What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[Play Angry]

Lots of discussion about improving education to achieve a sense of equality of opportunity. Without systemic reform of the public school system in the U.S. to a degree which is incredibly unlikely in the next several decades due to entrenched interests on both sides, is there a way you see to accomplish this without massive tax (typically property tax) increases on wealthy areas to subsidize the much lower revenue base in disadvantaged areas? If yes, what alternative do you prefer and is it viable without blowing up the current system? If no, do you think higher income areas would be and will be amenable to sharply increasing their taxes for such subsidization?

The other question would be, is the desired outcome to bring schools in blighted areas "up" to standards enjoyed by public schools in affluent communities (very expensive), or would the sales pitch involve bringing those disadvantaged schools up to a lesser level while lowering the standards currently enjoyed by public schools in affluent communities (less expensive or even expense neutral)?

Or, are we simply talking about doing our best to remove facially discriminatory policies, laws and regulations at an institutional level without regard to quality of education offered under the guise of a level playing field?

[wufan]

Lots of discussion about improving education to achieve a sense of equality of opportunity. Without systemic reform of the public school system in the U.S. to a degree which is incredibly unlikely in the next several decades due to entrenched interests on both sides, is there a way you see to accomplish this without massive tax (typically property tax) increases on wealthy areas to subsidize the much lower revenue base in disadvantaged areas? If yes, what alternative do you prefer and is it viable without blowing up the current system? If no, do you think higher income areas would be and will be amenable to sharply increasing their taxes for such subsidization?

The other question would be, is the desired outcome to bring schools in blighted areas "up" to standards enjoyed by public schools in affluent communities (very expensive), or would the sales pitch involve bringing those disadvantaged schools up to a lesser level while lowering the standards currently enjoyed by public schools in affluent communities (less expensive or even expense neutral)?

Or, are we simply talking about doing our best to remove facially discriminatory policies, laws and regulations at an institutional level without regard to quality of education offered under the guise of a level playing field?

I'm not well versed in educational theory, so that would be my first requirement: somebody smarter than me needs to look at this. From my elementary knowledge of the elementary system, what definitely works (so far as it's been tried) is more teachers and better teachers teaching more. That's super expensive! The end goal would be to bring up the schools in poor neighborhoods to the standards of those in wealthier neighborhoods, though I'm not sure the support for the funding is available to do so. As such you start where you can get support and try to garner more. I'd implement as heavily as possible in the core curriculum of English, Math, Science, and History and then have honors groups for art and athletics as after school activities. For those students that aren't going to advance in academics beyond high school, you could offer a part time trade school starting during their junior year.

There are probably all kinds of problems with this.

[wufan]

Here's something that has worked recently. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...rticle/275681/

No mention of cost.

[Gumby]

Matthew 25:31-46

[wufan]

Matthew 25:31-46

How does this translate to governing? Is there a great moral justification to paying compulsory taxes to the government?

[Gumby]

The majority of "conservatives" in the US also claim to be Christians. They are hypocrites. They do not follow the teachings of Christ. They only concerned with pushing there own so called "moral standards" on the rest of society.

In the US Religion=Politics and Politics=Religion.

Conservatives follow "AmeriGod"

[MoValley John]

The majority of "conservatives" in the US also claim to be Christians. They are hypocrites. They do not follow the teachings of Christ. They only concerned with pushing there own so called "moral standards" on the rest of society.

In the US Religion=Politics and Politics=Religion.

Conservatives follow "AmeriGod"

All Christians are hypocrites. So are Muslims, Jews, Athiests..... Everyone. Hypocrisy is a human state. Furthermore, most Christians don't claim to be perfect. In fact, understanding personal flaws, sin and unworthyness is a hallmark trait of Christianity. Many Catholics have a saying, "The church is not a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners."

[wufan]

The majority of "conservatives" in the US also claim to be Christians. They are hypocrites. They do not follow the teachings of Christ. They only concerned with pushing there own so called "moral standards" on the rest of society.

In the US Religion=Politics and Politics=Religion.

Conservatives follow "AmeriGod"

I don't really find this the least bit constructive to solving any issues.

Most democrats are also Christian. Most Americans are Christian. What moral standard do you suggest we use? What moral standard that is pushed by the right do you object to and why?

[pinstripers]

In my experience, most Progressives are atheist

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

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.

And that's a great point. People are quick to criticize entitlement programs, but they serve a vital purpose.

In the 1960s, this country waged a war on poverty. Now we seem to be waging a war on poor people. Some of us consider those less fortunate than us as lazy, but I have found this to be far from true. As a country, as a society, we seem to be demonizing the disadvantaged and are losing our ability to be compassionate.

I do not advocate a free ride for anyone. The point of entitlement programs should be to get people off of them, and I agree with you that education is a key part of that. Of course, that means more "government meddling", which presents a quandary for some conservatives. The problem with relying on the free market to solve every problem is it tends to favor the wealthy. College tuition is a prime example--it's "going up" because many states are cutting higher education subsidies which in the past kept tuition low. And should we require everyone stay in high school until they graduate? I tend to believe so, as there is a clear benefit to society in having an educated population. But does that go to far and violate the concept of self-determination?

[CBB_Fan]

In my experience, most Progressives are atheist

As a statement of fact, we all mostly deal with people in our own culture and environment. Family, friends, coworkers. If you are a white person living in Kansas, most people in those three categories are going to be white Kansans.

There are many religious Progressives, but the roots of that movement are no longer planted in white Kansas. They now rest in Hispanic and black communities, both of which are actually more likely to be religious than their white counterparts. Go to a historically black church in Georgia and you'd struggle to find a conservative Republican.

[pinstripers]

As a statement of fact, we all mostly deal with people in our own culture and environment. Family, friends, coworkers. If you are a white person living in Kansas, most people in those three categories are going to be white Kansans.

There are many religious Progressives, but the roots of that movement are no longer planted in white Kansas. They now rest in Hispanic and black communities, both of which are actually more likely to be religious than their white counterparts. Go to a historically black church in Georgia and you'd struggle to find a conservative Republican.

Hispanics and Blacks tend to be more religious that their white Democratic counterparts, but that does not make them Progressives.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I don't really find this the least bit constructive to solving any issues.

Most democrats are also Christian. Most Americans are Christian. What moral standard do you suggest we use? What moral standard that is pushed by the right do you object to and why?

I get what Gumby is saying. It's something I have noticed and have struggled with understanding as well.

Some conservatives seem to be calling for mass deportation of illegal immigrants. What about illegals who had children after they came to the US? Those children are US citizens by law because they were born here. So do you break up families? Do you strip citizenship from the children and then deport them? What about illegals who came to the US to escape violence and/or other threatening situations--in a way, asylum seekers. Is that ethical to send them back to a situation where they could be killed? Doing so would be against international law, by the way. This is a complex moral situation, but it is not treated as such by conservatives. From my understanding of the Bible, I believe what Christ would tell us we should do would be in conflict with current conservative policies.

Republicans are currently working on legislation to gut Obamacare, which could leave more than 20 million people without access to affordable health care (full disclosure: that could include yours truly and my family). Is that ethical? Is affordable health care a moral right? Should the quality of our health care be dependent on economic status? Is it ethical to leave health care decisions in the hands of a for-profit corporation? Again, from my understanding of the Bible, I believe what Christ would tell us we should do would be in conflict with current conservative policies.

And these are just two examples where the Christ I know from the gospels would cringe at what we are doing. I'm not saying Democrats are without fault. But Democrats don't typically position themselves as the party of Christian values. Republicans do, but their platform says otherwise. As Emerson once wrote, "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say."

[CBB_Fan]

Hispanics and Blacks tend to be more religious that their white Democratic counterparts, but that does not make them Progressives.

That doesn't make them Progressives, it makes them religious. Voting:

89% for Clinton 2016
93% for Obama 2012
95% for Obama 2008
88% for Kerry 2004
90% for Gore 2000
84% for Clinton 1996
83% for Clinton 1992
89% for Dukakis 1988
91% for Mondale 1984
83% for Carter 1980
83% for Carter 1976

Makes them Progressive.

[Kel Varnsen]

I get what Gumby is saying. It's something I have noticed and have struggled with understanding as well.

Some conservatives seem to be calling for mass deportation of illegal immigrants. What about illegals who had children after they came to the US? Those children are US citizens by law because they were born here. So do you break up families? Do you strip citizenship from the children and then deport them? What about illegals who came to the US to escape violence and/or other threatening situations--in a way, asylum seekers. Is that ethical to send them back to a situation where they could be killed? Doing so would be against international law, by the way. This is a complex moral situation, but it is not treated as such by conservatives. From my understanding of the Bible, I believe what Christ would tell us we should do would be in conflict with current conservative policies.

Republicans are currently working on legislation to gut Obamacare, which could leave more than 20 million people without access to affordable health care (full disclosure: that could include yours truly and my family). Is that ethical? Is affordable health care a moral right? Should the quality of our health care be dependent on economic status? Is it ethical to leave health care decisions in the hands of a for-profit corporation? Again, from my understanding of the Bible, I believe what Christ would tell us we should do would be in conflict with current conservative policies.

And these are just two examples where the Christ I know from the gospels would cringe at what we are doing. I'm not saying Democrats are without fault. But Democrats don't typically position themselves as the party of Christian values. Republicans do, but their platform says otherwise. As Emerson once wrote, "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say."

I have a big problem with this reasoning. Christianity and Christ's teachings compel myself and others as Christians to help those who are less fortunate. But that does not mean that we get to compel other people by the threat of force (which, at the end of the day, is what all government measures and taxes are for) to do what we believe Christ wants them to do. Funny how liberals typically ignore the "you can't force your morals on others" argument when it comes to welfare. That's neither Christianity, nor charity. By the same token, it is not just to take money from people who have earned it and force them to pay into a system where they will never see any benefit. That's forced labor.

"So you believe we shouldn't pay taxes?"

Well, yes, but we should pay taxes to the government for public goods and services for which we all have an equal right/ability of withdrawal. At the local level, that means roads, police, fire. At a federal level, that means national defense. There may be a few services that I've missed, but that's about it, IMO. One could make a reasonable argument for education at the local level, but even then, why should a 70 year old couple with no children be forced (under threat of imprisonment) to pay for public schools which they will never reap any benefit from?

Also, the free market has made EVERY SINGLE GOOD OR SERVICE in our life better because there is extrinsic motivation (money) to make them better, even for people in poorer situations (their cars, phones, homes are nicer than they were 10-20 years ago). Why does that apply to some industries and not others? I get why it doesn't apply to non-competitive, non-excludable service like a fire or police department, but education and health care certainly do not fall under those categories. Those are tangible services that vary widely by person. And if removing government control or operation of a service like health care is tantamount to letting people die or starve (it's clearly not), then we have gone down a road that will not stop until the government controls every aspect of our lives and makes them awful.