Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Hopefully, we can keep this topic from becoming a Soapbox. I don't
    really think that your 50% figure is accurate because there are
    plenty of middle-of-the-road Democrats who do not consider themselves
    Liberal. Since no one has yet been able to define what is a liberal
    in absolute terms, this discussion will have its problems.
    
    Some of your Us/Them analogy has merit, however its not quite that
    simple. The idea that "Liberals want to improve the world" as an
    absolute philosophy is flawed. My view is that Liberals want Government
    to take a larger roll in our lives and decision making, while
    Conservatives feel that the individual should take the initiative
    himself. The idea of Liberals wanting programs paid for out of OUR
    pockets goes along with the idea of big government, and these two
    points are where most of the resistance comes from. In most areas
    of the country, the American people are tired of Big Government
    and as such, turn their backs on "Liberals". That is not to say
    that they are against all of the Liberal programs, only having a
    large government bureaucracy running them. So while in the last
    Presidential election, the Democrats got about 45% of the vote,
    it was not a vote for Liberalism in the traditional sense.
    
    Eric

    I am not liberal, mainly because I think their views of the world
    are simplistic.  The problem with dicussions of this nature, is
    that nothing good is assumed about the other.  I am for a better
    world, pease, health, 'the better life'.  To me the question isn't
    whether 'we' want the same thing, but first, 'IS' it achievable,
    and if so, when and how.
    
    You brought up the people of the World, but we still have enough
    problems here, so let me stay in the US.  All that was given to
    me was my color and my gender.  Unfortunatly, in this country, that
    gave me a head start on other 'classes'.  I have no problem with
    the government using my hard earned money, in an attempt to give
    others an opportunity.  But is this a Federal problem.....  To me,
    the responsiblity of the Federal Government is to guarantee my
    rights as a U.S. Citizen, and to protect those rights against all
    foes, foreign and domestic.  Thus, a strong military (which is another
    sore point between liberals and conservative), and a watchful eye
    over my Constitution, insuring my rights, and the rights of all
    Americans, is observed.  Money should be collected, at the Federal
    level, to support those that are unable to support themselves, but
    Congress has enough trouble running foreign policy, maybe these
    Federal dollars would be better spent at the state level.
    
    I don't know, none of the issues are easy, and it may be worth while
    to discuss a single topic, in attempt to understand the general
    views of the other side better.  I do think we both want the same
    thing, but it's not so much a question of how do we get there, but
    'CAN' we get there?
    
    Mark

is odd....i think the conservative view is simplistic....
    
    as a liberal who does indeed dig into his own pocket to help make
    "the world a better place" in many ways it rather bothers me that
    so many people with so much money would rather throw the excess away
    than use it to help make the world a better place.
    
    facts as released to the press last year by research groups funded
    by the government;
    
    fact #1  90% of the wealth is in the hands of 10% of the people
    
    which means that 10% of the wealth is in the hands of 90% of the
    people.
    
    which means that you and i are divying up 10% of the wealth amongst
    us.
    
    now...should we be able to take another 10% away from those with the
    largest slice of the pie....imagine all the good it would do!
    
    if you and i (the 90%) are getting by fairly well on 10% of the
    wealth....imagine if we had 20%...
    
    and, since 90% of us can live fairly well on 10% of the wealth....
    i'll assume that the 10% with 90% could survive on only 80%....
    
    please don't tell me they *earned it*....
    that's certainly as simplistic as anything any liberal could come
    up with.  they didn't earn it....they  worked their way into a 
position of power such that they could write the rules and the first
rule they wrote was....."we get  90% of the wealth"
    
    fact #2
	30% of the people in america working 40 hours a week make less
    then $11k
    
    i see so many people tell me they are proud to be americans because
    they live in the greatest country in the world with one of the highest
    standards of living....
    
    when i see that 30% of the people are earning less then 11k/year
    i have to question their pride in country and their belief that
    america is such a wonderful place.
    
    if they were truly proud of america because of the high standard
    of living wouldn't they be even more proud if everyone in america 
    had a high standard of living?  pease....i'm not talking about people
    who don't work....
    
    to me....liberal is not black and white...
    most people who consider themselves liberal are rather conservative
    by my standards.
    
    some people are very liberal when it comes to drugs or drinking
    but rather conservative when it comes to politics or social issues.
    
    some people *liberally* suggest to their children that they wait
    until they are over 25 before they marry....
    i suggest that they just never marry.
    
    some people, regardless of how liberal they are, will still insult
    and abuse other peopels view points.. i suggest that we try to stop
    insulting and abusing (though find myself being dragged down to
    these levels by abuse and insults thrown in my direction...for which
    i'm truly sorry and am seriously working on avoiding)
    
    most people, liberals and conservatives alike, are still dressing
    according to standards set by others....
    
    for me....making the world a better place means....
    make your own decisions
    spread some of the excess wealth around
    dress the way you really want to and not how you are taught to
    don't get so uptight about "finding a mate and settling down"
    don't be so abusive and nasty to other people....
    stop making so many darn rules......
    	everywhere i go....everything i do...i'm breaking some
    silly rule and some nasty policeman with no sense of humor is
    getting ready to charge me for it.
    	"ya can't park there"....."why?".."because there's a sign!"
    "ok..i see the sign...but is there a REASON?"
    	probably none beyond the existance of the sign....
        
        some of these things don't cost a thing!
    it's free to be nice!
    and you can find very nice, tasteful clothes to wear to work or
    to all those  traditional functions (like weddings)
    that cost no more then some mundane, dull suit and will be more
comfortable to wear and more interesting to view.
    
    you're not going to believe this (no way) but when i'm not in
    notes i'm a very positively influencing person!  There isn't a place
    that i go to or people that i meet...(shops, stores, restaurants...etc)
    that i don't say positive,pleasant things to....
    i talk to all the caf workers and all the dec credit union people
    and everyone everywhere!
    
    had a waiter this weekend who, at the end of the evening, said..
    "i wish i had a table like this everynight!  you people have been
    great!"
    
    it doesn't cost to be nice....and being nice is something that would
    make the world a better place easily!
    
  ======  
     i also find it amusing that many conservatives who dislike socialism
    and equate socialism with liberals find and use so many socialist
    loopholes in so many areas (tax breaks, for one) that are unavailble
    to those with less money!
    
    sort of like: socialism to help the poor is bad but socialism to
    help the rich is good!
2 people make 40k
person A has a house, 2 kids and a wife who doesn't work...
person A CHOSE to have a house, wife and kids.

person B has no house, no wife, no kids.....

person A pays 5k in taxes while person B pays 10k....because A
had the benefit of tax breaks...
	so..person B is paying more to help defray the cost of
government, schools (which he doesn't need or use), police,
fire, etc, for person A....
	isn't that socialism? 

   
    i liberally express these ideas and hope no one is insulted or
    offended by them.
    
    now, i kindly ask, please don't call it b.s. or make fun of it or
    insult me and my ideas.....and i will consider that very liberal
    of you.
    
    rik
    
    
    

    

    Rik, how do you reconcile the fact that people with lots of money
    like to spend it on caviar (bletch!) and drugs (double bletch!)
    with the idea that people should make their own decisions?
    
    How do you get people to make reasonable decisions?  who defines
    reasonable?
    
    Which things make the world a better place?  Does feeding the starving
    people do it?  It sure makes giver and recipient feel better, but what
    happens when the next generation is bigger because of the extra
    food?  How do you get people to make the reasonable decision, in
    some folks' eyes, to have fewer kids so all the kids will have food?
    
    (I'm not advocating starvation as a method of population control,
    since I just can't.  But, as with any environmental issue, it's
    got enough sides to make your head spin.)
    
    So, whose reasonable and whose better are we going to implement?
    
    --Louise

    Reg .3
    
    Well, let me address the 'simplistic' comment I made, by way of
    some of the subjects brought up here....
    
    First, the figure regarding 10% having 90%, well I've heard that
    before, and have no reason to doubt, but I do find if dificult (if
    not scary) to believe.  I'd like to understand how that figure was
    determined (were corporations included, I understand digital has
    quite a war chest of funds, is digital a person, do the funds count
    towards uncle Ken????  I can't address the figures).
    
    But any way, simplistic, by that I mean that because all Americans
    are not comfortable, and so many Americans are spoiled, something
    is wrong.  Yes, of course, I agree something is wrong.  That is
    not the question.  The question is, how do we fix it.  I would like
    to believe that if a fair method of tax's were created, it would
    be followed, but as long as 'person B' feels he's getting screwed,
    he (or she) will cheat.  Loops holes, close them, I thought we just
    went thru tax simplication, three tax rates, limited deductions,
    it seemed to me everyone was happy.  But as it turns out, it wasn't
    so simple, the tax law passed by Congress (that democratic Congress).
    
    In my opinion, the 1980 campaign hit the liberal nail on the head.
    Liberals (and many democrats) seem to blame America first, last,
    and always.  We have problems, but at leats we seem to be trying.
    It also seems that liberal democrats criticize, but then don't offer
    suggestions, the easiest thing is to criticize.
    
    During a recent conversation, democrats were stating (after Bush
    looked like a shoe in) that they would like to see a republican
    in the White House again, to over-see the coming collapse of the
    economy.  What I would like to see is a time when the republicans
    are not only in control of the White House, but Congress as well.
    Need I remind the Country what happened the last time the democrats
    controlled the White House and the Congress.

    
    I am not trying to bad mouth anyone here, but I do enjoy 'discussing'
    politics.

    RE: .3, the idea of who has what wealth is fine and dandy, but what
    rubs me wrong (and I'm not in that top 10%), is the ease at which
    you (and others of the "Liberal" persuasion) want to put your hand
    in MY pocket to pay for your ideas! If you want to follow your beliefs,
    fine with me, but YOU pay for them. I'll make my own decisions,
    thank you.
    
    Eric

    It has been stated that the people could live better with 80% instead
    of 90% of the wealth.  I question who has the right to tell anyone
    that they are not entitled to the money they have rightfully earned.
     If you want to go the way of Russia and have communism, then everyone
    would put their pay in a bucket and each would be paid as they need.
    
    This was basically tried with comunes during the 60s.  It was found
    not to work.  I am conservative by and large.  I don't believe that
    I should be required to pay more of my salary in taxes just so some
    bleeding heart liberal can give more welfare.  That is my personal
    opinion.  I will contribute to those causes I feel are worthwhile,
    and not to those that I am told are worthwhile.
    
    I hold nothing against the rich people for being rich.  I hope to
    be there one day myself.  I was all in favor of cutting the tax
    rates from 50% or 70% to a more reasonable level.  If one wanted
    to be truly fair, they could probably say for paying taxes:
    
    		1) How much did you make?
    
    		2) Multiply #1 by some percentage
    
    		3) The result of #2 would be the tax.  No deductions,
    			or loopholes.
    
    But I think that you would find that the Democrats and Liberals
    would be the first to fight such a plan.  After all, how do you
    use taxes as a social program then?
    
    Ed..
    

"If you want to go the way of Russia and have communism, then everyone would put
their pay in a bucket and each would be paid as they need. This was basically
tried with comunes during the 60s.  It was found not to work."

FYI, Communes come in all styles and flavors.  There are some communes that have
continued from the 60's quite successfully (according to their measure of
success), and there are still communities being formed currently (as well as
breaking up).  I imagine that they have about the same lifetime as a normal
family.  Quite a few people have been quite happy in a community lifestyle. 

The point, however, is that if you didn't like it, you could always leave.
People *chose* that lifestyle because they wanted it.   It's not quite the same
thing as saying if you don't like liberal taxes, you can always leave the US.

The difference between the commune and the liberals is that in a commune, each
person decides to be there (power to the individual, a plurality), vs. with the
liberals, 'they' want to force everyone to pay for what 'they' decide is a good
cause (power to the mass, communism). 

BTW, did you know that currently, only about 10% of our taxes are being used for
government?  That the other 90% is already spent on debt, defense, and transfer
payments?  The thought makes me sick.  How much more liberal and communistic do
you want to get??? 

My idea of the perfect tax bill is a sheet saying 'you will pay X$ amount of
taxes, here are the causes which you can choose to spend it on:  missles,
tanks, libraries, roads, unemployment, NASA...'  It would put a lot of
politicians out of work!

Jim.

    Why is the problem with the economy, always seem to come down to
    the defense department.  In my opinion, the Federal (yes, FEDERAL)
    governments main responsibility is to protect me, from all ememies,
    foreign and domestic.  What really makes me sick, is according to
    the liberals, we can never use it, and, if we did (heaven forbid),
    look out......
    

    Re: .2, .3 and "simplistic"
    
    I submit that most concepts that have been encapsulated into a label
    have been over-simplified.  The mental shorthand is common, sometimes
    even necessary, but it helps if everyone spells out what they see
    the term encompassing.  I've seen a lot of arguments that are really
    two people using the same term differently.

    
    To me the bloated Federal bureaucracy and the spendthrift Defense
    establishment are as much to blame as liberals with pies in the
    skies and hands in our pockets.
    
    Get rid of these bums and get their hands out of our pockets, too.
                                                                      
    BTW - Anyone notice how the care and feeding of "homeless" is becoming
    its own industry?

    If as stated, Liberals want to improve the world, then I think
    it follows that conservatives believe the people should improve
    the world.
    
    Modern liberals believe in economic redistribution while conservatives
    believe in equal opportunity.
    
    As I've seen my tax money wasted; most of it going to fuel
    the bureacracies, little getting to those who really need it,
    I've become increasingly conservative and prefer now to help
    improve the world via private charities and personal involvement.
    
    						Hank

The replies to this topic so far have not come even close to the charter
of this conference, seemingly more suited to SOAPBOX.  I would prefer to
see a "human relations" slant to this issue, if possible, or else suggest
that the conversation be continued elsewhere.

If you have comments, please send me mail - do not reply here.  Thanks.

				Steve

    It has been brought to my attention that SOAPBOX is, for the moment,
    unavailable.  However, that does not automatically make it acceptable
    for political discussions to migrate into other conferences.
    
    I have decided to write-lock this topic.  I'm willing to entertain
    suggestions about reopening it, if someone can make a good case for
    relevancy to the conference charter.  Merely saying that liberals
    and conservatives are humans is not sufficient.  If you have
    comments on this issue, please send mail to me and the other
    moderators.  (A SHOW MODERATOR command will list them.)  Complaints
    in the conference itself will be returned to the authors.
    
    				Steve