Can we get a "leftwing bullshit" tag?

[zadok-allen.livejournal.com]

Comments

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I was born sixteen years after the end of WWII, and I'm a Brit. Fighting back is in my nature, as is working within the system when the system is properly ordered and morally acceptable.

I'm what used to be called a "High Tory". I believe in society. I think that alongside privilege come duty and responsibility, especially to those less able or well-off than myself.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

The main reason I am a conservative is I believe completely in an internal locus of control. People are capable of becoming something if they make good decisions and put in the effort required. Those who are unhappy with their lot, as a general rule, are unwilling to do so. As such, I believe in helping others get started, but expecting them to take it from there.

The great thing about privilege is it allows me to help those who need to get started. As a college professor, my best day is when one of my students from a poor background tells me that I inspired them to put in the work and finish their degree, and now they landed a great job. My money tends to go to education programs for younger kids from poor backgrounds, in hopes of getting them in a position where they can do the same.

There is a sincere difference between that sort of help and the kind that traps people in their situation, and the reason I'm not a liberal is that I simply can't support such programs.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I agree with you to an extent, excepting some folk are already trapped in their circumstances by their circumstances: the disabled, the institutionalised, those for whom their life choices have already been compromised; and they are our duty as well as our burden.
In an ideal world, individual moral agency would determine the outcome of any person's trajectory in life. It isn't an ideal world, and we don't make it one by ideology or wishing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

People are capable of becoming something if they make good decisions and put in the effort required. Those who are unhappy with their lot, as a general rule, are unwilling to do so

Surely not being "happy with your lot" is the motivation to "become something"?

such programs.

Name some.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

America's current welfare system is the perfect example. Were it a work-based or education-based welfare system, it would be fine. But instead, what it does is actively prevent people from improving their condition.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

What does the current welfare system do that actively prevents people from improving their condition?

Can you name features of it that do this that don't actually have their roots in efforts to make welfare programs more palatable to political conservatives?

Or are you going to go down the whole "entitlement mentality" route here, arguing that guaranteed benefits, not tied to work or education, somehow make people feel less like agents?

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

The current system doesn't provide any mechanism for improving their position. So, if you are on welfare, taking as job such as a dishwasher or stocker at a retail store, which are classic entry positions that can lead to advancement into jobs which pay a living wage, means that your benefits are reduced. So, people on welfare are forced into the choice between avoiding the jobs they are qualified for (low paying, entry-level positions) or losing benefits in order to improve their lot in life.

I'd much rather we had a system where you receive welfare and are given a job where skills are learned or provided with a stipend and tuition to a vo-tech program where you can improve your lot. The goal of welfare should be to get you off of welfare, not keep you on it.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that I don't understand why you'd identify as a conservative on this issue, when the problems you're citing with the welfare system are essentially conservative, or at any rate not liberal, in origin.

I mean, I doubt many liberals would be opposed to a workfare program, for those who actually can work (i.e., not disabled), or a stipend/tuition program like you've described. The reason we don't have those kind of things has a lot more to do with conservative resistance than it does with some putative liberal leaning to just give money away for nothing. Conservatives agree with getting people off of welfare, but the primary means by which they do so is to cut welfare and put people in inescapably desperate circumstances.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

As someone who has tried this experiment, I recommend it to you:

At some point when you are hanging out with a bunch of liberal friends, propose the idea that everyone on welfare should be required to put in at least 3 days of work per week (either at a job or on a governmental project), or maintain a 3.0 GPA or higher in some certificate- or degree-granting program. The response will not be positive. That's why I consider my ideas to be conservative rather than liberal.

I should state that you are absolutely correct about the source of these problems, but I would guess that liberals are less likely to support the sort of program I would propose than you might think. I am, however, considerably torn right now politically, because neither party, Republican or Democrat, represents my beliefs. I can't vote Democrat, as a rule, because I believe their economic policies will make things worse. I can't vote Republican, because the party went batshit nuts.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

At some point when you are hanging out with a bunch of liberal friends, propose the idea that everyone on welfare should be required to put in at least 3 days of work per week (either at a job or on a governmental project), or maintain a 3.0 GPA or higher in some certificate- or degree-granting program.

Well, that wasn't what you'd described previously. Providing an unemployed person with a stipend and access to a vocational school, with the stipend and access stipulated on actually going and trying, is one thing; requiring them to maintain a B average in some educational program in order to keep their support is another. Providing an unemployed person with a job is one thing; requiring them to get and keep a job in order to keep their support is another.

I also don't see why you think Democratic policies would make things worse. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is the case, while there is plenty of evidence that things get worse when Republicans call the economic shots.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

And see, in my mind, that sort of a solution is precisely what I described. Without accountability, such a program would be worthless (just like our current welfare system).

I also don't see why you think Democratic policies would make things worse.

Generally, this is because they have no idea how they will pay for the programs they are presenting, or they choose to pay for them by punishing people who are successful. I can respect the position "We need to heavily tax the wealthy in order to provide all of these programs for the poor." But ideologically, I cannot agree with it. Now, one idea I really like is "We will decrease the defense budget and send that money to these programs." That's an idea I can get behind.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

How about we just look at what actually happens, huh? The economy grows more, and faster, when Republicans aren't in power. Deficits and the national debt increase when Republicans are in power. Let's stop buying their stupid rhetoric and acknowledge reality.

Generally, this is because they have no idea how they will pay for the programs they are presenting,...

Like Republicans have a better sense of how they'll pay for the tax cuts they're always pushing? Or the spending that they, themselves, present, whenever they're in power? The transportation bill that they just passed is "paid for" using a variety of misleading, one-time gimmicks, for instance - all to avoid raising the gas tax. So we get massive spending and poor fiscal management.

...or they choose to pay for them by punishing people who are successful.

Well, you use rhetoric like this, it's hard to take you very seriously. You know as well as I do that "taxes" are not a means of "punishing" people who are successful. They're just taxes. Maybe they're too high, maybe they're not high enough, but they're not penalties imposed upon people for being good at what they do. And if we were to engage in this kind of rhetoric, we would just as easily say that Republicans "punish" the unsuccessful by seeking a more regressive tax structure. Is that somehow more acceptable to you?

Here's a revolutionary idea: the question of who should be taxed and for what should be driven not by what's "fair," or who's getting "punished," but by an evaluation of what services and protections are best provided by government and what taxes are most efficient in funding the government. It might well be the case that a graduated income and payroll tax is not the best way to generate most of the revenue that our government needs to provide that level of services it ought to provide. But whether that's the case is not going to turn in any way upon whether such a tax "punishes" the "successful."

Now, one idea I really like is "We will decrease the defense budget and send that money to these programs." That's an idea I can get behind.

And the Republican version of this is, "We will increase the defense budget by taking money from these other programs, because we don't want to increase taxes." Is that better?

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

Your complaints about Republicans are well-founded, and I agree, which is why I can't vote for them. This election cycle, I'm leaning toward Bernie, despite the fact that his economic policies are pipe dreams, because he's the only candidate in the race with a chance of winning who at least believes the things he's saying. Hillary is simply pandering to the greatest common denominator, and all of the Republicans (with a possible exception of Kasich) are pandering to the crazies.

I would prefer a consumption-based tax, but to do so and not have it wildly regressive would require a lot of work. As a general rule, I prefer taxes which aren't based entirely on the principle that those who make more money are required to pay more.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing you have never lived on welfare.