Liberals and conservatives

[CellarRat]

Jan 14, 2014 8:29:09 GMT -5 glen said:

I'm generally a conservative. I'm more libertarian socially and conservative on fiscal and foreign policy issues.

I find that liberal policies sound great in theory but in practice tend to fail. It is difficult for conservatives to counter these initiatives because they do sound so "nice". Taking care of people, letting people do what they want, not stigmatizing the needy, etc. If you look at outcomes the picture isn't as nice. There are tons of examples but one that really screams at me is the out of wedlock birth rate for minorities. pre-1965 it was the same or better than the white rate. Currently it is at 70%+. Hmmm, what changed? Another example - and this is a good one because we'll get a before/after/after again picture - look at NYC pre-Giuliani. It was a disaster. Rudy built it up and bloomberg kept it going. We're now going to see what happens when DeBlasio re-installs liberal policies. I can't wait because it will (in my estimation) probably conclusively show the failings of liberal policies. The intentions are good but they don't take into account human nature.

That is exactly what I call myself - fiscal conservative, libertarian on social issues. I think the Republican Party loses support because of the positions on social issues. That is not government's function.

I reread some posts by sf and I want to clear the record. I have nothing against public sector employees. That is actually funny that he would say that given my situation. But to compare a school teacher to a investment banker, I know some, and compare salaries is a little naive. We all pick our vocations knowing what the compensation is, at least somewhat. The free market determines what people should make. Do I think tiger woods should make millions- unequivocally yes. Not too many tigers out there that can do what he does.

[SaintsFan]

free market does not determine public sector salaries. i.e. Teachers.

one would think that people would be paid based upon the importance to society. To think that free market dictates that is a little naive.

any idea how many worthless ass clowns are making millions of dollars with no real skills other than to say... swing a bat or throw a ball. pretty pathetic actually. I obviously like sports otherwise i wouldnt be a moderator here but without a doubt our priorities are a bit phuked.

[MTS]

Jan 14, 2014 13:51:43 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

Jan 14, 2014 8:29:09 GMT -5 glen said:

I'm generally a conservative. I'm more libertarian socially and conservative on fiscal and foreign policy issues.

I find that liberal policies sound great in theory but in practice tend to fail. It is difficult for conservatives to counter these initiatives because they do sound so "nice". Taking care of people, letting people do what they want, not stigmatizing the needy, etc. If you look at outcomes the picture isn't as nice. There are tons of examples but one that really screams at me is the out of wedlock birth rate for minorities. pre-1965 it was the same or better than the white rate. Currently it is at 70%+. Hmmm, what changed? Another example - and this is a good one because we'll get a before/after/after again picture - look at NYC pre-Giuliani. It was a disaster. Rudy built it up and bloomberg kept it going. We're now going to see what happens when DeBlasio re-installs liberal policies. I can't wait because it will (in my estimation) probably conclusively show the failings of liberal policies. The intentions are good but they don't take into account human nature.

That is exactly what I call myself - fiscal conservative, libertarian on social issues. I think the Republican Party loses support because of the positions on social issues. That is not government's function.

I reread some posts by sf and I want to clear the record. I have nothing against public sector employees. That is actually funny that he would say that given my situation. But to compare a school teacher to a investment banker, I know some, and compare salaries is a little naive. We all pick our vocations knowing what the compensation is, at least somewhat. The free market determines what people should make. Do I think tiger woods should make millions- unequivocally yes. Not too many tigers out there that can do what he does.

100% agree... The social stuff is where the democratic party wins with in 2014. And the fact that keeping people down is a way to ensure they'll always be there to keep them in power.

The GOP needs to focus on the economy. Who cares if Barry and Larry want to get married? The Republican party loses because of these stupid social issues.

I do agree with Saintsfan on some things... yes teachers and firefighters are more important than actors/athletes but lets face it more can do the former than the latter and that's why a unique skill is always going to be paid more or at least as long as people are willing to pay to see them preform their craft. People will never be paid on their importance to society.. it just not the real world.

In theory liberal policy's sounds great but when implemented, what is the saying, is eventually you run out of other people's money?

[th24]

It's all about Obamacare in 2014!

[th24]

[CellarRat]

Jan 14, 2014 14:28:44 GMT -5 SaintsFan said:

free market does not determine public sector salaries. i.e. Teachers.

one would think that people would be paid based upon the importance to society. To think that free market dictates that is a little naive.

any idea how many worthless ass clowns are making millions of dollars with no real skills other than to say... swing a bat or throw a ball. pretty pathetic actually. I obviously like sports otherwise i wouldnt be a moderator here but without a doubt our priorities are a bit phuked.

Yes that is true. I guess my point is that public sector positions should be paid similar to their private sector counterparts assuming all things being equal. Fairness and value for me is determined by the free market, that is why I love this country, I know that isn't pc, but I do love this country and the values it was founded on.

Your logic regarding professional athletes and school teachers is troubling. In your mind who determines how much the athlete makes? Can you please answer that? Is it the government? Is it you? Or should it be the free market? (I agree with you when it comes to justin beiber and liberal actors-take all their money)

Let me answer for you. "I don't have all the answers". No you don't. The more we try to eff with the free market the more trouble our country gets in. Let the people decide through their purchasing power who deserves what. Not the individual with views he deems altruistic.

[CellarRat]

Jan 14, 2014 16:20:30 GMT -5 th24 said:

Love it!

[CellarRat]

m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579308811265028066?mobile=y

[glen]

SaintsFan - you mentioned the "importance to society" and that "to think the free market dictates that is a little naive".

This is exactly where the left gets on their high horse. The free market does determine that...it's just that not everyone agrees. The left loves to determine what is "fair" - based on their opinion. The difference between liberal and conservative I think I've distilled down to equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (right). Liberals are constantly trying to equalize outcomes. This is flawed in that the market is like a balloon - push on one side and it gets skinny but the other side expands. The "market" is complex with lots of inputs. Changing a single input often times has unintended consequences.

One can easily see this in the global warming / CO2 debate. The left (and yes this is a leftist issue) insists that controlling a single input (CO2) will "fix" the problem. Really? In a system as complex as global climate they think 1 input will control it? Talk about clinging to faith! Of course the data that shows a) it's been warmer b) plants are way happier with more CO2 c) the planet has historically done better when it was warmer with more CO2 d) Is CO2 the cause? e) Even if CO2 is the cause, is man the cause of the increase? So many relevant questions on this settled science yet the left will spend trillions to mitigate a single input. Wow.

[SaintsFan]

Jan 15, 2014 8:25:01 GMT -5 glen said:

SaintsFan - you mentioned the "importance to society" and that "to think the free market dictates that is a little naive".

This is exactly where the left gets on their high horse. The free market does determine that...it's just that not everyone agrees. The left loves to determine what is "fair" - based on their opinion. The difference between liberal and conservative I think I've distilled down to equality of outcome (left) vs equality of opportunity (right). Liberals are constantly trying to equalize outcomes. This is flawed in that the market is like a balloon - push on one side and it gets skinny but the other side expands. The "market" is complex with lots of inputs. Changing a single input often times has unintended consequences.

One can easily see this in the global warming / CO2 debate. The left (and yes this is a leftist issue) insists that controlling a single input (CO2) will "fix" the problem. Really? In a system as complex as global climate they think 1 input will control it? Talk about clinging to faith! Of course the data that shows a) it's been warmer b) plants are way happier with more CO2 c) the planet has historically done better when it was warmer with more CO2 d) Is CO2 the cause? e) Even if CO2 is the cause, is man the cause of the increase? So many relevant questions on this settled science yet the left will spend trillions to mitigate a single input. Wow.

youve attempted to paint me left as you are right. im in the middle somewhere.

and the conservative as you defined it doesnt exist or at least is not anywhere near what the Republican party in particular represents. A group of Republicans may believe that particular value of equality of opportunity but the reigning power of the conservatives belive NOTHING in equal opportunity. The deck is stacked in their favor and has been for decades. The reason someone like me might believe in social welfare is because the financial system in this country is heavily weighted in favor of those who already have a lot of money. You painted me left because i used a term "importance to society".

im left of center on some things and right on others. what is dead center certain is that there is no equality of opportunity. saying that there is is either a lie or ignorance.

[Deleted]

Glen,
I hear what you are saying but I have to add that the right many times makes their points by naively stating that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed and that those that don't do so out of choice. I don't believe our society facilitates across the board success and I do think that some need help to at least achieve a minimum standard of living. The upper end of our society, more often than not, squeezes those on the lower end of the income scale to maximize their own wealth. Any government aid is characterized by the right as unnecessary and, in the extreme, harmful in that it somehow cultivates a generation of dependence. While generations of dependence do exist I think they result more from the realization that success to any degree just isn't possible so they give up.

I won't go into the global warming debate. I am a pure scientist and my views are 180 degrees from yours. You are right however to conclude that the complexity of the atmosphere clouds (pun intended) some minds. Those clouded minds conveniently find validation when they see massive shifts in cold weather phenomena without looking deeper to see that the warming of the planet creates the wild climate swings we have been experiencing. Where do you think all of the added moisture in the atmosphere came from? Why did it change its state? Look to the Poles and global warming might make more sense to you. The rising ocean levels aren't due to population growth and an increase in toilets.

One thing the entire right is in agreement on is their views on the Affordable Health Care Act. I find the "Obamacare" moniker offensive but I'm not wild about the "affordable" part either - it created its own momentum in that people thought cost would go down instead of considering it will result in a drop in the rate of future cost increases (which we all have experienced ever before the ACA) as we go forward. They claim they want to control their own health care and not let the Government do it. They seem to forget that the so called free market insurance companies controlled all aspects of our health care before the ACA and their motives were simple - MAXIMIZE profits. These same people love Medicare!!! The right asks "Why should we pay for those that can't afford health insurance?" IMO, that is a very uninformed view in that prior to the ACA we ALL paid for the care that was provided to those who could not afford or obtain any level of health insurance. Those unrecovered costs, paid to the hospital via inflated ER and in-patient billings, went into the cost estimates and justifications for future cost increases for the insurance coverage the rest of us have. I recall hospital bills several years ago where I was charged, during an ER stay of two hours, for two Tylenol tablets at $30 - same bill had a $120 charge for a shot I DIDN'T even get. I called the hospital and was told no problem, your insurance covers it! Recognized and sanctioned fraud, no other way to describe it. Many of my friends have experienced similar things. Most people, unfortunately, look at any bills they MIGHT see (they don't all come to us) and focus only on what's owed and give a cursory look at the total cost. Most people are surprised by the total and then relieved to learn their policies covered it. Talking to one of our elected state officials (note I didn't say "representative" - he clearly doesn't represent me in any way, shape or form) resulted in his validating what the hospitals do as being the only way the cost to cover the uninsured can be recouped! Bottom line - we all pay. This fact gets ignored by those that decry the ACA.

This Liberal vs Conservative debate has been interesting. No more Democrats or Republicans, just "us" vs "them" - Liberal has a much meaner tone while Conservative seems so measured - HA!. It is a debate that will not be won or lost by either side, but one that might get some to think differently about why others think differently than they do. It's also a testament to the state of our basketball program - we don't have much else to bitch about these days! Let's go Saints!

[glen]

See this is where I think fundamentally MP and SF are looking for Utopia. There will never, ever be total equality of anything. In the aggregate, capitalism, specifically US capitalism has provided the greatest opportunity for everyone to succeed. Even in the days of the robber barons, people still managed to rise through the ranks. Are some at a disadvantage to start? Heck yea. I'm not saying a kid born into a single parent, destitute family has the same starting opps as a 2 parent (doctor/lawyer) family in White Plains. Anyone trying to correct that perceived "unfairness" is doomed to totally mess everything up.

Should people be starving in the streets? Generally, no. That said the carte blanche, no stigma, systems we have in place now are incentivising non-work. You can say there's a few bad apples but that's selling the corruption short. One can justly argue that many of these folks don't have the skills for anything else. Possibly/probably. Stil the system is set up to have beggars become chosers. That shouldn't be so IMO.


I'd love to get into a debate othe AGW issue to. I've heard all the scare mongering, yet this last year we had 0 (ZERO) hurricanes. I thought they were supposed to be more frequent and greater intensity. Science? Please spare me. :-)

[Deleted]

Last time I looked the Pacific Rim countries were on the same globe we are! Did you bother to notice the storms they have had this year. Yes, we were fortunate but only by chance. Have you bothered to look at the last two major winter hurricanes in this country - they are called hurricanes and they were massive. Spare me the convenient denial when facing facts is inconvenient. I had hopes for you - but your last paragraph characterizes you best. Sad!

Not looking for Utopia but it would be nice to have a community where the homeless are not found dead in the streets after a cold snap.

[th24]

[CellarRat]

Jan 15, 2014 12:24:44 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Last time I looked the Pacific Rim countries were on the same globe we are! Did you bother to notice the storms they have had this year. Yes, we were fortunate but only by chance. Have you bothered to look at the last two major winter hurricanes in this country - they are called hurricanes and they were massive. Spare me the convenient denial when facing facts is inconvenient. I had hopes for you - but your last paragraph characterizes you best. Sad!

Not looking for Utopia but it would be nice to have a community where the homeless are not found dead in the streets after a cold snap.

I do not think anyone wants to find the homeless in the street dead after a cold snap. So please dont try to pretend you are kinder than the rest of us. I would argue that you and people your thinking have actually created a more dependent society - poorer that is. I do not recall reading anything about homeless people freezing in the streets. No Section 8 housing? No homeless shelters? No family and friends to help out? Churches? Temples? Mosques?

Most of the people that freeze in the streets are the mentally ill that elect not to recieve services available to them. With regard to global warming, which I believe you guys are calling climate change, since the temperature seems to be going the other direction, or a least cooling a bit over that past 15 years. I admit, this is one topic that I have not read a great deal about, but I know their appears to be a loose consensus that climate change exists. I also think that these scientists dont think we can really do much to change it in an effective way. On this subject I will defer to you and your liberal experts. I know the solution right - TAXES!