Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[Straybow]

Talk about narrow mindedness. Worldwide "conservatives" are closer to the European kind than the American kind. It'd be like someone chiding you for the cognitive dissonance at calling you a "conservative", yet you seem to agree with the reactionaries.

In other words, the "European kind" of conservative isn't conservative enough to tell the difference between conservative and liberal until their system fails completely? They don't actually listen to anyone who thinks differently, and therefore have no discernment to judge between sound and unsound thought?

They look at Islamists and say, "They don't really mean to kill all they Jews, they're just saying that. OK, they launch a few rockets a day and kill some random people but that doesn't absolutely prove they mean to. Israel should tolerate that and we'll condemn them in the UN if they don't." They're definitely not conservative by any measure I can figure out.

[Straybow]

No, not acting to help is a passive act, it may be contemptible but it's not morally a crime IMHO. Actively taking a deliberate course of action that leads to deaths however is a moral crime to me, when the outcome is easily predictable.

Drinking excessive alcohol and smoking/chewing tobacco results in easily predictable illness and death. Do you wish to ban them? Not working hard can lead to lower income, which may be below poverty level, which you are sure leads to "millions of deaths." Should we install shock collars on welfare recipients to make them work harder?

When it comes to things like safety nets, instead of holding people accountable for the outcome we tend to pretend its just an intellectual or ideological debate and act as if the real world consequences are just regrettable accidental side effects. I hate that.

But when decades of safety nets have failed to eradicate poverty you don't hold your ideology accountable? A famous Brit philanthropist once said that he sometimes despaired that every shilling he gave seemed to do four pence of good in keeping body and soul together but eight pence of evil in encouraging the recipients to continue on the path of destruction.

This is where leftist propaganda fails the test. The vague moral outrage you are supposed to feel in order to be politically correct can never truly be resolved. It's all based on the seriousness of the issue, not the virtue or soundness of the proposed solution. "People might die! The sky is falling! DO WHAT I SAY OR MORE WILL DIE!"

That's why leftists have drifted over to the environmentalist camp. The environment can never stand up and say, "Leave me alone, I don't need your help." The environment can never say, "You got it wrong and don't understand me at all." They can always assert their views and slant the data to say what they want, and condemn anyone who disputes them as idiots, etc.

[Alexander's Horse]

Just like to point out the Falkland Islander thread has the same number of pages as this one

[Aeson]

But when decades of safety nets have failed to eradicate poverty you don't hold your ideology accountable?

You're just moving goalposts. Sure if you define poverty as "the porest X%" you can never really get rid of it. Certainly a social safety net in one nation won't get rid of poverty in other countries either.

However ... in non-****ty countries the elderly, orphans, and the disabled no longer starve to death homeless as a general rule, and that's in large part due to social safety nets.

[kentonio]

In other words, the "European kind" of conservative isn't conservative enough to tell the difference between conservative and liberal until their system fails completely?

The difference is that we're not stupid enough to need the wildly polarized political spectrum you seem to require. Never mind that it's hugely damaging to your country and its long term development.

They don't actually listen to anyone who thinks differently, and therefore have no discernment to judge between sound and unsound thought?

European politics generally involves groups of at least vaguely intelligent people discussing complex issues. In most of Europe politicians have to listen to different lines of thought because many of the countries involve coalition governments. When was the last time a hardcore Republican 'listened to anyone who thinks differently'? Or you for that matter.

They look at Islamists and say, "They don't really mean to kill all they Jews, they're just saying that. OK, they launch a few rockets a day and kill some random people but that doesn't absolutely prove they mean to. Israel should tolerate that and we'll condemn them in the UN if they don't." They're definitely not conservative by any measure I can figure out.

Do they? Is that what European conservatives do? The same European conservatives that you apparently didn't know existed until about 2 pages ago? ****ing dip****.

Drinking excessive alcohol and smoking/chewing tobacco results in easily predictable illness and death. Do you wish to ban them?

As they only involve direct harm to the recipient then no I don't give a ****.

Not working hard can lead to lower income, which may be below poverty level, which you are sure leads to "millions of deaths." Should we install shock collars on welfare recipients to make them work harder?

You'd love that, wouldn't you.

But when decades of safety nets have failed to eradicate poverty you don't hold your ideology accountable?

Safety nets are designed to stop people falling too far to recover. Not completely eradicating poverty is a stupid strawman that means nothing. It's like saying 'Ok, you stopped a million people starving to death, but they're still quite hungry! Your project has therefore failed!'.

This is where leftist propaganda fails the test. The vague moral outrage you are supposed to feel in order to be politically correct can never truly be resolved. It's all based on the seriousness of the issue, not the virtue or soundness of the proposed solution. "People might die! The sky is falling! DO WHAT I SAY OR MORE WILL DIE!"

The fact that you see issues like extreme poverty as an attempt to force you into 'vague moral outrage' says it all really. You're damn right it's about the seriousness of the issue. If safety net programs aren't working well then fix them, but trying to just remove that support from people who desperately need it makes you a soulless ***** who should be fed to wild dogs.

That's why leftists have drifted over to the environmentalist camp. The environment can never stand up and say, "Leave me alone, I don't need your help." The environment can never say, "You got it wrong and don't understand me at all." They can always assert their views and slant the data to say what they want, and condemn anyone who disputes them as idiots, etc.

I wish I could isolate the moment in time when the American right decided that things like scientific process and critical thinking were just leftist babble. There must have been a time when the right was noticable less ****ing stupid. I used to quite admire the Republican party once upon a time, so this surely must be true.

[regexcellent]

The radical bunch of extremists you currently support would have purged any one of the Republican presidents of the 20th century from the party leadership, including Reagan. You've all gone criminally insane, and the sad part is you think you have history behind you.

Uh. What?

Let's take Paul Ryan as an example. His policies are pretty much a carbon copy of Jack Kemp's, the man he used to work for. Jack Kemp pretty much wrote the book on economic policy that Ronald Reagan was using.

So, no, you are very wrong.

My social positions are if anything less conservative than what social conservatives believed 30-40 years ago.

And if I've gone criminally insane so has half the country so I guess that doesn't have a very strong meaning anymore

[DinoDoc]

I used to quite admire the Republican party once upon a time, so this surely must be true.

Liar. You don't strike me as a Thatcher voter given the leftist pap you've been posting.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

However ... in non-****ty countries the elderly, orphans, and the disabled no longer starve to death homeless as a general rule, and that's in large part due to social safety nets.

Equally large if not larger is the embiggening of the pie, the generation of technology and wealth (and its distribution thereof) fueled primarily via capitalistic enterprise.

[DinoDoc]

You're just moving goalposts. Sure if you define poverty as "the porest X%" you can never really get rid of it. Certainly a social safety net in one nation won't get rid of poverty in other countries either.

We've spent 16 trillion since the War on Poverty began and we've barely moved the needle wrt the Poverty rate and there's only been increasing stickiness at the bottom of the economic ladder.

[Jon Miller]

We aren't doing it the right way.

It is the same with health care.

Our health care system is the worst in the world, when corrected for cost. The absolute worse.

We aren't doing it right, even though we spend by far the most.

JM

[Jon Miller]

We need to do things differently, not say 'it is impossible'.

An example:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/03/tax-havens

An attempt (but read the comments as to why it is unrealistic and more of the same):

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/atlantic-column-building-wealth-of-poor.html#comment-form

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/how-to-fix-americas-wealth-inequality-teach-americans-to-be-cheap/273940/

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Course we need to do it differently. The idea that governement provides efficiency and a better way of doing things is on its face the crux of the matter.

One ideology believes this the other does not.

[Jon Miller]

Course we need to do it differently. The idea that governement provides efficiency and a better way of doing things is on its face the crux of the matter.

One ideology believes this the other does not.

Except it does in other countries. Where government involvement is embraced more...

But yes, it does tell us that what we are doing right now is wrong.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The core issue is that we have spent 16 trillion* on the war on poverty, but have made laws worth far more which have acted contrary to those efforts.

See the laws we have on multinationals as an example.

Examples is the backwards payroll tax which taxes poor people to give to the rich. And will do even more so if the current 'right wing' changes are implemented (raising the retirement age, for example):

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/03/wealth-inequality?fsrc=scn%2Fgn_ec%2Fyour_money_your_life

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/research-ties-economic-inequality-to-gap-in-life-expectancy/2013/03/10/c7a323c4-7094-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

Of course our 'efforts' won't work when they do the opposite of what they were meant to. It isn't that 16 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty, a portion of that actively increased poverty by taxing poor people to give money to rich people...

JM
*A lot of that is friendly fire..

[DinoDoc]

You need a better internet connection.