Your Advice to the Republican Party...

[AZRogue]

Looking at the current political landscape, and some of the horrible decisions made by the previous Republican Administration, I have to admit that, as a Conservative, I've had some of the wind stripped from my sails. I think Barry Goldwater would be as disappointed as I am that he turned out to be right.

Anyway, here's the premise of the thread: What advice would you give to the Republican party, in its current incarnation? It could be advice concerning the current election strategy, their goals, or their shifting ideology. Whatever you want.


For instance, I would tell them to decide whether they want to be the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government again, or continue down the road they're on just become the party representing fundamental Christianity.

The more they try to appease their large religious base, the more they alienate conservatives like me that believe in social liberty.

Hell, I'm very religious myself, I just think it's a horrible way to run a country.

So what advice would you guys have?

[Utrecht]

AZ,

I think that you could copy your post and apply my ideals.

Additionally, I would tell them to clean house - anyone who is tainted or scandle ridden needs to come clean or get the hell out of dodge - it just reinforces the "fat cat" image that is going to follow the Repubs for a long time.

Work WITH the dems - dont just talk about it - reach accross the isle and come up with solutions (granted this is a bit of a Normal Rockwell vision of America) - but in the end, both parties want what is best for America - work with them - treat them like collegues on a job - not the oppositions who must be defeated.

Fix the f'ing deficit - even if it means drawing down defense - hell give up some of your defense perks so that the dems can give up some social policy perks - but the bottom line is that we simply cant afford for our debt to be held by potentially hostile regimes.

[Name Lips]

I would advise them to dump all religious overtones and reclaim the cloak of fiscal responsibility. Emphaisize adherance to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Strongly support removing government control from people's private lives -- that is to say, don't try to outlaw things based on morality but instead entirely based on the greatest societal good for the cheapest price.

[Varaj]

Personally I suggest they quietly accept a loss this presidential election and go 100% positive in ads. From there work very hard to be the good guys, working on compromise and rebuilding trust. Don't overtly point fingers but make damn sure if things go bad they aren't doing anything to look like they are the problem.

[FeatsofClay]

Personally I suggest they quietly accept a loss this presidential election and go 100% positive in ads. From there work very hard to be the good guys, working on compromise and rebuilding trust. Don't overtly point fingers but make damn sure if things go bad they aren't doing anything to look like they are the problem.

I was going to state a more bitterversion of this.

I thnk the worst thing that could happen to the Repubs right now is to win the election. And it still could happen.

Sit back, watch America learn to hate the other party and keep your head down. Don't worry about making gains so much as not screwing up. Look friendly, tout bipartisanship and help to build and form a third party to split the left leaners.

It isn't optimistic, but it is honest.

[Hatter]

First off, plan for 2012. Don't give up on 2008, but the current tactics are the correct ones for someone in McCain's position (drive down voter turnout and mobilize the base). So the Republican's are probably looking at losing the white house and they won't pick up a majority in the house or senate, but also the Democrats won't be filibuster-proof. So the Republicans should bide their time and kill key pieces of legislation in subcommittee so that the recession is still going on in 2012 then blame the Democrats for the economy and sweep into power.

However, if McCain wins in November, he will likely face a hostile congress, so he's unlikely to be effective at achieving his goals, but this scenario plays out even better for the Republicans since they will have even more options, one is to keep the economy bad and blame congress for inaction. This won't be hard since the dems can't agree on what to do about it now and lacking a strong leader they will be disorganized and vulnerable. Whether McCain gets blamed along with congress is irrelevant since he won't be running in 2012. Sweep into power in 2012 as above.

The kicker is that if Obama wins he'll be able to make at least two supreme court nominations and there's not much the Republicans can do about that, however the court currently favors the Republicans by a 1 vote margin so that's just going to preserve the status quo.

If McCain wins he may end up making two supreme court nominations, but he's likely to pick moderates anyway which may or may not play well with the republicans.

Really, even if the democrats win, they're screwed in 2012 unless Obama miraculously cures the economy in his first term. If he does, I'll be expecting water into wine on his second term.

[PWD]

You guys are hitting on my high points already.

- put down the religious cloak and step away slowly
- actually embody small government fiscal conservatism ideals again
- drop the shameful culture of attack politics, and disavow your vocal fanclub on the radio. You're actively harming the country now with it. No, republicans didn't invent it nor are they the sole purveyors, but they have perfected it and embraced it, and that's not a good thing.
- find a way to appeal to women and minorities that doesn't come across as ham-handed pandering. Stop being the party of rich white guys even in unfair generalization.
- clean up corruption from the inside, don't wait for investigations to batter down your best defenses - you know a good number of folks up to their elbows in the cookie jar... burn them out yourselves, and demonstrate your genuine interest in clean politics.

I'm interested in seeing an analogous thread for the Democrats, too.

[Hatter]

You guys are hitting on my high points already.

- put down the religious cloak and step away slowly
It won't work, these people vote and are easily mobilized by the current social issue de jour.

- actually embody small government fiscal conservatism ideals again
As much as I'd like this, we've seen that the only party in favor of small government is the one not in power.

- drop the shameful culture of attack politics, and disavow your vocal fanclub on the radio. You're actively harming the country now with it. No, republicans didn't invent it nor are they the sole purveyors, but they have perfected it and embraced it, and that's not a good thing.
Why should they change their most effective strategy in favor of an inferior one?

- find a way to appeal to women and minorities that doesn't come across as ham-handed pandering. Stop being the party of rich white guys even in unfair generalization.
This is starting to happen, they have done a decent job integrating women, but minorities are still under-represented. I'll agree that this is an issue to focus on for the GOP.

- clean up corruption from the inside, don't wait for investigations to batter down your best defenses - you know a good number of folks up to their elbows in the cookie jar... burn them out yourselves, and demonstrate your genuine interest in clean politics.
There's some merit here, but corruption is most rampant when unchecked so they should discipline their own members quietly and discourage them while exposing the corrupt democrats as much as possible.


I'm interested in seeing an analogous thread for the Democrats, too.
Agreed, their strategy is far more difficult since they are less organized as a party.

[PWD]

If it were an easy set of sure-win changes, they might have done them already. I'm not proposing it's an easy road to victory, only what I'd like to see from them to clean off their souls a little.

[Hatter]

Ah, I thought we were looking for effective political strategy.

[Singularity]

Stop being fascist bastards, reduce the power of the executive branch back to where it was before Shrub took office, stop challenging the rights guaranteed under the constitution, and dump the religious right on its ass where it belongs.

[AZRogue]

Ah, I thought we were looking for effective political strategy.

Both, really. Basically just whatever advice you would like to offer them, were you inclined and able. The election, or the path the party is taking in general.

[The Winslow]

I don't have much to say. They're performing admirably well. Maybe wave even bigger flags around, and start claiming that the Democrats are really just a plot by the NAMBLA to convert all of America to Satanism and sodomy. Maybe insist that Chavez is behind 9/11 and organize the invasion of Venezuela (or Cuba, or Brazil, who cares in which country Chavez actually is?) to prevent him from using the Crystal Skull to create a Death Star.

[Edena_of_Neith]

1. Lose the insanity?
2. Lose the blue-bloods?
3. Lose the arrogance?
4. Lose the idiocy?
5. Realize that you have a job to do?

And 6:

Realize you will be the minority party for a long time to come, because you blew it, real badly?

[SpikeyFreak]

I don't really understand all of this "return to your small government roots" sentiment.

That will not happen. Never. The Republican party doesn't stand for small government anymore. Forget about that, it's over, it will never be that way again.

The Democratic party is large government for the people. The Republican party is large government for big business.

Get used to it.

--Bleak Spikey

[Singularity]

What the hell do people have against big government anyway? So you pay some taxes. This then provides goods and services that benefit the rest of the country. We all work together towards the common goal of a better life for everyone. Big fucking deal.

[SpikeyFreak]

What the hell do people have against big government anyway? So you pay some taxes. This then provides goods and services that benefit the rest of the country. We all work together towards the common goal of a better life for everyone. Big fucking deal.
Do you want to spend money on the government policing what people do in their bedrooms?

--Curious Spikey

[The Winslow]

Do you want to spend money on the government policing what people do in their bedrooms?

--Curious Spikey

A rhetorical question, nobody's going to answer yes. So let's answer no. How to avoid spending money on the government policing what people do in their bedroom?

1. Refusing to pay taxes.
2. Voting for a government that'll use taxpayer money for more productive uses (like a working healthcare and retirement fund system).
3. Moving to a deserted island.
4. Firebombing Washington DC.

You can phone a friend. </WhoWantsToBeALibertaire>

[Utrecht]

What the hell do people have against big government anyway? So you pay some taxes. This then provides goods and services that benefit the rest of the country. We all work together towards the common goal of a better life for everyone. Big fucking deal.

Serious question that deserves a serious answer - one which could seriously spiral this discussion off course - especially since you and I are going to look at this fundamentally differently

There are several elements that I see to this

1) Is government better at providing the needed services than non-government organizations

2) Belief in the purpose of Government - aka what is its job?

3) Best method of helping people (handouts (my word) vs. more of a stick)

4) Your Tax dollars indirectly funding activities or policies that you personally disagree with

For me personally,

I believe that government is inefficient and cumberson and that NGOs are significantly better at performing the job than a similar Governmental Agency.

I also dont beleive that it is the governments roll to ensure that everyone is the best that they can be - that is up to the individual

and it is this reason that I dislike handouts/entitlements - now I realize that this is a small portion of the total pie - but I absolutely dispise playing the ant to someones grasshopper. Further, and this is a statement I am sure is goign to raise some hackles - but there are people out there that are just not worth it - why keep throwing good money after bad.

Funcding activities/policies I disagree with - With the above exceptions - I have no issue with - part of being a society - you take the good with the bad.

[Name Lips]

Serious question that deserves a serious answer - one which could seriously spiral this discussion off course - especially since you and I are going to look at this fundamentally differently

There are several elements that I see to this

1) Is government better at providing the needed services than non-government organizations

2) Belief in the purpose of Government - aka what is its job?

3) Best method of helping people (handouts (my word) vs. more of a stick)

4) Your Tax dollars indirectly funding activities or policies that you personally disagree with

For me personally,

I believe that government is inefficient and cumberson and that NGOs are significantly better at performing the job than a similar Governmental Agency.

I also dont beleive that it is the governments roll to ensure that everyone is the best that they can be - that is up to the individual

and it is this reason that I dislike handouts/entitlements - now I realize that this is a small portion of the total pie - but I absolutely dispise playing the ant to someones grasshopper. Further, and this is a statement I am sure is goign to raise some hackles - but there are people out there that are just not worth it - why keep throwing good money after bad.

Funcding activities/policies I disagree with - With the above exceptions - I have no issue with - part of being a society - you take the good with the bad.
The typical liberal believes that the "grasshoppers" are in a very small and rare minority, and that the majority of people work honestly and hard their whole lives, only to amount to nothing, though no fault of their own. When these people are looking for work, when they're striving for the American dream, when circumstances entirely beyond their control are ruining them, I do not feel it is right to let them wither away and be lost. And I believe the vast majority of social programs address these people, not freeloaders and moochers.

[Edena_of_Neith]

The typical liberal believes that the "grasshoppers" are in a very small and rare minority, and that the majority of people work honestly and hard their whole lives, only to amount to nothing, though no fault of their own. When these people are looking for work, when they're striving for the American dream, when circumstances entirely beyond their control are ruining them, I do not feel it is right to let them wither away and be lost. And I believe the vast majority of social programs address these people, not freeloaders and moochers.

I am a Liberal. (You hear? Liberal. LIBERAL. LIBERAL!!) (watches half my countrymen gasp in horror :D )

What does a Liberal like me believe in?
Well ...

- People should be paid one heck of a lot more than they are paid, in real terms. Like, say, 10 times as much, at the very least (and no inflation, to wreck those wages, either.)
- I'm pro-choice (Rush Limbaugh, eat your heart out.)
- I'm pro Women's Rights (I even believe any girl who wants to be on the football team, should be allowed ... to try out for the football team! Ditto Rugby, LaCross, and other violent sports.)
- I'm pro nudity. I say, nudity should be legal, completely and utterly (but, obviously, towels should be put down on restaurant seats and changed, with each user, for sanitary reasons.)
- I don't give a hoot if gays and lesbians want to marry. Let them.

- I believe in conservation. Using up all the natural resources, is rather stupid. Fusion power, hydrogen cars, LED lights, make a lot more sense.
- I believe in forests and beauty. Protect the redwoods. Protect old growth forests. Protect the sequoia. Protect beautiful places like the Grand Canyon.

- I believe in Universal Health Care. And some agency that can actually run it competently (or even incompetently ... in America, we have no Universal Health Care AND the private Health Care we have is incompetent, BOTH.)
- I believe in peace.
- I believe in tolerance.
- I believe in mercy and compassion.
- I believe in being very gentle with children (NO corporeal punishment, period.)
- I believe in justice (not the whacked out system of lawyers run amok that gets called justice.)

- I believe in unions (horrors!)
- I believe in worker's rights, worker safety, etc.
- I think the work week should be shortened, and workers paid more to compensate, like they do in France.
- I think people should be treated the same, regardless of race, age, sex, creed, or whatever.

- I believe in safe public drinking water.
- I believe in strict inspection of processed foods.
- I believe in trade protectionism (if China wants to be the world's Great Slave Labor Country, our workers shouldn't have to compete with that.)

And a lot of other nasty, nasty, Un-American Ideas such as these.

I am so Liberal, I'm more Liberal than certain Quebécois! How's THAT for Liberal, eh?

I'm a liberal and I'm ok
I sleep all night, and I work all day
I wear woman's shoes, go to lesbian bars
And have dirty chats on the phone.

I'm a liberal and I'm ok
I take my drugs, and I buzz a-way
I dis Rush Limbaugh, I learn my French
And I proclaim my 161st level character.

I'm a liberal and I'm ok
I ...

[The Winslow]

1) Is government better at providing the needed services than non-government organizations

Yes for some, no for others. I don't think all services require the same type of management, infrastructure, and priority aims.

So you say NGO are better at performing the job -- which job? Do you want, say, the defense service (military and intelligence services, in other words) to be managed by an NGO?

Now say you replace every public service by NGO- or corporate-services. Is there even still a point in having a nation? Does the government still have any real power anyway?

[Singularity]

Someone's going to have to explain the whole ant vs. grasshopper analogy to me. I've never heard it before.

[PWD]

Someone's going to have to explain the whole ant vs. grasshopper analogy to me. I've never heard it before.

How have you missed exposure to Aesop's fables?

The Ant and the Grasshopper


In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about,
chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by,
bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the
nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper,
"instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant,
"and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got
plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and
continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no
food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants
distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had
collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:


It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.

[Utrecht]

Yes for some, no for others. I don't think all services require the same type of management, infrastructure, and priority aims.

So you say NGO are better at performing the job -- which job? Do you want, say, the defense service (military and intelligence services, in other words) to be managed by an NGO?


Obviously this is true - for example Defense (as you say below), Interior or transportation.


Now say you replace every public service by NGO- or corporate-services. Is there even still a point in having a nation? Does the government still have any real power anyway?

Now you are getting into an interesting discussion about the purpose of the state. Further complicating this is the concept of Federalist (which is what the big government programs reinforce) vs states rights.


Oh, and Name - I agree, that the number of grasshoppers are relatively small - but they do exist - and are as much a problem as the "rich" not paying their share.

[Alpha Ralpha]

The typical liberal believes that the "grasshoppers" are in a very small and rare minority, and that the majority of people work honestly and hard their whole lives, only to amount to nothing, though no fault of their own.

maybe, just maybe, we are all actually under control of a top secret CIA mind control experiment that was approved by the space-lizards who run the world government... :tinfoilhat:

[Singularity]

Serious question that deserves a serious answer - one which could seriously spiral this discussion off course - especially since you and I are going to look at this fundamentally differently

Cool. Ultimately this will probably amount to ideological differences, but here are my answers nonetheless.

There are several elements that I see to this

1) Is government better at providing the needed services than non-government organizations

Non-government organizations certainly help. That is absolutely true. The problem that I see is that without government involvement, the level of support provided by these organizations will most likely be uneven at best. How many of these organizations will be likely to help out people who don't share their beliefs? Can they really reach out to enough people to make the kind of difference that is needed to ensure that everyone in the country enjoys certain minimum quality of life standards? My answer would be no on both counts.

2) Belief in the purpose of Government - aka what is its job?

Historically, governments have played a variety of roles. They create laws, collect taxes, protect the value of currency, and defend the people. Historically, some have provided for the welfare of the people and some have not. Generally speaking, having a certain minimum quality of life among people is going to do a few things. The first is that your country isn't that bad to live in and you'll attract outsiders who have something to contribute. The second is that a comfortable society is less likely to rise up against those they perceive as repressing them. While it's true that people at the bottom tend to act out against other people at the bottom, there have historically been cases where people at the bottom have overthrown the elite. It's actually in the best interest of the elite to make sure that their least privileged don't want to kill them. The way things have been going in this country, more and more people at the bottom and the middle have been becoming increasingly angry at the privileged.

3) Best method of helping people (handouts (my word) vs. more of a stick)

My opinion is that the best way to help people is to ensure a minimum quality of life standard, educate them, and then ensure that if they do what they're supposed to do to the best of their ability, they will be rewarded. I believe that the myth of this country is that this is the case where the reality is that a great deal of bad luck, the greed of others, and some bad choices strip this from them. There are a lot of competent people who want to work but can't because what they're good at happens to be customer service, or production, and those jobs have been exported so that the people at the top can satisfy their greed. These people need to be ensured a roof over their heads, worker retraining when necessary, relocation to areas with more opportunities, and a government that makes sure that the companies and organizations that are supposed to be able to provide jobs actually are in a position to do so.

4) Your Tax dollars indirectly funding activities or policies that you personally disagree with

Frankly, my tax dollars have been funding activities that I disagree with for the past seven years. Everyone gets a say in government with their vote, but everyone has to live with the decisions their elected leaders make. Saying that withholding funding from the weaker members of society really doesn't affect the government activities you disagree with unless you translate that statement to mean, "I disagree with anything that keeps the poor from being miserable." Personally, I disagree with the tax exempt status of churches; I disagree with the fact that we got into the war in Iraq; I disagree with religious slogans on our currency and in our pledge; I disagree with tax breaks for large corporations, and I disagree with globalization. Does my disagreement mean that I should stop paying taxes? No, because I've used my vote in ways that represented my interests and otherwise lumped the stuff I didn't like. I may not have always been quiet about it, but I didn't resort to resistance either.

I also dont beleive that it is the governments roll to ensure that everyone is the best that they can be - that is up to the individual

This is where we probably disagree the most. The individual doesn't always have the power to rise above his or her current situation. Pretty soon this is going to be more true than ever if the economy keeps taking like it has been. But even in the best of times, some people need more help than others to achieve a point where they're productive. We can't just write someone off because they aren't productive now. Maybe they've experienced some setbacks, maybe they made a few bad choices, or maybe they have some deficiencies that leave them with less opportunity. Is it right to throw them out in the street because of their situation? Why not spend money getting them into the right career for them, and then spend money on the infrastructure to ensure that there will be a niche for them after they get the help they need?

and it is this reason that I dislike handouts/entitlements - now I realize that this is a small portion of the total pie - but I absolutely dispise playing the ant to someones grasshopper. Further, and this is a statement I am sure is goign to raise some hackles - but there are people out there that are just not worth it - why keep throwing good money after bad.

So I'd imagine that you were against the big government bailout? That would be the ultimate example of the grasshopper and the ant. And I agree with you anyway. Wasteful people shouldn't get as much help as people who are trying. I'm not going to even try to disagree with you, though again, I think that some of this can be overcome with education.

In my opinion, the people who aren't worth funding are the ones who are so lazy that they're actively opposed to work, and those who are sociopaths and deserve to be locked away. In my experience, most people who collect government benefits are either forced into it through some fucked up situation and a lack of opportunity to rise above their current needs. A lack of opportunity leads to reliance on government handouts and a lifestyle determined by what they can scrape together.

So that leaves the question of what to do with the lazy and the sociopaths. Prisons handle the sociopaths and the people who have made some really bad decisions. As for the lazy, why not make sure there's housing available for them too? Sure, they might not be doing anything with their lives, but at least they'll have a guarantee of a few hundred square feet to inhabit, food, and health care. If they lack motivation, their situation will never improve. If they want, they can instead get educated and start doing something productive. It seems like a more human way to deal with them than to let them go homeless or ignore them until they commit a crime and we have to pay for them anyway in our prison system.

[Utrecht]

Singularity -

I have to travel for a couple of days - so I am not ignoring your post - will get back to it when I return.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

The Republicans need to decide who they are really for. Is it big business or the middle class? Social conservatives or libertarians? Make up your fucking mind.

[Utrecht]

Non-government organizations certainly help. That is absolutely true. The problem that I see is that without government involvement, the level of support provided by these organizations will most likely be uneven at best. How many of these organizations will be likely to help out people who don't share their beliefs? Can they really reach out to enough people to make the kind of difference that is needed to ensure that everyone in the country enjoys certain minimum quality of life standards? My answer would be no on both counts.


This is a very good point - consistency of service - something that the government would be much better than most (if not all NGOs) due to reach and a (theoritical) lack of bias.

However, I would suggest that for many people , it being the government is a major strike - due to distrust of the government.



Historically, governments have played a variety of roles. They create laws, collect taxes, protect the value of currency, and defend the people. Historically, some have provided for the welfare of the people and some have not. Generally speaking, having a certain minimum quality of life among people is going to do a few things. The first is that your country isn't that bad to live in and you'll attract outsiders who have something to contribute. The second is that a comfortable society is less likely to rise up against those they perceive as repressing them.


I agree with your summary - and you make a good point about the minimal level that we as a society are willing to accept. My concern is when luxury items (like TV) become percieved as essentials - and this is something that I see stopped - we have moved passed the "fair wage for a fair day's work" to "I want my MTV"

Certain things like Shelter and food are no brainers regardless of the the person and how hard they are willing to work. However, certain things like Education and access to health care start to imply an implicit acceptance of a social contract. If I partake in education, then I owe it back to my country to do something with that education - and it is this second half of the equation that I see laking in many cases - The government "owes" me an education, and I don'w owe them shit.


While it's true that people at the bottom tend to act out against other people at the bottom, there have historically been cases where people at the bottom have overthrown the elite. It's actually in the best interest of the elite to make sure that their least privileged don't want to kill them. The way things have been going in this country, more and more people at the bottom and the middle have been becoming increasingly angry at the privileged.


Sorry, I disagree here - effectively what you are playing is the class card

I dont see people get increasingly angry - if anything I see them embracing the priveldged more (the cult of celebrity - things like US Magazine are particulary endemoic) - but not realizing that in most cases, there is talent and hard work (and certainly some luck - but the above two element (talent and hard work certainly tilt luck in your favor) - effecitvely expecting the good life to come to them without work.


My opinion is that the best way to help people is to ensure a minimum quality of life standard, educate them, and then ensure that if they do what they're supposed to do to the best of their ability, they will be rewarded. I believe that the myth of this country is that this is the case where the reality is that a great deal of bad luck, the greed of others, and some bad choices strip this from them.

yes, there are people like that - but what needs to happen (again, I am in agreement that a safety net needs to be in place) is that they pick themselves up and start over - the net is only there to catch them - not to be a hammock for the rest of their lives.

I feel that there is a cult of victimization - and we have made it much to easy to blame other for our failing. it is always "I lost my job to those outsourced sons of bitches in India" Never, "I did not keep my skills current compared to my cost so I lost it to a more efficient competitor"


There are a lot of competent people who want to work but can't because what they're good at happens to be customer service, or production, and those jobs have been exported so that the people at the top can satisfy their greed. These people need to be ensured a roof over their heads, worker retraining when necessary, relocation to areas with more opportunities, and a government that makes sure that the companies and organizations that are supposed to be able to provide jobs actually are in a position to do so.


and here is where we start to see differences between the two - assigning greed is a pretty big leap - It is their job to become more efficient - it is their obligation to the share-holders/private equity holders. (also I am in agreement on retraining and ensuring roof over their heads - relocation - no way, no how)

Further, I may be misreadying your last statment - but you seem to be implying that it is a company's obligation to provide jobs - and that is absolutely anathem in my world view - they provide jobs to obtain a service - not becauase they are "supposed to"



Frankly, my tax dollars have been funding activities that I disagree with for the past seven years. Everyone gets a say in government with their vote, but everyone has to live with the decisions their elected leaders make. Saying that withholding funding from the weaker members of society really doesn't affect the government activities you disagree with unless you translate that statement to mean, "I disagree with anything that keeps the poor from being miserable." Personally, I disagree with the tax exempt status of churches; I disagree with the fact that we got into the war in Iraq; I disagree with religious slogans on our currency and in our pledge; I disagree with tax breaks for large corporations, and I disagree with globalization. Does my disagreement mean that I should stop paying taxes? No, because I've used my vote in ways that represented my interests and otherwise lumped the stuff I didn't like. I may not have always been quiet about it, but I didn't resort to resistance either.


I am actually in agreement with you on this - again part of the social contract that I "signed" with my county.



This is where we probably disagree the most. The individual doesn't always have the power to rise above his or her current situation. Pretty soon this is going to be more true than ever if the economy keeps taking like it has been. But even in the best of times, some people need more help than others to achieve a point where they're productive. We can't just write someone off because they aren't productive now. Maybe they've experienced some setbacks, maybe they made a few bad choices, or maybe they have some deficiencies that leave them with less opportunity. Is it right to throw them out in the street because of their situation? Why not spend money getting them into the right career for them, and then spend money on the infrastructure to ensure that there will be a niche for them after they get the help they need?


So I'd imagine that you were against the big government bailout? That would be the ultimate example of the grasshopper and the ant. And I agree with you anyway. Wasteful people shouldn't get as much help as people who are trying. I'm not going to even try to disagree with you, though again, I think that some of this can be overcome with education.


I am not a fan of the bailouts - but they are necessary - effectively it is the safty net that I refered to above.

In general, we are in agreement - wasteful/slothful people should not get the same amount of help. Education is the key I think - people should always have access to education.


In my opinion, the people who aren't worth funding are the ones who are so lazy that they're actively opposed to work, and those who are sociopaths and deserve to be locked away. In my experience, most people who collect government benefits are either forced into it through some fucked up situation and a lack of opportunity to rise above their current needs. A lack of opportunity leads to reliance on government handouts and a lifestyle determined by what they can scrape together.


Lack of opportunity - I suspect that this is another area where we see things differently - I see opportunity everywhere - I see no reason why someone could not move above the poverty line (baring some mental or physical limitation) - it just takes work. I fully realize that this is a cavalier statement, but to often, people resign themselves to situations which if they either applied themselves more or put in more time they can move pst their situation.



So that leaves the question of what to do with the lazy and the sociopaths. Prisons handle the sociopaths and the people who have made some really bad decisions. As for the lazy, why not make sure there's housing available for them too? Sure, they might not be doing anything with their lives, but at least they'll have a guarantee of a few hundred square feet to inhabit, food, and health care. If they lack motivation, their situation will never improve. If they want, they can instead get educated and start doing something productive. It seems like a more human way to deal with them than to let them go homeless or ignore them until they commit a crime and we have to pay for them anyway in our prison system.

On this - I agree in principle.

[Name Lips]

When basic needs are unavailable, we are all willing to turn on each other. We're all one empty refridgerator and lost job away from becoming heartless criminals. Would you rather rob a store or starve to death?

This is the basic foundation of my belief that it is in a governments best interests to make sure the basic survival needs of all its citizens are met. Basic welfare, shelter/food, things like that.

However, I'll be the first to admit this starts falling apart when people decide, as Utrecht points out, that luxuries are the new necessities.

[PWD]

However, I'll be the first to admit this starts falling apart when people decide, as Utrecht points out, that luxuries are the new necessities.

Take this from a Canadian: It falls apart long before then.

Those who decide to mooch or game the system rather than contribute have always been in the minority, but they cause disproportionate damage to the system.

So yes, a societal safety net is a good thing, but it must be absolutely bloodthirstily ruthless at carving out cancers if it is to remain healthy and productive.

[Utrecht]

Take this from a Canadian: It falls apart long before then.

Those who decide to mooch or game the system rather than contribute have always been in the minority, but they cause disproportionate damage to the system.

So yes, a societal safety net is a good thing, but it must be absolutely bloodthirstily ruthless at carving out cancers if it is to remain healthy and productive.

I am with PWD - if there is no stick to go along with the carrot - the tendancy to game the system (and this is a good way of putting it) is simply to great. Further, I agree that they are in the minority - but how big is that minority - and I suspect that it is smaller tha many social problem detractors claim - and more than the proponents want to admit.

All I have to go by is anecdotal evidence based off Workmans Compensatation/Unemployment claims I have to deal with - and fully 40% of them are in the flat out dubious catagory - which we have to spend time fighting and which get dismissed 20% of them are in the grey areas ("I dont think I will get it, but it is worth a shot") and 40% are legit.

Absolutely kills our unemployment insurance.

[Singularity]

I am with PWD - if there is no stick to go along with the carrot - the tendancy to game the system (and this is a good way of putting it) is simply to great. Further, I agree that they are in the minority - but how big is that minority - and I suspect that it is smaller tha many social problem detractors claim - and more than the proponents want to admit.

Sure, there are people who will just take their handout and lead the good life of lazing around the house all day, make ships out of toothpicks, increase their shiny rock collections, and read/watch TV. My opinion is that people like that are a drain on the system and they really shouldn't be particularly entitled to much. Natural selection suggests that such a person's chance of breeding are low since many women select partners based on what they can bring to the union, and someone unable to contribute usually isn't very appealing.

All I have to go by is anecdotal evidence based off Workmans Compensatation/Unemployment claims I have to deal with - and fully 40% of them are in the flat out dubious catagory - which we have to spend time fighting and which get dismissed 20% of them are in the grey areas ("I dont think I will get it, but it is worth a shot") and 40% are legit.

Absolutely kills our unemployment insurance.

One of my friends is the operations manager for a company that specializes in collections. He let one person go because they weren't productive and weren't even trying to be productive. Not only did his numbers suck, but he was often found slacking off cruising the internet, didn't use the established techniques for collecting money, and was just generally wasting their money. After he was fired, he filed a discrimination lawsuit, claiming that the reason he was fired was because he was gay. Now, my friend is the one who fired him, and I know for a fact that he's most certainly not a homophobe. In fact, throughout his life he has gone out of his way to experience cultures other than the one he was born into. Nevertheless, the court didn't know that and it was his character that was ultimately being called into question. Without going into a whole bunch of unnecessary detail, the first proposed solution was that the owner offered a settlement. The guy who had been fired didn't settle because the amount offered wasn't large enough. The settlement was then withdrawn and this ultimately went to arbitration where the testimony of other employees plus writteh documentation established that the guy wasn't a good worker, so he got nothing. I agree with the outcome here because this was just a case of a lazy guy trying to get something for nothing.

Now, let's looks at the ways the last few jobs have ended for me. I had a tech support position that I quite liked and was hoping would eventually grow into a supervisor or higher end techie type job. I lost that job after six months because the company went into bankruptcy and had to lay some people off. Not my fault. Next was another tech support job that I had actually left another full time job to take. That one lasted for six months because the owner cut hours and my status was reduced to part time, again based on seniority. It was one of those, sorry this has to happen to you, because we like you, but this needs to be done for business reasons. I explained to them that I had left a full time job to take this job, that I had a family to feed, and that part time employment wasn't acceptable to me. They refused to change their position, so I left without notice. That happened to be Memorial Day weekend, and I was scheduled to work throughout the whole thing. I have no idea who ended up manning the phones since so many people had already left town, but at least I got to enjoy my weekend. Finally, the last job I was at ended for no reason other than that the supervisor didn't like me. It was a shit job that I took because we needed the money. Most of the employees had nothing more than a highschool education, and the boss was an authoritarian bitch. They refused to give me a reason when they blindsided me by firing me. When I kept bothering HR about it, the reasons they gave me were fabricated and based on incidents that were either fabricated out of whole cloth, or a severe stretching of the truth. I really didn't do anything wrong in any of these situations (though some would argue that it was wrong to leave without notice. Under the circumstances, I disagree and take some small amount of pleasure in the inconvenience I caused them). If anything, the last four years has taught me that the job market is stacked against someone who is just trying to hang on to a shitty entry level position. There has been no lack of motivation or willingness to work, just asshole/dipshit bosses/business owners who make other people pay for their own fuck ups.

Now, a lazy person might decide they've had enough and mooch off the state. I personally find no sense of self worth if I'm not being productive, yet I'm not willing to take another shit job. My solution is to finish my education and possibly go forward with it. Either way, I don't see myself working again in the private sector. The jobs I'll be applying to after graduation will be with government or education.

Now, I can see why you'd want to deny the first schmuck benefits, but what about me, where I've been doing everything in my power to improve my situation through honest means?

[Utrecht]

Now, a lazy person might decide they've had enough and mooch off the state. I personally find no sense of self worth if I'm not being productive, yet I'm not willing to take another shit job. My solution is to finish my education and possibly go forward with it. Either way, I don't see myself working again in the private sector. The jobs I'll be applying to after graduation will be with government or education.


Glad to hear your comments on the self worth - to many people dont have that attitude - and/or are willing to play games (as your first example showed). Second, I am going to take your statment about getting fired with a grain of salt - If you are honest with yourself, I am thinking that you will see that you did contribute to the firing - and before you dismiss me - I was fired from my first job - similar situation - authoratative bitch, I knew more then she did, everyone hated her. However, with some time and some objectivity in place - I put myself in a position to get fired - and I suspect that you did not help your cause.

Next, and I hate to be somewhat of an ass here - but nothing in your job description seems to make you special - no college degree, no certifications (you could have left them out for brevity and if that is the case, I will change my tune) - so unless you are grading out at the top of your position, you are in a position to be fired.


Now, I can see why you'd want to deny the first schmuck benefits, but what about me, where I've been doing everything in my power to improve my situation through honest means?

Lets be clear here - I have never claimed a desire to deny benefits to you. But honestly, given your employment history - I dont see you needing a safty net. Yes, you are skating along the line - but you seem to never have been close to falling - everytime, you have gotten another job (which from a pay perspective sound like they dont suck - but not minimum wage either) and certainly have had enought money to afford internet service throughout.

and I certainly dont see it as governments business to smoth out the bumps in your employment history (other than what is in place - first two sound like legitimate Unemployment situations - third - as I said I suspect that you brought that on yourself)

[Singularity]

Next, and I hate to be somewhat of an ass here - but nothing in your job description seems to make you special - no college degree, no certifications (you could have left them out for brevity and if that is the case, I will change my tune) - so unless you are grading out at the top of your position, you are in a position to be fired.

More than half complete in my original run at a BA, held jobs in the past that normally require a degree, and formerly a fairly effective store manager, for a company ultimately sold out to a competitor that I wasn't willing to work for due to their slimy business practices.

By comparison, most of the people I worked with literally had never done anything other than manual labor. Now given the fact that I worked beyond the standard expectations on that job, the only thing I did "wrong" was have family commitments that required a little bit of time away from the job. Not my fault and also not the reason provided by HR. If I did anything wrong, it was that I didn't fit the mold of the rest of the losers there, and they probably sensed that I knew I should be doing something better with my life. Since I never stated that openly and they aren't mind readers, I'm not particularly interested in their interpretation of me.

[The Winslow]

However, I would suggest that for many people , it being the government is a major strike - due to distrust of the government.

By the way, this is I think a problem. The government should be the servant of its citizens, not something distrusted. "We the people" and all that shit -- it should be something that can be trusted to manage the country.

I'm not at all advocating blind faith in it, not at all (power attracts unreliable persons); but when a significant part of the population feels this way this reveals a pervading malaise in the society I think. Because, again, if so many people can't trust the government to accomplish its most basic mission (governing) without screwing it up (through dishonesty, complacency, incompetence or all three), what's the point in having a government?

[Utrecht]

More than half complete in my original run at a BA, held jobs in the past that normally require a degree, and formerly a fairly effective store manager, for a company ultimately sold out to a competitor that I wasn't willing to work for due to their slimy business practices.

By comparison, most of the people I worked with literally had never done anything other than manual labor. Now given the fact that I worked beyond the standard expectations on that job, the only thing I did "wrong" was have family commitments that required a little bit of time away from the job. Not my fault and also not the reason provided by HR. If I did anything wrong, it was that I didn't fit the mold of the rest of the losers there, and they probably sensed that I knew I should be doing something better with my life. Since I never stated that openly and they aren't mind readers, I'm not particularly interested in their interpretation of me.

I guess my point on this is - look at how you describe them - "losers", "bitch" - unless you you are a pretty good actor - I am willing to bet that some of that attitude seeped into your work and your interactions and sitting on the outside - it really does appear to be more than just family commitments involved in the firings.

Perhaps that is the Dale Carnagie class coming out - but given your written attitude, it does not appear that you were not winning friends or influencing enemies. I know that if I ever heard you talk that way about a former employer - you would definately go on a "watch this guy closer" list.

Career Counselor Spikey - take it for what it is worth.....

[Name Lips]

I know a woman who refuses to get welfare (despite being legally blind, unable to work, and unable to drive) or file income tax (despite potenentially getting a huge return for poverty and child credit)... not because she she couldn't use the money (she is essentially destitute) but because she doesn't trust the government. She worries that they'll somehow use the information against her, or initially qualify her and then demand the money back months later on a technicality, or find some excuse to take away her house or son... She literally thinks the government exists only to screw people over, and it's because of the government and evil huge corporations that her family can't get anywhere in life.

We've told her how much help food stamps are, and how nice it is to get a big tax return, but to her the risks outweight the benefits. Zero trust.

[PWD]

You can't help people that don't want to be helped.

That goes for Name Lips' crazy lady as well as the moochers.

People who do want help and do want to work to improve? Fuck yes let's help them, within reason.

There are a certain class of people who will fail from one thing to another their whole life, so there must be limits in how much society is willing to invest in them, but there's no reason they must be draconian.

But for those people who have hit the hopefully generous limits, or who have no interest whatsoever in improving themselves or getting off welfare, or who refuse to engage in their own treatment/therapy/whatever?

You need to be ruthless. At some point they cross beyond the cost/benefit ratio that society is hoping to accrue from building them up. Society can't be expected to take a massive loss just because some folks don't like hurting feelings. There are people who are a waste of breath, and failing to recognize the fact when it's staring you in the face does society a disservice, as well as by extension the hardworking majority hoping to get off welfare.

[Singularity]

I guess my point on this is - look at how you describe them - "losers", "bitch" - unless you you are a pretty good actor - I am willing to bet that some of that attitude seeped into your work and your interactions and sitting on the outside - it really does appear to be more than just family commitments involved in the firings.

It's hard not to see them in this light when they see themselves this way. We're talking about a group where about 75% take no pride in their work, most of them don't like each other, and most of them make excuses for why they hate their lives. They're lazy - I've seen people go on break, literally for hours, and spend their time avoiding getting caught. Granted, this isn't exactly the kind of place where I would want to stay long term, but its really a case where everybody was there because they couldn't find anything better.

I know that if I ever heard you talk that way about a former employer - you would definately go on a "watch this guy closer" list.

I think there's a general attitude among business owners that other employers are never at fault. If a person has gone through jobs, it's perceived as that person's problem, not the failing with a system that essentially deems people disposable. I've spent years working for employers in the past and they didn't want me to go when it was time to move on. Lately it hass just been a run of shitty luck combined with a shortage of good jobs. Again, that's why I'm back in school. I need a permanent change of situation.


But for those people who have hit the hopefully generous limits, or who have no interest whatsoever in improving themselves or getting off welfare, or who refuse to engage in their own treatment/therapy/whatever?

You need to be ruthless. At some point they cross beyond the cost/benefit ratio that society is hoping to accrue from building them up. Society can't be expected to take a massive loss just because some folks don't like hurting feelings. There are people who are a waste of breath, and failing to recognize the fact when it's staring you in the face does society a disservice, as well as by extension the hardworking majority hoping to get off welfare.

So for people who can't get their act together, you advocate suicide?

[Utrecht]

I think there's a general attitude among business owners that other employers are never at fault. If a person has gone through jobs, it's perceived as that person's problem, not the failing with a system that essentially deems people disposable. I've spent years working for employers in the past and they didn't want me to go when it was time to move on. Lately it hass just been a run of shitty luck combined with a shortage of good jobs. Again, that's why I'm back in school. I need a permanent change of situation.


I think that I was not clear - in your situation - if I heard you disparaging your fomer employer that way - regardless if you worked for Hitler or Mother Theresa - I would put you on the watch list.

It has everything to do with professionalism. Had you stated something along the lines of "the company was fillled with employees and managers that had little interest in bettering themselves or the company" That would not trigger the "watch" gene.

Continuing - just like there is a belief by employers that other employers cant do any wrong (which is not true - but given the rules we have to live by and the fact that managers are human beings as well -I will certainly give them the benefit of the doubt) employees exhibit a "I cant do any wrong" - and as evidence I point to your attitude to the place you got fired from. Further, based off of the crap me and my wife have had to deal with from employees - many (not the majority by any means - but a significant minority) of you are at fault - but once I hire you - I have an obligation both to you and myself to make it work.

[The Winslow]

So for people who can't get their act together, you advocate suicide?

No, apparently state-organized termination.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(dark humor)

I would advise the Republican Party to get out of France, and please come back to the United States of America.
The Republicans - the REPUBLICANS - are in FRANCE???!!!

Well ... yes.

Sarkozy and his government are:

Pro-Iraqi War (yes, you heard that right - they are pro-Iraqi War.)
Pro-Bush. (again, you heard that right - they like Bush.)
Pro-military.
Anti-union (they are demanding the French work longer hours with fewer benefits.)
Anti-immigrant.
Pro-French (France for the French, etc.. ... Nationalism, as it were.)

So, if you do not see any Republicans left in Washington, it is because they have all moved to Paris.
You thought the French were ... far to the left of the Democrats?
The French government ... is something Rush Limbaugh would be proud of.
The French government ... would love Sarah Palin.

(Winslow, you can throw a fit at me now. But that's what I'm reading on our news!)

[The Winslow]

I'd certainly be happy to get rid of Sarkozy and the UMP. Though I'd rather they get nominated, say, on Venus. Yes, I'd like to see them transported to Venus.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(dark humor)

And thus, shortly ...

The Liberals will rule in America
The Conservatives will rule in France

Rush Limbaugh will be the star on Talk Radio in France.
Jesse Jackson will be all the rage on American Talk Radio

Who would have thunk it?

(sometimes, politics get so strange, and so absurd, you just gotta laugh)

[PWD]

So for people who can't get their act together, you advocate suicide?

Now there's something I advocate unquestioned social assistance for.

Don't want them screwing it up.