"Compassionate Conservativism" Fails the Test

Parent Cafe
121

<p>Do all liberals agree with sexually harassing young women? Is that your stand, Laura and Mr. B… that’s it’s completely fine to do that? Did y’all agree with the Defense of Marriage Act? </p>

<p>Why the assumption that all Republicans agree with the Bush administration? I really don’t think that the Presidency has very much to do with the day-to-day workings of the party - believe it or not. There’s one president, one VP, and 535 members of Congress, only three of whom I can vote for. OTOH, there’s governors, state reps, attorneys general, etc whose policies I very much support.</p>

<p>Not sure what’s wrong with growing up middle class… and Laura, I think your post about that is completely un-American. It’s like saying that I don’t have a right to think a certain way unless I grew up a certain way. You might not like this country, but I do - and this country lets me think however I want, regardless of my background. </p>

<p>Personally, on a gut level, I think that liberal social policy makes the inner cities worse, not better. The current state of welfare discourages people from working (see my previous post).</p>

<p>I LOVE it when liberals say that conservatives vote against their own interests. (Of course, you just complained that I voted for my own interests, but we’ll ignore the paradox that one cannot vote justly and vote Republican.) I live in a very, very rural area. It’s also a very Republican area. It’s not like people are completely wealthy - it’s just that they are a ton of small-business owners, families with young kids - classic middle America. The biggest split isn’t educated/uneducated, or wealthy/middle class - the largest party split is rural and urban. Being here, I can completely understand why people voted against Kerry. It isn’t a “family values” thing, nor a “moral values” (by the way, that poll was completely slanted - it basically listed 6 Kerry issues and “moral values,” then asked people why they voted the way they did) thing - it’s more about tax breaks to the “wealthy,” who really aren’t wealthy but are small business owners, trying to keep a place going out in the countryside. It’s about doing things on a local level - classic Republican issue - because the nearest big city is a couple of hours away, and their needs are a lot different. It’s about the fact that, in my blue-state home, I never met a single representative - but here, I’ve met two of the people who were on the most recent state ballot. I can discuss my issues with them. I couldn’t discuss my issues with Ted Kennedy or anyone else - which is the huge, huge problem with such a centralized gov’t. The only people (on either side, people!) who have the resources to influence an election are the wealthy (of either political stripe) and big businesses. </p>

<p>A lot of Republicans don’t like the current administration. We don’t like the fact that he’s raised taxes and increased federal power. A lot of conservatives I know are screaming to get back to the roots of the party - small business (so very scarce in my old blue state, so prevalent in my red state… hum…), lower taxes, and a smaller federal gov’t with more control being given to the state and local gov’ts. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, about 50 years of liberals (esp. on the Court) has resulted in a massive increase in federal power. Currently, 95% of our laws are made by unelected representatives. Talk about disenfranchisement that goes way beyond literacy tests - but that’s a liberal agenda. </p>

<p>Not going to get into my judicial philosophy, but I am extremely conservative there - but do see that the problems of our centralized gov’t has resulted in the fact that the people have no representation outside of the courts. </p>

<p>One final thought: in the late 80s, Massachusetts considered a bill which would require businesses that have over 20 employees to provide health insurance to their workers. Liberal philosophy (a la Dukakis): people should have health insurance. Conservative philosophy (a la Republican CEO who came up with the idea): businesses that do the right thing by providing health care subsidize the ones that don’t via surcharges for the uninsured and are at a competitive disadvantage (hum… do we see this problem with Wal-Mart?). THAT is compassionate conservatism.</p>

122

<p>Which taxes did George Bush raise? </p>

<p>Hasn’t there been a huge increase in federal power in the last 5 years with the Republicans in charge?</p>

<p>We are going to have congressmen and senators no matter who is in power so I don’t get the Ted Kennedy thing.</p>

<p>The moral issue is a bunch of BS. Power corrupts and now that the Republicans are in power we see they have problems with the law all over the place.</p>

<p>Tax breaks have gone to many people in many different income levels, but those at the top have received the biggest breaks.</p>

<p>The top 1% have now received an average tax break of $75,000 per year. ( I think last year it was $95,000).</p>

<p>My guess is most people have received less than that where you live.</p>

<p>This leads me to this question. If I get a $3,000 tax reduction, but I am going to lose $6,000 in services because the government is going to lose the ability to pay for those services, were the tax cuts beneficial to me?</p>

<p>Or would it be better to have no tax cuts and get the services?</p>

<p>Or would it be better to lower the tax cuts for those at the top and maybe get the $3,000 tax cut and lose less than $3,000 in services?</p>

<p>Those people who are getting tax cuts of $95,000 aren’t going to lose $95,000 in government services so the tax cuts are a big win for them.</p>

<p>People who are getting much smaller tax cuts… can they really say the same…That it is a big win for them?</p>

<p>Tax cuts aren’t free. Some people benefit and some don’t. We are taking in less federal revenues today than we did 5 years ago even though the economy is about 30% bigger today.</p>

<p>Some people who think they are benefitting from tax cuts aren’t really benefitting. They benefit today, but they are going to pay big tomorrow when they are going to get much less in government services.</p>

123

<p>dstark,
Your long post ignores this fundamental fact: It’s not the government’s money, and you’re not entitled to any of it. It’s your fellow citizens’ money. And how much your neighbor makes is none of your business.</p>

124

<p>Driver, there is no money without a government. And the better the government, the better the money.</p>

125

<p>There is no currency without a government. But there can be many other mediums of exchange. That bit of nit-picking aside, the fact that we operate on medium of exchange established by the government doesn’t make currency an open resource, to which everyone has an entitled equal access.</p>

126

<p>So Driver, in your world, what percentage of the economy would the federal government be, and what would our federal tax strcture look like?</p>

127

<p>Aries,
For a start I don’t know ANY liberal who would possibly agree to harassing young women. That’s why we want the supreme court to be chosen to PROTECT regular people not companies. Wherever did you get the idea that ANY liberal would back that. Another red herring.Wasn’t the defense of marriage act to ban homosexual marriages, of course I didn’t agree with that either, nor do I know many liberals who would take any rights away from people willingly. Hey libertarians…wouldn’t you agree too???
How could you say there is ANYTHING wrong with growing up middle class… I ACTUALLY said I was upset with it’s demise…that you and your party were participating in. How could you misread me so badly! I think you’ve been watching too much Ann Coulter…no facts whatever. Slam the other’s side with ridiculous statements when they say something that hits a nerve.
Oh and basically there is no more welfare the way you are thinking about it… Most cities got rid of the guts of it during the Clinton Admin. Now there is no way to go bankrupt either, even when you lost all your money for real reasons, like being ill or being laid off.
Alabama voted against their own best interest a couple of elections ago on a issue where the taxes were going to be raised on the logging industry., EVEN the Republican Governor suggested the poor would do better voting for the bill. The logging industry said that all the logging jobs would leave, but in actuality the taxes paid by them in Alabama were way below what the logging industry paid in other states. The logging companies ran tons of ads and the people, who were the real losers, voted against the bill and truly lost out. The jobs were going nowhere and the people believe the logging companies more than they believed the governor. People do vote against their own interests. There’s a whole book about it, discussing Kansas citizens.
I don’t even know where to start in arguing against almost ever single thing you said…but I’ll continue.
What does Ted Kennedy have to do with your state? He represents a whole different state, however I’m betting he cares more about your neighbors getting healthcare and preserving social security than your reps do.
Oh and btw…Republican appointees now constitute a majority of judges on 10 of the nation’s 13 federal appeals courts and most of the supreme court justices were appointed by Republican administrations. You do watch too much Fox. All innuendos and absolutely no facts.
Also I don’t know when you left, but I run a small business, as do some of the people around me and we live on LI in the “blue state” of NY, however I don’t need more personal tax cuts (not that I’m one of the big tax winners…far from it!), I’d gladly share with those who need it just as much. On the other hand, I still resent paying for the war, which I knew was not the right thing to do. Who would start a war and cut taxes???
Also requiring business to supply health care, no matter what the size DOESN’T WORK, that’s why so many people have no insurance, they might be unemployed, they don’t get it if the small business that employs them offers no healthcare, the can’t get it if they’re self employed and they can not afford it. We need national healthcare.
AND what do you mean that most of our laws are made by unelected representatives??? </p>

<p>Next issue…we now know that Louisiana needed the federal government during Katrina. If all money goes to the states, how would each state have to have enough money to deal with gigantic issues like that?? Since they didn’t plan for it, what would have happened if they had given all the money back to it’s citizens and they had no money for disasters like that…or even mini disasters? Would the others states have to go in and pay for it? The federal government, (at least one the has NOT been decimated and is better run than we have now) is still needed. It has done a better job in the past. Would each state handle it’s own defense?</p>

128

<p>People getting $95,000 in tax cuts are probably using far fewer services than they pay for. To get that size cut you jhave to be paying over $500,000 in taxes. That’s a lot of services most of which the rich do not even use.</p>

129

<p>Darn Laura, you’re dense.</p>

<p>DOMA was signed into law by Clinton. Clinton also performed lewd acts with a young woman and had been accused of sexual harassment, rape, and was known to, while in Arkansas, lean on the police force to bring in pretty young ladies, who were given the choice between the governor and jail. </p>

<p>Let me spell this out a little further:

  1. You implied that I, as a Republican, must support all Bush policies.
  2. I do not agree with this. I mentioned a few elements of the Clinton administration that most liberals would not agree with to make my point that one, being a member of a certain party, need not necessarily agree with the agenda promulgated by the President.
  3. The point of that is that you are supposed to realize that people can disagree with some of the elected members of the parties they belong to.
  4. Apparently, you completely missed that.</p>

<p>Now, for the Ted Kennedy thing… yeah, read my last post a bit more closely. I said that I no longer live in Massachusetts. That means:

  1. I used to live there.
  2. While I lived there, I did not have any type of connection with my elected representatives.
  3. I am not disclosing my current state, as I would like to remain anonymous.
  4. In my current state, I’ve met elected members to the state gov’t.<br>
  5. Therefore, I used that as an example of why increased federal power is a bad thing - it results in disenfranchisement.</p>

<p>LOL - you make me laugh when you think that I must blindly follow Ann Coulter. Babe - learn to argue. You don’t present ANY facts either. I could just as easily dismiss your ramblings by saying that you must read the New York Times too much. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They are. Just accept it, because you don’t seem receptive to learning anything. </p>

<p>(If that is not satisfactory to anyone else reading this thread, I"ll explain. Most laws are not made by Congress and the Senate - the way we learned about in elementary school. Administrative agencies make over 95% of our country’s laws. The officials (and workers) are not elected. For example, the EPA is the primary entity responsible for pollution regulation. The alphabet soup of the country pretty much makes all the laws: think the FTC, FDA, EPA, FCC, what used to be the INS, Customs, etc.)</p>

<p>Does the 1937 Court packing plan mean much to you? How about the Commerce Clause? Generations of liberal justices have re-interpreted the Constitution to allow for a radical increase in federal power and a massive, extra-constitutional delegation of Congressional power to administrative agencies. THAT is what I meant by disenfranchisement. If you don’t like what the EPA does, tough luck: you (nor can anyone else in the country) vote for the removal of the people who made the offending law. </p>

<p>

You’re funny. Did you ever read the Constitution? </p>

<p>Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 3: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… keep Troops, or Ships of War in Time of Peace, enter into any Agreement of Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power or engage in War…”</p>

<p>I missed the part in the Constitution where it said that states cannot tax their citizens to shore up a treasury against such disasters. In fact, I thought that the purpose of Amend. XVI was to allow for federal taxation, which had not been permitted beforehand; implication is that only state and local taxation existed until 1913. </p>

<p>States simply know better what their dangers are. LA was well-aware that a large city was in a hurricane-prone location, and below sea level. One of the basic, fundamental ways to distinguish state and federal action is whether something needs to be done on a unified front. National defense is, by nature, national. Local disasters are local. While that does not preclude federal aid, it does not let LA off the hook for not preparing for this. </p>

<p>TRY FACTS. Try reading the Constitution. Try getting off the blinders for a half-second to realize that some of us, on the other side, might have something valid to say. Until then, keep losing elections. Republicans, as much as there might be internal dissent, will fall into line at voting time. Liberals don’t. Not my party that I’m worried about.</p>

130

<p>As for bankruptcy, you should ignore the sound bites and try to think a little bit. Also try reading - education is a remarkable thing. Anyone can still file (and receive) bankruptcy protection. </p>

<p>There are several types of bankruptcy protection. One of them (the most generous) allows all debt to be wiped out immediately. This is going to be harder to get - I believe the cut-off is median income in the state in which you reside. Now, if you can’t file for protection under that… you aren’t excluded from bankruptcy protection. You can still file for it and receive it; however, you will have to pay off debt for five years following the filing. The idea is that higher-income people will be given an extended time to pay off their debts.</p>

<p>Not saying that I agree with the new law… just saying that your characterization of it is completely off. Completely off.</p>

131

<p>DOMA:</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

132

<p>ariesathena, there are many things I don’t get with your posts. I don’t see the republicans closing down any of the federal agencies you have mentioned. I don’t see the federal government getting smaller under the republicans. Under the republican leadership, the federal government just passed the largest entitlement ever. The federal government under the republican leadership passed the “No Child Left Behind” Law. We have the Patriot Act. </p>

<p>What have the republicans done to make the government smaller? What have they done to decrease the debt for future generations?</p>

133

<p>:D WOW! LOL I leave for 2 days and look what you all have been up to!!</p>

<p>This is a wonderful discussion. Absolutely. But when I read it all together, a lot of it comes down to what institutions are best suited, and have the moral authority, for what societal functions? That is the real question here.</p>

<p>When it comes to charity, personally I think charitable institutions can’t be beat, especially not by government. Pro’s: efficient, funds aquired through voluntary means (moral suasion), compassionate, personal, often succeed in accomplishing more than the immediate need being filled, less likely to be scammed, and have a focus. Con’s: As someone mentioned earlier, one might have to listen to a sermon in exchange for your soup, i.e. often requiring some self-examination on the part of the recipient. Alternative translation: No free lunch.</p>

<p>Government also extracts its “fee” from the recipient, but it usually involves waiting in line, filling out forms, and listening to a bored recitation of a huge maze of regulations which are often contradictory. This also becomes exhausting and overwhelming to some recipients–there are many “homeless” who choose not to go to government shelters, even when available.</p>

<p>There’s another institutional provider of charity (except that it wasn’t usually called “charity” it was called “duty” or “responsibility” or “debt of love”) we’ve almost universally ignored, the Family. Look at what has happened before and after Social Security & Medicare, when the government took over this function. Before, multigenerational families were common, children felt responsibility to care for elderly parents, the elderly were expected to participate fully in daily life and so knew they were needed, grandchildren had daily access to the wealth of oral history, wisdom, knowledge, and family lore provided by grandparents. Overall, we have in the last 70 years transferred vast amounts of money between generations–this is why half the impoverished are children. The elderly poor are those whose families have abandoned them–after all, they have their Social Security. And those over the retirement age have returned the favor: they continue to vote more and more largesse to the 60+ age cohort to the detriment of their children and grandchildren, sometimes great-grandchildren.</p>

<p>Of course, when retirees were still living with or at least partly dependent on their progeny, they had to put out a little effort to get along. That’s not an issue with the SSA, but it’s not very warm and fuzzy either.</p>

<p>Now, before Lauras50 and Mini and ilk get all bent out of shape, I’m not suggesting that the retired should be denied food and medical care. I’m just thinking that there are other possible (and maybe more beneficial) models to accomplish these things than we have been indoctrinated to believe in during our lifetimes. </p>

<p>Something to consider.</p>

134

<p>wyogal -quick note…It is good when you can have generational support, but times are changing and so many of my friends either didn’t get married or did and didn’t have children. There will be no one to support them…or even check on them in the future, which is scary.
Aries, I couldn’t imagine you were bringing up Clinton again with the dalliance. They were two grownups and he is not the first president to have an affair while in office. Also, as I always said, I’d rather have a president screw one intern, rather than the entire USA. Enough said. It was not a government decision to agree that sexual harassment was okay!!! As for DOMA, he was acquiescing to the middle of the country and as a Mostly liberal I would never agree that it was okay. I really think one day it will be seen that if everyone has equal rights than EVERYONE has equal rights. But certainly no one agrees totally with any admin…having said that…
I do like the NYT and CNN, but I also listen to FOX and MSNBC and ABC etc etc etc to get my laughs before I go on and have a second laugh when <a href=“http://www.mediamatters.com%5B/url%5D”>www.mediamatters.com</a> corrects everyone.
As for dept making laws that is what I was implying when I said that Bush named a veterinarian to the head of woman’s health. That was only one of the many departments he named incompetents to. I just didn’t understand what you were implying. The president is VERY important, because his/her hand is on everything and appointments really make a very big difference. That’s why we’re all infuriated when he names cronies, instead of competent professionals. My point exactly. Thanks for remaking it for me!
In terms of the balance of government powers, it didn’t matter what happened in 1937, right now you have a power grab that is gigantic by the executive branch. It is supposed to be equal to the other two branches.
As for the states handling their own defenses, now lets see…does it make sense to have 50 armies? OR ONE. The federal government can do what one state cannot do and at far less cost. The constitution may say one thing but it was written so darn long ago. We need to move along with the changing times, but certainly following the heart of the document, but modifying it for the times we shall be okay. But if we don’t change with the times, we will die like many other societies before us. Rome anyone??? The Britain where the sun never set?
By the way, did you miss where the levee should have been 17 feet underground at the bottom and were only 10 OR that even at 17 feet they would not have held the water back. LA was a big entranceway for ships, precisely because it was where it was. Different states have different costs and needs and what you are implying is that if you live in Nebraska you basically don’t need to pay much tax, but if you live in NY or Louisiana you need to support the whole infrastructure and defenses because we are on the frontline. AND yet, the companies in NY give the rest of the country so much and we serve, as LA did as the entranceway where goods come in. It is ridiculous to suggest that the outer states should pay everything toward the expense of protecting our borders, while the middle of the country pays nothing. It is more efficient that we all pay to protect our great country.
Oh yes, did you hear the 9/11 commission report yesterday. Still feel safer??? Bush got F’s all over the place. Probably feels like college for him. He hasn’t done anything to protect us and has done everything to start a war that opened the hornets nest. I think we want to hear ANYTHING you feel he has done right, cause it’s getting harder to find anything. Okay, you don’t support all of his policies, exactly what do you support? He hasn’t made government smaller, Clinton did that!<br>
The environment has suffered, everything has suffered. What are so many other people accepting that he is a failure, but you still stick with him?
Oh and by the way, compassionate conservatism doesn’t exist. You can’t cut everything to the bone and still take care of our own.</p>

135

<p>dstark,</p>

<p>these are great questions and something I believe many conservatives are deeply conflicted over. I am–though the political alternative does not seem to be an improvement. You might want to check out the following link to get a look from the other side of the river. It’s penned by Jeffery Hart, a founder of the Dartmouth Review and a long time editor of the National Review: <a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05324/609032.stm[/url]”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05324/609032.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>…………………</p>

<p>Wyogal,
Another great and though provoking post. Few people venture a public opinion on these issues these days; keep 'em coming…there is no sin in sincere;)</p>

<p>Personal disclosure:
after my wife’s father died in 1998, her mother came to live with us. She is now part of our immediate family and I cannot imagine leaving her alone, or placing her somewhere to be cared for by professionals.</p>

136

<p>NYTIMES editorial today. I’d love to get a read on this from you “compassionate conservative”. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06tue3.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06tue3.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

137

<p>Woodwork, I am not really into labels. I am into what works. I don’t really understand people who are conservative no matter what, or liberal no matter what, and I don’t understand being a democrat or republican no matter what. </p>

<p>That’s a very good editorial by Jeffrey Hart.</p>

138

<p>Jeffrey Harts article was excellent and explains so well why the coalition is falling apart in the Republican party: They didn’t actually agree on much.</p>

139

<p>Bush managed to graduate with a higher gpa than JK.</p>

140

<p>

OK here’s my read - once again you have fallen for a case of highly biased yellow journalism. What was agreed to was a reduction in FUTURE growth of the program from 6.2 percent to 6.1 percent. Last time I looked, both of those figures were well above the inflation rate. Yet the alarmists who are out to fool the public paint this as if those nasty Republicans are intent on starving the poor children. </p>

<p>Some people fall for this sort of thing every time. Here’s a hint: as a general rule, both Democrats and Republicans (despite the “unifying” perspective of Howard Dean proclaiming Republicans as evil) are essentially good people; when you see something as inflammatory as this, do a little fundamental research to find out what the other side of the story is.</p>