What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[shockmonster]

As a pragmatic conservative, I realize that a lot of Conservatives have their heads in the clouds if they think that many of the programs (health care, medi-care, welfare for the poor, etc.) are going to end. They just won't so if anyone's ideology doesn't leave any room of how to deal with these programs, one is going to have a lot of unhappiness to deal with.

The key for conservatives needs to be to band together to make reforms to LIMIT the FEDERAL Government so that additional programs aren't implemented such as single pay health, free college educations for all, etc. that many progressives are pushing, and the power of the federal government is contained. This is where the majority of Americans are in the Center.

The way to do this is for the feds to be have an ideology of FEDERALISM and push as many programs to the states to implement, and be able to contain costs. If states runthe health care program, and as many services as possible, less money can be spent by the federal government in Washington, and WE the People can have more to say about how money is spent. We need to be as far away from how California, New York, and Illinois run their governments as possible. The conservative wing would be much more successful with legislation, if Moderates, Libertarians, etc. would all come to agreement around this one philosophy instead of the infighting within the Republican party (the democrats aren't going to be a part of anything). Most Americans are in the Center and nothing gets done. If the Republicans don't get their act together, Democrats will be in power shortly again, and single payer health will become a reality. IMO, this would be a catastrophy as more fraud, etc. will become prevalent, and the debt would sky rocket even more, in this huge government over reach.

[wu_shizzle]

As to #1 it isn't just the progressive media. Fox news and infor wars have caused killings as well. Extremism in any form is bad.

So you agree that the Mainstream media is equivalent to Alex Jones?

I'm ok with this.

[wufan]

Fox news is mainstream.

And it's biased, so agreement?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Good! You care about everyone. I think we all do. Are you more or less concerned about your children then Joe Smith in North Dakota? What about the minimum wage earner in Ethiopia? In Ethiopia, that means you share a box with nine relatives. Should we give them money instead of the people in the US? Minimum wage earners in the US have a house and money. Why are they more important than the Ethiopians? Your own children?

I don't know what all you have and don't have, but at a minimum you have access to internet. Wouldn't it be better if you gave more money to Ethiopia's government so that they wouldn't have to live in a box?

Even without being able to 100% discern your thought process behind those questions, I'll say I like them, because they are thought provoking.

"Poor" is indeed a relative term.

[wufan]

Even without being able to 100% discern your thought process behind those questions, I'll say I like them, because they are thought provoking.

"Poor" is indeed a relative term.

I've been on a recent personal crusade, using Shockernet as my outlet, to promote positive discourse on some of the polarizing issues that face this country. I've been sticking very close to the idea of "boundaries" with an attempt to illustrate that we all have them. We all make a discretionary decision on where we draw a hard line in the sand, and this is a good thing!

If you take an equal outcome approach and define it to its end, you end up with an ideology that won't tolerate differences. If you take an equal opportunity approach and define it to its end, you end up with an ideology that won't tolerate failure. In both instances, a totalitarian force overcomes the individual and makes things much worse.

By pointing out that everyone has different boundaries on a given topic, and by demonstrating that no boundary is correct in every instance, it allows for the possibility that there might be a common interest and a common acceptable boundary for all/most. This in turn opens the door for further discourse and common solutions without demonizing the opposition and forcing further polarization.

[WstateU]

What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

One side has a sense of humor? :)

[AZ Shocker]

Most likely wrong thread...but...
GO SHOCKS!!!

[shockmonster]

This is probably the wrong thread for this but I'd like to hear some discussion on the Health Care Bills.

Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) and Senator Susan Collins (Vermont or RI?/NE) have teamed up for a health care bill designed to be a compromise bill based on the Federalism Concept allowing the states to control many of the questions on health care. The federal monies would be given to the States with an equalization formula, and would allow the States to keep O'Bama Care or alter it to something that their citizens would want. I don't totally understand what they would do to existing conditions, etc. but it sounds like states could set up plans with or without. Plans could be basic or Cadillac depending on what is decided by their own elected legislatures.

Federalism is a Conservative principle and as I've stated before, I am a big proponent of it. There may need to be some changes in Cassidy and Collin's Plan but here you have a Conservative (I'm not sure how conservative but safe to say Center Right at least) Republican in Cassidy and a more liberal Republican Senator in Collins who are working together to solve this problem.

Any more clarifications and discussion?

[SB Shock]

This is probably the wrong thread for this but I'd like to hear some discussion on the Health Care Bills.

Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) and Senator Susan Collins (Vermont or RI?/NE) have teamed up for a health care bill designed to be a compromise bill based on the Federalism Concept allowing the states to control many of the questions on health care. The federal monies would be given to the States with an equalization formula, and would allow the States to keep O'Bama Care or alter it to something that their citizens would want. I don't totally understand what they would do to existing conditions, etc. but it sounds like states could set up plans with or without. Plans could be basic or Cadillac depending on what is decided by their own elected legislatures.

Federalism is a Conservative principle and as I've stated before, I am a big proponent of it. There may need to be some changes in Cassidy and Collin's Plan but here you have a Conservative (I'm not sure how conservative but safe to say Center Right at least) Republican in Cassidy and a more liberal Republican Senator in Collins who are working together to solve this problem.

Any more clarifications and discussion?

California had voted to go to single payer plan. I figured that would be the model going forward - whatever happened with that?