Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Every political and social advancement that has improved the lives of ordinary Americans over the past 72 years has been the work of liberals and was opposed by conservatives.[/b] From Social Security to legal protection for trade unions to the minimum wage and OSHA to civil rights to voting rights to student loans to environmental protection, all liberal programs. I don’t get it. [/list](emphasis supplied)

I think conservatives would argue that many of those things site (other than the obvious, such as voting/civil rights) are not net benefits to society. In addition, they would argue that the welfare as a whole has had the opposite effect of what was intended, especially on blacks.

But I'm not really a conservative so I wouldn't know.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yeah, I'll give you some discussion. See the charts supplied by our Dear Leader herself last week for what has happened over the last 72 years. Some blogger wants to call this social advancement? All I see from my view is increased incarceration, a higher violence rate, higher taxes, a higher abortion rate, a higher divorce rate, a higher teenage pregnancy rate, etc. etc. etc. Lets see, 72 years=1932, right?

Social Security won't be around for us. Trade unions are on their way to extinction due to incredible abuses.

I'll give you the characterization for minimum wage, bite me for the civil rights (hate is not a "conservative" trait"... don't believe me just go visit Chicago or the Northeast Democrat areas), student loans are a massive fraud that is trapping America's youth into debt for large portions of their working lives, environmental protection only works when the conservative economic models are invoked (i.e., tax people for the burdens they impose on others/society... such as with pollution vouchers).

And so on and so on.

So yeah, you guys got the minimum wage. Congratuflippinlations, geniuses. Do you want the other 50% of my check, or have you run out of ways to spend my money yet?

He(b-b-but, the blogger started it, maaaa)llo

So tell me, what's the solution to:

1. Student loans putting kids into debt forever.

2. Teen pregnancy.

3. High abortion rates (this figure is so miniscule to begin with thats its almost silly to note it or even call it a "problem" - but hey, its your list...).

4. Higher incerceration. (Wait, let me guess... "shoot them", right?)

5. Social security. (BTW, it will be around for you - it is agreed that it will be fine through 2050).

As to the trade union problem, well, since they're running themselves out of business, sounds like a self-correcting problem to me. Another example of the free market taking care of things.

Wages are driven in part by taxes. If that part of your check that goes to uncle Sam didn't go to Uncle Sam, it wouldn't be going to you.

The argument that taxes act as a disincentive on people's productivity is ludicrous. In practice, I've never seen anything but the opposite. The more they take, the harder you work to make up the difference. I have yet to hear anyone say "Well, I would like to get a raise, but that just means I'll get taxed more, so fuck it... I'll stay right where I am."

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Maybe we could start a movement to positively define the terms "conservative" and "liberal", so that the various positions of the candidates could each be compared to the actual terms. Something tells me that Bush doesn't come out nearly as much the principled and committed conservative as I would like, or as people assert.

Or maybe we could stop trying to put people and ideas into one of two pots. If someone is pro-choice, pro-education, pro-death penalty, pro-free trade, pro-free speech, anti-unnecessary taxes, anti-pork, pro-basic social services, pro-smart growth, pro-gun and anti-assault weapon, is that person a "liberal" or a "conservative"?

Even breaking it down to a single issue, like imigration: is placing tighter restrictions on immigration "liberal" or "conservative"? Is it "Democrat" or "Republican"? The answer can change at the drop of a hat.

You define "Right" as whatever you think is correct, but that doesn't necessarily have any correlation to historical perceptions of "right" or "left," or any relationship to people who are currently sitting on the right side of the aisle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Or maybe we could stop trying to put people and ideas into one of two pots. If someone is pro-choice, pro-education, pro-death penalty, pro-free trade, pro-free speech, anti-unnecessary taxes, anti-pork, pro-basic social services, pro-smart growth, pro-gun and anti-assault weapon, is that person a "liberal" or a "conservative"?

Even breaking it down to a single issue, like imigration: is placing tighter restrictions on immigration "liberal" or "conservative"? Is it "Democrat" or "Republican"? The answer can change at the drop of a hat.

You define "Right" as whatever you think is correct, but that doesn't necessarily have any correlation to historical perceptions of "right" or "left," or any relationship to people who are currently sitting on the right side of the aisle.

How about "People who want to tell you what to do" and "People who think you should decide for yourself"?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How about "People who want to tell you what to do" and "People who think you should decide for yourself"?

Doesn't work accross issues

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Who's making us safer?

• Of all the deceptive claims being made by BC04 this year, the most shameless has to be Dick Cheney's habit of darkly suggesting that a Kerry administration wouldn't do anything to prevent nuclear terrorism.
  
  The Bush administration's record on securing nuclear materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists is by any standard disgraceful. Prior to 9/11, the administration repeatedly tried to gut the Nunn-Lugar initiative, and succeeded partially, to the point that Sam Nunn had to go to Ted Turner and secure private funding for his efforts to deal with loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. After 9/11, the administration grudgingly allowed Nunn-Lugar to continue, but without additonal funding; meanwhile, there's no evidence that Bush has even mentioned the subject in his various meetings with his buddy Vladimir Putin. To top it all off, the administration managed to invade the one rogue state that didn't have a WMD program.
  
  This is one subject where Kerry has been absolutely far-sighted and consistent for many years. He has gone into excrutiating detail in this campaign in outlining exactly what he'd do to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, and exactly what the administration has failed to do.
  
  So: where are all the media fact-checkers when Cheney calls a nuclear 9/11 the most important threat to our security, and says (as he did yesterday in Ohio) John Kerry can't be trusted to even understand the threat, much less deal with it?
  
  Of course, the media might be awakened from their sluggishness on this issue if the Kerry campaign responded by pointing out the two candidates' records, instead of simply hitting the replay button and citing Kerry's Vietnam service as proof of his toughness.

NewDonkey.com

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Doesn't work accross issues

Well what do you call these folks who scream for states rights so that the states can then impose regulations on their residents which the fed govt could not impose or was reluctant to impose? Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth? I mean, if you're for states' rights on the grounds that the fed govt should not be interfering in people's lives, but you favor the state interefering in people's lives, how can you say you're for liberating people from the heavy hand of govt? How can you be against big govt at the fed level, yet in favor of it at the state level? Isn't that pointless? Aren't you just changing who's doing the interfering?

It appears to me that a lot of the states' rights people don't really want less intrusion, they're really arguing "I don't like the fed govt and I want to be regulated by the state instead". That's a valid sentiment, but these people should stop defining their aim as "liberating" people when what they really want is greater regulation of people's liberties at the state level.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So tell me, what's the solution to:

1. Student loans putting kids into debt forever.

Don't go to private universities if you plan on being a social worker as your life's career.

State schools are reasonably priced and the only people with heavy debt are those who go to private universities and grad schools. They could have gone to a cheaper state school.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. Teen pregnancy.

Masturbation.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
3. High abortion rates (this figure is so miniscule to begin with thats its almost silly to note it or even call it a "problem" - but hey, its your list...).

Limit abortion to life of the mother, rape/incest, serious health consequences of the mother and birth defects.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
4. Higher incerceration. (Wait, let me guess... "shoot them", right?)

Legalize drugs.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
5. Social security. (BTW, it will be around for you - it is agreed that it will be fine through 2050).

Means test for medicare and social security.

Any other problems you would like me to solve for you today?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone have a handle on how the Senate is going to pan out? I assume that the Rs in Kentukey thought that this race was a lock until the last few weeks. South Dakota also looks tighter than the Dems expected. I've heard that the Pennsylvania, Colorado and Oklahoma races are pretty tight, and that Obama is so far ahead that he's pretty much campaigining full time for Kerry and other Dems in Illinois. Louisiana is wierd in that their November 2 election is actually a primary, so that won't be decided on that day unless someone wins an outright majority.

What does a Kerry/Edwards win do to their seats in the Senate?

Edwards' will be won by a Rep. Kerry's isn't up so it'll be appointed or special election. But of course, anything from Mass. will be solid Dem.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well what do you call these folks who scream for states rights so that the states can then impose regulations on their residents which the fed govt could not impose or was reluctant to impose? Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth? I mean, if you're for states' rights on the grounds that the fed govt should not be interfering in people's lives, but you favor the state interefering in people's lives, how can you say you're for liberating people from the heavy hand of govt? How can you be against big govt at the fed level, yet in favor of it at the state level? Isn't that pointless? Aren't you just changing who's doing the interfering?

It appears to me that a lot of the states' rights people don't really want less intrusion, they're really arguing "I don't like the fed govt and I want to be regulated by the state instead". That's a valid sentiment, but these people should stop defining their aim as "liberating" people when what they really want is greater regulation of people's liberties at the state level.

I don't disagree with you, but it's on the other side as well. Those that want everyone to have basically unlimited social freedoms do not want all to have commensurate economic freedoms. That is what I meant by saying that your definition doesn't adequately describe people accross all issues.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It appears to me that a lot of the states' rights people don't really want less intrusion, they're really arguing "I don't like the fed govt and I want to be regulated by the state instead".

Right. With the exception, of course, of state voting procedures -- in that case, the SCOTUS should step right in.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Me
State schools are reasonably priced and the only people with heavy debt are those who go to private universities and grad schools. They could have gone to a cheaper state school.

And in case you aren't aware, there is now an option when you consolidate your student loans for income sensitive repayment. You monthly payment is tied to your income. If at the end of 25 years (or maybe it is 30) you haven't paid off the balance, the balance is forgiven.

Moreover, the military gives people education benefits, so that is another way to get a degree without going in debt. Also, many employers will pay for their employees college tuition if they do it at night. So get a job as a secretary or in the mail room out of highschool at one of these employers, and you can go to college at night.

Or someone can go to community college for 2 years living at home and then transfer to a state school for the other 2 years.

It is only private universities that put people so far into debt. There are many other options open to people including the military.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Doesn't work accross issues

I think it might better than one would suspect.
Currently, you are correct, there isn't a correlation between applying "leaving people alone / telling people what to do" and political parties. That's why many people have to weigh their stances on these issues. I think you and I (and SD) weigh toward the leave people alone side. But you find yourself a Republican disappointed with their stands on social issues (because the economic ones are more important to you) and I find myself a Democrat disappointed with my party's traditional (but as an aside, I think getting much better) stands on economic questions, because of how I rank the relative importance of my values. I'm okay with pandering to unions, because the alternative is to throw my hat in with people who hate gays, which I will NOT do. You tolerate aspects of the Republican platform because you will NEVER support raising taxes. It's just priorities (I'm genuinely trying to be neutral here: I understand your priorities even while I may disagree as to their relative importance).

I think the next ten years will show a reflection of a trend from the last ten years: periodically, the two parties have some big realignments in their philosophies to more accurately reflect the biggest masses of public opinion. It'll take another 10-15 years for party loyalists to realize they are in parties that don't reflect their interests (much like the defections of Southern Democrats to the Republican party in the 70s and early 80s), but I suspect you and I will find ourselves in the same party in 20 years.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
Right. With the exception, of course, of state voting procedures -- in that case, the SCOTUS should step right in.

There is nothing wrong with SCOUS overturning a state court when the state supreme court acts unconstutionally. I didn't see you crying about SCOTUS overturning the TX SC in Lawrence v. TX.

[Shape Shifter]

To regain the re: line.