"Bleeding-Heart Liberal" is a Misnomer

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
So, to recap:

Liberals (generally) think that the poor, sick and otherwise needy should be cared for (to a greater degree) by the government, which is funded by taxation.

Conservatives (generally) think that the poor, sick and otherwise need should be cared for (primarily?) by charity, funded by private donations.

Yet conservatives pay taxes into a system that redistributes wealth via government (liberal idea), and liberals donate to charity (conservative idea). The difference, of course, is that there isn't much choice re: taxes, whereas donation to charity is entirely voluntary.

-Arrian

Arrian, I think we "conservatives" support a social safety net for the unfortunate. What we do not support is welfare as a way of life. You should actually read Nixon's 1968 acceptance speach where he laid out the fundamental differences between the two concepts in discussing the welfare state and integration. Welfare as a way of live creates ghettos where the poor live apart. Nixon advocated instead affirmative action to bring the poor, primarily blacks, into the mainstream.

Progressive taxation (and the estate tax) is not a liberal idea -- it is a Marxist or Socialist idea that flows from class warfare concepts. Making the rich less rich through confiscatory taxes is the object of progressive taxation. No one on the left cares in the slightest if progressive taxation hurts the economy or results in less tax revenue.

As to charity, conservatives give to charity in an effort to directly help the poor. Why? Primarly because they are religious, and that is what is taught by religion.

What is true, very true, is that the left are, on the whole, arrogant snobs because they think there "compassion" entitles them moral superiority. While the right thinks their way is better, they do not look down on the left as being morally degraded, just wrong.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Hardly. Even the rich are voting Democrat these days. Slate had a great article about it where they coined the term BushenFraude or the aversion to Bush which caused many of the richest people in America to vote Democratic. Is it here to stay? Hard to say but it seems tax cuts along aren't enough to buy these peoples' political loyalty. You actually have to do a halfway decent job of governing as well.

Who said conservative align themselves with Bush?

He is anything but?

As for the implicit assumption that Engineers are rich, well let me tell you that in of itself is pretty rich. No Enigneers end up more often than not as middle managers and upper middle managers right smack in the midst of middle to upper middleclassdom.

Typically Engineers are of an organized and practical mindset. That lends itself to a desire for organizations to be as efficeint as possible. That lends itself to a desire for a govenrment based on conservative principles of small government. The practical aspect allows Engineers to get over the handwringing whining platitudes of its government's job to be a nanny to everyone with an issue.

But of course I generalize.

[Arrian]

Ned,

In today's political climate, Nixon would be a "liberal" republican. He was following LBJ, of course. Things have shifted since then.

Besides, I was generalizing, and there are limitations to any generalization.

By the way, I think there are those on the left who care about the economic impact of the progressive tax system. They simply do not agree that the result is harmful for society.

What is true, very true, is that the left are, on the whole, arrogant snobs...

Oh, **** off. I'm not even on "the left" and I find that offensive. Roughly equivalent to various charicatures of eevil conservatives who hate the poor and whatnot. And as I said earlier in this thread, the "right" absolutely does look down on the "left" as morally inferior. To claim otherwise is just bull****.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian

By the way, I think there are those on the left who care about the economic impact of the progressive tax system. They simply do not agree that the result is harmful for society.

While there may be a number that actually look at it and say no big deal the harm to society is worth the implicit stabilization to prevent another French revolution like struggle, there are no shortage of Dem Pols who love to whip up the class warfare rhetoric. Its almost akin to Al Sharpton race baiting at times.

[Arrian]

Oh, sure, class warfare rhetoric is a political staple, no doubt about it (though it's not just the Dems - there are plenty of voices coming from the right that engage in similar stuff, just from the opposite perspective).

Anyway, I'm no fan of the class warfare rhetoric, not least because most of it is utter bollocks. Being moderate about fiscal/economic policy, I find the wingnuts on both sides to be irritating.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Most of the local organizations created in the spirit of "maximum possible participation" continued to operate despite funding cuts later; some closed, but others that traced their origins to the start of the War on Poverty continued to operate with lower budgets or with other funding sources. I'll make some conjecture of my own and say that it is at possible that the continued decline was a result of the continuation of the local programs instigated by the WoP that continued to function (albeit at a reduced effectiveness) even after funding was reduced or cut.

Nixon did more to end poverty than anyone else when he created what we now know as Affirmative Action in 1969.

[Arrian]

Assuming for a moment that's true, do you really believe "the Right" would've proposed/accepted a program such as Affirmative Action without "the Left" badgering them about such issues?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned


Nixon did more to end poverty than anyone else when he created what we now know as Affirmative Action in 1969.

Damn that Southern Strategy.

[Ned]

Yes Ogie.

There are three fundamental things one must due to attack poverty, in order:

1) provide a growing economy that creates jobs;

2) provide affirmative action and legal remedies to end discrimination; and

3) provide a social safety net that supports those who cannot otherwise support themelves, and cushions periods of unemployment.

The problem with liberals is that they tend to ignore what is most important, a growing economy, and couple that with an effort to make welfare a way of life for the otherwise employable. Progessive taxation, for example, when excessive, can ****** economic growth and lead to massive reductions in tax revenue. But liberals (really socialists) don't care. They are into class warfare want to punish the rich as much as they can to reduce or flatten the differences between the wealthy and poor. They really don't care whether this leads to fewer jobs or more poor because they will provide the poor with welfare.

[Arrian]

Progessive taxation, for example, when excessive, can ****** economic growth and lead to massive reductions in tax revenue. But liberals (really socialists) don't care. They are into class warfare want to punish the rich as much as they can to reduce or flatten the differences between the wealthy and poor. They really don't care whether this leads to fewer jobs or more poor because they will provide the poor with welfare.

When excessive. Reasonable people can have differing opinions as to what constitutes "excessive" progressive taxation. It's not that Liberals "don't care" about the negative economic impact of taxes, it's that they believe either:

1) there is no negative impact; or
2) what impact there is is outweighed by the positive impact of the programs funded by the taxes.

You think they're wrong. Hell, much of the time I think they're wrong too. But your consistent attempts to demonize them make you no better than the socialist class warrior railing against the evil rich oppressors you so despise.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Assuming for a moment that's true, do you really believe "the Right" would've proposed/accepted a program such as Affirmative Action without "the Left" badgering them about such issues?

-Arrian

Arrian, Nixon was a leading advocate of AA (for the Federal Government) even when he was VP. His thinking on this was that the way forward was integration, not segregation. The welfare state, in his view, promoted segregation. See his speech.

Nothing fundamental has changed.

The Dems still oppose integration and promote the welfare state that isolates the poor in ghettos such as we saw when New Orleans disintegrated. They oppose vouchers, for example, that would allow the poor to go to any school on government funds. This would end the ability of white liberals like Clinton to send their kids to all white private schools.

[Kuciwalker]

Nixon

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Tooo bad he f8cked up the entire movement as a consequence of Watergate. Unforgiveable that we had to live through Carter as a consequence.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


When excessive. Reasonable people can have differing opinions as to what constitutes "excessive" progressive taxation. It's not that Liberals "don't care" about the negative economic impact of taxes, it's that they believe either:

1) there is no negative impact; or
2) what impact there is is outweighed by the positive impact of the programs funded by the taxes.

You think they're wrong. Hell, much of the time I think they're wrong too. But your consistent attempts to demonize them make you no better than the socialist class warrior railing against the evil rich oppressors you so despise.

-Arrian

Tax rate policy should have one objective: raise the most revenue with the least harm to the economy. If that involves some progressivity, I would not oppose it.

However, when we discuss these issues in political campaigns, all we get from Dems is class warfare rhetoric. So I'll address what I see and hear. Demonization would involve attributing to the speaker attributes the speaker does not have. If the speaker is not a socialist, he should not be speaking like a socialist in my view. Calling him out on his socialism is not unfair or demonization at all if it is true.

[Arrian]

Demonization = "What is true, very true, is that the left are, on the whole, arrogant snobs because they think there "compassion" entitles them moral superiority."

Your words, Ned.

Nothing fundamental has changed.

The Dems still oppose integration and promote the welfare state that isolates the poor in ghettos

1. The political balance of power has shifted to the right since Nixon was President. Positions that would be labeled moderate then might be labeled conservative now. As I said, Nixon would be described, today, as a liberal Republican.

2. Bull**** the Dems "oppose integration." They do support welfare, which you believe promotes ghettos. Even if that were true (and it's possible - I'm not sure), I don't see that Liberals support welfare because they want that result. They think they're doing good. They certainly do not wish to segregate rich and poor, which is what you are insinuating. If such segregation is the unintended outcome of policies they support (unclear), that still doesn't mean that "oppose integration."

Keep on spinnin', Ned. It's always entertaining.

-Arrian