Ending poverty, the liberal way.


boyando
 Share

Recommended Posts

What I'm saying is that the average liberal today would not support such a plan which directly contradicts the implication of the OP.

I can't argue with this.

I am not particularly interested in politics and political leaders so I can't say with any certainty, but my feeling is that just because an influential figure wrote a paper does not mean that particular paper is equally influential.

Perhaps. I vividly recall a newsclip from the late '60s or very early '70s in which a Democratic leader was responding to a claim that the Democrats were looking to legitimize homosexuality. This leader denounced that claim in no uncertain terms, making it perfectly clear that such a thing was in no possible way on the Democratic agenda. Of course, within ten years, exactly that had become an important talking point within the Democratic Party, and today it is anathema for a Democrat to stray from the idea that homosexuality is perfectly legitimate, protected, and "beautiful".

Sometimes conspiracy theories are just absurd. Other times, they sound absurd but perhaps are not. The fact that influential and powerful leaders in the political left have openly announced their support for socially subversive tactics ought to raise an alarmed cry among all those who value societal stability. It should be very well-known that the forces behind many present-day movements are the same forces that called for actions to hasten societal disintegration. Instead, this is all but unknown to the masses.

If important, influential conservatives had written a paper in the 1960s extolling the virtues of Naziism or fascism, do you think it would be wrong to publicize the fact or to suggest that modern conservative politics were very likely influenced by exactly this agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If important, influential conservatives had written a paper in the 1960s extolling the virtues of Naziism or fascism, do you think it would be wrong to publicize the fact or to suggest that modern conservative politics were very likely influenced by exactly this agenda?

Honestly, I don't think it would be "wrong" to bring it up but I do think it would be counterproductive. I don't personally know any conservatives today that seriously consider fascism to be a good idea and it would only serve to further the liberal/conservative divide to point to things like that and make wild accusations on the intentions of the "other side" of this political divide based on a single paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying the United Order is very similar to Communism is tantamount to saying that Christ is very similar to Satan. Yes, there are many things in common- but it's in the differences that the real importance lies.

Communism is Satan's cheap rip-off of the United Order. I don't know why some Mormon intellectuals go on about the similarities between the two.

I can't believe that some liberals are just blowing this article off. The facts presented in the article are key in understanding the radical left, and also gives some insight into modern-day happenings (ACORN's actions, the crises the administration's "fixing" with more money, and more).

An article like this is very relevant, I think. Average liberals may not agree with these tactics- but powerful people in the White House do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying the United Order is very similar to Communism is tantamount to saying that Christ is very similar to Satan. Yes, there are many things in common- but it's in the differences that the real importance lies.

Communism is Satan's cheap rip-off of the United Order. I don't know why some Mormon intellectuals go on about the similarities between the two.

I can't believe that some liberals are just blowing this article off. The facts presented in the article are key in understanding the radical left, and also gives some insight into modern-day happenings (ACORN's actions, the crises the administration's "fixing" with more money, and more).

An article like this is very relevant, I think. Average liberals may not agree with these tactics- but powerful people in the White House do.

I think perhaps you should do research on both the United Order and communism. You'll find that the only fundamental differences are that the United Order was administered on as local a level as possible, and was entered into by choice and not by coercion.

Coincidentally, that is exactly the fundamental difference between Christ and Satan. So I guess you're right, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Also, if you read through Church leaders' statements about communism, what you'll learn is that the biggest issue they had against it was its manifestation as 'godless communism.' But again, taking these statements into context, what these people meant by communism was actually Marxism. Marxism and the United Order were both forms of communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting shot down? By whom? And what exactly are those balloons? Need I remind you that the Dems control....everything?????

Trial balloons like universal health care? Expanding Job Corp? Merely restricting welfare and Medicade and getting rid of capital gains taxes is not a whole plan to fight poverty. As for by who...I am reminded of a poll that said about 75% of Utahns disliked the health care bill, yet when Pres. Obama's name was taken off about 54% said something needed to be done about affordable health care. Give me a bit to find the link.

Dems do not control everything, bitterness of the loyal opposition aside. If they did then passage of the health care bill would be certain :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trial balloons like universal health care? Expanding Job Corp? Merely restricting welfare and Medicade and getting rid of capital gains taxes is not a whole plan to fight poverty. As for by who...I am reminded of a poll that said about 75% of Utahns disliked the health care bill, yet when Pres. Obama's name was taken off about 54% said something needed to be done about affordable health care. Give me a bit to find the link.

Dems do not control everything, bitterness of the loyal opposition aside. If they did then passage of the health care bill would be certain :P

More government social programs will NOT end poverty and the fact that the "war" on poverty launched by Johnson has been such a dismal failure ought to teach us all a valuable lesson. Maybe a renewed focus on the family might be a better placed effort.

Something does need to be done about healthcare...without a doubt. The Democrat plan will bankrupt our country Talisyn. The Senate bill will cost 850 billion and add nearly 2 trillion to the national debt and will alledgedly insure 31 million people. Thus far everything the Obama administration has attempted has been a dismal failure and the cost will reverberate for generations to come. You really want to trust anyone in government with health care...really? What exactly is your understanding of what and for whom the health care bill will provide? Seriously, slide out of your Democrat suit for a moment and think logically.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about ending poverty? Seems like the Liberals are the only ones sending up the trial balloons that keep getting shot down.

Matthew 26:11

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Perhaps the "Liberals" are too blind to see that "eradicating poverty" is an impossible job. Better to make a society where those who want to succeed are allowed to try.

The fact is, many or most "conservatives" are more concerned about the poor than are the "liberals", as demonstrated by the larger charitable contributions by conservatives. They just think that they themselves should do it, not that it should be turned over to the government to do by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew 26:11

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Perhaps the "Liberals" are too blind to see that "eradicating poverty" is an impossible job. Better to make a society where those who want to succeed are allowed to try.

I wouldn't call it impossible. If you're LDS you technically believe it's happened at least twice;). Still I don't think most believe, rationally, that poverty will be irradicated but that it can be relieved and made less severe.

The fact is, many or most "conservatives" are more concerned about the poor than are the "liberals", as demonstrated by the larger charitable contributions by conservatives. They just think that they themselves should do it, not that it should be turned over to the government to do by force.

The statistics that prove this, show a correlation, yes. But correlation does not equal causatation. In fact when these studies are read, a more important indicator of charitable contribution and hours of service is religiousity. In fact when the liberal and conservatives are realligned by religious devotion the religious liberals and conservative contribute around the same followed by the not-so-devoted liberals who are then trailed by their secular-leaning conservative counterparts.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it impossible. If you're LDS you technically believe it's happened at least twice;). Still I don't think most believe, rationally, that poverty will be irradicated but that it can be relieved and made less severe.

The statistics that prove this, show a correlation, yes. But correlation does not equal causatation. In fact when these studies are read, a more important indicator of charitable contribution and hours of service is religiousity. In fact when the liberal and conservatives are realligned by religious devotion the religious liberals and conservative contribute around the same followed by the not-so-devoted liberals who are then trailed by their secular-leaning conservative counterparts.

With luv,

BD

Source? And I dare say.....religious conservatives far out number religious liberals. As a matter of fact....conservatives out number liberals over all.

More here.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the "Liberals" are too blind to see that "eradicating poverty" is an impossible job. Better to make a society where those who want to succeed are allowed to try.

The effort to do the best we can is the true goal for His path. Not following the trail of greed and what's in it for "me". If we served this Randian trail, what would we say to the Savior concerning the treatment of the least of we?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Do those charitable donations in the statistics include things like tithing and donations to your church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More government social programs will NOT end poverty and the fact that the "war" on poverty launched by Johnson has been such a dismal failure ought to teach us all a valuable lesson. Maybe a renewed focus on the family might be a better placed effort.

Something does need to be done about healthcare...without a doubt. The Democrat plan will bankrupt our country Talisyn. The Senate bill will cost 850 billion and add nearly 2 trillion to the national debt and will alledgedly insure 31 million people. Thus far everything the Obama administration has attempted has been a dismal failure and the cost will reverberate for generations to come. You really want to trust anyone in government with health care...really? What exactly is your understanding of what and for whom the health care bill will provide? Seriously, slide out of your Democrat suit for a moment and think logically.

Well if we are thinking logically we must conclude that the Republican plan will kill people. So we are either bankrupt or killers :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to say my tongue was firmly in cheek when I posted that last one (and it was) but then I thought that if I give an inch I'd lose face (which in all honesty I don't care about except here lol). Then I was reminded of a link I found an a different site The Problem With The Linux Community - O'Reilly Broadcast

There is too much fanaticism in the world, people getting all exited over nothing - over stuff which is meaningless. The really important and relevant stuff is ignored.

But the reason is clear - the real issues are ignored because what is most important to me? ME.

So, forget the real issues - you better watch what you say about MY distro (religion, team, car etc., etc.) because what you are saying, you say about ME.

Remember, this is MY distro (religion, team, car etc., etc. ) I have chosen it. Therefore, if it is less than perfect then I am less than perfect......and THAT I can't bear.

--Antony, DistroWatch comments section, post #291

I guess that's that for me. I'm obviously not changing minds or attitudes, and all my attitude is doing is getting stubborn. So for the sake of my mellowiness (byproduct of my liberal leanings :P ) I'm getting more ice-cold green koolade, a piece of pumpkin pie, and going back to my real job, teaching my daughter that she can leave this world a better place than she found it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if we are thinking logically we must conclude that the Republican plan will kill people. So we are either bankrupt or killers :P

Why will it kill people? Because a raving leftist lune (not you Talisyn) said it would? C'mon your smarter than that. I don't know if the Republicans have a good plan or not....BUT, seriously the solution exists without bankrupting the country or leaving the less fortunate high and dry....don't you think? Why oh why....what has the government done to deserve this kind of faith?

If the Democrats plan allowed inter state competition for health care plans, increased availability of medicaid and drastically reduced the waste in our budget to compensate for any new spending....I would jump on board. Until then, I will remain skeptical. Sorry I don't trust the government to do anything well except blowing things up......I sure don't trust them with health care.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew 26:11

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Perhaps the "Liberals" are too blind to see that "eradicating poverty" is an impossible job. Better to make a society where those who want to succeed are allowed to try.

The fact is, many or most "conservatives" are more concerned about the poor than are the "liberals", as demonstrated by the larger charitable contributions by conservatives. They just think that they themselves should do it, not that it should be turned over to the government to do by force.

The only thing that I would add to your statement, is, as a conservative, I believe that poverty can be eradicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT, seriously the solution exists without bankrupting the country or leaving the less fortunate high and dry....

You are no doubt referring to placing the uninsured out on ice flows.

I sure don't trust them with health care.

At least until all the ice flows have melted.

:rolleyes:

The rest of the industrial world relies on health care systems.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are no doubt referring to placing the uninsured out on ice flows.

At least until all the ice flows have melted.

:rolleyes:

The rest of the industrial world relies on health care systems.

.

We have a health care system and we the availability of the best health care in the world. We have a cost issue....not a system issue.If you are so high on the government solution, why not just have the government refund (return tax dollars) the cost of health insurance for everyone....a voucher maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... why not just have the government refund (return tax dollars) the cost of health insurance for everyone....a voucher maybe?

Maybe. Not sure if everyone can afford the upfront payment. I think you previously mentioned a general public buy-in to Medicaid. Wonder if a public option would look something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask a sincere question. It appears to me that everyone here is saying that they think the government cannot manage the health care responsible. But what I'm seeing is that some people think that since something must be done, then anything done is better than nothing. The other side of the argument is that just doing something is not sufficient because of the cost of the bill and the fact the government is in charge.

Is that summary correct? I truly don't understand how anyone can be in favor of a government run health system which will literally bankrupt our country. I have not read anything here that addressed this new bill/attempts in a favorable light.

Is there anyone here that fully supports the current bill/attempts to change health care? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask a sincere question. It appears to me that everyone here is saying that they think the government cannot manage the health care responsible. But what I'm seeing is that some people think that since something must be done, then anything done is better than nothing. The other side of the argument is that just doing something is not sufficient because of the cost of the bill and the fact the government is in charge.

Is that summary correct? I truly don't understand how anyone can be in favor of a government run health system which will literally bankrupt our country. I have not read anything here that addressed this new bill/attempts in a favorable light.

Is there anyone here that fully supports the current bill/attempts to change health care? Why?

Yes indeed....our bank account is overdrawn and credit cards are maxed out. China is upset as are many other countries at the weakening dollar. WHY isn't the man at the helm???????

We can't have it all......something must be cut and soon. Repeal the stimulus bill and the omnibus...... that's a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask a sincere question. It appears to me that everyone here is saying that they think the government cannot manage the health care responsible. But what I'm seeing is that some people think that since something must be done, then anything done is better than nothing. The other side of the argument is that just doing something is not sufficient because of the cost of the bill and the fact the government is in charge.

Is that summary correct? I truly don't understand how anyone can be in favor of a government run health system which will literally bankrupt our country. I have not read anything here that addressed this new bill/attempts in a favorable light.

Is there anyone here that fully supports the current bill/attempts to change health care? Why?

All those who still believe in HOPE and CHANGE support the newest bills for health care reform.

You can count the members of Congress who have supported the currant bills.

The News papers that I have seen, all make it seem like a good idea, if you read there headlines.

The only ones who don't seem to favor the current bill's, are the majority of the American people.

Maybe it's time we all just get use to the idea of a lowered standard of living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share