Just what IS conservativism?
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And decades of programs like VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start, have produced WHAT results? According to the Census Bureau, a record high 3.7 million Americans fell into poverty in 2009. Poverty, as a percentage of population is HIGHER than it was in 1964, when the so-called "War on Poverty" began! It continues to rise annually, and it seems all Liberals have to say about this statistic is, we haven't spent enough money to fight poverty! We've now spent over $15 trillion... how much should we continue to spend to combat something that isn't declining?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html?_r=1
You really need to stop harping on and on about Sargent Shriver. I don't know what sort of homo-erotic fascination you have with him, but it's a bit freaky that you continue to bring up the long-forgotten VP running mate of George McGovern, a man who was overwhelmingly trounced in defeat by Richard Freaking Nixon in 1972. His ideas are no more valid now than they were back then, and you are an abject FOOL to continue clinging to them as if they are the Holy Grail! Failed and rejected socialist ideology is not going to work any better than tried-and-failed socialist ideology has!
The usual Dixie irrelevance argument. Poverty in 2009 is not related to any war on poverty. 2009 is the result of outsourcing, job loss in a word. A family today would be in poverty if the sole income came from a walmart salary. But no one mentions their mistreatment of labor. LBJ's great society had some of the most dramatic poverty reductions statistics ever, but corporate power in the hands of the Reagan republicans pretty much destroyed that progress. 15 trillion - what a joke that is, please provide a link. And if it isn't declining after we gave out 15 trillion there must be something wrong here? Any ideas what or why? Tell us how to fix? Reagan and Bush Jr reduced taxes and poverty went up, so leave that canard out. Actually poverty went up under most republican administrations.
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." George Carlin
Dixie is a Plutocrat, and has Appsberger's syndrome!
Bfgrn
New member
Dixie, the OEO was dismantled by President Nixon in 1973, though many of the agency's programs were transferred to other government agencies.
Poverty DID declined. In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973.
Poverty among Americans between ages 18-64 has fallen only marginally since 1966, from 10.5% then to 10.1% today. Poverty has significantly fallen among Americans under 18 years old from 23% in 1964 to 16.3% today. Much of that can be attributed to head start. The most dramatic decrease in poverty was among Americans over 65, which fell from 28.5% in 1966 to 10.1% today.
So the REAL dependents in our society have benefited the most.
There is little point in discussing something that isn't all about YOU Dixie, you could give a flying fuck about the poor. Someone that can only view other human beings as 'numbers' is the personality marker of despots and dictators. No wonders George Bush is your man-crush.
Sargent Shriver has more integrity and intelligence in his little finger than you have in your whole body. He has been a dedicated, loyal and trustworthy public servant. He deserves our thanks for his service to the Great Republic, not your ignorant dismissal.
The President's late sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver changed this world for the better like few other people in history. She will go down as one of the most influential women in this nation. With a vision all her own, that sprung from her deep love for her disabled sister Rosemary, she saw beyond every horizon to create new opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. Eunice and Sarge created the Special Olympics that has become a worldwide initiative. But it started in their own back yard with their own money; Camp Shriver.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Finding Her Calling
I am asked frequently how Special Olympics was born. It really began in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, when I traveled through the United States to visit several institutions for people with intellectual disabilities. The conditions in those days were terrible. There was no special education, no physical activity and certainly no opportunity to play sports. My visits left an indelible mark for life―I knew I had found an area of enormous need where I could focus my life’s work and energy.
I had played sports all my life. I loved sports and appreciated the rewards of participating in sports. I knew in my heart that the thousands of people I had seen in institutions doing nothing could do sports, if given the opportunity. And I knew they’d enjoy it!
The Birth of Camp Shriver
In 1958, I received phone calls from two separate parents who told me they could not get their children into summer camps. The children had intellectual disabilities and were not welcome. Spurred by those calls, I started a camp―Camp Shriver, we called it―in my own yard, for 75 children. My children were involved in helping with the activities and recruiting volunteers.
From the first day, it was clear that the campers could play sports and benefit from them. It was also clear that providing non-disabled young people with the opportunity to interact with these campers―to walk, play and talk with them―opened their eyes and taught them to accept them and welcome them. As our campers experienced the joy of sports, everyone shared in the fun.
Soon, there were five more camps around the country and, by 1968, 40 camps nationwide. We began recruiting professional athletes and physical educators to raise the quality of our programs, and established coaching standards. (I still believe today that qualified coaches are the backbone of a successful local Special Olympics program.)
These camps helped form the nucleus that led to Special Olympics. In 1968, we held the first Special Olympics Games at Soldier Field in Chicago. I remember Mayor Daley leaning over to me after I declared the Games open, and whispering in my ear, “Eunice, the world will never be the same.” He was right.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You are fighting poverty completely the wrong way, and you refuse to accept that. It's like trying to extinguish a grease fire with water. It seems like, to a STUPID person, that water would be the logical way to fight it, but the more water you throw on it, the bigger the fire gets, and you just keep throwing more water on it, thinking, that is the logical way to put out the fire... When someone comes along and tells you that water is not the solution, you dismiss them and call them names, refusing to listen, and just continue to dump more water on the fire, which hasn't helped put out the fire, and won't.
$15 trillion! That's what we've spent trying to "lift people out of poverty" in America, and it has NOT WORKED! More people are impoverished today than when we started! The 'grease fire' is growing, not being controlled or contained in any way. Still, you want to argue that the solution is MORE MONEY! We've taxed and regulated industries into bankruptcy, there are no more manufacturing sector jobs, they are gone forever! Still, your answer is to continue taxing and regulating industries! Pour more water on the 'grease fire' and hope for the best, because some fucktarded REJECTED idiot from 1972 struck your socialist fancy!
YOU ARE A CLASSICAL MORON!
$15 trillion! That's what we've spent trying to "lift people out of poverty" in America, and it has NOT WORKED! More people are impoverished today than when we started! The 'grease fire' is growing, not being controlled or contained in any way. Still, you want to argue that the solution is MORE MONEY! We've taxed and regulated industries into bankruptcy, there are no more manufacturing sector jobs, they are gone forever! Still, your answer is to continue taxing and regulating industries! Pour more water on the 'grease fire' and hope for the best, because some fucktarded REJECTED idiot from 1972 struck your socialist fancy!
YOU ARE A CLASSICAL MORON!
So, what are the logical ways to fight poverty, exactly?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The most logical way would be through education. The problem of out-of-wedlock pregnancies has to be addressed among minorities, because there is a direct correlation between this and poverty. Instilling values of personal responsibility would be another logical way. There will always be a contingent of people who can't be helped, it doesn't matter what you do. To escape poverty, an individual has to possess the determination, dedication, and desire to escape poverty, and outside persons simply can't implant that mindset into someone. We can educate, we can encourage, but the old adage about leading a horse to water comes into play. Certain people are not going to do the hard work to lift themselves out of poverty, and that problem is exacerbated by society's willingness to enable them.
Oh, I can see clearly now! You never cease to amaze me!
Do you think my niece is any better off as an out of wedlock white girl who is the child of a Christian family upbringing and I mean, they didn't listen to anything but Christian music, watch "G" rated movies and on their facebook have daily Bible quotes? She isn't working right now, but has assistance.
I am still cracking up...
Did you know that divorce contributes to poverty, Dixie, should we address that issue, too!?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me know if that assistance check enables her to climb out of poverty and become successful, okay?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html
Read and learn!
Bfgrn
New member
'The most logical way would be through education.'
THAT is EXACTLY what the War on Poverty WAS and IS... it focused almost totally on education Dixie.
'To escape poverty, an individual has to possess the determination, dedication, and desire to escape poverty, and outside persons simply can't implant that mindset into someone.'
Dixie, I'd like to believe you're ADHD, because if you're not, then you are just a dishonest fuck.
To escape poverty, an individual has to first possess the ABILITY to escape poverty.
Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled.
Rana was right about you Dixie.
Bfgrn
New member
1. Yes, the core of liberalism has not changed. The Declaration of Independence would never and could never be written by a conservative. Conservatives in our founder's day were called 'Tories', 'Redcoats' and 'Lobsterbacks' because they stood with the Crown.
The core of conservatism has not changed. Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.
From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
2) I believe in the truth and history.
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:
* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
wiki
Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure people’s liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.
Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.
SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.
Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.
If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.
3)
I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. There you go again, back to square one. It would be nice for you if you got to define what your opposition’s position is, but debate doesn’t work that way. Modern liberals define modern liberalism, and modern conservatives get to define modern conservatism. Your position is so weak that you feel the need to break this simple rule.
2. Hamilton’s arguments occurred after the ratification of the Constitution, and therefore carry less weight than Madison’s which were written to sell it to the People. Regardless, Hamilton’s argument bolsters mine, not yours: “provided that the spending is general in nature”. How is social security and food stamps justified under this policy?
3. What?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, it certainly has not been. It has been focused on one entitlement program after another. We set up a system to REWARD poverty! You can't afford housing?... HERE-FREE HOUSING! You have an illegitimate child?... HERE- AFDC MONEY! You have another? HERE- MORE FREE MONEY! You don't have a job? HERE- FREE INCOME! You're bored? HERE- FREE COMMUNITY CENTER! All we've done is give people one reward after another for remaining in poverty! We've NOT educated anyone, we CAN'T... it's considered too politically incorrect to go into an intercity neighborhood and suggest black males stop getting women pregnant and then running away from their responsibility! Even when a black man like Bill Cosby suggests this, he is chastised by liberals for it!
EVERY person has the ABILITY to escape poverty! We're ALL created equal! Some people have the motivation and determination to escape, and some don't. Entitlements merely enable those who don't, to continue living in poverty. As I said before, show me ONE PERSON who has EVER escaped poverty with the monthly check from the government? You're not giving them "the ability" to escape poverty, you are giving them an excuse to not act, to remain in poverty! I refer you to the Franklin quote posted earlier.
The children are primarily illegitimate minority children born out of wedlock! THAT is one of the single biggest problems causing perpetuation of poverty. But again, it is too politically incorrect to suggest black men keep their dick in their pants, or accept responsibility for the families they create. It's too "racist" for us to tell a black woman to either stop fucking men who are going to leave them the minute they get knocked up, or get their tubes tied! That's not socially acceptable to liberals, they had rather shell out more rewards for the behavior, and pretend like they are "helping" people!
Bfgrn
New member
1) I did define liberalism, modern or any other era. It always retains the same core. It is the antithesis of conservatism, modern or any other era. You are the one that want to define liberalism as something other than what it has always been. So conservatism becomes fair game.
2) You can't parse Hamilton's argument to fit your agenda or cry over spilled milk. Hamilton's view prevailed over Madison's, and that is what we have today.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble;
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Social security and food stamps provide for the general welfare of We, the People.
3) If you are so enamored with our founding fathers, before you use their words to kill human beings, why don't you consider how they actually GOVERNED and how they viewed corporations and how they viewed deregulation? Do you even know?
I will simplify it for you:
Do you know how our founding fathers GOVERNED, how they viewed corporations and how they viewed deregulation?
"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln
Shuddup, or my Invisible Friend will Smite Thee.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I posted the definition of Classical Liberalism, and it is NOT the same as modern Social Liberalism, but actually very similar to what the TEA Party is currently advocating. Liberalism has not always been Socialism and Marxism, that's just what it is currently.
How do you figure Hamilton's view prevailed over Madison's? There were two viewpoints, some people embraced one, some embraced the other... they never had some national referendum on this! To this day, the debate over the two philosophies continues, there is not a "prevailing" idea!
One could argue that SS and Food Stamps do not provide for the general welfare. Even in the Hamiltonian sense. Government entitlements merely enable dependency. How is that promoting general welfare? It actually has the OPPOSITE effect!
YES! I do know! They believed in FREE MARKETS! [A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of private ownership.]
In 1773, they dumped tea in the Boston harbor in protest of taxation and regulation!
I hate to tell you this Mr. Quotes, but Abe Lincoln was NOT a Founding Father!
Bfgrn
New member
Hey Dixie, we now know what you're problem is; ADHD.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. I accept your definition that it is the antithesis of conservatism. Modern conservatism seeks to abide strictly by the Constitution. By corollary, modern liberalism seeks to usurp it.
2. You’re the one parsing Hamilton’s argument. According to your previous post, he clearly said: “provided that the spending is general in nature”. That jives perfectly with what’s codified in The Constitution: “general Welfare of the United States”, not “general welfare of the People”.
3. First of all, Lincoln wasn’t a Founder. Second, in your quote of his it says nothing about ignoring the Constitution to “do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do...”. Again, if the People want the government to do more than the Constitution authorizes, then they should amend it.