Measuring liberalism

[.... callchet ....]

What do you think ? What would you support universally ?

[MADem]

1. For whom? For EVERYONE? For anyone who asks? For those in need?

If you're lazy and would rather play on the internet than work, but are able bodied?

It's a vague question. The needy should be helped, and they should also be helped UP. No one should be cold or go hungry. Children should be educated. People should have access to medical care. I don't like the Lifetime Welfare paradigm, though. That's just shitty. It's not "help" either. It's giving up on people.

It might be appropriate to add things like "Job Retraining" and "Employment Assistance" to that list.

[.... callchet ....]

2. Thanks

I tried to make this as sterile as possible to avoid influencing the answers. I left the implication to be as available to everybody.

[.... callchet ....]

5. Perspective

Are you more worried about people getting too much rather than people getting too Little ?

[MADem]

6. I am uninterested in "either/or" games. The truth, though, is that if you

don't have a workforce, you don't have the capability to provide assistance to the needy. That's just essential economics. You need a tax base.

And if the hope is to get all the money off "the wealthy," well, the wealthy will pick their asses up, pack their crap up, and move somewhere where Uncle Sam isn't draining them dry. They'll flip us the bird on the way out the door, too.

I don't know how much clearer I need to make it. Care for the needy, no one should be cold or hungry, educate children, access to health care for anyone who needs it. Job retraining, employment assistance. It's pretty basic stuff.

I'm not a fan of cradle to grave subsistence payments to able-bodied people who sit around doing nothing all day, though. I believe in education, training, help with child care if needed, and....empowerment.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, and he sits in a boat drinking beer all day...no, wait, that's not it!

[Citizen Number 9]

3. If you hand out everything, you don't allow people to wrestle with

personal issues of motivation and self-worth.

[.... callchet ....]

4. Are you

saying that people are basically unmotivated and worthless. That they have to have a carrot hung in front of them to do anything ? You know, that

carrot has seemed to create a lot of crooks. But that carrot does have a string attached to it, so I guess as long as there are some regulations it

would be acceptable. And to achieve an end in the USA we have to bargain and compromise, so I guess asking for more than what is needed is

acceptable, except when discussing it within a "hospitable atmosphere " . I believe most people are good and that they will step up to the plate

when needed. I would rather error on that side and accept what disappointment come up rather than assume they are all disappointing and see what

floats to the top. Volunteerism and charity is certainly more forthcoming from the lower classes than the upper classes. What dos that tell you ?

[Citizen Number 9]

7. I think a lot of people struggle with issues of motivation

Lots of folks wouldn't work at all but for the paycheck. I think most people manage to find a balance as evidenced by the fact that the great majority of the citizens go to work and make something of themselves.

Where did you get the information that volunteerism and charity is more forthcoming from the "lower classes"? That's certainly not borne out by my personal experience.

I see the same people in the community over and over, working 60 hour weeks or more yet showing up to help run the Little League team or the PTA, or cooking a charity dinner in spite of that. We have a hard time getting employees to work much more than a 40 hour week, even with paid OT.

[GliderGuider]

9. So you're a "Theory X" kind of guy?

I'm more "Theory Y" myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

[Citizen Number 9]

11. Well, not really.....

At first glance it might seem like it, but then I looked at Theory Y and that seemed pretty familiar, too. Ultimately, I'm going to end up somewhere in between all three of these theories. Not having gone to B School, I haven't had a good opportunity to seize one or the other. In any case, I generally don't buy into the entirety of wide-sweeping theories as they are usually inadequate to cover everything. Life is just life, and people come in all flavors, you know?

Because of my experience, I'd have to say we set up things to operate on the "Y" theory and then make adjustments as necessary towards "X". I don't like middle management and do everything I can to avoid it. I really would rather have the employees be self-motivated. That being said, there has to be a captain of the ship or things go badly off course.

[.... callchet ....]

31. And my theory

x + Y = Everbody Everybody deserves to live. If you believe everybody deserves to live then you are responsible for everybody.

[.... callchet ....]

10. The poor give more

This is exactly what I am taking about " see the same people in the community over and over, working 60 hour weeks or more yet showing up to help

run the Little League team or the PTA, or cooking a charity dinner in spite of that." Almost all the foot work is done by the poor working stiff

struggling to make it. Charitable donations per income are significantly higher among the poor than the rich. I thought that was an axiom, but I will

look it up for support. "The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher

percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average"

[Citizen Number 9]

12. Do you know why Utah has the highest rate of charitable giving

Among all the states?

[.... callchet ....]

14. No

Poorest people in US ?

[Citizen Number 9]

15. No, that's Mississippi at the lowest position.

Utah ranks pretty good; about 13th in income.

[Citizen Number 9]

19. Hint:

It has to do with what you find a lot of in Utah....

[.... callchet ....]

25. NaCl

[Citizen Number 9]

26. Interesting response, but I was thinking about

the LDS church.

How much are they expected to give....to the church?

[.... callchet ....]

27. Probably

Their numbers have been declining significantly. Interestingly, I heard Jerry Falwell say that if you didn't give a certain amount

to Church, you were stealing from God.

[Citizen Number 9]

28. Everyone has a different way of getting it.

The Utah rate of giving is about 5% which is sorta interesting because LDS members are expected to "tithe" and they are about half the population in the state.

[.... callchet ....]

29. Interesting ?

I thought humorous .

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Because they give more to their church which IMHO shouldn't count as charity

A church doesn't have to spend a single penny of the money it takes in on programs to help the community outside of its congregation but still gets every penny tax free and tax deductible to the donors.

[Citizen Number 9]

36. That's sort of negative on your part.

Church members may need support as much as anyone else.

Why do YOU care if it counts as charity or not?

Why are you always trying to force your opinions on someone else's situation?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. Because it's incredibly unfair

Secular non-profits have to scrupulously report every dime they get and disclose what it is spent on. Churches don't. Pastors pay no taxes on their salaries and get to write off the entire cost of their residences, employees of secular non-profits don't. The Catholic and LDS churches have used part of their tax free tax deductible contributions to protect and defend pedophiles. I could go on, but the point is that churches have been getting a free ride for way too long.

Why are you always trying to force your opinions on someone else's situation?

Because it's an Internet message board that exists for that purpose, genius.

[GliderGuider]

8. That's a bit Manichean, isn't it?

What about providing opportunities to fly on the trapeze as well as a safety net for those who miss the bar for whatever reason? The possibility that a few might be content with just the safety net is no reason to deny it to all.

[Citizen Number 9]

13. I'm not against safety nets

You just can't throw every cute kitten into it. I mean, there's a price.

[GliderGuider]

16. In that case you're beating up a straw man

Nobody is suggesting that. Nobody.

Every time somebody mentions securing the lives of the poor a bit, your knee jerks.

[Citizen Number 9]

20. A bit here....a bit there....

pretty soon we're thinking they should be given potholders and free gasoline.

[.... callchet ....]

17. Well look at

what we spend on deep space exploration, binary star eclipse studies, particle accelerators and on and on. And what would be wrong with humanitarian

expenditures. Is it okay to spend money on anything except people? The return would be just as rewarding as to finding out what happened on some

star a billion years ago. Most of the light we look at is a million years old. Invest in one of the most significant assets (according to you in an

earlier post ) we have, compare that return to the particle accelerator studies. I'm willing to bet the humanitarian investment will be more

rewarding.

[Citizen Number 9]

18. Excellent. You go bet your money on whatever you want to bet it on

And I'll place mine appropriately, too.

[.... callchet ....]

21. Fundamentally

Do you think you have sole discretion on spending your money? T. Boone Pickens donated $160,000,000 to the OSU golf program.

[Citizen Number 9]

22. This has always been the problem with Democrats

They are in a hurry to spend someone else's money. And there is always some rationalization to go along with it. At least the Republicans feel a sense of guilt when they do it.

[.... callchet ....]

23. My question, and you will be graded !

Do you think you have sole discretion on spending your money?

[Citizen Number 9]

24. No.

My wife helps me decide.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. "They"

Funny, I thought you said you were a lifelong Democrat.

[GliderGuider]

34. Odd usage, isn't it?

I can hardly see #9's posts any more through all the red flags.

[Citizen Number 9]

37. That's right. Democrats. They.

It's English.

I don't include myself in the group of Democrats that are in a hurry to spend someone else's money.

Get it?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Oh, and since when have Republicans expressed guilt about spending other people's money?

Deficits ballooned under Reagan and both Bushes. They had no qualms about funneling billions of dollars to defense contractors and other cronies. GWB and McCain were eager to bail out financial institutions a few weeks ago. Out of curiosity, Citizen, can you give us one example of Republicans demonstrating guilt over spending our money on these things?

[Citizen Number 9]

38. Well, they blame Democrats for the spending, don't they?

Is that projection or transference?

I any case, it looks like a red hot expression of guilt to me.

Happens to me all the time when I donate. Some Democrats act like money grows on trees and it's just easy to get more if something happens to the first portion. They don't earn or donate much, mind you, and when they do, they want a plaque. When they finally get someone's money in their coffers, they are in a hurry to spend it and tend to sidestep notions of good stewardship.

Republicans tend to act more reverential, like they understand the value of the donation and that they want to be sure it is used efficiently.

Not all, mind you. I would never say that. It's just that I do see these things

[.... callchet ....]

30. I can't

imagine what deadbeats these guys must be that require millions of dollars a year to do their jobs .