Fiscal conservative...social liberal!

The conversation...and the reality...IS "I've got mine; screw you."

That is what you people think; that is how you act.

I'd understand why you try to pretend otherwise. If I ever go to the dark side of humanity...I'd try to pretend also.

Good luck with it.

 

And the current doofus is modeling himself after Nixon - "Law and order" .

 

The US leads the world in per capita prison population: 737 per 100,000

As for crime rates, it has fallen by 50% since the peak in the 1990s.

 

The author Chris Hayes was on the Daily Show last night. His new book, A Colony In A Nation, sounds like an interesting read.

New York Times best-selling author and Emmy Award–winning news anchor Chris Hayes argues that there are really two Americas: a Colony and a Nation.

America likes to tell itself that it inhabits a postracial world, yet nearly every empirical measure—wealth, unemployment, incarceration, school segregation—reveals that racial inequality has barely improved since 1968, when Richard Nixon became our first “law and order” president. With the clarity and originality that distinguished his prescient bestseller, Twilight of the Elites, Chris Hayes upends our national conversation on policing and democracy in a book of wide-ranging historical, social, and political analysis.

Hayes contends our country has fractured in two: the Colony and the Nation. In the Nation, we venerate the law. In the Colony, we obsess over order, fear trumps civil rights, and aggressive policing resembles occupation. A Colony in a Nation explains how a country founded on justice now looks like something uncomfortably close to a police state. How and why did Americans build a system where conditions in Ferguson and West Baltimore mirror those that sparked the American Revolution?

A Colony in a Nation examines the surge in crime that began in the 1960s and peaked in the 1990s, and the unprecedented decline that followed. Drawing on close-hand reporting at flashpoints of racial conflict, as well as deeply personal experiences with policing, Hayes explores cultural touchstones, from the influential “broken windows” theory to the “squeegee men” of late-1980s Manhattan, to show how fear causes us to make dangerous and unfortunate choices, both in our society and at the personal level. With great empathy, he seeks to understand the challenges of policing communities haunted by the omnipresent threat of guns. Most important, he shows that a more democratic and sympathetic justice system already exists—in a place we least suspect.

A Colony in a Nation is an essential book—searing and insightful—that will reframe our thinking about law and order in the years to come.​

 

Dang, I suppose one's tolerance is subject to mood?

 

Haven't read the thread, but I interpret the phrase very differently. I see it describing the disconnect between economic conservatism and the social issues that attached themselves to the party. These folks care about taxes, and reducing government spending on social welfare programs, but are pro choice, moderate on gun control and church/state issues, maybe ambivalent about capital punishment. and supportive of same sex marriage equality etc. they are not buying what the social conservatives are selling, but they adore Reaganomics.

 

One of the primary goals advocated in the Preamble to our Constitution is to "Promote the general welfare", which is actually implied insurance to compensate for potentially devastating effects of circumstantial situational impotence or financial ruin emanating from unethical exploitation by the "aristocracy". Any one of us COULD be in need of these "entitlements" in the future and would hopefully qualify.


Our judicial system has been particularly helpful in the above-mentioned exploitation. A large portion of the cases in our courts today are suits which amount to criminals prosecuting victims. Alleged creditors routinely sue, often on fraudulent grounds, lower income individuals who cannot afford legal counsel and invariably win regardless of the validity of their claims. In some states, any attorney is regarded an officer of the court. This enables collection agencies to hire lawyers to send “official” documents to places of employment of their “victims” ordering garnishment of wages without a court judgment. Landlords seldom return deposits to former tenants anymore, even to those who are immaculate housekeepers and leave the units in perfect condition. In fact, it is not unusual for landlords to sue lower income tenants for thousands of dollars for pre-existing damages if they do not have documentation that those damages existed when they first moved in. Also, they can enhance the profitability of their units by evicting tenants prior to the expiration of their leases and forcing them to pay the full rental prices of their units through the dates of expiration of their leases, even if the units are leased again immediately after the eviction. Although transportation is a necessity in finding and maintaining employment, I could write a complete book on how used car dealerships exploit the poor. Many of these tactics are not really legal, but unless the defendant can afford a good attorney, the plaintiff more or less wins by default. Incidentally, most cases that go to court to win judgments against debtors for court-ordered collection are paid for with taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers then again foot the bill when government social programs pick up the pieces of broken families who can no longer support themselves, the destitute victims of court-ordered extortion.

We pardon the perpetrators of these atrocities for the sake of “free enterprise”, but the victims, impoverished, in despair, and no longer able to support themselves because of overwhelming obligations which they can’t escape, are blamed for the economic woes of our country for requiring public assistance at government expense. In my mind, if society permits unfair exploitations of individuals, then we share the guilt for the offenses as well as the responsibility for rehabilitations. It would, however, be to the benefit of all if the deficiencies in government would be corrected in order to prevent this type of exploitation.

 

What entitlements did advocate?

 

How is this even addressing the question? At some point even the rich get nailed by taxation, on the other hand those on subsidence, aid and Gubmint programs pay nothing, and any sort of sales tax they do forfeit is just "Some" taxed dollars being return not "New" tax revenue!

 

Rephrase that question CORRECTLY before I answer.

 

You're using hyperbole to paint a picture that "ALL" people are victims of the wealthy when the fact is not "ALL" people are honest, clean, pay their bill or even try to better themselves, they just play the victim!

 

I agree. . . . Donald Trump IS an exception.

. . . . But "ALL" citizens are represented by the Constitution.

 

I think it has to do with upbringing. Tertullian said "Give me the child, and I will give you the man."

Whatever their intentions, my parents wanted me to be self reliant, so I was expected to earn the things I wanted. Not that they never gave me anything, but I was told to shovel snow for neighbors, or find some way to earn money for things ever since I was a kid. It didn't seem fair when I was a kid, because other kids got stuff from their parents. Some were spoiled rotten.

As an adult, I appreciate what they did for me because none of the people I grew up with are as self reliant as me. They also complain a lot more, and are more frequently unhappy. So when I see the government handing things out to people, it bothers me for two reasons. One, the money being handed out comes from people like me. It's in my blood to see it as unfair. Two, it doesn't really help the people who receive the entitlements, and actually makes things worse because it trains them to be dependent and, ultimately, unhappy. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, but it needs to be more balanced. There has to be motivation for self improvement, or a method for building character.

 

I can appreciate what you are saying here because I can relate, but from experience and age, I have also come to realize something else. You, like every other human being, is measuring yourself against peers that you know. We do this as we grow up in our neighborhood, school, and at work. We constantly compare ourselves to others, both the good, and the bad.

But let's be real...we are basing our judgments on only what we can PERCEIVE, and as we grow older, we should have encountered more than one occasion where our perceptions have been completely wrong. We make judgment calls all the time, to motivate and soothe our egos, but that does not mean those judgments are just. We have no idea if the kid who lived next door to us was getting spoiled by his parents because they were trying to soften the news of a divorce.

That's not say that some people don't spoil their children, and that some of those kids grow up to be selfish individuals, or moochers, or whatever other trait we view as negative. The reality is we really do not know all the circumstances surrounding someone whom we view as not being self-reliant, nor do they owe you an explanation, just as you do not need to provide an explanation to others about how you conduct your life.

There seems to be a long running misconception among many that people who seek or get government assistance are just out to "game the system". No one is denying there are indeed people who do, but how do you know it is as many as you think there are?

Do you get just as upset about people who manipulate their tax returns to avoid paying the proper tax for their income? Or people who abuse the legal system to get an advantage on either another individual or the government?

It's very easy to create blanket statements, but the devil is in the details. I believe in general, most people want to be self-reliant, but for circumstances beyond their control are not.

 

That's a distinction without a difference since both the Taliban and ISIS have destroyed ancient artifacts that aren't Islamic. So who is the fool? The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. And in your case, the defender of my enemy is my enemy.

 

Everything you say makes sense. Like I said, I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, and I know there are people that are not self reliant for reasons that are beyond their control. People don't get to choose their parents. However, I like to think it's never too late to learn a life lesson.

There used to be a "generic" aisle in the grocery store. It was an entire aisle with all kinds of food products with nothing but black and white labels that said things like "Green Beans" and nothing else. People that didn't make much money shopped in this aisle, but I think they did away with it because of the stigma associated with a shopping cart full of food from this aisle. I think it would be a good idea to bring this aisle back, and people on assistance should only be allowed to buy food from this aisle. Not steak and junk food. That way people would get help, but not luxury, and motivation to improve their lives. If they can't improve their situation, at least they wont starve. That seems equitable to me.

I don't think anybody believes that everyone on public assistance is out to game the system. A lot of them do, but I realize there are people that genuinely need help, and I don't see the harm in helping. But it shouldn't be a Golden Ticket.

If somebody illegally cheats on their taxes, then they should be punished. I'm in favor of a flat tax so there's no argument about who is paying their fair share.

 

Good points.

I have been self-reliant since age 17, when I quite school, left home and enlisted in the Air Force.

Some people are fortunate they have parents who teach self-reliance. Some people are born to parents who teach dependency. Life is not fair.

 

To be honest I’ve never heard of the term ‘Socialist Liberal’ I know there is a trend for fitting people and their views into convenient boxes for the ease of understanding but some contributors here cannot, or will not, separate socialism from communism.


The American Democrats are certainly not seen in many European nations as left of centre. If we relied on unfettered capitalism to govern us we would be paying for the air we breath. While socialism recognises the need for capitalism it also recognises the need to not let it run ungoverned.

In short, when run well, it gives a balanced economy which is something capitalism can never give.

 

I think it has more to do with dispelling popular notions. Depending on when you were born, there are certain "social" issues that the liberals are OK with, but conservatives have been reticent about. That does not mean that those liberals want government to fund everything they are socially OK with. Take abortion. A liberal may not advocate repealing RoevWade, but they don't want federal dollars supporting abortions. That's just a quick example - there are many more. The social issues will vary depending on when someone was born and what was paramount at the time.

I think it also ties into notions of self reliance.

 

That is seriously disturbing. Who the **** are you to say that my money isn't mine? And I can disprove the latter statement simply by telling you that I am broke and unemployed, so I don't have mine yet. So my attitude that my hard-earned money is mine has nothing to do with an "I've got mine, screw you" mindset. Your attitude that people's money doesn't belong to them is completely incompatible with a free society and you'd better move to North Korea where they agree with your backwards and repressive views. Enjoy eating grass while you're there. By the way, how much money do you have compared to the average American? How much money do you have compared to the average African? If it's more, why haven't you lived up to your beliefs and sent the excess to poor starving Africans? I'll tell you why: because you aren't interested in sharing YOUR money with others, you're only interested in sharing OTHER people's money with others. All you lefties are so generous with other people's money. Before you start giving away other people's money, give all of yours away first. Then I'll believe you really mean it.

 

Actually, if you examine the crime rates by race and ethnicity, white crime rates (and incarceration rates) mirror those you find in white European countries. Black crime rates mirror those you find in black countries. Hispanic crime rates mirror those you find in Hispanic countries. The only difference is we solve more black and Hispanic crimes and lock up more perpetrators than the black and Hispanic countries do. That's why we have the highest per capita prison population.

 

I agree, Sharpie...there are many variable that go into the notion. I just brought it up for discussion to see what others had to say about it.

 

I don't really care whether you "believe" me or not.

So?

 

I'm sure you recognise the value an armed robber's take might have for him and his family. It might put his kids through college. That doesn't make his theft justified. Fiscal conservatives say that you also have to take into account the harm done to the person robbed.

More than that, most fiscal conservatives also have categorically objections to coercive reallocation of property. That is, even if it's more useful and has more value for the robber, this doesn't matter. Utilitarianism and property rights rarely mesh well.

It's a shame that the vast majority of self professed fiscal conservatives support Reagan, Bush, etc.

 

I said "Taliban"...you said "ISIS."

A person of integrity would have simply acknowledge an error. Someone like you, however, would try to pretend there is no difference...and suggest the person calling attention to the error is fool.

Lemme help you here, Smith.

Your real enemy is your lack of integrity. You'll may see that more clearly as you grow up.