What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[wufan]

Money, and who has Power to move it around.

Those are the differences between the sides? Explain further why you feel that way, what are the implications, and what needs to be done.

[BOBB]

I think 100% of Republicans are for ending welfare and getting those people jobs. Nobody knows how to do that, and the leftists do not want it to happen. It would destroy their party.

How would you feel about make-work jobs at a living wage? Some maybe value destroying jobs (in an economic sense)? Infrastructure, beautification projects, artists in residence? Beats paying for prison, which is a make-work industry for small towns, or welfare.

[jdshock]

Nobody wishes to refute any of my assertions?

Aside from ignoring that there are many countries in the world succeeding under an economy much closer to socialism than ours, my biggest complaint is that "equality of opportunity" is mostly just a phrase that everyone can support but it doesn't really mean anything.

Is it really equal opportunity if by the time I graduate high school my parents pay for private tutors, private tennis lessons, and tuition at the best private school in the city but someone else's parents didn't work and squandered away any money they did have. There are kids whose parents don't feed them because they're too strung out, so the kids wait until school lunch the next day. Or kids whose parents don't take them to school.

Not to mention what if we believe there is even the tiniest amount of racism or sexism that still exists in this country? Even if there are 0.01% fewer jobs available to someone because they're black or because they're a woman, is that really equal opportunity?

Your skin color, your sex, and your parents are all things you don't work for. If there are different opportunities available because of money or other characteristics you were born into, how do you resolve that?

[wufan]

How would you feel about make-work jobs at a living wage? Some maybe value destroying jobs (in an economic sense)? Infrastructure, beautification projects, artists in residence? Beats paying for prison, which is a make-work industry for small towns, or welfare.

Not totally opposed. Infrastructure is a lot easier for me to handle as I see it as necessary to support further jobs. Art, once you get past those that are already making a living doing it, can get pretty sketchy. Parks should be supported at a state level.

[wufan]

Aside from ignoring that there are many countries in the world succeeding under an economy much closer to socialism than ours, my biggest complaint is that "equality of opportunity" is mostly just a phrase that everyone can support but it doesn't really mean anything.

Is it really equal opportunity if by the time I graduate high school my parents pay for private tutors, private tennis lessons, and tuition at the best private school in the city but someone else's parents didn't work and squandered away any money they did have. There are kids whose parents don't feed them because they're too strung out, so the kids wait until school lunch the next day. Or kids whose parents don't take them to school.

Not to mention what if we believe there is even the tiniest amount of racism or sexism that still exists in this country? Even if there are 0.01% fewer jobs available to someone because they're black or because they're a woman, is that really equal opportunity?

Your skin color, your sex, and your parents are all things you don't work for. If there are different opportunities available because of money or other characteristics you were born into, how do you resolve that?

Equality of opportunity does mean something. It means that under the law, you will be as successful or unsuccessful as your talents allow, and it is protected.

As to your analogy about parents squandering money. It's true that it is more difficult to succeed if you aren't afforded every help. Equal opportunity does not garunteed equal resources. The opportunity, however still exists and is protected by law. Therefore, if you are good at your chosen profession you will be rewarded. What to do about bad parents, well you have to fund the schools and give kids that opportunity. The alternative is to either take kids out of situations where they don't receive support from their parents or to take money away from the earners and give it to the non-earners. I'm interested in your position on this and why it is better than funding education.

Edit: what about kids with lower IQ or kids that are less athletic? They didn't work for those things, they were just born into them. It will be a more difficult road ahead, but they are not excluded from being successful, even in the STEM fields or as professional athletes.

End edit.

As to racism/sexism. It does exist on a non-institutional scale. There are laws against that practice which garuntee equal opportunity. If you are aware of a sexist/racist law that prevents equal opportunity please enlighten me. If there is a law that isn't enforced on these grounds then I will fight it with you!

[ShockTalk]

@wufan:. You have a lot of Cajun Chef in you. I garuntee. :playful:

th.jpg

[wufan]

@wufan:. You have a lot of Cajun Chef in you. I garuntee. :playful:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4756[/ATTACH]

I actually mis-spell guarantee so frequently that my iPhone defaults to the incorrect spelling now.

[BOBB]

Not totally opposed. Infrastructure is a lot easier for me to handle as I see it as necessary to support further jobs. Art, once you get past those that are already making a living doing it, can get pretty sketchy. Parks should be supported at a state level.

You had outlined above a negative income tax/earned income credit situation. Just wondered how far you were willing to go. The New Deal paid artists along with funding infrastructure products. We have a tremendous number of people not in the labor force, not counted in the unemployment rate, and on Social Security Disability/Social Security Income, or incarcerated. Would you be willing to trade significant curtailments to these programs for work programs (government direct or subsidized private), even if it meant a higher overall tax rate?

I am wondering what happens the day the robots can make new robots? This would be the maximally productive outcome, but what need of labor (people)? I think full boat socialism is a busted ideology for many of the reasons you state. I also think capitalism will reach a zenith where its productivity easily outpaces the market demand.

[jdshock]

Equality of opportunity does mean something. It means that under the law, you will be as successful or unsuccessful as your talents allow, and it is protected.

As to your analogy about parents squandering money. It's true that it is more difficult to succeed if you aren't afforded every help. Equal opportunity does not garunteed equal resources. The opportunity, however still exists and is protected by law. Therefore, if you are good at your chosen profession you will be rewarded. What to do about bad parents, well you have to fund the schools and give kids that opportunity. The alternative is to either take kids out of situations where they don't receive support from their parents or to take money away from the earners and give it to the non-earners. I'm interested in your position on this and why it is better than funding education.

Edit: what about kids with lower IQ or kids that are less athletic? They didn't work for those things, they were just born into them. It will be a more difficult road ahead, but they are not excluded from being successful, even in the STEM fields or as professional athletes.

End edit.

As to racism/sexism. It does exist on a non-institutional scale. There are laws against that practice which garuntee equal opportunity. If you are aware of a sexist/racist law that prevents equal opportunity please enlighten me. If there is a law that isn't enforced on these grounds then I will fight it with you!

The belief that "you will be as successful or unsuccessful as your talents allow" is the exact thing I have a problem with. I don't think there's a perfect solution. I'm all for better schools, and I'm for taking kids away when parents cannot care for their children, but I also think we just need to be willing to recognize that some people have head starts.

You're exactly right that I don't have the athleticism of LeBron. And talents aren't spread out evenly. Some people are really athletic and smart, some people are neither. Opportunities are not equal.

If you grow up rich, with private tutors, good schooling, etc., you can make mistakes, you can have a mediocre work ethic, and you can have an average intellect and still manage to stumble into an incredibly well paying job. It happens all the time.

If you grow up poor, with bad parents, and bad schooling, your opportunity to go to an elite college might be over after you make one single mistake.

At this point, I'm not sure what the solution to luck is, though. I just think people need to be more willing to say "yeah, I had luck in getting to my level of success right now" or understanding that the same work ethic and choices by someone else might not have netted them the same level of success.

[ShockTalk]

The belief that "you will be as successful or unsuccessful as your talents allow" is the exact thing I have a problem with. I don't think there's a perfect solution. I'm all for better schools, and I'm for taking kids away when parents cannot care for their children, but I also think we just need to be willing to recognize that some people have head starts.

You're exactly right that I don't have the athleticism of LeBron. And talents aren't spread out evenly. Some people are really athletic and smart, some people are neither. Opportunities are not equal.

If you grow up rich, with private tutors, good schooling, etc., you can make mistakes, you can have a mediocre work ethic, and you can have an average intellect and still manage to stumble into an incredibly well paying job. It happens all the time.

If you grow up poor, with bad parents, and bad schooling, your opportunity to go to an elite college might be over after you make one single mistake.

At this point, I'm not sure what the solution to luck is, though. I just think people need to be more willing to say "yeah, I had luck in getting to my level of success right now" or understanding that the same work ethic and choices by someone else might not have netted them the same level of success.

It should be just common sense that everyone does not start off the same. Some come from horrible backgrounds, some over come it, some don't. Some come from backgrounds that should give them tons of advantages, some make use of those advantages, some fritter it away.

The best we can do is to try to find ways to neutralize the bad situations. Quality schools with real education that does not just pass kids through the system. Yet, we must be willing to realize "you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink". Some will just not take advantage even if it's right in front of them.

Make sure people have fair (not "more fair"/"less fair") opportunities to be at least self sustaining (no guarantees beyond that) and have financial help systems that encourage getting off the government teat. However, people must realize they cannot always succeed in what they want to do and may have to do what will provide for themselves and family. If you want to be an artist, fine, as long as you know minimal financial success is hard to come by. You made the choice, don't expect others to bail you out because you can't make enough money or, maybe, just not good at it. An individual wants to be a salesperson. They're not good at it, but want to continue. Do we continue to "pay" them or should we expect them to try something else?

[wufan]

You had outlined above a negative income tax/earned income credit situation. Just wondered how far you were willing to go. The New Deal paid artists along with funding infrastructure products. We have a tremendous number of people not in the labor force, not counted in the unemployment rate, and on Social Security Disability/Social Security Income, or incarcerated. Would you be willing to trade significant curtailments to these programs for work programs (government direct or subsidized private), even if it meant a higher overall tax rate?

I am wondering what happens the day the robots can make new robots? This would be the maximally productive outcome, but what need of labor (people)? I think full boat socialism is a busted ideology for many of the reasons you state. I also think capitalism will reach a zenith where its productivity easily outpaces the market demand.

I'm not against work programs and I do find them preferable to welfare when possible. I do have a limit to where I would go, but that's not clearly defined in my own mind. I think it's a great step forward to come up with a mutually agreeable solution and then debate on the degree to which it should be implemented as opposed to having two proposed solutions that go in opposite directions.

[wufan]

The belief that "you will be as successful or unsuccessful as your talents allow" is the exact thing I have a problem with. I don't think there's a perfect solution. I'm all for better schools, and I'm for taking kids away when parents cannot care for their children, but I also think we just need to be willing to recognize that some people have head starts.

You're exactly right that I don't have the athleticism of LeBron. And talents aren't spread out evenly. Some people are really athletic and smart, some people are neither. Opportunities are not equal.

If you grow up rich, with private tutors, good schooling, etc., you can make mistakes, you can have a mediocre work ethic, and you can have an average intellect and still manage to stumble into an incredibly well paying job. It happens all the time.

If you grow up poor, with bad parents, and bad schooling, your opportunity to go to an elite college might be over after you make one single mistake.

At this point, I'm not sure what the solution to luck is, though. I just think people need to be more willing to say "yeah, I had luck in getting to my level of success right now" or understanding that the same work ethic and choices by someone else might not have netted them the same level of success.

@ShockTalk: said it pretty well so I will just add this one comment: We all agree that luck plays a major role in outcome. If you have great talents or great resources at your disposal, that's just luck so good for you! We can't control luck and we shouldn't try to control for it. What each individual can control for is hard work! Hard work, with even a minimal amount of luck leads to a reasonable amount of success. We should strive to live in a societ where hard work is valued by all members. Beyond that, we as a society should REQUIRE that all necessary tools are available in order to maximize the payoff for hard work plus whatever luck you brought with you. The two ways we do this are: through legislation that doesn't discriminate against any attribute other than hard work and the talent attribute of luck. I think we've done pretty well there. To educate all people in the skills they require to maximize the luck they do possess. We have a ways to go on education.

Now that we've mutually recognized that some kids have head starts, what's the next step?

[pinstripers]

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

― Seneca

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I think 100% of Republicans are for ending welfare and getting those people jobs. Nobody knows how to do that, and the leftists do not want it to happen. It would destroy their party.

I feel compelled to point out that in 1996, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. One of Clinton's campaign promises was to "end welfare as we know it." The Republican controlled Congress passed the bill after Clinton vetoed two previous bills. Among other provisions, the act:

• Ended welfare as an entitlement program;
• Required recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
• Placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
• Aimed to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births

Welfare reform also turned over much of the authority over administering welfare to the states.

This narrative that welfare recipients are on the program for life is outdated and patently false. The narrative that the left doesn't want people to work--and that Republicans are the only people on the planet who believe in personal responsibility--is outrageous, ignorant, and it's getting tiring. This kind of thinking is what is poisoning our politics.

[wufan]

I feel compelled to point out that in 1996, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. One of Clinton's campaign promises was to "end welfare as we know it." The Republican controlled Congress passed the bill after Clinton vetoed two previous bills. Among other provisions, the act:

• Ended welfare as an entitlement program;
• Required recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
• Placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
• Aimed to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births

Welfare reform also turned over much of the authority over administering welfare to the states.

This narrative that welfare recipients are on the program for life is outdated and patently false. The narrative that the left doesn't want people to work--and that Republicans are the only people on the planet who believe in personal responsibility--is outrageous, ignorant, and it's getting tiring. This kind of thinking is what is poisoning our politics.

Great start! Hunger has gone way down as well since the 80s. We need to keep going by continued implementation of similar programs, but also by providing strong education. Welfare helps people in times of trouble. Skills help people avoid it.