One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main
Fundamental difference between conservatives and leftists
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Apr 13, 2018 13:00:10   #
Voice of Reason
 
While an entire book could be written on the differences between leftists and conservatives, I've been looking for fundamental ones, those that lead to all the others. I think I've found one:

When a conservative sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "I'm able to support myself and my family, that person should too. If I can do it, anybody can."

When a leftist sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "The only reason I'm not in that poor person's position is because I'm so superior to most other people."
 
Apr 13, 2018 13:24:53   #
JW (a regular here)
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
While an entire book could be written on the differences between leftists and conservatives, I've been looking for fundamental ones, those that lead to all the others. I think I've found one:

When a conservative sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "I'm able to support myself and my family, that person should too. If I can do it, anybody can."

When a leftist sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "The only reason I'm not in that poor person's position is because I'm so superior to most other people."
While an entire book could be written on the diffe... (show quote)


Good observation; here's one more, when Conservatives see a problem, they see an opportunity; when Leftists see a problem, they demand that someone else fix it.
Apr 13, 2018 13:32:50   #
saltwind 78 (a regular here)
 
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of your definition. A conservative lives in the best of all possible worlds. They believe that it is their duty to stand in the road of history with a stop sign. There should be no change in the traditional way of doing things. Those in power or with huge fortunes are in those positions because they deserve to be. Poor people are in that position for much the same reason. If they need more money to live a decent life, they should depend on charity, not state aid.
A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care. It should be paid for by state funds and not just given to the super rich as a tax write off. The conservative would say, what tax write off? They earned it, it's theirs. If less wealthy folks need more money, they should work harder. Does that just about cover it?
Voice of Reason wrote:
While an entire book could be written on the differences between leftists and conservatives, I've been looking for fundamental ones, those that lead to all the others. I think I've found one:

When a conservative sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "I'm able to support myself and my family, that person should too. If I can do it, anybody can."

When a leftist sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "The only reason I'm not in that poor person's position is because I'm so superior to most other people."
While an entire book could be written on the diffe... (show quote)
Apr 13, 2018 13:39:28   #
JW (a regular here)
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
...A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care. It should be paid for by state funds...


Thanks for confirming my characterization! Liberals look for someone else to fix their perceived problems.

Added: the state has no funds that it doesn't confiscate from its citizens.
Apr 13, 2018 13:44:48   #
Liberty Tree (a regular here)
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
While an entire book could be written on the differences between leftists and conservatives, I've been looking for fundamental ones, those that lead to all the others. I think I've found one:

When a conservative sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "I'm able to support myself and my family, that person should too. If I can do it, anybody can."

When a leftist sees a non-disabled 'needy' person they think, "The only reason I'm not in that poor person's position is because I'm so superior to most other people."
While an entire book could be written on the diffe... (show quote)


Conservatives believe that ethical principles should determine their goals. Liberals believe that their goals should not be hindered by ethical principles.
Apr 13, 2018 15:00:48   #
jack sequim wa (a regular here)
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of your definition. A conservative lives in the best of all possible worlds. They believe that it is their duty to stand in the road of history with a stop sign. There should be no change in the traditional way of doing things. Those in power or with huge fortunes are in those positions because they deserve to be. Poor people are in that position for much the same reason. If they need more money to live a decent life, they should depend on charity, not state aid.
A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care. It should be paid for by state funds and not just given to the super rich as a tax write off. The conservative would say, what tax write off? They earned it, it's theirs. If less wealthy folks need more money, they should work harder. Does that just about cover it?
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of ... (show quote)



I agree with a few of your assessments on a limited degree.

To some degree their are the poor, not mentally ill, not stupid, however have extremely weak social skills, slightly below the average IQ and short of falling into good luck will be lifelong dependant on minimum wage with challenges finding employers eager to hire them. Could be genetics, familual history or a dozen other factors individual or combined.

Then we have a larger percentage with poor social skills, didn't graduate high school, their not stupid instead smart and average or slightly above average IQ, however no motivation, no sense of desire to work their way up the ladder, ignore traits of those that are achievers. They can find employment at lower wage base but with effort.

Then the above, but are flat out lazy. Seek ways to beat the system in a full effort to avoid a forty hour work week, subject to authority and being submissive to employers is not in their plans.

To the lest degree are the mentally slow, unable to maintain and secure full employment.

I may have missed a few, for sure am not using all the proper terminology.
I'm basing the above on conversations with my wife while she was doing her psychology studies for her PHD, she was doing a paper on this very subject, it also included bias and racism, as well as ways social programs of the state and Federal government continues many generational patterns found mostly in Black's and Native Americans. Our government programs are not designed to assist bringing many if our minority groups out if their third world challenges, instead they accomplish holding them down.

Our system is broken. It does not have a workable "hand up" program, instead it's a handout program.

Oregon state had a extremely successful hand up program. It didn't penalize housing, food stamps, or monthly cash for a person trying to enter the work force, and was thoughtfully tiered giving a person more income, based on time / income increases while maintaining benefits. They also included training for resumes, interviewing skills, job search and placement assistance.

The outcome was that many began working plus receiving benefits. They had more money to live on, spending and the state was able to reduce the amount of total benefits, saving tax payers.

The surprise outcome was, over time a high percentage worked up the ladder or found a living wage far exceeding benifits and completely exited all benifits

Can you guess what happened? I'll tell you, liberal lawmakers canceled the program, a truly successful program.

Trump is on the right track with his EO, only if he adds programs liken to what Oregon state had. If not, many in the free ride will have to work for a living, but also many of those dependant of social programs to survive may get hurt in the process.

We'll see what Trump adds to his work or no benefits.

Based on my wife's research, only between 25-30% maximum need full government benefits of the hundred something million currently receiving benefits.
It also means tens of millions of jobs need to be available.
 
Apr 13, 2018 15:31:32   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
Apply it to whole regions of poor, white, out of work coal miners, do they "deserve" assistance?

I think they deserve a hand feeding their families while programs are in place to train them for other jobs.

Yes there are deadbeats, but there are people who deserve chances to change their circumstances.
Apr 13, 2018 16:19:13   #
jack sequim wa (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
Apply it to whole regions of poor, white, out of work coal miners, do they "deserve" assistance?

I think they deserve a hand feeding their families while programs are in place to train them for other jobs.

Yes there are deadbeats, but there are people who deserve chances to change their circumstances.


Exactly, but sadly our government system is set up for deadbeats, not aid to those in need, unless you are an illegal
Apr 13, 2018 16:30:18   #
pafret (a regular here)
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of your definition. A conservative lives in the best of all possible worlds. They believe that it is their duty to stand in the road of history with a stop sign. There should be no change in the traditional way of doing things. Those in power or with huge fortunes are in those positions because they deserve to be. Poor people are in that position for much the same reason. If they need more money to live a decent life, they should depend on charity, not state aid.
A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care. It should be paid for by state funds and not just given to the super rich as a tax write off. The conservative would say, what tax write off? They earned it, it's theirs. If less wealthy folks need more money, they should work harder. Does that just about cover it?
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of ... (show quote)


You are not talking conservatism you are talking Calvinism. A conservative does indeed stand athwart popular movements saying halt. But, it is not simply halt but instead, let us think and consider if the change is good for us. You are correct that the conservative does not want a government that gives us "stuff". We do believe that if you want stuff then you should earn it and buy whatever you want, not what the government has decreed you should have.

It is patently absurd to say that Conservatives think that those with huge fortunes were predestined to have them and are entitled to every penny. Our government has become so overbearing that the legislation and control, of the money supply has been manipulated to benefit the super wealthy. A Conservative says level the playing field such that I get my fair share of the pie through my efforts and I will take care of my own health care. I won't need to be concerned with any one elses write-offs. We were weaned long ago and we don't need any governmental sugar tits.
Apr 13, 2018 16:54:30   #
JW (a regular here)
 
pafret wrote:
You are not talking conservatism you are talking Calvinism. A conservative does indeed stand athwart popular movements saying halt. But, it is not simply halt but instead, let us think and consider if the change is good for us. You are correct that the conservative does not want a government that gives us "stuff". We do believe that if you want stuff then you should earn it and buy whatever you want, not what the government has decreed you should have.

It is patently absurd to say that Conservatives think that those with huge fortunes were predestined to have them and are entitled to every penny. Our government has become so overbearing that the legislation and control, of the money supply has been manipulated to benefit the super wealthy. A Conservative says level the playing field such that I get my fair share of the pie through my efforts and I will take care of my own health care. I won't need to be concerned with any one elses write-offs. We were weaned long ago and we don't need any governmental sugar tits.
You are not talking conservatism you are talking C... (show quote)


Exactly!
Apr 13, 2018 17:23:16   #
Voice of Reason
 
JW wrote:
Good observation; here's one more, when Conservatives see a problem, they see an opportunity; when Leftists see a problem, they demand that someone else fix it.


That's so true, but I think it stems from mine. They think performing the fix is beneath them, due to their superiority.
 
Apr 13, 2018 17:25:34   #
Voice of Reason
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Conservatives believe that ethical principles should determine their goals. Liberals believe that their goals should not be hindered by ethical principles.


Excellent!

For the longest time I've said that leftists redefine ethical as anything that advances their goals. I like your way better.
Apr 13, 2018 17:49:54   #
Voice of Reason
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of your definition.


That's because it's original. And it's not a definition.

saltwind 78 wrote:
A conservative lives in the best of all possible worlds. They believe that it is their duty to stand in the road of history with a stop sign. There should be no change in the traditional way of doing things.


I think that would depend on what one defines as history. Certainly conservatives want to stop the kind of history that occurred in Cuba since the leftist takeover from happening here. Conservatives want to stop the kind of history that is occurring in Venezuela since the leftist takeover from happening here.

saltwind 78 wrote:
Those in power or with huge fortunes are in those positions because they deserve to be.


LOLOLOL. You'd be hard-pressed to find even one conservative who believes Hillary deserves anything but jail time.

saltwind 78 wrote:
Poor people are in that position for much the same reason. If they need more money to live a decent life, they should depend on charity, not state aid.


Funny how 'get a job' never occurred to you.

saltwind 78 wrote:
A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care.


And yet the richest, most liberal state in the country has the highest population, both in raw numbers and percentage, of poor living on the street in tents. They have no access to any of your basics. What libs claim to believe doesn't correspond with what happens when they're in control. That's because they lie.

saltwind 78 wrote:
It should be paid for by state funds and not just given to the super rich as a tax write off.


There are no state funds, per se. Everything the state gives to somebody had to be taken from somebody else.

saltwind 78 wrote:
The conservative would say, what tax write off? They earned it, it's theirs. If less wealthy folks need more money, they should work harder. Does that just about cover it?


Question: In a socialistic society, should a person who could contribute, but doesn't, be considered antisocial? Should they be punished?
Apr 14, 2018 07:11:24   #
itsmyjob
 
woodguru wrote:
Apply it to whole regions of poor, white, out of work coal miners, do they "deserve" assistance?

I think they deserve a hand feeding their families while programs are in place to train them for other jobs.

Yes there are deadbeats, but there are people who deserve chances to change their circumstances.

I do believe that the coal mining industry is down because of the government. Offering help would admit they did it.
Apr 14, 2018 07:18:28   #
snowbear37
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of your definition. A conservative lives in the best of all possible worlds. They believe that it is their duty to stand in the road of history with a stop sign. There should be no change in the traditional way of doing things. Those in power or with huge fortunes are in those positions because they deserve to be. Poor people are in that position for much the same reason. If they need more money to live a decent life, they should depend on charity, not state aid.
A liberal believes that in a wealthy country like the US, everybody is entitled to the basic things in life needed for a decent life, like health care. It should be paid for by state funds and not just given to the super rich as a tax write off. The conservative would say, what tax write off? They earned it, it's theirs. If less wealthy folks need more money, they should work harder. Does that just about cover it?
Voice, As a liberal/progressive, I never heard of ... (show quote)


The "traditional way of doing things" is what made this country the greatest in the world. Liberals/progressives are trying to change that into a socialist way of doing things. Even though it's been proven that socialism doesn't work. Liberal/progressives use the word "entitled" like a tool to get votes. Some of the most wealthy people in this country are liberals/progressives. The so-called "super rich" generally haven't been "given" anything, they pay for what they get and apparently aren't "entitled" to anything. This country used to be known as "the land of opportunity" not "the land of entitlements". Liberals/progressives are changing it to "land of if you have more than me, give me some of yours".
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.