Re: What is a Liberal? What is a Conservative?


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:TLudnfcbUbrCR5fbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:UP2dnTVqCqcYrpXbnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:icWdndINhbYTp5rbnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx

Wayne Lundberg wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MomdnZ0Ci5EyTpvbnZ2dnUVZ_qiqnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
---snip---


other so that you might better understand that neither side should
require an emotional response, but really serve to categorize one's
belief in to what extent government should play a role in providing
people with the services they need.




-------

Wayne here:

Liberals are collectivists who believe government is the god. Conservatives
are striving individualists who believe in their own ability to feed
themselves and their neighbors in need through charity and barn-building
activities.
We conservatives do not continue buying votes because of your color, race or
sex. We do our best to help you succeed without big brother dictating how
you are to live. We are more Libertarian than communist. You liberals are
more socialist than believers in personal responsibility.



I would disagree with you. Liberals are rational citizens who understand that while individuals used to provide for all their own needs, advances in technology, for the most part, have made some of those needs so expensive or complicated that individuals are no longer capable of providing for them on their own.



There is one simple solution to your perceived problem and it does requires such intrusive government intervention.


there is no 'perceived' problem; only a REAL problem, which Liberals recognize and Conservatives generally refuse to.


This is getting to be a little silly. It is not what you "recognize" as the problem, it is what you do about the problem, and whether you are successful having recognized what the problem is, to solve the problem.

Regardless of whether or not one 'perceives' something or not is irrelevant. The problem exists and is real regardless of whether one 'perceives( meaning to become aware of it through the senses ),' or refuses to become aware of it.

You first have to recognize that it may be a problem, before you will even start to address the problem. There are a whole lot of problems, that we know exist, that we are not willing to do anything to solve. Let us take one example. We talk a whole lot about illegal immigration. Most of us believe it is a problem. Yet, we cannot seem to agree on what to do about the perceived problem. So, what good does it do to recognize that there is a problem, "if" we cannot arrive at a concensus on how to solve the problem?

The solution is to

figure out a way for everyone who is capable to get as much of an education as they can.


Education will NOT have any effect on the costs of certain needs, such as Health Care. In fact, it might even exacerbate those costs, as more 'educated' doctors discover better( and more costly ) treatments as well as better( and also more costly ) diagnostic tools.


Huh? The more educated you are, the more money you are likely to make.

So? No matter how much money I may make has NO effect on the cost of goods and services I need to purchase. I may have sufficient money to purchase them, but that is NOT the point I made.

NO!!! People who make more money can afford to buy more goods and services. People who make less money can afford to buy fewer goods and services.... The seller of the goods or services has to determine what their goal is. They can sell more of what they offer "if" the price is low, and sell less of what they offer "if" the price is high. In either case, the higher the price, the fewer people will buy the product or service.


The more money you are likely to make, makes it more possible to pay for the needs you have, whereas the less money you make (which is tied directly to the level of education you have achieved), the less likely you will be able to pay for the needs you have.

Very astute, Jerry. Now kindly tell us how what you post above has anything to do with what something costs.

Well, we have come full circle. The more education you have, the more money you will make, which then translates to being able to buy more "things". The less education you have, the less money you will make, which then translates to being able to buy less "things". But the basic problem is, the more money you make, the more money you get to spend that is above and beyond your basic needs, whereas, if you are on the bottom end of the income scale, you spend a bigger percentage of your income on satisfying your basic needs (assuming you can even do that). So, it still comes down to the level of education you have.....


If a person does not want
to be poor, get the most education they can, don't commit crimes, don't abuse alcohol or drugs (all of which is a matter of choice). You can "chose" to be poor, or you can choose not to be poor, it is all up to the individual to make the right choices. If they make the wrong choices, they will most likely end up being poor, if they make the right choices, they will most likely not end up being poor. The only exception to what I said would be where someone cannot do what is the best for them, such as those who are mentally ill, or who lack the basic IQ to achieve those goals.....

I see. So we then punish them for making poor choices.

We "punish" people for making wrong choices all the time. If you use drugs, we will punish you. If you smoke, we will punish you. If you consume alcohol, we will punish you, and if you use too much alcohol, we will really punish you.... "If" you sell illegal drugs, we will punish you. If you break any of the numerous laws we have on the books, we will punish you for making the "wrong" choice.


Every human being, well just about every human being, can solve the basic problem of preparing for the day that they no longer want to work. The solution is simple. It is a lesson that our fathers learned, save, save, save....don't spend, spend, spend.... It is after all a matter of "choice"....

Especially since business took away defined benefit plans, that makes it much easier doesn't it Jerry? However, you do have a point. But then if people don't spend, what happens to our economy, Jerry? Ever think of that? Ever run that by your conservative, pro business friends?

Yes. It is not the responsibility of anyone other than yourself to prepare for the day when you want to stop working. When you depend on someone else to take care of your future, you are basically gambling with your future, because as you have pointed out numerous times before, you could end up on the short end of the stick.... You are not likely to end up on the short end of the stick, if you took care of yourself....

When other

needs that ALL citizens have become difficult for individuals to provide as individuals, Liberals will advocate for Government intervention. Conservatives will refuse to acknowledge the increasing complexity of the need as well as the total cost.


But the basic quesiton still comes down to, what is the best policy for the greatest number of people.

A policy that provides for the needs of the people which they cannot provide easily for themselves. You yourself said it. People don't save. Given human behavior, it behooves the Government to do it for them since if it doesn't, there's going to be hoards of destitute people.

Yes, but recognizing that human tendency, the question we keep debating is, what is the best way to address that basic human failing. And what we disagree on is what is the best policy for the greatest number of people.....

Ever think of what you'd tell them, Jerry? I recall one famous personage who, when faced with similar circumstances said: "let them eat cake."

Well, therein lies the classic problem it seems to me. The more crutches you give people, the more they will depend on the crutches. Without crutches, they have to solve the problem on their own, or suffer the consequences. What is the best policy? I suspect the real answer is, something in between.....


It all

comes down to that, it seems to me.


Then you are making an incorrect and simplistic assumption. Tell us, how one can be 'taught' to corral health care costs?


NO ONE can corral healthcare cost effectively when some third party is making the rationing decision, and when some third party is paying the bills. It is simply not possible, unless the cost is no longer a significant factor.

So, given that, Jerry, then shouldn't the government step in to bring order to the system and see that everyone receives this fundamental need?

It cannot be done. Nice goal, but unrealistic.

One side believes it is better to

feed people, and the other side beleives it is better to teach people to feed themselves.


Wrong. One side refuses to recognize that some services which are needs can no longer be met by individuals; the other side refuses to accept that.


Wrong. Everyone can be taught to feed themselves......

Jerry, you've already admitted that your analogy doesn't apply to health care. Given that, how can you say that I'm wrong? Are you so senile that you don't even understand what you write three sentences ago?

NO... My argument about health care is basically that you cannot effectively control prices when someone other than the user of the service is paying for the service. It is an old supply and demand issue. "If" you are not the one paying for the service out of your own pocket, you have no incentive to make the rationing decision, and since you have no incentive to make the rationing decision, you will use that service. As a result, there is no effective way to control prices....

One requires little to no government intervention,

while the other requires quite a lot of government intervention...


Like health care. Liberals favor universal health care. Conservatives don't.


I don't know that is a true statement, since I know of no significant number of conservatives, even in this newsgroup, who is against the third party payment system for meeting our healthcare needs. As far as I know, I am the only one, in this newsgroup, who has made the argument about what is wrong with the third party payment system for healthcare.

Conservatives do not advocate universal health care. They advocate it only if the individual can pay for third party insurance. If not, then, tough.

Then my response is, they are wrong also.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to be an RSG liberal
    ... caused the run-up in healty care costs. ... if you go to a hospital and receive medical treatment and you don't pay for it they government says have a nice day. ... It is their choice to seek and pay for their own health care. ... You want to take care of everyone with other peoples money. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... The govt that tried to take all of our money wouldn't last long. ... I'm simply pointing out that the money the government /should/ ... money that we've already collected through taxes first? ... which provide free health care to all their citizens and ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Myths and Facts About Single-Payer Healthcare
    ... with a single government-funded national insurance program. ... drove on the government-created roads to the government office where, ... health care at all making bean-counter decisions, ... costs decreased from dealing with multiple providers, ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Replacing the Third Leg on the Retirement Stool
    ... Thrift Savings Plan. ... government get the money to fund that initial $5000? ... there is deficit spending the money would be borrowed ... The TSP program costs ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: How to be an RSG liberal
    ... caused the run-up in healty care costs. ... if you go to a hospital and receive medical treatment and you don't pay for it they government says have a nice day. ... It is their choice to seek and pay for their own health care. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)