. Job training. At some point, you have had enough chances.

But my main point is that we should justify it on the expectations of a positive outcome. Your sentence always included a positive outcome-mainstreaming into society-so we are in agreement. You did not include anything about charity simply for the sake of charity. You justified it-mainstreaming into society. You did not say anything like Obama stated once that we should help people because the Bible tells us to do so. Obama stated:

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

Full Text Of President Obama's Speech At National Prayer Breakfast

There is no mention of mainstreaming or doing charity because it is justified. He is saying do it because it is the moral thing to do. Fine. But that is not the role of government. Separation of church and state. Justify every expenditure on expected outcomes.

 

[Lursa]

You originally wrote:


You were nice enough to quote me, in my original post:

And you highlighted in bold the "unable to assist themselves" part but not the whole sentence. "opposed to subsidizing people who seem permanently unwilling or unable to assist themselves". Maybe that is too subtle for you. I support programs to assist people temporarily but at some point I believe government should give up on people and not throw good money after bad. People get one or two or three chances. Free primary and secondary education. Subsidize college. Job training. At some point, you have had enough chances.
.

Thanks. The red continues to solidly prove my point. The people/groups I listed, except for the very young, often may not ever have the ability to work or be independent, fully or partially (the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped).

 

[Cephus]

Thanks. The red continues to solidly prove my point. The people/groups I listed, except for the very young, often may not ever have the ability to work or be independent, fully or partially (the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped).

And those people should be helped, but they are a minority of those on the government dole. The people who can work and ought to be held accountable for themselves are the ones most people complain about.

 

[JANFU]

There is no mention of mainstreaming or doing charity because it is justified. He is saying do it because it is the moral thing to do. Fine. But that is not the role of government. Separation of church and state. Justify every expenditure on expected outcomes.

Depends upon what type of society you want.

 

[Eric7216]

Thanks. The red continues to solidly prove my point. The people/groups I listed, except for the very young, often may not ever have the ability to work or be independent, fully or partially (the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped).

Oh, I completely understand that you were repulsed by what I wrote and objected to it YET you only wrote about mainstreaming people-spending money so that people could be mainstreamed. So we played this little game.
Glad that you finally admitted that you don't care about effective and efficient government programs but following biblical concepts of charity and compassion.

 

[JumpinJack]

Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10759874/republicans-democrats-different

I think in general, this assessment is probably right. For example, just speaking of my personal ideology, I obviously vote Democrat more than I do Republican. Although I do vote for moderate Republicans in state and local elections. My motivations when I vote are not based on any real principles at all, but are instead entirely issue based. For example, I am big into backpacking, fishing, and trail running. I really enjoy spending time in the backcountry. So I always support candidates at the national level that are strong on conservation and public lands. Abstract concepts like principles really don't factor much into my voting.

I am a cyclist and bike to work often, so at the local level I support candidates that share my views on bike lanes, green-space, trails, and so on. Sure there are other issues I care about, but those are my main issues generally (and I realize the others might have completely different priorities).
Most of my conservative friends are much more motivated by more general principles when they vote. I am not saying there is anything right or wrong about the different motivations (specific issues vs general principles), but rather just pointing out the real differences in how those on the center left to left side of the political spectrum are wired up vs those on the center right to right side.

Anyway, what do others think? Lets try to avoid insulting liberals or conservatives in this one by stereotyping them with crap like: "liberals always vote based on what the government can give them in handouts" or "conservatives vote on ridiculous principles and are too stupid to realize the rice are getting over on them" or any crap like that.

The way I view those two positions on politics by the voters is this.

Everything is personal to everyone. So although the Republicans don't phrase it as a personal issue, it is. What each one means by teh Constitution is not for the govt to "fix" something...but they are afraid that something that matters to them personally will be taken away (their guns, their right to form a tax-exempt group whose purpose is to do away with taxes, the right to not to have background checks when buying guns, their right not to have the fed get taxes from them, etc.). In the south, this comes from a long standing position on opposition to "the feds" and "the revenuers." If you ever read the comic strip or saw the movie Li'l Abner, you saw that fear and hatred toward the federal revenuers.

A second observation about the Republican statements is that they are aimed at implying the opposition is anti-constitution, generally. Though they may not know of examples, it's just a position to take that is general in nature, negative towards their countrymen, and a reason they have for voting the way they do. In other words, they are voting that way because they are voting against the opposition, who are anti-American or unpatriotic (anti-constitution). They don't give personal examples, because they can't think of any.

Most of my family is Republican, and I have known a lot of Democrats over the years. Democrats do seem to make things MORE personal and are able to specify examples of what they want from the government (whether it's family leave, the environment protected, etc.), but believe me...the Republicans are being personal, as well. BOTH are identifying what they believe are CONSTITUTIONAL protections for them. Each one wants something (more money from less taxes, more freedom to concrete his patch of wetlands in violation of EPA laws, etc.).

For the Dems, their issues seem to require governmental intervention. It is the nature of mankind for one to do things that have an impact to the whole group or nation. Like cut down all trees in an area, fail to build levees, etc. Only a government can intervene in such matters to protect things for the nation as a whole. Since the govt has the duty of protecting the whole picture, not just one segment or one person.

"All politics is local," it is said. I would add, "All politics is personal." Everyone wants something. Everyone wants more money (though they may specify different ways to get it). Everyone wants more freedom to do what one wants. Everyone wants health care.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

I think that in the 72 - years that I've been on this planet the GOP has moved a lot farther to the right. If Eisenhower (Who I liked.) was still alive a lot of GOPers would see him as a RINO.

I could say a lot more but I don't have time to type it all out.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Yep . . . and Ronnie Reagan would be a Liberal.

Imagine Ronnie tryin' to be the conservative now-a-days. The Trumpers would make him cry because we are so dumb. Ron wanted health care for all.