It means being a 'trickle down' conservative fiscally, but supporting gay rights, women's rights, being pro choice, accepting of minorities, not bigoted.
That budget projection means nothing, it is a trumpublican fantasy. The deficit is expected to go much higher and their attempts to privatize SS and Medicare will never fly. I can tell you right now die hard Trump voters themselves would hate it, at this moment they don't believe it will happen, but to a person they would be pissed if they try to do it.
If you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.
I am one of those evil right wingers "independent" that supports welfare programs and such. even single payer healthcare (if done constitutionally)
socially liberal and fiscally conservative derives from the fact that there is more than one side to any issue.
socially liberal?
people get in a bind, at times they need welfare programs and some help back up.
and...
fiscally conservative?
if they are able to work they should not be able to live their whole lives on welfare (time limits / work requirements)
some on the left might find it hard to believe that both thoughts can exist in the same mind at the same time and they probably call us bigots or racists or any other derogatory soup of the day as result of their ignorance.
some of my positions I have positions on both sides
My C side Gun rights, America first, strong military, close the border, strong economy, end capital gains tax, patriotism, spend tax money wisely, end preference treatment
My L side support healthcare, Social Security, birthcontrol, Abortion, pro Union, legalize most drugs and prostitution,
My I (Independent) Side end overpopulation, save elephants, lions, whales, education. reduce power of religions, ban police radar, Amtrak and railroads, greatly reduce money given to other countries, more parks and open spaces
To me it means making responsible decisions to maintain a civil society while preserving individual freedom. These are competing forces so striking a stable balance is complicated.
A prime example of fiscal conservatism is addressing difficult problems without always resorting to spending funds borrowed from our descendants. By not continuing to irresponsibly pile on debt for short term expenses - for things that are not really 'investments'.
A prime example of a socially liberal viewpoint is recognizing and accepting differences among people (accepting is of course withing the constraints of maintaining a civil society).
Fiscal conservatism is very tough to pull off. Especially now with an electorate (and thus a Congress) that is tragically comfortable with the idea of borrowing from the future to pay for desires of the present.
In order to be "socially liberal" , a certain amount of social spending is inevitable and in fact desirable. Poverty programs, medicaid, head start, programs for the elderly, the list is endless. The funding for such programs almost always must come from taxes. If the political environment at the moment does not permit tax increases, preferably on the wealthy, then at times the funding must come from debt.
My own personal opinion is that in order to truly be liberal one has to have an expressed bent toward opposing "income inequality" . Opposing "income inequality" involves wishing to tax the rich at higher rates.
I should add that some people consider "socially liberal" to mean being for LGBTQ rights , supporting abortion rights, being environmentally sensitive, etc, the so called "social issues".
I don't think that covers it. Liberal also means and requires economic justice.
I believe that a foundation for economic justice should be laid, whether one is willing to do the work to pursue that to a greater level is up to the individual. It is my thought that unless it is a case of genuine need, everyone must have some skin in the game. I am willing to provide the ladder but the individual must do the climbing.
We're always going to have the haves and have-nots. Even the USSR had theirs. To be perfectly frank, and I apologize upfront for offending anyone, but there are people in this world who will never rise above cart-wrangler at Walmart. And I'm not talking about mentally disable people like those with Down's Syndrome or other mental handicaps.
I'm talking about people like my brother's ex and her daughter. They have low IQs but don't qualify for any SSI or assistance of that nature. You know who I'm talking about. They may have tried in school but just couldn't cut it, so they dropped out and now they wrangle carts at Walmart. These people will always be the have-nots. We just have to accept that.
Yes, I lost track of the number of my competitors that used borrowed money for capital investments rather than profit and when faced with a slowdown were unable to meet their financial obligations and went bankrupt. Almost everyone I know that has financial problems is a result of their own decisions.
These are competing forces so striking a stable balance is complicated.
I think in a way it describes our countries blend of ideologies. We are a mix of socialism and capitalism. Many hard line conservatives seem to push for pure capitalism, while some hard line liberals seem to push for more socialism. The conservatives scream and accuse liberals of all being pansy socialists while the liberals accuse the conservatives of being heartless monsters. So striking a balance is imperative if we want the system of government that has made us the envy of the world. Supporting social programs for the most vulnerable among us while also supporting supply and demand and the free hand of the market for all non-essentials.
Some "capitalists" say "we shouldn't have social welfare programs because everyone who tries to better themselves will succeed".
This siimply is not true. If everyone in America had a college degree, then we would have people with college degrees making 8 or 10 dollars an hour. The purpose of capitalism is to make the owners of the businesses wealthy. One way that is done is for the business to pay it's employees as little as possible. The worker is always at odds economically with the owner or stockholders of the business. Some people are "have nots" by the design of the economic system. This is a feature not a bug. No amount of college degrees or individual ambition will change that.
Government is the most inefficiently run organization in this country. Social welfare is important but it shouldn't be a function of government.
Social security and Medicare are both run far more efficiently than private enterprise. The overhead cost of Medicare for 2017 was 1.4% whereas the private health insurance market overhead cost was 12.4%. Social security administrative costs ran 0.7%. The main difference is that if we privatized social security the potential investment payoffs could earn far more than the steady 3% growth of social security. The problem is that while you potentially could see up to 15% interest growth if privatized, you could also see -15% and lose all your investment leaving the elderly destitute.
So while conservatives seem to champion free markets, we need some government protected social programs that prevent our elderly, disabled and children from falling through the cracks of society.
It's akin to enjoying fishing in the wild. It takes time, patience and determination but can be extremely rewarding and when you're young and healthy and not relying on the next fish to survive, it's a great method to provide a meal for you and your family. However, some people who are either too old or too young and unable to endure the strain of fishing but need that fish to survive are allowed to fish in ponds that are stocked with fish that guarantee a catch. That is the "safety net" we created which made us the envy of the world after the new deal was established. Gone were the days of being completely at the mercy of the markets, even if you were old or got injured and lost it all, you didn't have to just accept your fate and die in the streets of starvation or exposure. A fund had been set up that was a small tax we all pay so that when we hit retirement age, are too old or infirm to work, we could at least get minimal benefits to survive.
The fact is that many 3rd world countries have true capitalism, a totally free hand of the market, and sadly their citizens often suffer extreme poverty and a wealth gap that makes our wealth gap look like a narrow fissure. True capitalism has the most potential for abuse if not kept in check by a robust government providing the essential services for the general public. While I agree, full socialism also has extreme potential for abuse when those in charge choose to allocate resources unfairly, but with the system we have in the US we at least have some oversight preventing much of the abuses. Are we perfect? Of course not, there is a lot of potential for improving our socialist/capitalist society, but to truly make it better we have to stop the infighting between capitalism and socialism and recognize the need for both.
I would rather have healthcare run by slightly inefficient government system with objective of good care than a highly efficient for profit corporation that has objective of achieving maximum shareholder value
The society and the laws and regulations of the society do not favor the wealthy. Everyone who works full time hours can support themselves through their earnings. Profit on investments is determined after workers are paid a living wage, not before. Universal health care.
I agree with universal health care and universal education but based on a sliding scale. Those who have a little more pay a little more than those who have less
For myself, not spending more than one takes in (balanced budget, just like us other than in the case of an emergency) and for part two equal treatment for everyone.
Full disclosure: Left of center (if there is such a thing) Libertarian
I was once got laughed at for saying I was a liberal libertarian. I slunk off. But then I did some research and found that there are libertarians that do lean to the left.
We need some social programs such as TANF and SNAP but these should not be a lifetime entitlement. I'm all for giving a helping hand but you have to help yourself, too, such as getting that education or skills training you need to get a better job and improve your overall situation. We need safety nets for the poor, elderly, and disabled.
This will probably get rotten fruit thrown at me but I don't see anything wrong with work requirements for governmental assistance programs. Most people have 20 hours a week to spare on community programs or working at a minimum wage job. For the mother with school age children, this can be done during the school day. I don't have a solution for when kids aren't in school, tho. Maybe cut them some slack during this time?
I'm totally on board with equal rights for all Americans and keeping religion out of our government. So I'm not sure if I passed the test.
There are no "lifetime entitlements" for able bodied people. Every form of welfare has requirements and restrictions, and generally they are pretty strict. But there are those who learn how to game the system and so they can enlarge and maintain their "eligibility". So they are crooks of a sort. Just like there are unprosecuted white collar criminals. But white collar criminals who scam or cheat are often considered enterprising hustling entrepreneurs while the welfare cheats are just considered low lifes.
As long as we have this successful capitalist economic system there will be a need for poverty programs and "hand outs". It is part of the system and is completely inevitable. the idea that EVERYONE can succeed economically is utter nonsense. Anyone can, but everyone cannot.
I have seen people who have been on welfare all their lives. It happens. My brother's ex for example. She will never be able to raise herself out of poverty because she has a low IQ and has no grasp of how to handle day to day situations. Fortunately, she doesn't vote
You are assuming that there are a plethora of empty jobs just waiting for applicants. I would bet that that vast majority of people on public assistance would rather be working for a decent wage.
I was once on unemployment, and I hated it. It's barely enough to get by on, and you are left with a shitload of free time and no money to do anything with it. I need to be busy, but being busy usually costs money for something. In my case, I took the first thing that came along, which appeared to be a good, permanent job. Taking it meant that I was off unemployment (obviously), and that I would not be eligible to apply again until I had worked at least six months. It was the beginning of the end for me. That permanent job ended up being a rouse, as they were only looking for someone to step in and do some very nasty labor that their staff didn't want to do on a single project. It was the worst labor conditions I had ever experienced, and when the task was done they claimed they needed to lay me off because they didn't get a contract that they were counting on. It was a bogus fucking lie, and I got screwed. My utilities got turned off, and ultimately I lost my house over it, and had to relocate several states away for the only job offer I could find in my field. I've told this story a few times here, and you would be surprised at the vile vitriol from conservatives and libertarians that I received over it. If you accept one red cent of assistance, to them you are a taker, plain and simple. Things are all good now though.
You are assuming that there are a plethora of empty jobs just waiting for applicants.
And I would be wrong to assume that.
I collected unemployment for several weeks when I got fired from a job and they found that there was no wrong doing on my part. I don't resent people getting any kind of assistance when they really needed it. My mom applied for food stamps when I was still in school because my dad was on strike. She hated using them and I could see the look of shame on her face when she was in the checkout line. But she did what she had to do because she had two children to feed.
The assistance must be there because there will always be those who need it. I don't resent those people. I resent those who game the system and don't even try to better their situation.
I also resent those who try and game the SSDI program and get disability when there is nothing wrong with them.
I also resent those who try and game the SSDI program and get disability when there is nothing wrong with them.
I agree. You'd be surprised how many 'fiscally conservative' people have no problem taking those benefits from those who really need it. Trump voters who rail against 'takers' as they partake themselves. Or medicaid. Or Pell Grants. And they don't need to.
Ummm … did you read the title that you just posted? Do you think that a skills gap is something that an unemployed persons just snaps their fingers to fix?
I met two young people at a party one night who were planning to game the SSDI system. I asked them what they did and they said they were working on getting their disability. There was nothing wrong with either of them that I could see, not even mentally unless laziness has become a disease. I walked away from them before I lost my temper all over them
I asked them what they did and they said they were working on getting their disability.
What they didn't say or probably realize is they were actually working to limit their own life. I was badly injured in an auto accident to the point I couldn't work and was rated as disabled, I received disability, housing, health insurance and food stamps.
After numerous surgeries and a few years later I was able to return to the workforce and was very happy to do so. When a person is being cared for that is all the will ever have. No thanks life has so much more to offer, IMO These people just screwed themselves unknowingly.
What you sew, so shall you reap.
IMO: A live of poverty on disability is not much to aspire too.
It was implied that the jobs would be feasible for the applicants. You are unreal. What was your purpose in even responding with that link? Does a bunch of jobs that people are not qualified for fix a problem?
A live of poverty on disability is not much to aspire too.
I so agree with that statement. I bitch about going to work and day dream often of retiring, but I am glad that I am able to work and not have to rely on public assistance
Yes but unfortunately there is now a cottage industry of lawyers that specialize in getting lazy people disability benefits. They advertise call us if you’ve been rejected, no money down. They coach you on what to tell the judge and provide crooked doctors for you to visit for evaluation.
Yet the "rust belt", "bible belt" and blue collar workers pining for their coal mining and manufacturing jobs refuse to learn the skills required to fill those jobs. Could it have something to do with the trend in some conservative circles to vilify and ridicule higher education? I have to assume that making fun of educated supposed "elitists" to your children and telling them they don't need a higher education to succeed might have something to do with the phenomenon of Trump supporters complaining about not having jobs while there is a shortage of workers in computer engineering and the tech industry.
I'm down with apprenticeships/internships. Those are a good way to learn the job and get the experience you need. But I would want them to be paid. Many of the college internships available to me 40 years ago were unpaid. Not possible
Not all of them are like that. My father got his hours in to retire from the mines and then went on to get more education. He worked for MEMS and he became a township supervisor. Of course, this is the man who told me to get an education.
Let's see, you've lost your job ... you've effectively lost your health insurance since COBRA is too expensive for someone with no income, but hey - there's a longshot opportunity three hours away at an employer who is looking for skills I don't have, and who is also looking for someone who is currently not unemployed. Sounds promising.
'Yet the "rust belt", "bible belt" and blue collar workers pining for their coal mining and manufacturing jobs refuse to learn the skills required to fill those jobs. Could it have something to do with the trend in some conservative circles to vilify and ridicule higher education? I have to assume that making fun of educated supposed "elitists" to your children and telling them they don't need a higher education to succeed might have something to do with the phenomenon of Trump supporters complaining about not having jobs while there is a shortage of workers in computer engineering and the tech industry.'
A little off topic here but this made me think about the bumper stickers that say 'My Kid Is An Honor Roll Student at . . . .' and the ones that said 'My Kid Can Beat Up Your Honor Roll Kid'
Just makes me think about the deplorable donald rump supporters and how anything goes for them - but we liberals or anyone else are held to a different standard.
In my mind, it means stopping corporate welfare, and concentrating on helping those who don't have employment to find it. That means leveling the playing field and eliminating barriers that cause some to stay in poverty - specifically discrimination.
I'm a highly skilled person and have ownership in a successful business, and some rental properties. But I always enjoy using OPM. I choose not to risk my money when other peoples money is available. If I miss calculate it's not so painful watching their money go down the drain.
Now that I'm retired (so to speak) I can look back and say, Shit Boy Howdy, you done good with OPM.
As you can see I'm very socially liberal....and very conservative with my money.
I have this debate with several liberal friends regularly. Neither side really ever comes to agreement on it.
My position is that the two things are not mutually exclusive. Not really. Kavika's comment above is very indicative of what i'm talking about:
As you can see I'm very socially liberal....and very conservative with my money.
Yeah, conservative with YOUR money but how about others money? Social liberalism costs money and my experience with folks who say they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative usually works out like this. In that they have tend to have no problem spending money on social programs as long as it's someone elses money.
I'm not trying to single you out Kavika because i honestly don't if that's how you truly feel or not but your comment frames what i'm talking about very well. Several of my friends think like i'm talking about and its pretty damn hypocritical IMO.
I'm not trying to single you out Kavika because i honestly don't if that's how you truly feel or not but your comment frames what i'm talking about very well.
Oh hell, you can single me out to your hearts content. I don't mince words. Using OPM isn't something that's unique to me or anyone. Everyone does it one way or another...Now that I'm conservative with my money doesn't mean that I don't support charities and/or liberal/social causes with it, which I do and in fairly large numbers. What it means that I'm protective of my money and will use OPM, (banks, government programs) before investing my money in a business venture. If successful then a portion of that money comes back to me to do as i see fit with it. At that point, I do support my causes.
I wasn’t singling you out, that was my point but whatever works for you.
That said, simply being smart enough to use OPM doesn’t necessarily make you “fiscally conservative.” It really relates more to positions on federal social spending how and who pays for it more than personal finances. And donating to your causes of choice is great but that doesn’t by itself qualify as fiscally conservative either. Not by itself.
That said, simply being smart enough to use OPM doesn’t necessarily make you “fiscally conservative.” It really relates more to positions on federal social spending how and who pays for it more than personal finances. And donating to your causes of choice is great but that doesn’t by itself qualify as fiscally conservative either. Not by itself.
My position on federal/state spending is of a conservative bent, always has been. Which doesn't mean that I want to cut all social programs but to administer them with a sense of what a dollar means. And the waste associated with government spending, which isn't the fault of the people that qualify for the program, but in many cases the complete incompetence of the governing agency.
I don't believe that I said that my support of causes was conservative. IMO, it's much more liberal since I do put my money where my mouth is in that support and I don't have a problem with government social programs except in some cases the incompetence of the governing agency.
States need to implement Fraud, Waste, and Abuse programs. It would be a way for state employees to report abuses that they see to counteract those abuses.
It means being a 'trickle down' conservative fiscally, but supporting gay rights, women's rights, being pro choice, accepting of minorities, not bigoted.
The term is pretty straight forward. What is the question ?
I know what the Koch brothers mean by fiscally conservative, but I don't know what a liberal means when they say they are fiscally conservative.
It means they're lying.
Lying about being a liberal perhaps.
I'm a liberal that votes dem most of the time. I am not a tax and spend democrat.
I will say that "fiscally conservative" is an oxymoron now after the gop have voted to expand our debt exponentially.
Maybe you missed this one.
House Republicans released a proposal Tuesday that would balance the budget in nine years.
That budget projection means nothing, it is a trumpublican fantasy. The deficit is expected to go much higher and their attempts to privatize SS and Medicare will never fly. I can tell you right now die hard Trump voters themselves would hate it, at this moment they don't believe it will happen, but to a person they would be pissed if they try to do it.
Here's a thought-
I am one of those evil right wingers "independent" that supports welfare programs and such. even single payer healthcare (if done constitutionally)
socially liberal and fiscally conservative derives from the fact that there is more than one side to any issue.
and...
some on the left might find it hard to believe that both thoughts can exist in the same mind at the same time and they probably call us bigots or racists or any other derogatory soup of the day as result of their ignorance.
some of my positions I have positions on both sides
My C side Gun rights, America first, strong military, close the border, strong economy, end capital gains tax, patriotism, spend tax money wisely, end preference treatment
My L side support healthcare, Social Security, birthcontrol, Abortion, pro Union, legalize most drugs and prostitution,
My I (Independent) Side end overpopulation, save elephants, lions, whales, education. reduce power of religions, ban police radar, Amtrak and railroads, greatly reduce money given to other countries, more parks and open spaces
and there a lot of things I don't care about
So you're fiscally conservative, socially liberal and fiercely independent. I can respect that.
To me it means making responsible decisions to maintain a civil society while preserving individual freedom. These are competing forces so striking a stable balance is complicated.
A prime example of fiscal conservatism is addressing difficult problems without always resorting to spending funds borrowed from our descendants. By not continuing to irresponsibly pile on debt for short term expenses - for things that are not really 'investments'.
A prime example of a socially liberal viewpoint is recognizing and accepting differences among people (accepting is of course withing the constraints of maintaining a civil society).
Fiscal conservatism is very tough to pull off. Especially now with an electorate (and thus a Congress) that is tragically comfortable with the idea of borrowing from the future to pay for desires of the present.
In order to be "socially liberal" , a certain amount of social spending is inevitable and in fact desirable. Poverty programs, medicaid, head start, programs for the elderly, the list is endless. The funding for such programs almost always must come from taxes. If the political environment at the moment does not permit tax increases, preferably on the wealthy, then at times the funding must come from debt.
My own personal opinion is that in order to truly be liberal one has to have an expressed bent toward opposing "income inequality" . Opposing "income inequality" involves wishing to tax the rich at higher rates.
I should add that some people consider "socially liberal" to mean being for LGBTQ rights , supporting abortion rights, being environmentally sensitive, etc, the so called "social issues".
I don't think that covers it. Liberal also means and requires economic justice.
In order to have a civil society a certain amount of social spending is inevitable and in fact desirable. Did someone suggest no social spending?
Income inequality is also inevitable and desirable.
Define economic justice. ( That is a potent concept and there are many varied approaches towards that goal. )
"Income inequality" is now a buzzword phrase that is related to economic justice, not literal equality of all incomes.
IMO liberals or progressives must support economic justice and if it is not a priority for them their "liberal" credentials are in doubt.
... needs to be defined.
I believe that a foundation for economic justice should be laid, whether one is willing to do the work to pursue that to a greater level is up to the individual. It is my thought that unless it is a case of genuine need, everyone must have some skin in the game. I am willing to provide the ladder but the individual must do the climbing.
We're always going to have the haves and have-nots. Even the USSR had theirs. To be perfectly frank, and I apologize upfront for offending anyone, but there are people in this world who will never rise above cart-wrangler at Walmart. And I'm not talking about mentally disable people like those with Down's Syndrome or other mental handicaps.
I'm talking about people like my brother's ex and her daughter. They have low IQs but don't qualify for any SSI or assistance of that nature. You know who I'm talking about. They may have tried in school but just couldn't cut it, so they dropped out and now they wrangle carts at Walmart. These people will always be the have-nots. We just have to accept that.
I know plenty of college educated middle age folk who have a negative net worth...
My brother, a professional, always spent more entertaining himself than he earned.
Likewise, I know an illiterate carpenter who accumulated a multi-million $ fortune...
Contrary to what we might think the carpenter is a liberal and my bro conservative.
Agreed. A pure egalitarian system would collapse under its own weight since ambition would be dissuaded.
Yes, I lost track of the number of my competitors that used borrowed money for capital investments rather than profit and when faced with a slowdown were unable to meet their financial obligations and went bankrupt. Almost everyone I know that has financial problems is a result of their own decisions.
I think in a way it describes our countries blend of ideologies. We are a mix of socialism and capitalism. Many hard line conservatives seem to push for pure capitalism, while some hard line liberals seem to push for more socialism. The conservatives scream and accuse liberals of all being pansy socialists while the liberals accuse the conservatives of being heartless monsters. So striking a balance is imperative if we want the system of government that has made us the envy of the world. Supporting social programs for the most vulnerable among us while also supporting supply and demand and the free hand of the market for all non-essentials.
Some "capitalists" say "we shouldn't have social welfare programs because everyone who tries to better themselves will succeed".
This siimply is not true. If everyone in America had a college degree, then we would have people with college degrees making 8 or 10 dollars an hour. The purpose of capitalism is to make the owners of the businesses wealthy. One way that is done is for the business to pay it's employees as little as possible. The worker is always at odds economically with the owner or stockholders of the business. Some people are "have nots" by the design of the economic system. This is a feature not a bug. No amount of college degrees or individual ambition will change that.
Social security and Medicare are both run far more efficiently than private enterprise. The overhead cost of Medicare for 2017 was 1.4% whereas the private health insurance market overhead cost was 12.4%. Social security administrative costs ran 0.7%. The main difference is that if we privatized social security the potential investment payoffs could earn far more than the steady 3% growth of social security. The problem is that while you potentially could see up to 15% interest growth if privatized, you could also see -15% and lose all your investment leaving the elderly destitute.
So while conservatives seem to champion free markets, we need some government protected social programs that prevent our elderly, disabled and children from falling through the cracks of society.
It's akin to enjoying fishing in the wild. It takes time, patience and determination but can be extremely rewarding and when you're young and healthy and not relying on the next fish to survive, it's a great method to provide a meal for you and your family. However, some people who are either too old or too young and unable to endure the strain of fishing but need that fish to survive are allowed to fish in ponds that are stocked with fish that guarantee a catch. That is the "safety net" we created which made us the envy of the world after the new deal was established. Gone were the days of being completely at the mercy of the markets, even if you were old or got injured and lost it all, you didn't have to just accept your fate and die in the streets of starvation or exposure. A fund had been set up that was a small tax we all pay so that when we hit retirement age, are too old or infirm to work, we could at least get minimal benefits to survive.
The fact is that many 3rd world countries have true capitalism, a totally free hand of the market, and sadly their citizens often suffer extreme poverty and a wealth gap that makes our wealth gap look like a narrow fissure. True capitalism has the most potential for abuse if not kept in check by a robust government providing the essential services for the general public. While I agree, full socialism also has extreme potential for abuse when those in charge choose to allocate resources unfairly, but with the system we have in the US we at least have some oversight preventing much of the abuses. Are we perfect? Of course not, there is a lot of potential for improving our socialist/capitalist society, but to truly make it better we have to stop the infighting between capitalism and socialism and recognize the need for both.
Here we go again. Eliminate government assistance and the private sector will suddenly pour in and fill the gap. Libertarian fluff talk.
Are you going to depend on churches to implement social welfare programs?
I like your fishing analogy. It really does explain how our system works
I would rather have healthcare run by slightly inefficient government system with objective of good care than a highly efficient for profit corporation that has objective of achieving maximum shareholder value
The society and the laws and regulations of the society do not favor the wealthy. Everyone who works full time hours can support themselves through their earnings. Profit on investments is determined after workers are paid a living wage, not before. Universal health care.
That is the bare minimum we should DEMAND. I would throw in universal education too.
I agree with universal health care and universal education but based on a sliding scale. Those who have a little more pay a little more than those who have less
We don't have that now. What are talking about?
For myself, not spending more than one takes in (balanced budget, just like us other than in the case of an emergency) and for part two equal treatment for everyone.
Full disclosure: Left of center (if there is such a thing) Libertarian
I was once got laughed at for saying I was a liberal libertarian. I slunk off. But then I did some research and found that there are libertarians that do lean to the left.
My common sense approach to things I suppose. There are two of us anyway.
Actually there are lots of us left-libertarians if the recent thread about the Political Compass is any indication.
We need some social programs such as TANF and SNAP but these should not be a lifetime entitlement. I'm all for giving a helping hand but you have to help yourself, too, such as getting that education or skills training you need to get a better job and improve your overall situation. We need safety nets for the poor, elderly, and disabled.
This will probably get rotten fruit thrown at me but I don't see anything wrong with work requirements for governmental assistance programs. Most people have 20 hours a week to spare on community programs or working at a minimum wage job. For the mother with school age children, this can be done during the school day. I don't have a solution for when kids aren't in school, tho. Maybe cut them some slack during this time?
I'm totally on board with equal rights for all Americans and keeping religion out of our government. So I'm not sure if I passed the test.
Passed my test
I agree 100%
I'll take half of the rotten fruit, just to keep things equal, nicely said.
Thank-you!
one of many things I agree with TG on
There are no "lifetime entitlements" for able bodied people. Every form of welfare has requirements and restrictions, and generally they are pretty strict. But there are those who learn how to game the system and so they can enlarge and maintain their "eligibility". So they are crooks of a sort. Just like there are unprosecuted white collar criminals. But white collar criminals who scam or cheat are often considered enterprising hustling entrepreneurs while the welfare cheats are just considered low lifes.
As long as we have this successful capitalist economic system there will be a need for poverty programs and "hand outs". It is part of the system and is completely inevitable. the idea that EVERYONE can succeed economically is utter nonsense. Anyone can, but everyone cannot.
I have seen people who have been on welfare all their lives. It happens. My brother's ex for example. She will never be able to raise herself out of poverty because she has a low IQ and has no grasp of how to handle day to day situations. Fortunately, she doesn't vote
You are assuming that there are a plethora of empty jobs just waiting for applicants. I would bet that that vast majority of people on public assistance would rather be working for a decent wage.
I was once on unemployment, and I hated it. It's barely enough to get by on, and you are left with a shitload of free time and no money to do anything with it. I need to be busy, but being busy usually costs money for something. In my case, I took the first thing that came along, which appeared to be a good, permanent job. Taking it meant that I was off unemployment (obviously), and that I would not be eligible to apply again until I had worked at least six months. It was the beginning of the end for me. That permanent job ended up being a rouse, as they were only looking for someone to step in and do some very nasty labor that their staff didn't want to do on a single project. It was the worst labor conditions I had ever experienced, and when the task was done they claimed they needed to lay me off because they didn't get a contract that they were counting on. It was a bogus fucking lie, and I got screwed. My utilities got turned off, and ultimately I lost my house over it, and had to relocate several states away for the only job offer I could find in my field. I've told this story a few times here, and you would be surprised at the vile vitriol from conservatives and libertarians that I received over it. If you accept one red cent of assistance, to them you are a taker, plain and simple. Things are all good now though.
And I would be wrong to assume that.
I collected unemployment for several weeks when I got fired from a job and they found that there was no wrong doing on my part. I don't resent people getting any kind of assistance when they really needed it. My mom applied for food stamps when I was still in school because my dad was on strike. She hated using them and I could see the look of shame on her face when she was in the checkout line. But she did what she had to do because she had two children to feed.
The assistance must be there because there will always be those who need it. I don't resent those people. I resent those who game the system and don't even try to better their situation.
I also resent those who try and game the SSDI program and get disability when there is nothing wrong with them.
I agree. You'd be surprised how many 'fiscally conservative' people have no problem taking those benefits from those who really need it. Trump voters who rail against 'takers' as they partake themselves. Or medicaid. Or Pell Grants. And they don't need to.
Ummm … did you read the title that you just posted? Do you think that a skills gap is something that an unemployed persons just snaps their fingers to fix?
I met two young people at a party one night who were planning to game the SSDI system. I asked them what they did and they said they were working on getting their disability. There was nothing wrong with either of them that I could see, not even mentally unless laziness has become a disease. I walked away from them before I lost my temper all over them
If employers can't find qualified workers maybe retraining or re-education is in order. There's something I'd be willing to throw money at
I agree, but you better duck. Flying rotten fruit is sure to come your way.
What they didn't say or probably realize is they were actually working to limit their own life. I was badly injured in an auto accident to the point I couldn't work and was rated as disabled, I received disability, housing, health insurance and food stamps.
After numerous surgeries and a few years later I was able to return to the workforce and was very happy to do so. When a person is being cared for that is all the will ever have. No thanks life has so much more to offer, IMO These people just screwed themselves unknowingly.
What you sew, so shall you reap.
IMO: A live of poverty on disability is not much to aspire too.
sad
It was implied that the jobs would be feasible for the applicants. You are unreal. What was your purpose in even responding with that link? Does a bunch of jobs that people are not qualified for fix a problem?
I've had worse thrown at me.
I so agree with that statement. I bitch about going to work and day dream often of retiring, but I am glad that I am able to work and not have to rely on public assistance
Yes but unfortunately there is now a cottage industry of lawyers that specialize in getting lazy people disability benefits. They advertise call us if you’ve been rejected, no money down. They coach you on what to tell the judge and provide crooked doctors for you to visit for evaluation.
Yet the "rust belt", "bible belt" and blue collar workers pining for their coal mining and manufacturing jobs refuse to learn the skills required to fill those jobs. Could it have something to do with the trend in some conservative circles to vilify and ridicule higher education? I have to assume that making fun of educated supposed "elitists" to your children and telling them they don't need a higher education to succeed might have something to do with the phenomenon of Trump supporters complaining about not having jobs while there is a shortage of workers in computer engineering and the tech industry.
I'm down with apprenticeships/internships. Those are a good way to learn the job and get the experience you need. But I would want them to be paid. Many of the college internships available to me 40 years ago were unpaid. Not possible
Not all of them are like that. My father got his hours in to retire from the mines and then went on to get more education. He worked for MEMS and he became a township supervisor. Of course, this is the man who told me to get an education.
Let's see, you've lost your job ... you've effectively lost your health insurance since COBRA is too expensive for someone with no income, but hey - there's a longshot opportunity three hours away at an employer who is looking for skills I don't have, and who is also looking for someone who is currently not unemployed. Sounds promising.
A little off topic here but this made me think about the bumper stickers that say 'My Kid Is An Honor Roll Student at . . . .' and the ones that said 'My Kid Can Beat Up Your Honor Roll Kid'
Just makes me think about the deplorable donald rump supporters and how anything goes for them - but we liberals or anyone else are held to a different standard.
What does the phrase mean ?
In my mind, it means stopping corporate welfare, and concentrating on helping those who don't have employment to find it. That means leveling the playing field and eliminating barriers that cause some to stay in poverty - specifically discrimination.
I'm a highly skilled person and have ownership in a successful business, and some rental properties. But I always enjoy using OPM. I choose not to risk my money when other peoples money is available. If I miss calculate it's not so painful watching their money go down the drain.
Now that I'm retired (so to speak) I can look back and say, Shit Boy Howdy, you done good with OPM.
As you can see I'm very socially liberal....and very conservative with my money.
The perfect combination.
I have this debate with several liberal friends regularly. Neither side really ever comes to agreement on it.
My position is that the two things are not mutually exclusive. Not really. Kavika's comment above is very indicative of what i'm talking about:
Yeah, conservative with YOUR money but how about others money? Social liberalism costs money and my experience with folks who say they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative usually works out like this. In that they have tend to have no problem spending money on social programs as long as it's someone elses money.
I'm not trying to single you out Kavika because i honestly don't if that's how you truly feel or not but your comment frames what i'm talking about very well. Several of my friends think like i'm talking about and its pretty damn hypocritical IMO.
Oh hell, you can single me out to your hearts content. I don't mince words. Using OPM isn't something that's unique to me or anyone. Everyone does it one way or another...Now that I'm conservative with my money doesn't mean that I don't support charities and/or liberal/social causes with it, which I do and in fairly large numbers. What it means that I'm protective of my money and will use OPM, (banks, government programs) before investing my money in a business venture. If successful then a portion of that money comes back to me to do as i see fit with it. At that point, I do support my causes.
Yes, there is huge amounts of waste within our government. There is no question about that. Yet there is much good that they do and have done.
So I'm not ready to burn down the palace over the misuse. I would rather see an effort to rid the government of the misuse, if that's possible.
I wasn’t singling you out, that was my point but whatever works for you.
That said, simply being smart enough to use OPM doesn’t necessarily make you “fiscally conservative.” It really relates more to positions on federal social spending how and who pays for it more than personal finances. And donating to your causes of choice is great but that doesn’t by itself qualify as fiscally conservative either. Not by itself.
My position on federal/state spending is of a conservative bent, always has been. Which doesn't mean that I want to cut all social programs but to administer them with a sense of what a dollar means. And the waste associated with government spending, which isn't the fault of the people that qualify for the program, but in many cases the complete incompetence of the governing agency.
I don't believe that I said that my support of causes was conservative. IMO, it's much more liberal since I do put my money where my mouth is in that support and I don't have a problem with government social programs except in some cases the incompetence of the governing agency.
States need to implement Fraud, Waste, and Abuse programs. It would be a way for state employees to report abuses that they see to counteract those abuses.