New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Lib vs Con: Social Programs

BobbyT

Governor
I believe one fundamental difference between liberal and conservative perspectives WRT spending for social programs is that liberals view the recipients as people for whom the assistance provides a minimal standard of living when they need help, while conservatives view the recipients as dead-beats who would rather sit around doing nothing at the expense of others who are working hard. This difference in viewpoints means that while liberals believe that others are like themselves (i.e., people who want to provide for themselves and their families) but for a specific reason are currently unable, conservatives believe that others are less than themselves (i.e., not hard working, or not concerned for their families/children, or not smart, or valueless).

There are examples to be found of people who exemplify what conservatives believe about others; the question is do these examples represent the majority of those who receive government assistance? I believe most people are like me (see above), I don’t think the examples are the majority.
 
odd that you give yourself the benefit of the doubt....i.e. "examples don't represent the majority "....yet you don't extend that benefit to conservatives.

pity.
 
odd that you give yourself the benefit of the doubt....i.e. "examples don't represent the majority "....yet you don't extend that benefit to conservatives.

pity.

Philfish, you're right. Amend above to read "my definition of liberal / my definition of conservative given most of what I read on these boards and hear on right-wing radio, with the notable exception of those liberals / conservatives who don't fall into my generalization."
 
Then your rearing comprehension needs work. Liberals would just give the fish. Conservatives would prefer teaching one to fish. Which model promotes the individual inner worth better?
 
It seems to me that when it comes to public assistance, conservatives talk quite a bit about fixing a broken system so that people in need can learn to "fish", rather than just helping people keep a roof over their heads and be grateful for liberal politicians for protecting this minimal standard of living.
 
I have not seen all the education and job training programs the republicans have "sponsored" to teach anyone whatsoever to "fish", Would you give me some examples? All I have seen is Social Darwinist positions, survival of the fittest and sorry about your luck
 
It seems to me that when it comes to public assistance, conservatives talk quite a bit about fixing a broken system so that people in need can learn to "fish", rather than just helping people keep a roof over their heads and be grateful for liberal politicians for protecting this minimal standard of living.

gigi - public assistance is different in different states, but here public assistance does include job training, assisting with finding employment, vocational programs, job referral, and childcare assistance. And in order to receive public assistance you have to have minor children and you have to participate in a work activity. So "learning to fish" is part of the requirement to receive benefits.
 
gigi - public assistance is different in different states, but here public assistance does include job training, assisting with finding employment, vocational programs, job referral, and childcare assistance. And in order to receive public assistance you have to have minor children and you have to participate in a work activity. So "learning to fish" is part of the requirement to receive benefits.

Yup, here. too.
I don't know how it is by you. But here, and back where we used to live (NY) it's all just BS nonsense.
 
I have not seen all the education and job training programs the republicans have "sponsored" to teach anyone whatsoever to "fish", Would you give me some examples? All I have seen is Social Darwinist positions, survival of the fittest and sorry about your luck

Yeah...I'd sure be interested in hearing about some of these wonderous proposed Fox/GOP schemes, for "teaching a man to fish". Today's "movementeers" never seem to make it past the shouting about "teach a man to fish" stage.
 
Yeah...I'd sure be interested in hearing about some of these wonderous proposed Fox/GOP schemes, for "teaching a man to fish". Today's "movementeers" never seem to make it past the shouting about "teach a man to fish" stage.

Of course anyone who finds fault with anything supported by the left of center must be a Fox watching member of the GOP. Can't possibly be an everyday person commenting on what they've seen. Nope. It's gotta be GOP fed ideology. Maybe that's how it is for the hard right and hard left....wait for the party to tell you what you think. But some of us look around and decide for ourselves what we think. Such a foreign concept to some. It's eight o'clock in the morning and already I've come across two threads claiming those in disagreement with the liberals are fox watching idiots.

I've seen people bound up by ridiculous rules of social services, and rejected by social services when they needed help. We also had a friend who died at 31, leaving a seven year old daughter behind. Her death was the direct result of her terribly mishandled social service case.
 
And we ought not try and turn the tables. It tends to be lefter leaning people that support social service programs. And the programs fail many. Let's not shift the goalposts away from that fact by blaming the right for not supporting what fails.
 
Of course anyone who finds fault with anything supported by the left of center must be a Fox watching member of the GOP. Can't possibly be an everyday person commenting on what they've seen. Nope. It's gotta be GOP fed ideology. Maybe that's how it is for the hard right and hard left....wait for the party to tell you what you think. But some of us look around and decide for ourselves what we think. Such a foreign concept to some. It's eight o'clock in the morning and already I've come across two threads claiming those in disagreement with the liberals are fox watching idiots.

I've seen people bound up by ridiculous rules of social services, and rejected by social services when they needed help. We also had a friend who died at 31, leaving a seven year old daughter behind. Her death was the direct result of her terribly mishandled social service case.

Lotta defensive blah-blah-blah there gigi, without one single hint about how you propose to "teach a man to fish". I guess that was an oversight on your part. That's okay..the day's just getting started.
 
Lotta defensive blah-blah-blah there gigi, without one single hint about how you propose to "teach a man to fish". I guess that was an oversight on your part. That's okay..the day's just getting started.

Do you normally have such difficulty differentiating "defensive" from annoyed, fairsheet?

How would I teach a man to fish? By letting them-expecting him- to work someplace, anyplace while still collecting benefits so that he doens't have to choose between benefits and a job that can't pay the rent now, but could lead to skill and advancement that would make him independent.
Or, by giving him the choice and the funding to attend a vocational program that he has to finish.

Real career counseling...not just these "career centers" full of computers and phones that benefit recipients are expected to make appearances at but left unaided and unsupervised in their work searches.

By drug testing because drugs and alcohol abuse DO affect employability. That's why employers engage in it. Drugs and alcohol are why some people lose their jobs and why some people fall into an inertia and don't look for work.
Following up dirty tests with treatment. Real treatment, not these mickey mouse, go to so many AA meetings by this date nonsense. And ongoing support because addictions never really go away.

Daycare centers open and ready to receive kids at a moment's notice so that parents can accept a job interview on the fly without having to turn it down because there's no one to babysit for the day. And these centers could also provide the care to kids, instead of funding private caregivers if need be. They could also be staffed by social service recipients who would have the opportunity to make some money and be out of the house feeling like they did something in the world today. Or, you could even use private caregivers approved to receive public funding. But many times, it's not having a sitter that prevents a mother from getting an interview if she can't set it up a week ahead of time. The last thing a prospective employer wants to hear is "I don't have a babysitter."

That's another thing......leaving people to stay home. Eventually, again, that inertia and hopelessness can be crippling. They should have to go somewhere and do something everyday. Get out of the house.

During the last governor's race in NY, there was this nutjob.....Palladino I think. He wanted to take all the people receiving public assistance and put them in dormatories and dole out the food and shelter that way. Really awful. Forget that part.

But one idea he had that was good.....He came up with the idea of having people choose apprenticeships from various lines of work. And while they were receiving financial assistance, they would go to these "jobs' and work with people in these fields, learning trades, professions, etc....
I thought that would have been helpful because some people need to find new careers. Young single parents need to find A career. And just to be out doing and learning is good for the state of mind.

Unfortunately, some people argue against certain things for being intrusive and an assault on the dignity of the person in need. It really is a very fine line to walk. You don't want to make someone compromise their dignity because they're in a bad spot financially. But at the same time, people do need help getting on track, and sometimes, that will involve having someone else come into your life and navigate it with you in certain ways.
 
I have not seen all the education and job training programs the republicans have "sponsored" to teach anyone whatsoever to "fish", Would you give me some examples? All I have seen is Social Darwinist positions, survival of the fittest and sorry about your luck

Ask Ried why there is no vote
 
Do you normally have such difficulty differentiating "defensive" from annoyed, fairsheet?

How would I teach a man to fish? By letting them-expecting him- to work someplace, anyplace while still collecting benefits so that he doens't have to choose between benefits and a job that can't pay the rent now, but could lead to skill and advancement that would make him independent.
Or, by giving him the choice and the funding to attend a vocational program that he has to finish.

Real career counseling...not just these "career centers" full of computers and phones that benefit recipients are expected to make appearances at but left unaided and unsupervised in their work searches.

By drug testing because drugs and alcohol abuse DO affect employability. That's why employers engage in it. Drugs and alcohol are why some people lose their jobs and why some people fall into an inertia and don't look for work.
Following up dirty tests with treatment. Real treatment, not these mickey mouse, go to so many AA meetings by this date nonsense. And ongoing support because addictions never really go away.

Daycare centers open and ready to receive kids at a moment's notice so that parents can accept a job interview on the fly without having to turn it down because there's no one to babysit for the day. And these centers could also provide the care to kids, instead of funding private caregivers if need be. They could also be staffed by social service recipients who would have the opportunity to make some money and be out of the house feeling like they did something in the world today. Or, you could even use private caregivers approved to receive public funding. But many times, it's not having a sitter that prevents a mother from getting an interview if she can't set it up a week ahead of time. The last thing a prospective employer wants to hear is "I don't have a babysitter."

That's another thing......leaving people to stay home. Eventually, again, that inertia and hopelessness can be crippling. They should have to go somewhere and do something everyday. Get out of the house.

During the last governor's race in NY, there was this nutjob.....Palladino I think. He wanted to take all the people receiving public assistance and put them in dormatories and dole out the food and shelter that way. Really awful. Forget that part.

But one idea he had that was good.....He came up with the idea of having people choose apprenticeships from various lines of work. And while they were receiving financial assistance, they would go to these "jobs' and work with people in these fields, learning trades, professions, etc....
I thought that would have been helpful because some people need to find new careers. Young single parents need to find A career. And just to be out doing and learning is good for the state of mind.

Unfortunately, some people argue against certain things for being intrusive and an assault on the dignity of the person in need. It really is a very fine line to walk. You don't want to make someone compromise their dignity because they're in a bad spot financially. But at the same time, people do need help getting on track, and sometimes, that will involve having someone else come into your life and navigate it with you in certain ways.

The ONLY item on your list, that I've heard suggested from anyone within the GOP, is the drug testing. Drug testing doesn't "teach". It does something, but it doesn't "teach". All your other ideas require appropriations. The GOP's not down with appropriations...except maybe, for drug testing! The GOP takes fundamental issue with the idea of society investing in ACTUAL "teaching programs" (and daycare, for that matter!). They tend to SHOUT!!!! that they represent "income redistribution" and "socialism".

And please....there's no need to be annoyed about my reference to GOPs. If you aren't aligned with the GOPs on this one, you aren't aligned with the GOPs on this one and I certainly didn't write that you were.
 
The ONLY item on your list, that I've heard suggested from anyone within the GOP, is the drug testing. Drug testing doesn't "teach". It does something, but it doesn't "teach". All your other ideas require appropriations. The GOP's not down with appropriations...except maybe, for drug testing! The GOP takes fundamental issue with the idea of society investing in ACTUAL "teaching programs" (and daycare, for that matter!). They tend to SHOUT!!!! that they represent "income redistribution" and "socialism".

And please....there's no need to be annoyed about my reference to GOPs. If you aren't aligned with the GOPs on this one, you aren't aligned with the GOPs on this one and I certainly didn't write that you were.

Yeah you did. And you're still doing it.
 
I believe one fundamental difference between liberal and conservative perspectives WRT spending for social programs is that liberals view the recipients as people for whom the assistance provides a minimal standard of living when they need help, while conservatives view the recipients as dead-beats who would rather sit around doing nothing at the expense of others who are working hard. This difference in viewpoints means that while liberals believe that others are like themselves (i.e., people who want to provide for themselves and their families) but for a specific reason are currently unable, conservatives believe that others are less than themselves (i.e., not hard working, or not concerned for their families/children, or not smart, or valueless).

There are examples to be found of people who exemplify what conservatives believe about others; the question is do these examples represent the majority of those who receive government assistance? I believe most people are like me (see above), I don’t think the examples are the majority.

You are wrong.
 
There's another thing involved here, other than just "Liberals think the indigent are good/Conservatives think the indigent are bad." Fairsheet touched on it -- social programs, whatever else they do, cost money. The "values" difference between liberals and conservatives is very clear cut in this regard -- conservatives donate more than liberals do to charity. Liberals donate less to charity, but want more social programs from government. They see this as being "generous" -- it is always easier to be generous with someone else's money.

At the end of the day, why is it the government's job, at any level, to ensure a minimum standard of living?
 
I believe one fundamental difference between liberal and conservative perspectives WRT spending for social programs is that liberals view the recipients as people for whom the assistance provides a minimal standard of living when they need help, while conservatives view the recipients as dead-beats who would rather sit around doing nothing at the expense of others who are working hard. This difference in viewpoints means that while liberals believe that others are like themselves (i.e., people who want to provide for themselves and their families) but for a specific reason are currently unable, conservatives believe that others are less than themselves (i.e., not hard working, or not concerned for their families/children, or not smart, or valueless).

There are examples to be found of people who exemplify what conservatives believe about others; the question is do these examples represent the majority of those who receive government assistance? I believe most people are like me (see above), I don’t think the examples are the majority.

repubs learn that in church.....via the prosperity gospel where they are taught that the poor are poor because they're lazy and shiftless and if you are wealthy, it means you're a good person.
 
Back
Top