Liberals: which conservative notions have you found appealing?

[Sublight]

@Der_Trihs

So you support murdering them ? Charming.

I support defending my home and property from criminals.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sublight

I support defending my home and property from criminals.

Interesting definition of “criminal” you have. And you likely won’t HAVE much if any property to defend after getting tossed into prison for murdering someone.

[Sublight]

@Der_Trihs

Interesting definition of “criminal” you have. And you likely won’t HAVE much if any property to defend after getting tossed into prison for murdering someone.

I’m a law-abiding person, so if the country has reached the point where federal agents are kicking down my door (or were, as I no longer live in the US), then “criminal” is an apt descriptor and property rights are likely long gone.

And in any case, I could not possibly care less whether or not you find me “charming”.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Zoe

We had a university in our city that had a very low admission standard during the 1970s. The President of the university said that we needed “colleges for the academically handicapped.” I disagreed with him then and now. Was I taking a conservative position? I haven’t seen it as being either liberal or conservative – just reasonable.

That’s reasonable if by “academically handicapped”, he meant “stupid”. If by “academically handicapped”, he meant “forced into shitty schools by *de facto *or de jure segregation”, you might have been being a bit unreasonable.

[cosmosdan]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I don’t know that I buy this any more. Rather than have large pockets of abandoned and dangerous locales that get the back of the gummint’s hand (except as places to make numerous daily arrests), I sometimes would prefer to offer minimal subsistence housing and food at taxpayers’ expense (and keep careful track of who’s getting it, with punishment for fraud built in) attached to education, job training, workfare, etc. The lifestyle might attract some lazy layabouts, sure, but I would rather work than live on rice and spam with basic cable and domestic vacations. I’d prefer to work at least ten times as hard to make only three times the money that welfare pays, and I accept that some unenlightened slobs would not. Still, I’d rather they were paid to sit around and waste their lives than make them feel that the only way they had to live was to mug me and sell drugs to my kids. But I understand the principle that you’re responding to–this difference is one of the traits that distinguishes liberals from conservatives, I think. We both are sad that some people lack ambition, but we have different solutions for preventing their lack of ambition from poisoning our lives.

I don’t see how your post differs from mine except you added more detail. So what is it that you don’t buy?

[cosmosdan]

@DianaG

Crazy people? Children? My mom?

Even if it were true that “someone will always be willing to lend it”, who thinks perpetual debt is a *good *idea? Oh right… crazy people, children, and my mom.

cosmodan, I have no experience with welfare for the past fifteen years or so, so I don’t know how it works after reforms, but I was on AFDC for a while after my daughter was born, and I can tell you that at the time it was profoundly fucked up. I wasn’t allowed to work. If I did, no matter how little money I made, I forfeited my AFDC. Applying for AFDC, one of the first things they told me was that if I owned a car worth more than $2K, I’d have to get rid of it. There was more, but just these two things blew my mind.

How is it better to pay everyone the same amount for doing nothing? Why not offer graduated benefits based on income? Why not a program that specifically pays for daycare? After all, there are a whole lot of people who could make enough money that they could feed their families just fine, if they didn’t have daycare expenses. And how does it make sense to make people get rid of their cars, especially over such small amounts of money? Not a big deal for me personally, because I live in the city and don’t drive, but for most people, good luck trying to do your grocery shoppng with three kids, let alone GET A JOB with no car.

Again, no idea how it works not, I assume it’s improved. But back then, it was like the system was *designed *to encourage complete helplessness and dependency on the goverment. IMO, it’s not that people felt that they shouldn’t have to do anything to help themselves. It’s that the simply weren’t allowed to do anything to help themselves. It was the ultimate rock and hard place situation.

I agree. My experience was about 20 years back and it was fucked up. People lost way more benefits than some menial job offered so they were better off staying home. I thought the same thing you did. Why not have a program that encourages people to work and better themselves by offering graduated help. Why not even help them find jobs and insist they do something. I also saw more than a few single Moms with live in working boyfriends. While someone else paid their rent they had extra money for themselves. It isn’t just the recipient’s either. Those who provide low income housing are sometimes bilking the system. I’m all for helping people and I know it won’t be perfect. The system needs to be improved on many levels. One of them IMHO is to require something of recipients to encourage them to work and get off the system. Allowing too high a percentage of citizens to vote themselves benefits at others expense isn’t a good idea.

[Czarcasm]

@Sublight

I’m a law-abiding person, so if the country has reached the point where federal agents are kicking down my door (or were, as I no longer live in the US), then “criminal” is an apt descriptor and property rights are likely long gone.

And in any case, I could not possibly care less whether or not you find me “charming”.

[Moderator Advice]Der Trihs and Sublight, do not continue this in IMHO-take it to The BBQ Pit.[/Moderator Advice]

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@cosmosdan

what is it that you don’t buy?

It’s a matter of emphasis, and maybe I misunderstood yours.

Ronald Reagan used to get a lot of mileage campaigning against “welfare queens,” appealing to the haters of welfare who hated the idea that some poor person somewhere might be getting a free ride and living better than the poor but hard-hardworking taxpayer who paid for all the goodies (his “welfare queen” rode a Cadillac, etc.). My view is that this is just politicking, red-meat-tossing, grandstanding–of course, there wil be abuses of any system, but you can’t act on the assumption that because there are abuses --because some people have figured out how the system can be gamed-- you should just pull the plug on the whole thing, because that’s just finding an excuse to turn your back on the needy, which is what I believe reagan’s supporters (if not reagan himself) wanted in the first place. So I’m dubious about the strict necessity of builiding in the strictest work requirements for receiving the first penny of pubic assistance. Maybe you are too.

[cosmosdan]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

It’s a matter of emphasis, and maybe I misunderstood yours.

Ronald Reagan used to get a lot of mileage campaigning against “welfare queens,” appealing to the haters of welfare who hated the idea that some poor person somewhere might be getting a free ride and living better than the poor but hard-hardworking taxpayer who paid for all the goodies (his “welfare queen” rode a Cadillac, etc.). My view is that this is just politicking, red-meat-tossing, grandstanding–of course, there wil be abuses of any system, but you can’t act on the assumption that because there are abuses --because some people have figured out how the system can be gamed-- you should just pull the plug on the whole thing, because that’s just finding an excuse to turn your back on the needy, which is what I believe reagan’s supporters (if not reagan himself) wanted in the first place. So I’m dubious about the strict necessity of builiding in the strictest work requirements for receiving the first penny of pubic assistance. Maybe you are too.

I don’t advocate pulling the plug. I’ve thought about this and talked with conservative friends to get their take. Some people have real experience with their neighbors or relatives working the system to get others to pay their bills etc and I don’t blame them for being pissed and I understand it influencing their POV.
My own take is that we need to keep tweaking the system to offer aide to those in need and discourage abuse. I do believe that it helps to require something from those needing assistance, if they are able, in order to discourage abuse and promote a mentality of offering service for help needed.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@me

the first penny of pubic assistance.

Actually, I’ve changed my mind --that first penny of pubic assistance should be free to everyone. No one wants some raggedy-ass poor person to have problems keeping their pubes tucked in, too.

[Zoe]

[quote]
**Originally Posted by Zoe
We had a university in our city that had a very low admission standard during the 1970s. The President of the university said that we needed “colleges for the academically handicapped.” I disagreed with him then and now. Was I taking a conservative position? I haven’t seen it as being either liberal or conservative – just reasonable.

Not All That Bright: That’s reasonable if by “academically handicapped”, he meant “stupid”. If by “academically handicapped”, he meant “forced into shitty schools by de facto or de jure segregation”, you might have been being a bit unreasonable.

I honestly can’t say that I knew what he was thinking. And I don’t know when the schools in this city were first integrated. I do know that they were integrated by the end of the Sixties. Also, there was and is another university in the same city that is predominately African American that has mantained very high standards and has an excellent reputation.

At the first university the ACT score required for admission was 11 (eleven). People with degrees from that school became teachers in our school system. Some did just fine. Others were lacking in basic skills.

I see your point and it is well taken. It is our responsibility to provide a decent education, noy necessarily a college degree.

BTW, the schools in my city are essentially about to resegregate. They are going back to the neighborhood schools. In some neighborhoods that will be okay – but not in others.