How do a person's political views relate to self sufficiency?

[THEFAN]

the general good of this thread is now useless


hmm.....between the conservatives saying they are shut down, the liberals saying this and that, the others saying they are not listened too, everyone saying no one is acknowledging their numbers, others are not accepting feelings as a true science, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. on this board-----

is it no wonder nothing ever gets done in the government?

Go RON PAUL!!!


There is trueth to this???

+1

 

[ScottSD]

Go RON PAUL!!!

You know...if he fell in with the Tea Party. He just might be able to do it.

 

[patandchickens]

Seriously, though...being an engineer, I really can't comprehend why anyone would not want to know the numbers about something. Or, not consider them reliable and necessary.<snip>
Numbers are required for science....and without science you wouldn't be about to type anything on that 'puter of yours.....

Yes, but being a now-"retired" research scientist, I have to point out that the data you get depends hugely on the methods used, assumptions made, sampling design, population sampled, factors controlled for or not controlled for, etc.

It is greatly unwise to just read a number in a news report or even in a journal abstract and assume it must reflect what the speaker SAYS it reflects -- you have to go back to the original study and find out about, and THINK about, the methods used, and form your own conclusion about what the numbers say.

As notoriously true this is in *science*, how much the MORE it must be true in something as subjective and "political" as politics

Numbers are interesting. Numbers are not, however, Revealed Truth, not *anyone's* numbers.

Pat

 

[Big Daddy]

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree there is a lot of poor 'filtering' of the recipients of gov't aid, and that many people recieve it who oughtn't, and that this is a real problem that should be more vigorously addressed.

BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals agree that there are some folks out there who genuinely need and deserve gov't programs to help them out in some particular ways, and that it is GOOD to have such gov't assistance.

The disagreement on the thread seemed to be on just two main things:

1) A difference in emphasis. Conservatives spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people gettin' things they don't need, whereas liberals spend lots of time talking about the unfairness of some people needing (genuinely) things and being left in the lurch by gaps in private aid and gov't programs.

2) A difference in how half-full or half-empty you see the glass, in terms of whether gov't programs are laudably performing a valuable role for many people even tho yes, regrettably there are also some cheaters, or whether gov't programs may help a few who genuinely need it but are *mostly* just supporting parasites.

Pat

Ok...so, you're saying that conservatives just "talking about" about the unfairness of some people getting things they don't need.

I find all what you say very interesting. You really seem to have a problem with conservatives in each and every one of your posts. That's ok. That is your right.

I wonder though....who put's their own money where their mouth is?

According to the sources I have linked below( you know actual sources...not just my own opinion), conservatives are much bigger givers than liberals:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2

From the article:
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities." "

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give moreis a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states"

So, here's my opinion, based on the facts given.

Conservatives give more of their money to charity. They don't necessarily want that to be government's job. They are, after all the biggest ideological group in America, and they are obviously the most charitable. They give more. They just don't want government to take more of their taxes (or anyone else's) to do it. Based on their higher giving, it is clear they'd rather do it themselves.

Liberals....don't give as much to charity. They are a much smaller ideological group. They would rather the government increase taxes from everyone to help out those in need....you know...instead of them alone giving, they want to take from someone else to give to the poor.

Who of those two groups, puts their (not someone else's) money where their mouth is?

You got some pretty vague definitions going on there Scott. Liberals is a pretty loose term. Red states just means that more people voted for the losing side than the winning side this time. Here in Colorado it is always real close one way or the other. Where do the figures come from. If it's from income tax forms, the last time I did my forms the charitable contributions were pretty vague. So it could just mean there are more tax cheats in red states. Stats can be made to say whatever you want them too. Poles are better but are also pretty skewed depending on who is doing them.

 

[Big Daddy]

As for disbursement of help.

I think that people to the left like to give to who they choose from their own money. However they fell that all needy should be taken care of and are willing to pay some taxes to do it.

Conservatives want to determine who gets their money and don't feel that anyone outside who they choose should be entitled to any of their taxes. They feel that if they are in need they should go to a church or something.

I don't know if DARE itself is a total waste. When I was in K-12 they didn't have any programs like that. I got in to drugs at an early age. My 3 oldest who were exposed to all the DARE rhetoric have never gotten in to drugs. Two of them have tried smoking pot but didn't like it. The other has not tried it but I feel he probably will. He is in college after all. I had lots of discussions with my kids about different drugs and their effects and how they affected my life. So I don't know if it was DARE or if it was me. I'm sure that parents that don't discuss contraception with t heir kids probably feel that DARE is good.

 

[me&thegals]

So basically whatever Scott, Rein, or I say nobody is going to believe it anyway.

Exactly. When the statistics work in the conservative view's favor, they're manipulated, when they work in the liberal's favor, it's to prove that conservatives are all evil moneygrubbers who hope for failure for everyone else.

That seems awfully personal.

It seems like the same issue my DH and I have. I don't listen to his news sources or read his sources because they don't seem believable to me.

Ditto for him and my news sources.

So, when we debate all the great topics of life, I just don't buy his arguments. Not because he is an "evil moneygrubber who hopes for failure for everyone else." Hah! I married the guy! We're raising kids together! I adore him!

Give me a break. I don't buy his arguments because I don't trust his sources.

And he doesn't think I'm a hair-brained liberal, a nonsensical bleeding heart who would let her children starve to feed children in Africa. Give me another break. He simply doesn't believe my sources either.


Of course, it's not ALWAYS this way with us, and sometimes we can really SEE where the other person is coming from, but it's what I see going on in this thread.


It also brings up a beef of mine. It seems very hard these days (or through all time?) to find "unbiased," actually 2-sided reporting. It gives me a lack of trust for nearly all news sources.

 

[me&thegals]

Seriously, though...being an engineer...

Really??? I seriously had you pegged for a lawyer! One of my best friends is married to an engineer, though, and there really seems to be a certain stereotype about how an engineer's brain works. This is a compliment or just commenting on how it seems to be, BTW. Anyway, he and I get into politics occasionally, too.

 

[me&thegals]

Seriously, though...being an engineer, I really can't comprehend why anyone would not want to know the numbers about something. Or, not consider them reliable and necessary.

Do you really make your decisions based strictly on how you feel about it?

Numbers are required for science....and without science you wouldn't be about to type anything on that 'puter of yours.....

Yeah - everyone thinks differently. Some people are more fact-driven and some are more intuitive.

I am sure someone is right and someone is wrong but it will never be settled here.

This is exactly like the above-mentioned friend and her engineer husband. She is very artistic and intuitive, he is very facts oriented and cut-and-dried. He can tie her in absolute knots in any debate such as this one. Doesn't mean she doesn't have excellent points, though.

 

[me&thegals]

Sorry....just a woman thing, I guess.

I am a "Just the facts mam" kind of girl, so I don't fit that generalization.

Me too, with a few exceptions. There are sometimes when I can't put a finger on it and don't have research to back me, but I "know" it to be true for me.

 

[Wifezilla]

Feeellliiingggggssss.....woh woh woh feeellliiinnngggsssss


Everyone sing along!!