I think the rather nasty undercurrent of social darwinism is rather plain.And don't think I missed the implication....conservatives = shockingly immoral.
"if they can't make good decisions they deserve to starve to death" is ethically sound?
That is a rather logical outgrowth of the moralistic judgement expressed by many here. "Cut them loose from a social safety net, and if they can't make it, tough, they need to not be poor and make bad decisions".
Just because you can't recognize that nasty thing under the rock, doesn't mean it isn't there when you lift it up to look.
No. You haven't measured one silly damned thing. Nor have you even attempted a linear chain of logic from these websites (honestly, RG. Are you new to google?) to rank and file conservatives.
btw....I googled: Government should provide welfare and not leave it to charity.
Advanced search
About 9,400,000 results (0.19 seconds)
I wouldn't even begin to assign those 9,400,000 hits to anybody, or group because, it's ing Google.
Since when?
I guess if your baseline is 1900, then sure.
If you want to make that case for the last few decades, good luck, because the nations "wealth" has most definitely become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Finding the nutbar that actually believes that, then ascribing that moralistic judgement to a group of people you can't even identify, is ludicrous and doesn't even sit at the same table as logic. Jesus! Just stop.
$250 k doesn't buy that much more after taxes...
The more you make, the more you want.
Nicer car, nicer clothes, nicer house...
Still the same problems.
i think poverty can be determined on whether or not you have OnStar.
Bull . Stop equating happiness to nicer cars and like that and the problems dissappear.
I didn't.
Do you know how general "same problems" is?
Money does not buy happiness.
Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Ins ute, thinks that TANF is evidence that all responsibility for anti-poverty programs should be handed to the states. He notes that California, which offers more generous benefits than most other states, has seen its TANF rolls increase by almost 25 percent since the recent recession started. Michigan and Rhode Island, which have seen a respective 2 percent increase and 10 percent decrease in their welfare rolls, offer less generous TANF benefits.
For DeHaven, block grants really aren’t the issue. “The federal government,” he argues, “should get out of welfare entirely and let states and charities address their particular issues within their own states — without federal funds.”
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/2...-block-grants/
Not quite all government, but still a pretty explicit echo.
The idea that government-sponsored welfare programs to assist the needy are compatible with, and justified by, Christian philosophy is probably the most widespread erroneous belief that permeates American society, and is hastening the destruction of freedom in the United States. This tragic flaw in the thinking of both well-educated and uneducated Christians has already brought misery to millions, and if this thinking persists in this country, it will result in economic chaos followed by political totalitarianism.
http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=712
And still meaningless outside of that's what DeHaven believes.
In her speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008, (video, transcript), Bachmann makes the connection between fiscal conservatism, small government, a strong family and private charity.
------------------------------
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...ate-tax-rates/
Are you going to start a bouton's VWRC-type thread? It's easier than critically examining your position. Works for boutonski.
9 million hits to choose from, I could do this all day.
Does this or does this not qualify as a "commonly held belief"?
Yup....Bachmann equals all conservatives, because, well, because you say so.
Nope. It's 9 million hits from google. Strange how I probably don't agree with one single ing one of them. But as a conservative, I'm now a Bachmann sycophant.
Seriously, RG. You are going to offer up, as proof, Google hits?
I have a problem with any search engine when it gives everything you don't want, just because it gets read alot.
I have only prove it is a "commonly held belief".
I readily accede that proving 50% or more would be difficult, but this idea seems pretty common to me.
Yes or no, does this sentiment echoed endlessly on thousands of websites by more people than I would care to count become a "commonly held belief"?
I think I have gotten a pretty good sample.
Are you going to move the goalposts now?
Depends on your definition of the concept of poverty. Is poverty a measure of someone's inability to adequately meet the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter? Or is poverty a measure of someone's standard of living relative to their peers? My personal belief is that assistance needs to be based on the former instead of the latter.
Admittedly, that's a vague standard as to what cons utes "adequate". It's also not one that can be specifically measured by determining what amen ies one possesses. As Nono pointed out in the other thread, things like refridgerators, stoves, ovens and AC's have been pretty standard in apartments and homes for quite some time now. So you really can't use those items as your measuring stick. I'd even toss VCR's and DVD's in there considering how you can go to Goodwill and pick up a used one on the cheap.
That being said, there are things like cable/satellite, internet & cell phones that come with monthly bills. If you're in the camp that thinks assistance should be based just on meeting basic needs, it's fair game to question those, IMO. It's also fair game not to be bothered by those if you're in the camp that thinks assistance should be based on raising that person's standard of living closer towards everyone elses.
Conceptually, I don't have a problem with that, but it goes back to my point in response to blake. Are we going to define lagging behind as the inability to meet the basic food, clothing & shelter needs or is lagging behind not having as many creature comforts beyond those basic needs as other people?
Generally agree.
I never said "all" conservatives believe that.Yup....Bachmann equals all conservatives, because, well, because you say so.
If you want to about strawman attacks, perhaps you should take better care not to use them yourself.
Google search for:
I used Google to search for conservative bias
About 5,640,000 results (0.28 seconds)
He might be lurking in these very forums!
Really? With a straight face?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote