Why do people hate Liberals?

[Bfgrn]

Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.

For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one. They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views. And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right. And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.

Love you too.

Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one. Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.

The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that. I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies. That's an indication of a flawed definition right there. I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have? That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.

Yeah, but I love you more

I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term. And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word. To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.

It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.

It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.

In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level. And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.

Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have. And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits. Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.

I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.

There is so much of the conservative world view lurking behind your attempt to sugar coat social Darwinism. To call it 'compassion' really takes the cake FF.

First off, ALL federal social programs are run by and administered by State and local government.

Let's take a look at HOW your vision of society would actually work on a daily basis for people.

Let's look at a retired couple living on Social Security and Medicare. Joe and Sue are not getting rich, but they have a FIXED income that they can count on, budget for and rely on to live out the remaining years of their life.

HOW would your 'charity' society work FF? Describe a day in the life of Joe and Sue in your 'compassionate' vision of America?

They would NOT have a FIXED income, so what would Joe and Sue do everyday? Would they rise every morning, get dressed, grab a cup, find a busy street corner and beg for money and food FF? Or maybe they could stand in a line every day to get essentials??

PLEASE explain how your 'compassionate' society works?

 

[Mojo2]

Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?

I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.

And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.

You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.

In fact...

"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!

And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?

Watch this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?

So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'

That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.

And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.

And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions.

So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..

And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.

Okay.

Now what?

Herein lies your problem(s)...

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Thanks for the library full of reading material!

I've started reading and some parts of it will be skimmed. Others will be read for background and part of my time will be spent looking into the areas which I already know are wrong or questionable with the idea of poking holes in your/their arguments.

I haven't yet been disabused of my beliefs but I am challenging them with your info.

So, thanks for that.

I'll be busy for a while.

 

[Pogo]

I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term. And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word. To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.

It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.

It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.

In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level. And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.

Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have. And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits. Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.

I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.

If we can't agree on what we're talking about, perhaps we need the OP to define it. Because as long as you're describing a term I don't agree with the definition of, you're having a monologue. I still say we need to define our terms. Because the contrast you've described above has nothing to do with Liberalism.

As a (re)starting point, would you care to address Wildcard's list of 20 questions back here, since he runs away from it? It's not only a rash of specious reasoning, but to my eyes there is exactly one question on that list of twenty that has any relation to Liberalism. I asked him to figure out which one it was.

Do you agree? How do you see that list as a whole? I have a reason for asking...

To make it easier, here's the list brought forward.

>> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace? <<

The question is: (a) how many of these are related to Liberalism, and (b) how many of these are legitimate questions?

In my opinion, most--not necessarily all--items on the list are related to or at least can be considered wtihin ideological concepts of liberalsm and conservatism as those terms are most commonly used and understood in America today. You know--that working understanding of the terms that you will not understand or acknowledge. \

I haven't spent much time pondering those 20 questions because to me it is a flawed list--some questions are leading; some intentionally provocative; others foolish because nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy.

But even if we do consdier the list. . . .

Another way to entitle the list is "20 questions among those that liberals WILL NOT ADDRESS" or consider as a concept. That is another trait I have noted in modern American liberalism as the term is most commonly used and understood at this time. It is an extremely rare liberal who will consider or address a concept head on. Instead he or she will almost always change the question, throw out a straw man or red herring, or otherwise divert from the concept to something easier to attack, accuse, or criticize.

For instance take a single issue or question:

Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?​

I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.

Props to Foxy for taking this on while others fall back on blanket ad hominem, wet dreams of imaginary personality traits and in the case of the poster who brought this list in -- dead silence.

Special props for this one:

>> I haven't spent much time pondering those 20 questions because to me it is a flawed list--some questions are leading; some intentionally provocative; others foolish because nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy. <<

Exactly. I concluded the same thing, the point being that the Eliminationists base their case on specious emotional bullshit, blanket demonizations and deliberate misdefinitions. The list is a bogus glop of rhetorical diarrhea, which is why I refer to its author as having no education. This is also why I wanted Foxy to address it since she's smart enough to see through the bullshit.

For the record and to my original question to Wildcard who brought this in, the one and only question on this list that has anything to do with Liberalism is Number 6. It's the one and only rationally-presented question that addresses the legitimate role of government, the minimalist of which is what Liberalism is.

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.

I did my own breakdown of the rest at the time, as I see you did in the next post. Will try to integrate them in a subsequent post. It'll take a while.

 

[Foxfyre]

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.​

in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being: demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other. I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place. You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light. Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us. It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable. But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.

 

[Wolfsister77]

For instance take a single issue or question:

Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?​

I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.

Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.

 

[Pogo]

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.​

in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being: demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other. I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place. You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light. Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us. It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable. But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.

Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts. First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere". All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic". Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list. A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.

Duality duly noted. Duality duly noted.

 

[Mojo2]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.

All you did here was to restate the question.
Nanoseconds of thought went into this post, I can tell. Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.

Rather than restate the OP question we could raise a new one: why do intellectual sloths fall on blanket statements? Does their power of self-delusion enable them to actually not mind looking this stupid? Discuss.

It's typically Liberal of you you to come to a conclusion based on your imprecise interpretation of his post.

Here, notice what you allege.

Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.​

See what you did? You looked at this post.

Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.

And came to a conclusion of your own creation. Based on something he never said.

Liberals do this one A LOT!!!

Frustrating as hell to have to point out your opponent's inability to process information faithfully and then try to give their arguments any credence knowing it may be based on that guy's little inadvertent (or not) and unbothersome to themselves (or not) little flight of fancy! Everything they do or say would always need to be corroborated because you have seen this example here or another in other circumstances where they have read one thing and then COMPLETELY distorted it to mean another thing.

Everything they say from then on is invalidated, in my book.

And many of the Dems/Libs in D.C. have this typically Liberal trait.

Oh, and who else seems to do this, typically?

Females.

Sorry, but that's what I've observed to be the case as a general rule of thumb and a possibility to keep in mind when arguing with someone and they reply with a strawman statement. Or you find yourselves talking at cross purposes, or you get the impression you just haven't gotten through to them somehow and you wonder if they are being intentionally obtuse.

Chances are they may have this trait.

Another textbook example of why Liberals are not the best ones to be making the decisions that affect this country now and in the future.

I believe in the second amendment.

If I had a gun I couldn't count on to go bang every time I pulled the trigger I would try to get it fixed so that I could trust my life and my loved ones' lives to it. If it EVER AGAIN failed to fire for any reason ever, I would replace it.

This isn't a reason to hate on a Liberal, it's just you can't trust the judgement of someone who somehow, for some unknown reason (other than being afflicted with Liberalitis lol) can misinterpret the simplest communication.

Their opinions are unreliable.

No?

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance take a single issue or question:

Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?​

I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.

Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation’s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.

Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government’s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

 

[Mojo2]

For instance take a single issue or question:

Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?​

I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.

Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation&#8217;s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.

Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government&#8217;s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.



*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation’s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.

Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government’s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.



*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

There you go Foxfyre. Someone who unwittingly just defined the 'conservative' world view of social Darwinism.

Translation: What Conservatives Really Want

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

 

[thanatos144]

To actually answer this question of the thread it is easy to learn why people hate liberals. All you have to do is look at the president. He is a lying deceitful egotistical ass.

 

[Wolfsister77]

For instance take a single issue or question:

Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?​

I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.

Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation’s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.

Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government’s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

Let me just elaborate on why I don't think they should pay it back. I think most people coming off of welfare are going to be struggling enough trying to get on their feet, that they really don't need the extra burden of paying back their benefits. I think it is a benefit for those in need and should only be used by those who are truly in need. I also believe the vulnerable in our society-children, the elderly, handicapped, disabled, veterans-should be taken care of.

I do not know how to get past all the partisanship or demonization that occurs on this subject. I do agree that abuse is a problem with welfare and food stamps and the system should be reformed. BUT, I do not agree that all people using this system are moochers or takers or whatever deragatory word someone wants to use and I see it all the time from some people. I do not believe it should be a way of life but rather be a social safety net that is there if someone falls on hard times and needs it. And yes, churches and charity groups are a great help too but unfortunately in many cases, they are not able to meet the demand and therefore some Government assistance is necessary.

So yes, both points are compassionate. It's just a debate on what the best approach is and how to implement it that is a problem and quite frankly, I don't have all the answers.

Oh and thanks for the kind words Foxy. I like listening to your point of view as well because you are obviously very well educated on many subjects and you don't name call or demonize anyone.

I just don't agree with your views on Liberalism and Liberals and probably won't change my mind on that. But I will listen to what you have to say regardless of what I feel about it.

And I love learning new things and if there is a way to educate myself further on a subject, I am happy to do that.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Mojo2]

I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.

And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.

You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.

In fact...

"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!

And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?

Watch this...

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube

What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?

So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'

That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.

And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.

And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions.

So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..

And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.

Okay.

Now what?

Herein lies your problem(s)...

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed&#8217;s Kroszner: Don&#8217;t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed&#8217;s Kroszner: Don&#8217;t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an &#8216;Epidemic&#8217;

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds&#8212;a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages&#8212;derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the &#8216;Ownership Society&#8217;


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Thanks for the library full of reading material!

I've started reading and some parts of it will be skimmed. Others will be read for background and part of my time will be spent looking into the areas which I already know are wrong or questionable with the idea of poking holes in your/their arguments.

I haven't yet been disabused of my beliefs but I am challenging them with your info.

So, thanks for that.

I'll be busy for a while.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0]Eastwood- A Man's Got to Know his Limitations - YouTube[/ame]

After slogging through some of these pages of economic info I began trying to educate myself as I went along, in order to make sense of each new word, term, idea, principle, noted economic guru's name and works and philosophy and respected schools as well as respected schools of thought, I came across.

Then I remembered Clint's sage advice.

A man's got to know his limitations.

Clint Eastwood.

So, I will confine myself to those things I do and do well.

One of which IS NOT to try to make sense of your "stuff" but, instead, to keep everyone thinking about just how Bad Obama is for this country and how important it is that we peacefully remove him from office as quickly as possible.

 

[Mojo2]

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.​

in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being: demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other. I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place. You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light. Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us. It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable. But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.

Without addressing at all the content of your post let me note just how well I thought you said it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Herein lies your problem(s)...

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Thanks for the library full of reading material!

I've started reading and some parts of it will be skimmed. Others will be read for background and part of my time will be spent looking into the areas which I already know are wrong or questionable with the idea of poking holes in your/their arguments.

I haven't yet been disabused of my beliefs but I am challenging them with your info.

So, thanks for that.

I'll be busy for a while.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0]Eastwood- A Man's Got to Know his Limitations - YouTube[/ame]

After slogging through some of these pages of economic info I began trying to educate myself as I went along, in order to make sense of each new word, term, idea, principle, noted economic guru's name and works and philosophy and respected schools as well as respected schools of thought, I came across.

Then I remembered Clint's sage advice.

A man's got to know his limitations.

Clint Eastwood.

So, I will confine myself to those things I do and do well.

One of which IS NOT to try to make sense of your "stuff" but, instead, to keep everyone thinking about just how Bad Obama is for this country and how important it is that we peacefully remove him from office as quickly as possible.

Yea, don't let any 'facts' deter you. At least you taking Clint's advice...LOL

 

[Pogo]

Now playing with that 20 questions list, let's turn them into objective concepts:

1. ORIGINAL: A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

A BETTER QUETION: Is it okay to relate bad acts of Muslims to an extremist religion, to relate bad acts of politicians to a political party, to relate a bad act of an individual to the Tea Party or other religious groups?​

ORIGINAL: Strawman fallacy (we were hearing);
Biased Sample fallacy (which proved that the Right is evil);
Strawman (terrorists)
-- the "how can" phrase is inoperative since it's already strawmanically fallacious. Further, "conservative" and "Muslim" are not opposites or mutually exclusive.

None of these political demagoguery labels have anything to do with "Liberalism". That's just specious flailing in the rhetorical dark.

REVISION: Absolutely valid question -- but it relates to the fallacy of Guilt by Association, not to philosophies of government. We agree this question is bullshit.

============================​

2) ORIGINAL: If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

A BETTER QUESTION: How do you justify a government having the ability to force one citizen to support another and how do you draw the line on what government can force a citizen to do?​

ORIGINAL: Does not follow; non sequitur.
While the premise may be Liberal (right to health care etc), "forcing" isn't. And "gunpoint" is naught but puerile Appeal to Emotion. Demonstrates the writer's paucity of basis.

REVISION: Far better. First part invokes the public works question, which the blogger could have incorporated into this list but got to swimming in his ad hominemiacal soup so much he musta forgot. Second part is right on point and would have been a far better wording.

3) ORIGINAL: How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

A BETTER QUESTON: Does character and do morals matter when electing those who will have ability to make decisions that profoundly affect our lives​

?

ORIGINAL: Non sequitur again. Neither the size of government nor the character of politicians are Liberal concerns. Further, "how can you... while also" is a strawman. A double.

REVISION: Again, "character and morals" are not part of political discussion. These are if anything religious/social issues. Valid question, but not related to political philosophies. Here we inch toward this grand fallacy that "liberal" and "conservative" and "right" and "left" each carry their own character traits, which is malarkey contrived by demonizationaries. We'll continue to reject that for the malarkey it is.

4) ORIGINAL: What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he&#8217;s earned that he should be able to keep?

This one is okay as is.​

ORIGINAL: Here's a direct invocation of your observation "nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy". A question of degree, ergo policy, not philosophy.

Liberalism doesn't establish this degree; real world circumstances do. This one's a non-argument.

REVISION: ?? Duality again?

5) ORIGINAL: Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

This one is okay as is.​

Economics/history question. Nothing to do with Liberalism. See #4 above.

6) ORIGINAL: Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

This one is okay as is.​

Agreed - this is the only entry on the entire list that relates to Liberalism, since it finally addresses what the reach of government should be, which for Liberalism would be minimal.

Strange leading wording here though ("pro-choice or pro-abortion") - ??

7) ORIGINAL: If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

I don't really like how this one is worded, but it basically is okay as is.​

ORIGINAL: Strawman (if... so awful). And fatally oversimplified. It actually solicits emotional reaction rather than a rational point. This cannot be read seriously. It reads more like a marital squabble the neighbors in the next apartment are having than rational argument.

REVISION: you're right on the wording but it's unsalvageable.

8) ORIGINAL: How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

A BETTER QUESTION: Is government spending or government austerity the better choice to bring down a runaway deficit and national debt?​

ORIGINAL: Economics question and biased sample. Krugman, if he be a Liberal (and absent any justification we're forced to accept the premise in order to continue), or any other single person, does not and can not by his words or actions represent Liberalism. That's a fallacy of Composition. See also the "nobody but a dedicated economist" critique in 3 and 4.

REVISION: Much better, though since either course describes government action, not really related here. The question that would relate to Liberalism might better be, "what powers should government have to control the economy?" But the degree to which it can act this way or that way is back to an economics issue.

9) ORIGINAL: If Republicans don&#8217;t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

A BETTER QUESTION: Who is more charitable? Those who want government to give more to the poor or those who voluntarily give more out of their own pockets?​

ORIGINAL: Instant strawman at the start. Moreover, "Republicans" and "Democrats" are irrelevant to the term Liberal, with which neither is mutually exclusive. And "who gives how much to charity", number one cannot be determined on the basis of political party, and number two, is completely irrelevant. Red Herring.

REVISION: Getting now into questions of individual character, which is unrelated to political philosophy.

10) ORIGINAL: Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

A BETTER QUESTION: Can a nation continue to add trillions to the national debt each year and remain solvent?​

Number four in our exciting series of "nobody but a dedicated economist" bullshit questions, apparently having no point at all since any answer ventured could not answer anything about Liberalism. Ignorance-based once again.

REVISION: Better and valid question, but an economics one, not philosophical.

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

I would have worded it somewhat differently, but in concept this one is okay as is.​

"Nobody but a dedicated economist" entry number five. This is a question of economic policies and the machinations of budget. Nothing to do with Liberalism.

12) ORIGINAL: If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

This one is okay as is.​

"God" is irrelevant to the law, not to mention its definition of marriage or anything else is hopelessly subjective hearsay, since (s)he has never been known even to exist, let alone speak. The Strawman assumes we have such original definition in the first place, which we will now "change", loading the question. The premise is thus inoperative, and the conclusion tries to compare apples to oranges {a: if we change God's law; b: what is the logical argument}

The arguments for or against polygamy are in the domain of religion; the question of relatives may be one of public health.

REVISION: uh- really?

13) ORIGINAL: In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

A BETTER QUESTION: What is the best argument against having the same percentage of taxation applied to all income?​

ORIGINAL: Economics question. Not philosophical. Number six in the parade of "nobody but a dedicated economist" decorative mugs. Collect the whole set.

Also as constructed, a fallacy of omission (argument from ignorance), implying that the figures given (if they're even reliable) are the only factors that need be considered.

REVISION: Far far better question, and deserving. But again, gets to the nuts and bolts of economic policy. We could hash this one out and then argue which of the resulting proposals would be more "Liberal".

14) ORIGINAL: If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

This one is okay as is.​

I have no clue what in the wide world of sports this one has to do with Liberalism. Or politics. This one's a complete head-scratcher.

It's a fair question on its own, but it crashed the gate here.

15) ORIGINAL: How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

A BETTER QUESTION: Is it irrational to support the death penalty but oppose abortion? Conversely is it irrational to oppose the death penalty and support abortion?​

ORIGINAL: Moral question, except to the extent the State is involved. That would include capital punishment, but "rectitude" remains a moral/religious question. The only relevance to Liberalism is the question "does the State have the right (philosophically) to execute".

Moreover, it's a loaded question ("innocent children") -- a definition (child vs. fetus) that isn't mutually agreed upon, and hasn't been traditionally agreed upon, including by the Church itself.

REVISION: Better and worthy question, but it's about moral principles, not what powers a State may use.

16) ORIGINAL: A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

A BETTER QUESTION: If it is shown that a higher minimum wage shuts many teenagers and lower skilled workers out of the job market altogether, would you support a higher minimum wage? Why or why not?​

Strawman premise in first sentence: we don't know that's true. From this tenuous launchpad erupts once again, an economics question. Determining a number cannot be a "Liberal" undertaking. We're up to at least the seventh "nobody but a dedicated economist" canard, nearly half the entire list.

REVISION: Crucial improvement adding the word If
Still a question of economic policy but far better expressed.

17) ORIGINAL: The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

A BETTER QUESTION: Do you trust your own government and/or the world community sufficiently to hand over your choices, options, opportunities, and personal liberties for them to manage on your belief that this is necessary to combat global warming? Why or why not​

?

ORIGINAL: Nothing to do with Liberalism; this is a science question. And again, any possible answer ventured would have nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative".

REVISION: Although unrelated to the original, this is far better worded. Rather than "do you trust" (which is emotional) it should read "what powers should the government have to..." and then we have a question on Liberalism, which also invokes public health -- like public works, a topic that was not raised here.

18) ORIGINAL: We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states&#8217; rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

A BETTER QUESTION: What is in our best interest: more centralized power in Washington or more power returned/given to the states and local communities? Explain your answer.​

ORIGINAL: I'd call this a loaded strawman right at the start ("more choices"); then it moves on to a non sequitur. What do choices, real or imagined, have to do with government centralisation? Nothing.

That said, less power in government generally, would be the Liberal ideal.

I had one of our less brilliant posters in here doggedly (I think it was Rottweiler) trying to tell me that "liberal" referred to the size of government. As if there were some fifty-yard-line above which we have Liberalism and below which we have... well, he didn't say. Seriously. That's the depth of ignorance we have here.

REVISION: Excellent question for the actual topic. Unrelated to the original -- as it should be.

19) ORIGINAL: If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

A BETTER QUESTION: Should government be limited to what the people are willing and able to pay for?​

ORIGINAL: Actually this one's not bad, even though it presents an if...then (fairly this time) that cannot be measured. The flaw being that Liberalism (or any other philosophy) wouldn't hang its hat on the question of whether some segment of the population "aren't willing". That's not a political philosophy question - it's pragmatism.

REVISION: Much better.

20) ORIGINAL: If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

A BETTER QUESTION: What is a fair wage and how is it determined?​

ORIGINAL: Because like #7, of which this is a wan restatement, it ignores myriad other factors including social standards. Also a fallacy of omission (argument from ignorance) in the phrase "why don't we see". Somewhere Bertrand Russell is laughing maniacally over his teapot.

REVISION: Infinitely better.


Thanks for putting the time into this Foxy. I'm aware it wasn't your list to justify but I thought the points were ample food for thought. Not so much for the issues they raised (and more often failed to raise) but for the way they exemplify what we're talking about in our various definitions of Liberal: arguments from ignorance, hasty generalizations, fallacies of composition, strawmen, and especially, appeals to emotion. Although clearly these are not your inventions and you know better, when you speak of "definitions as popularly employed", I'm afraid the composition of this list DOES reflect that flawed definition. And that's why I'm here to fix it.


Perfect example came in while this post was under construction:

To actually answer this question of the thread it is easy to learn why people hate liberals. All you have to do is look at the president. He is a lying deceitful egotistical ass.

One can see that deep, deep rumination went into the making of one's case here. My head swims in ponderation. And if it really needs to be spelled out, considering monstrosities like NSA domestic surveillance and the mandated universal purchase of health insurance, Barack O'bama ain't no Liberal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, able bodied welfare recipients-able in both mind and body-should be required to work for what they receive. If you can work, you should. No, you should not be required to repay it if circumstances improve but if they do improve, then you don't get it anymore.

There are situations in which people are better off financially if they collect welfare rather than work and that discourages people from seeking employment while they are on it. A good case can be made for raising the minimum wage to deal with this but the system also needs to be reformed and I am all for that.

CA's Welfare to Work program is a good example of something that should be more widespread because it makes sure people are contributing to the work force, getting education, community service and also helping their children:

Welfare-to-Work

All welfare to work participants receive an orientation to the program and an appraisal of their education and employment background.

Initially, most individuals receive job search services (assistance in finding a job).
Additional employment-related services are provided based on an individual's education and work history. Individuals may be assigned to:

Unpaid work experience/preparation.
Vocational training placements.
Adult education or community college programs.

In addition, program participants may be eligible for help with child care , transportation, and work-related or training-related expenses. Moreover, participants who find a job and are no longer eligible for welfare may continue to receive help with medical care and child care expenses.

Unless exempt, applicants/recipients of CalWORKs are required to participate in welfare to work activities as a condition of receiving aid.

CalWORKs recipients who are not required to participate in welfare to work activities may volunteer to take part in the program.

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.

After recipients find work, a variety of services are available for up to 12 months to assist them to retain their employment and become fully self-sufficient.

Implementing legislation and regulations have provided expanded flexibility to counties to tailor their welfare to work programs to meet the needs of their clients and the local labor market conditions.

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation&#8217;s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.

Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government&#8217;s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.
California's flawed welfare system - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.

*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.

So lets focus on Mojo's response.

Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:

a) Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .

. . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .

. . .or. . . .

b) Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.

I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied. But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes. I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American. For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it. And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.

Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be. Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.

We are fast losing that concept in America, however.

 

[Mojo2]

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:


Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.



*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

There you go Foxfyre. Someone who unwittingly just defined the 'conservative' world view of social Darwinism.

Translation: What Conservatives Really Want

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

I spoke for myself and not the Tea Party, the GOP, Black people or former cab drivers (for that matter!)

How about this:

Conservatives might like to help Libs/Dems & Progs arrive at a set of morals they could support.

Right now, I believe you guys will do or say anything at any time to get what you want without regard for ANYTHING.

In the Crosby, Stills and Nash song, "Teach Your Children Well", I listen to the lyrics and am convinced Liberals once had captured the market when it came to principled, thoughtfulness and high morality. I thought this meant today's Libs would be MORE principled... MORE thoughtful... MORE moral...???

MORE, MORE, MORE!??!

That reminds me of a song which was quite different in subject matter than the CSN tune I mentioned above.

Andrea True Connection - More, More, More (1976) HQ - YouTube

But this doesn't appear to be the case.

So, let's dispense with any more irrelevance. What are you willing to do to become better bi-partisan partners?

We can't trust your choice of POTUS to make good decisions for this country. (Obama)

We can't trust you to make good personnel decisions when it comes to staffing our government in D.C. (Obama et al.)

We can't trust the liberal media to keep us apprised, in a fair and balanced manner, of all the news items that affect ourselves our communities and our country because they are simply watching out for their own bottom line. (Liberal MSM which Obamaco now 'owns.')

We can't trust you Libs to know when you are being used by the MSM and manipulated by the Democrat philosophy and their way of doing bizness. Some of you can't detect it. Others LIKE being used.

And still others of you Libs have made your deals with the Devil for few pieces of silver. You have gone along with Obama by turning a 'blind eye' to his poor and misconduct in office. You still support him even though he is obviously in the process of dismantling America from within and from the best, most powerful, place to do it.

The White House.

So, you have shown NO allegiance with or loyalty to your fellow countrymen.

After all of that please tell me how and why we can or should trust you after you've betrayed us and the USA?

The only way to move forward is to help make you into people we can trust and have SOME greater amount of confidence in than we have now, that you won't continue helping Obama destroy America.

Are you willing to concede that we Conservatives should take the lead role in helping return to a sense of peace and cooperation?

Are you willing to commit to helping establish a set of values you guys and US guys can both sign onto which would act as part mission statement and part operating principles?

If you can't agree to either one I can't see how you could earn my trust to drive this government again.

 

[Bfgrn]

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:


Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.

*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.

So lets focus on Mojo's response.

Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:

a) Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .

. . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .

. . .or. . . .

b) Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.

I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied. But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes. I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American. For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it. And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.

Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be. Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.

We are fast losing that concept in America, however.

Did you hear that grandma? Climb out of your 'dependency' and your wheel chair and get a JOB you lazy mooch!

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

 

[Foxfyre]

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.​

in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being: demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other. I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place. You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light. Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us. It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable. But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.

Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts. First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere". All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic". Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list. A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.

Duality duly noted. Duality duly noted.

I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.

I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list. You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.

You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.

I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions. (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)

You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.

And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals. The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not. I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.