You weren’t even aware that the problem existed until my post. Now that you are aware of it you are jumping immediately to the defense of liberal programs that caused it. Doesn’t this give you pause?
This is a whole seperate debate from the OP. Whether or not government programs to help the poor actually do more harm than good has been done many times on the SDMB. The simple truth is that after decades of welfare and housing projects the problem is still worse than ever. Even if you don’t agree that its liberal social programs that caused it (I still maintain that they do) you must agree at least that they have failed to stop it.
But, lots of people right here in this thread basically are.
Etc, etc. So, in fairness nobody has called conservatives “evil” (at least in this thread). But, we are a bunch of hypocritical, gay hating, genocidal, Jesus freak, uncompassionate, foolish, money hungry, gun toting, disciplinarian state desiring ass kickers.
You must realize that it’s difficult for us conservatives to have a good faith debate or conversation about anything as we are constantly slandered and insulted by multiple posters just for having our beliefs, which are different from the majority.
I’m not sure what kind of answer you expect from your list of questions, or what you are really digging for by asking them. But, as a conservative, I’ll answer and maybe some interesting conversation can come out of it…
I don’t care how many kids people have.
Sure. Why not?
Of course. Whatever.
That’s up to the parents. Of course, the kids are better off if raised by a parent than by day care. However, many parents have to work and its up to them to decide what is best for their kids.
It’s up to each individual to decide for themselves. I don’t care what other people do. I certainly don’t want the government to mandate what they do. I would simply say that people should be responsible for themselves. They need to work enough to provide for their families. If they don’t, then they shouldn’t expect others to provide for them.
It’s up to mom. Every person should decide what is best for them and their family.
Bad assumption. I’m an atheist, and a conservative. There are lots of us. Whatever type of worship (or none at all) people choose is best, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else.
None. However, the current trend of the ACLU and others trying to force the government to not have anything remotely to do with anything religious is way over the top. The boy scouts being banned from military bases for example is an overzelous application of the seperation of church and state, IMO.
This is a good example. The questions you ask about insurance are very baited. You seem to imply that conservatives are bad guys because we don’t want to help all the sick people.
Here it is: Conservatives want people to have the best insurance and medical care possible. Really, we do. We just don’t think the government providing it is the best way to do it. Ultimately the health care will be worse for everyone if the government provides it than if the private sector does. The private sector is just better at doing things efficiently and health care is no exception.
If your job doesn’t provide health insurance then you need to buy it on your own. Lots of self employed people do this.
Some people can’t afford cars or houses. That doesn’t mean that the government should provide them. You can’t legislate away poverty or illness. Our society works so well because everyone is responsible for themselves. You want a house you save up and buy one. You want a car you pick one you can afford the payments of. Insurance and medical care are no different. This can be harsh sometimes, but ultimately we are all much better off than if the innefficient government was trying to provide it.
The general answer I would have for this is that ultimately “freedom” (from government interference) results in a better result than when the government tries to “help”. This is true with most things.
Think of how well the computer industry would run if the government were in charge of it instead of the private sector. If IBM, Microsoft, Cisco and all the other high tech companies closed down and the federal government tried to make computers and the internet work. The industry would collapse. A computer would cost $10,000 and would crash on the first day you owned it. The internet would be slow and unreliable. It’s the freedom and resulting competition that makes the industry stong and healthy.
“Traditional Values” are not something that the government needs to interfere with either. By providing handouts to those who have kids and don’t work you only create a cycle of dependancy that results in more poverty. It’s simple really. If you want to encourage a thing you subsidize it. If you want to discourage something you tax it. Handouts in the form of social programs are subsiziding poverty. As a result, we have things like more than half of black children born with only one parent to raise them.
Quick note: Our conservative beliefs are in the minority here on the SDMB. Thankfully, in the real world, this is not true and it’s the liberals who are outside the mainstream.
Yes, that’s old news. More interesting is that ‘freedom’ doesn’t always result in something better than anarchy or economical dictatorship either. We don’t have laws against rape, stealing, or killing for nothing. What we can discuss is if the police would be more efficiently paid out of our government taxes or directly to a privatised police department.
Or say "basic health insurance is mandatory for all, we’ll set a maximum price for those who have little money, and let the insurance companies take care of the rest.
(if you say that’s far-fetched, maybe so, but it’s what we did here anyway).
I’m sure you’re none of the above, Debaser, but it is rather a harder case to make that many of those whom conservatives elect also don’t share in these characteristics.
Choosing to withdraw your support from these types in favor of principled conservative leaders would go a long way towards creating a public debate on these issues in good faith.
So, all conservatives deserve the name calling because they support a certain candidate? Why can’t they just speak intelligently to the issues without clouding them over with perjoratives?
No. This cannot be correctly inferred from my statement. What conservatives “deserve” to be called is of no interest to me whatsoever.
You may consider racism, homophobia, and hypocrisy merely “pejoratives”. I, on the other hand, consider them issues. While it may be convenient for you (speaking generally) to restrict the issue space to realms in which you feel more comfortable, I will not consent.
If you cannot have a good faith debate about such matters of great public import, what can you debate about?
And what of those who cannot fend for themselves? To whose responsiblity do they fall? The mentally handicapped, the HIV+ infants who are abandoned at birth, the feeble, the runaways, the homeless, the ones injured on the job who can no longer work? Are they to blame for their hardships and so, no help is provided?
Is it to come from religious groups? What is to stop them from only providing for those who follow their creed? Sometimes families are not the answer–do we send a molested girl back to her father who is the molester, so that she can have his baby? Is that free enough? Is that allowing him to take responsiblity for his actions? And when he molests the baby–that is all to the good, b/c no government program was involved?
Where are the real, hard answers to the shit that people can find themselves in?
“Traditional values” commonly includes a manner of worship–to state otherwise is disingenous or you are not paying attention to the conservative base.
But freedom is too vague a term. Surely the public interest has some merit–clean water, for example, or safe highways.
Certainly, the knowledge that private insurance companies drop members who are too expensive for their bottom line must be taken into account by conservatives. Who pays for the ones who use the ER as their primary care provider b/c they have been dropped or their job doesn’t even have health insurance? Or is that asthma/diabetes/cancer also their personal responsiblity? Patient, heal thyself?
I should bow out of here, b/c this thread’s intent was for conservatives to answer the question posed by the OP. But I am curious.
I have not yet heard of any concrete plan-here or in RL-that addresses such issues. How do the cons plan to solve such issues? I am not here touting “liberal programs”–I am here asking questions. Talk to me–I want to know the plan. Do these problems just go away? What happens w/o “liberal” programs? What improvements occur under the conservative ideal?
The government is not the only body that can work on those ills of which you speak. Merely being on the government payroll does not make someone uniquely qualified to deliver aid to those in need.
Yes, there’s a chance that people in need will fall through the cracks. But that risk doesn’t disappear just because there’s a government program in place. If you think merely legislating against people falling through the cracks is enough to make sure every baby is fed and happy, then you’ve got more faith in the government and its workers than I.
Aid should come from religious groups, families, communities, friends, charities, and every other method by which aid can be delivered. Sometimes, one or more method won’t work for an individual case (perhaps a religious group won’t give aid, or a family is the source of the problem, or the individual is ineligible for government provided benefits), so it’s important to have more than one source of aid. Again, just stamping a government label on a program does not make it more effective.
Of course you don’t send a girl back to a father that’s molested her. If you sincerely believe that conservatives support child molestation, then I’m going to suggest you loosen whatever headgear you’re wearing and take a few deep breaths.
Conservatives oppose child molestation and rape and murder and kicking puppies. We support charities and giving time and money to the less fortunate. We just (usually) don’t think that the government is the best steward for our charitable efforts.
I don’t know. If you do, please share the “real, hard answers” with the rest of us so we can institute them right away. I’m sure we’ll all be much happier when there are no abandoned HIV+ babies, no child molestation, no mentally handicapped, no runaways, no homeless, and nobody injured on the job who can no longer work. I eagerly await your solution to all of life’s ills.
I’m sorry, but you’re not going to get much traction by telling a conservative what conservatives think and feel. Especially since you’ve already demonstrated that you’ve got a cartoonishly silly impression of what conservatives actually believe. Moreover, that’s a strawman, and it’s taboo around here.
Again, conservatives don’t actually oppose clean water or safe highways.
[sigh]
There are, of course, laws against insurance companies “dropping” expensive patients. And, of course, there are laws mandating the continuation of coverage under adverse circumstances. And, of course, there are laws saying that a doctor cannot refuse to treat a patient merely because he/she lacks insurance. But I’m guessing that Michael Moore’s next movie won’t talk about that.
Conservatives do not support denying healthcare to anyone. If you believe they do, then how about getting off the Democratic Underground website, opening a window, and having a glass of water? I really think it might help.
First of all, you are touting liberal programs. Or are you merely suggesting that conservative opposition to liberal programs is going to result in stealing blankies from HIV+ orphans, without passing judgment on liberal programs?
Second, most conservatives do not hold the positions that you’re ascribing to them. Most conservatives don’t want to do away with Medicare or child protection laws. Sometimes, conservatives think there are other, better ways to deal with those problems, but conservatives generally aren’t Dr. Evil brought to life.
Third, the basis for conservative opposition to social programs is that most conservatives think the government is not the best way to get our money to those charities we support. Between giving my money to the government, and giving it to Habitat for Humanity, or the Red Cross, or the Ronald McDonald house, or the Clay Madsen Foundation, I’ve got more faith in the private charity.
So the improvement is that more of the money I give to charities will actually go to the needy. And there are other improvements, too, such as encouraging charitable giving, and getting rid of a cycle of entitlement and dependency, and allowing people more freedom, and allowing people to give money where they see it’s needed more, and fewer people will fall through the cracks. But since your request is so broad, it’s impossible to list every possible improvement.
In the meantime, I suggest you go out and meet a few actual, real life conservatives. You might find that we’re much more human than you think.
No, but it seems to me that merely being on the government payroll makes it far less likely that someone in need will be denied need due to arbitrary, discriminatory reasons. After all, private charity groups are not obliged to act as if “all men (and women) are created equal,” whereas the government is.
That’s an interesting point. But it seems to me that – with a few notable exceptions – most charitable organizations tend to not discriminate. For example, despite the fact that the Red Cross does not appear to have a written bill of rights (or at least not one of which I’m aware), they actually seem to have a better record on discrimination than the US government.
But if it’s important to you to contribute to charities that won’t discriminate, or even charities that have a written guarantee that they won’t discriminate, then I’m not convinced that the government is the only body that can provide that. If it’s important to enough people, then I feel confident that charitable organizations would provide such guarantees (if they don’t already).
Do you have evidence that it is the welfare programs which have increased single parenthood? Have men not also had more children out of wedlock? Why did you focus on the women? Do Conservatives have any solutions that focus on both parents? Are you aware that most welfare recepients are not Black?
I read your list and I am in agreement! Are you sure you’re not a liberal? Seriously, I don’t think that many liberals would have any problem with what you advocate. (To clarify, I do not object to religious imagery in public; I object to religious imagery on government property or paid for with taxes.)
I can understand that. But I think increasingly it’s becoming the notion here in America that Christian imagery has no place outside the home, which I think is ridiculous. But let me ask, how do feel about references to God in in our founding fathers’ documents, our coin of the realm, etc.?
With regard to the rest of your post, I find this most amusing. Are you sure it’s not you who is a conservative? After all, the “mollycoddling” of criminals and weak foreign policy images are not really hallmarks of conservative values or conservative government.
Can you give an example were a significant portion of American society frowned on some piece of Christian imagery outside the home that was not in the context of some state sponsored event or display? I mean, of course, a case in which the imagery was frowned upon simply for it’s Christian nature, and not because it was overtly hateful, so the widespread contempt for Phelps and his “God hates fags” demonstrations doesn’t count.
If conservatives are as humane as they want us to think they are, why do they keep asking us to entrust the public welfare to organizations based on a profit motive?
Nearly all charitable and welfare organizations are not based on profit motive. This is virtually what defines a charity. There are different kind of private organizations. There is the typical for-profit, which includes almost all businesses; not-for-profit, which strives to make a profit, but where profit is not the measure of success; and non-profit, in which profit, or the lack thereof, is largely ignored.
If charity and welfare is the primary goal of a for-profit organization, then it seems evident to me that that organization would do the best it could in welfare to acheive a good profit. This would never work because welfare is not profitable. Welfare for profit is dangerous in my opinion.
If you question why we ask people to trust private organizations for welfare and charity, just look at the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity. These organizations do good works. They don’t have the reach of the government in their respective fields, but they are admired for what they do.
