How much DOES "Democrat = liberal" and "Republican = conservative" these days?

Great Debates
21

I know it’s not the thrust of your post, but I have to remark briefly on that.

There could not be a national anti-sodomy law, passed by the federal government. Bills passed by Congress have to fall within the powers given them by the Constitution. Everything else is reserved to the states. For example, take the domestic violence act passed by Congress. It really stretched its language, desperately seeking a justification under the commerce clause, but ultimately was deemed unconstitutional for lack of Congressional authority to pass such a bill. Likewise, sodomy laws are traditionally a matter of state law, the federal government has no enumerated power that might allow them to pass a bill pertaining to the issue. (Likewise for gay marriages, the federal government is powerless to intervene either for or against…the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional to that extent if it ever were challenged, but since there’s no power behind it there will probably never be a situation in which it needs to be challenged.)

Flag burning may have the same problem, I can’t see under which enumerated power the Congress might find authority to pass a bill concerning the subject. And there are the 1st Amendment issues too. I think it’s pretty clear that sort of bill would have to go through the Amendment process instead.

When it comes to legislation that affects alot of people and makes sweeping changes, that’s gonna come mostly from the states. So politics is local, as we all knew from the get-go.

22

Not necessarily on both accounts. What I do mind is moreso the “paying the lion’s share for perfectly able-bodied individuals to sit at home and milk the system” part of it. Welfare breeds reliance of welfare. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and I didn’t graduate college. But through hard work I gained experience and then started my own company on a shoestring (literally less than $500). I’m not strictly against all social programs, but welfare reform is near the top of my list. This is not only for the sheer principle (admittedly a big part) of the matter, but I think we are raising entire generations of like-minded people who assume they are owed something and therefore have no fear of not being able to eat next week. I have had this fear, and I can tell you, It’s a Good Thing. Necessity is the mother of invention. Given some greater incentive (like eating), I think the majority of these people could become productive members of society. I’m not suggesting “let them starve”, but it should not be so easy to sit home and collect free money. Perhaps subsidized daycare for people who can’t afford it is a good idea, but at least try to make them work. Create a work ethic and provide greater incentive for people to further their education, gain job experience, increase their overall worth, and eventually stop relying on handouts. In my previous residence, I rented a $500,000 house directly next door (as in 10 feet) to section-8 apartments, and it pissed me off to pay a $2,400/month premium to live in a neighborhood where the unemployed could live practically free. I can already smell somebody rushing in to claim I hate minorities, so be aware my statements apply equally to all able-bodied individuals.

I doubt this, but again my point is not so much the direct immediate cost to pay other people’s way, but the fact that it encourages them to let me do so, and the cycle continues.

Where on earth did you get that idea???

Actually, I am strongly in favor of less government waste, and a smaller government altogether.

Whoa, jump to conclusions much? To the contrary, it’s a realistic desire to help them help themselves, and therefore, our society as a whole.

That’s a laugh. A range of 10-38.6% is hardly flat - show me one poor person who spends a further 28.6% of their income on sales or property taxes.

Yep, that’s what I do. I rob the poor by tempting them with internet pornography and charging their gold cards against their will, forcing them to be forever poor. :rolleyes:
I didn’t intend for this turn into a debate of my own personal politics, but if anybody’s wondering what any of this has to do with the OP (I was), I guess you can take my political views and couple them with the fact that I vote Republican.

23

Chumpsky wrote:

Absolutely not. What I mind is being forced to do it.

24

Um, no, those are the opposite of the raw meanings of the words. In short, conservatives oppose change, and liberals favor it. What you’re describing are attempts to change the system to match worldviews - which is the nature of politics.

25

According to the political Compass, I’m “Red” Ken Livingstone.

I’m happy with that.

26

my score was: Economic: -4.5, authoritarian: -2.1 (puts me near Ghandhi.

27

This is such propoganda crap, and it always was, but it is especially so these days.

At the very worst moment the welfare days, such “system-milkers” may have cost you personally a fraction of a penny.

If you are honestly concerned about handouts and waste, invest your energy in worrying about corporate handouts, and entitlements to the wealthiest segment of our society, the elderly, which costs you a damn sight more than that, and stop making scapegoats out of ill-educated mothers.

Bah. Sickening.

28

But if it were voluntary you’d have to pay several times that amount to make up for all the people who opted out.

29

Stoid-

Did you miss where I said it was the principle of the matter, and the fact that the current system reinforces their gimme gimme gimme attitude? Why get a job when you can get all the free money you need for doing absolutely nothing? Better yet, just have a few more illegitimate children, and the “ill-educated mothers” are rewarded with even more free money. Their “job” becomes producing more welfare cases. You’re right, it is sickening.

I’ll invest my energy where I damn well please, and you can invest yours “literally weeping about the dark night of fear you have for so many things.” , thank you very much.

30

And your picture is a fantasy in your head, that would be my point. It’s not like welfare was ever worth much of a damn, for god’s sake. You’d think welfare recipients were pulling down 50k a year per kid the way you talk.

christ…

31

Sqweels wrote:

Says who?

32

But it most definitely is not the principle of the matter that concerns you. If it was, then your first concern would be corporate welfare, which totally overwhelms social welfare.

The thing is with you guys, that you never, ever complain about corporate welfare like you do about social welfare. Sure, sometimes you’ll grudgingly admit, “oh yeah, we’ve got to cut down on that too,” after we’ve gotten rid of social welfare.

So, basically, you attack the weak and defenseless, the people who can’t fight back. There is nothing like kicking somebody who can’t fight back to make you feel superior.

33

I support the complete elimination of corporate welfare. Let them live or die by their wits in a fair and free market.

34

But, Eleusis, you seem to have missed the point that the top 1% of taxpayers are paying such a large fraction of the taxes precisely because they have such a large fraction of the income!!!

The top 1% now have almost 21% of the income (although at the time corresponding to the two other percentages quoted above, it may have been something more like 19%). So, the fact that they are paying 23% of the nation’s federal taxes shows that the federal tax system taken as a whole is barely progressive. [And, that’s before we start counting in state taxes, especially sales taxes that are highly regressive.]

I mean, what do you want us to do…Do you want the tax system to be regressive so the rich pay a smaller share of the tax than their share of the income?

Perhaps a good way to distinguish between liberals and conservatives/liberterians is that the former look at the fact that 1% of the people pull down more than 1/5 of the income and are shocked by the inequality, whereas the latter look at the fact that these people then pay a large share of the taxes and are shocked that the rich are being soaked!

35

Two things:

First, voluntary charity is far cheaper than government-sponsored beaurocracy. I believe that with government social programs, it’s something like 20 cents on the dollar that makes it into the hands of the intended recipients, whereas with private charity it’s closer to 90 cents. Thus far fewer people would have to donate money than are currently manhandled by the government to fund these things.

Secondly, if the money used to fund these wasteful programs was given pack to the taxpayers, they would have more money, and would thus be more likely to give to charity in the first places. Also, there is currently an attitude that the government handles all this crap already anyway, so why should I give more money? If people didn’t know that Cause X was already receiving $20B in taxpayer money, they may be more inclined to help out.

Oh, and if anybody cares, the Politcal Compass says I’m 4.5 conservative and 0.5 libertarian. I thought I was more conservative and more libertarian, but given that some of those questions were ridiculously slanted (“Every corporation always acts with a perfectly squeaky-clean social conscience. Agree or Disagree?”), I don’t put too much faith in it.

Jeff

36

Just to give a few cites for sources of the above info:

See the last two tables in http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html for income share and federal income tax share from 1980–1999. According to an editorial in the Nov 6 Wall Street Journal [“A Tax Collector for Tax Reform”], the latest figures are that the top 1% earned a 20.8% share of the income and paid a 37.4% share of the federal income tax. (If you read that editorial, you will note that they complain about the fact that the top 1%'s share of the federal income tax burden has nearly doubled from 19% in the early 1980s. This is a rather amusing complaint once you realize that the reason for this near doubling is the fact that their share of the income has gone up by a factor much closer to 2.5!]

See Table G-1b here for the share of total federal tax liabilities: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11#tableG-1a

37

While that may be a great thing to believe, I personally would need to see a cite on it before I joined in your belief. [One also has to recognize that there are good reasons why government programs might tend to have more bureaucracy. Would you be in favor of the food stamps program just giving the food stamps out to everyone who asks for them, much like many charity soup kitchens and shelters provide food and shelter for the homeless?]

I think we already tried that approach to organizing a capitalist society. Have you ever read Charles Dickens?

38

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

My point was that modern day Democrats are, essentially, defending a big government, welfare state status quo – opposing change – and modern day Republicans are on the political and cultural offensive, trying to change that status quo into a different, smaller government system.

Of course it’s not perfect – for example, republicans are still defending the status quo of gun rights, rather than trying to abolish existing law. But look at current republican ideas. Private school vouchers, tax simplification, social security privatization, so on and so forth. The republicans are waging and advocating change, and the Democrats are resisting that change.

39

jshore:

Your cite, my friend:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

According to Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies over at Cato:

So according to him, it’s 30%, not 20%. I forget where, exactly, I heard that statistic to begin with, though. It was in some Dead Tree format, not the web, so an exact link to my original source isn’t possible, sorry. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Tanner I originally heard that from. Haven’t been able to dig up numbers for private charities yet, but I’ll work on it.

Last I checked, Dickens was an author, not an expert on social planning, so you’ll pardon me if I discount him as a credible source in the matter of whether or not private charity works better than welfare.

Jeff

40

Calenth: *By contrast, the Republicans have a lot of new ideas. […] School vouchers, social security privatization, etc., are all aggressive, “progressive” ideas, in that they’re trying to progress society forward by solving old problems in new ways. […]

My point was that modern day Democrats are, essentially, defending a big government, welfare state status quo – opposing change – and modern day Republicans are on the political and cultural offensive, trying to change that status quo into a different, smaller government system. […]

The republicans are waging and advocating change, and the Democrats are resisting that change.*

I see your point, but it depends on what you consider the scope of “change” to be. The Republican “new ideas” you mention are not all that new; they largely represent a return to the type and scope of government activity and regulation that predated the New Deal/WWII/“Great Society” programs. What you call the Republican “advocacy” of change might also be described as persistent Republican resistance to Democratic-impelled change over the last sixty years or so. Depends on how long you feel it takes “change” to become “the status quo.”

EJ: *In 1965, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty went directly to poor people. Today, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor. *

I followed your link and read the Cato Institute report that made those claims, but unfortunately it doesn’t provide any source for them. (By the way, the “today” that this 1996 report speaks of is six years ago, before the “Welfare Reform Act” was enacted.) Where or what is the actual study that produced those figures, and what actual government programs was it considering?

Mind you, I’m not fundamentally incredulous about the idea that most private charities have lower overhead than most government antipoverty programs; they very well may. (Especially since many people volunteer to work for private charities gratis, whereas Uncle Sam relies solely on paid staff; moreover, as jshore points out, the private charities tend not to spend as much money on things like means testing and personnel training.) I’m just skeptical about the claim that this somehow implies that if we just get rid of the government programs, the problems will be solved better and cheaper by private charities.

Plenty of people were horrifically, grindingly poor back in the days before government antipoverty programs, after all. Saying that the non-poor will be more likely to take care of the poor if the government just gets out of the way strikes me as purely speculative wishful thinking.