Speaking of propaganda...

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It is untrue since many social programs that actually address basic human needs; i.e. prison ministries, soup kitchens, thrift shops, homeless shelters, help with legal services, taxes, prep for job training, Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, tutoring programs, after school programs for kids and similar groups and agencies have been mostly started, funded, and operated by conservatives. Therefore a statement that "conservatives hate social programs" is not only absurd, it sounds rather hateful.

I don't know about the others, but I find it quite astonishing that you call the founders of Caritas (in USA Catholic Charities USA) conservative. "Extreme left-wing" would have been my idea.

But I do agree that they might be called conservative - just 'left' in the conservative Catholic church. :wink:

Catholic Charities is absolutely founded on solid conservative principles at least here in the United States and at least according to the American definition of modern conservatism. They are also one of the most effective charitable organizations operating in most places that I have lived.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Catholic Charities is absolutely founded on solid conservative principles at least here in the United States and at least according to the American definition of modern conservatism. They are also one of the most effective charitable organizations operating in most places that I have lived.

Well, it's hard for me to argue about what has been 'modern conservatism' in the USA in 1910.
When their equivalent, Caritas Germany, was founded as first Catholic charity worldwide in 1898, they always were thought to be the "left-wing" of the Catholic church.

As it is nowawdays - nationally as well as internationally. (Caritas Internatonal supports a lot a programs which you most certainly would declare left!)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It is untrue because nobody said liberals 'simply want to hand out money to anyone wishing to take it".

You are incorrect.
Although I may have oversimplified my assessment of how conservatives view the liberal slant on social programs, my statement about conservatives is not untrue because of my oversimplified assessment. It will be untrue if one looks at the treatment of social programs in the US under BUsh or in Canada under Harper and one sees social programs that grow and flourish. If I am correct, however, these leaders will both have been responsible for slashing social programs in their respective countries.

Foxfyre wrote:

What I have said is that liberals are more likely to hand out money in a one-size-fits-all fashion without paying sufficient attention to the negative consequences involved and, further, liberals tend to want to hand out MY money so that THEY can feel righteous.

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of evidence that liberals want to hand out your money so that THEY can feel righteous, or that they "don't pay sufficient attention to the negative consequences involved" in the programs they sponsor.
If these are such an obvious facts, I'd appreciate being privy to this information as well. It may influence my perspective on social programs.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is untrue since many social programs that actually address basic human needs; i.e. prison ministries, soup kitchens, thrift shops, homeless shelters, help with legal services, taxes, prep for job training, Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, tutoring programs, after school programs for kids and similar groups and agencies have been mostly started, funded, and operated by conservatives.

No, what you have here referenced are many denominational and non-denominational charitable organizations. Last I checked "churches" weren't conservative organizations....certainly not the one I participated in for over 20 years.
Over the last 2 decades, between 76%-86% of Americans have claimed to be Christian. Christian does not equal conservative.

You have also listed things like tutoring services, legal aid and after school programs--staking claim to these as conservative endeavors.
This is a patent falsehood. Liberals, conservtives and others all deserve credit for these services.
....and taxes? You consider these a segment of a"conservative" social program? I thought this was a means for liberals to take YOUR money and give it away so that they can feel righteous.
Get your story straight.

Foxfyre wrote:

Therefore a statement that "conservatives hate social programs" is not only absurd, it sounds rather hateful.

Quote:

Feb 2006: President Bush yesterday unveiled a $2.77 trillion spending plan for the next fiscal year that would slash healthcare and education spending, and that would enact deep cuts to scores of other federal programs, while boosting the military budget and making permanent a series of tax cuts that Congress has passed in recent years.
The budget would shave $35.9 billion over five years from Medicare, the politically sensitive healthcare program for the elderly. The Medicare cuts, along with a $4.5 billion reduction in the Medicaid budget, are part of $65.2 billion in savings culled from entitlement programs, the fastest-growing part of the federal budget.

By law, the government is required to spend money on those programs, like Medicare, to cover those who are eligible.

Bush also has proposed saving $14.7 billion by eliminating or significantly scaling back 141 government programs, including antidrug efforts in schools, food stamps, vocational education, and housing benefits for the elderly and the disabled

Source

Quote:

Sept 2004: The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

source

This just scrapes the surface for Bush.
You will find many parallels with the Harper administration in Canada.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

As it is nowawdays - nationally as well as internationally. (Caritas Internatonal supports a lot a programs which you most certainly would declare left!)

Such as?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
As it is nowawdays - nationally as well as internationally. (Caritas Internatonal supports a lot a programs which you most certainly would declare left!)

Such as?

For instance all the help which goes to Bangladesh since decades, after every flooding:

Foxfyre wrote:

[People who put their homes in hazardous areas--on the coast, below sea level, in a brush filled canyon, on an unstable hillside in an Earthquake zone, on a flood plain, etc. should be expected to insure themselves against possible loss or damage. It should not be the responsibility of the rest of us to assume their risk.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It is untrue because nobody said liberals 'simply want to hand out money to anyone wishing to take it".

You are incorrect.
Although I may have oversimplified my assessment of how conservatives view the liberal slant on social programs, my statement about conservatives is not untrue because of my oversimplified assessment. It will be untrue if one looks at the treatment of social programs in the US under BUsh or in Canada under Harper and one sees social programs that grow and flourish. If I am correct, however, these leaders will both have been responsible for slashing social programs in their respective countries.

My statement was only commenting on your characterization which was indeed absurd. All the rest of your 'rebuttal' is unrelated to that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What I have said is that liberals are more likely to hand out money in a one-size-fits-all fashion without paying sufficient attention to the negative consequences involved and, further, liberals tend to want to hand out MY money so that THEY can feel righteous.

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of evidence that liberals want to hand out your money so that THEY can feel righteous, or that they "don't pay sufficient attention to the negative consequences involved" in the programs they sponsor.
If these are such an obvious facts, I'd appreciate being privy to this information as well. It may influence my perspective on social programs.

My comment is based on the knowledge that most social programs designed to help people on a one on one basis, up close and personal, and tailored for individual needs have been designed, funded, and administrated by mostly conservatives. My comment is based on oft posted data showing that those who describe themselves as conservative contribute more to charity than do those who describe themselves as liberal. My comment is based on the fact that most conservatives believe that most social programs are more effective, efficient, and helpful when they are administered by the private sector funded by private donations while most liberals seem to think that government programs, funded by everybody's tax dollars, are the best way to effecively do social services.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It is untrue since many social programs that actually address basic human needs; i.e. prison ministries, soup kitchens, thrift shops, homeless shelters, help with legal services, taxes, prep for job training, Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, tutoring programs, after school programs for kids and similar groups and agencies have been mostly started, funded, and operated by conservatives.

No, what you have here referenced are many denominational and non-denominational charitable organizations. Last I checked "churches" weren't conservative organizations....certainly not the one I participated in for over 20 years.
Over the last 2 decades, between 76%-86% of Americans have claimed to be Christian. Christian does not equal conservative.

You have also listed things like tutoring services, legal aid and after school programs--staking claim to these as conservative endeavors.
This is a patent falsehood. Liberals, conservtives and others all deserve credit for these services.
....and taxes? You consider these a segment of a"conservative" social program? I thought this was a means for liberals to take YOUR money and give it away so that they can feel righteous.
Get your story straight.

Show me a prison ministries program funded and administered by an organization that would define itself as liberal. Show me a program to minister to lepers or work one on one with AIDS patients that is administered by an organization that would define itself as liberal. I am not saying that people who define themselves as liberal don't work at the food banks and thrift shops because of course they do. I am not saying that liberal churches don't participate in such ministries because I know they do. I belong to such a church myself. But the unpublicized, unglamorized, true charity where people give selflessly of themselves and their material blessings to do the tedious task of organization and the hands on work to alleviate the suffering of others comes out of solid conservative values and has originated from mostly conservative groups.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Therefore a statement that "conservatives hate social programs" is not only absurd, it sounds rather hateful.

Quote:
Feb 2006: President Bush yesterday unveiled a $2.77 trillion spending plan for the next fiscal year that would slash healthcare and education spending, and that would enact deep cuts to scores of other federal programs, while boosting the military budget and making permanent a series of tax cuts that Congress has passed in recent years.
The budget would shave $35.9 billion over five years from Medicare, the politically sensitive healthcare program for the elderly. The Medicare cuts, along with a $4.5 billion reduction in the Medicaid budget, are part of $65.2 billion in savings culled from entitlement programs, the fastest-growing part of the federal budget.

By law, the government is required to spend money on those programs, like Medicare, to cover those who are eligible.

Bush also has proposed saving $14.7 billion by eliminating or significantly scaling back 141 government programs, including antidrug efforts in schools, food stamps, vocational education, and housing benefits for the elderly and the disabled

Source

Quote:
Sept 2004: The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

source

This just scrapes the surface for Bush.
You will find many parallels with the Harper administration in Canada.

Even overlooking for the moment that a Bush-bashing opportunity here is a red herring and does not address your actual statement (which was a stupid statement), most of us would not describe President Bush as a conservative; in fact many if not most conservatives have strongly criticized him for abandoning a number of conservative principles and/or for promoting programs or policies that we see as social liberalism. Just a few of those include NCLB, prescription drugs for Seniors, tariff protection on steel, huge budget increases in government social spending, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, It has been mostly abandonment of those principles that has contributed to to most of those deficits. I believe that has contributed hugely to his low approval ratings.

You do know that it is Congress and not the President who passes the budget and that President Bush has yet to veto a budget presented to him by Congress? And currently the Democrats (mostly liberal) are the ones who are deciding what the budget will be? Further your source is seriously distorting the facts. There have been a few instances where funding for a defunct or useless or underutilized program has been diverted to another in the same category, but if you check the actual expenditures, you won't find a single instance in which less has been spent in any category in any year since President Bush has been in office.

Conservatives define a budget cut as spending less than was spent the year before.

Liberals define a budget cut as spending less than some want to be spent.

0 Replies

I have asked several times Foxfyre that you submit to me evidence that what you contend is in fact true.
I value the opinions you have formed, but I would appreciate some data that backs up some of the claims you are making.

Like I said, I am interested because it may influence my opinion on social programs.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I have asked several times Foxfyre that you submit to me evidence that what you contend is in fact true.
I value the opinions you have formed, but I would appreciate some data that backs up some of the claims you are making.

Like I said, I am interested because it may influence my opinion on social programs.

Thank you, but until you feel a similar urge to support your statements such as 'conservatives hate social programs' or retract it, I am inclined to doubt your sincerity on this subject. I don't have time to hunt up somebody on the web who will agree with me on every opinion I've expressed here, nor would that prove anything, and as for data on charitable contributions and the origins of charitable organizations, these have been posted on so many different threads that it seems redundant to hunt all that up again.

Arthur Brooks' book is a good place to start though. Here's a short book review of what he found through exhaustive research:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
I have asked several times Foxfyre that you submit to me evidence that what you contend is in fact true.
I value the opinions you have formed, but I would appreciate some data that backs up some of the claims you are making.

Like I said, I am interested because it may influence my opinion on social programs.

Thank you, but until you feel a similar urge to support your statements such as 'conservatives hate social programs' or retract it, I am inclined to doubt your sincerity on this subject. I don't have time to hunt up somebody on the web who will agree with me on every opinion I've expressed here, nor would that prove anything, and as for data on charitable contributions and the origins of charitable organizations, these have been posted on so many different threads that it seems redundant to hunt all that up again.

Arthur Brooks' book is a good place to start though. Here's a short book review of what he found through exhaustive research:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Well, I provided 2 links showing the "appreciation" a conservative republican has for various social programs. It is a lie that I have not backed up my claim. Say that I have done so inadequately if you must, but to say that I haven't is a flat-out lie.

Can this be substantiated then?
I can search A2K for what you claim is here in abundance (although of you make the claim, you should be the one backing it up).

Quote:

if you check the actual expenditures, you won't find a single instance in which less has been spent in any category in any year since President Bush has been in office.

(and I'll keep in mind while you defend Bush's spending that he's not a conservative)
___________

Brooks concluded in his book that religious conservatives who live in traditional families, who also oppose all socialist forms of wealth redistribution donate the most. What impresses me the most about Brooks' data was not so much the conclusion, but the way he formatted his study. Liberals....that is all liberals were compared to a very specific segment of the conservative population: Church going, 2 parent families who also oppose government let wealth redistribution. All of a sudden, an apples to oranges (liberals to conservatives) study was done and it fast became an apples to Sunkist Navel Oranges From Orange County Florida Grown Between August 2007 and February 2008.

Funny stuff that is.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
I have asked several times Foxfyre that you submit to me evidence that what you contend is in fact true.
I value the opinions you have formed, but I would appreciate some data that backs up some of the claims you are making.

Like I said, I am interested because it may influence my opinion on social programs.

Thank you, but until you feel a similar urge to support your statements such as 'conservatives hate social programs' or retract it, I am inclined to doubt your sincerity on this subject. I don't have time to hunt up somebody on the web who will agree with me on every opinion I've expressed here, nor would that prove anything, and as for data on charitable contributions and the origins of charitable organizations, these have been posted on so many different threads that it seems redundant to hunt all that up again.

Arthur Brooks' book is a good place to start though. Here's a short book review of what he found through exhaustive research:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Well, I provided 2 links showing the "appreciation" a conservative republican has for various social programs. It is a lie that I have not backed up my claim. Say that I have done so inadequately if you must, but to say that I haven't is a flat-out lie.

Can this be substantiated then?
I can search A2K for what you claim is here in abundance (although of you make the claim, you should be the one backing it up).

Quote:
if you check the actual expenditures, you won't find a single instance in which less has been spent in any category in any year since President Bush has been in office.

(and I'll keep in mind while you defend Bush's spending that he's not a conservative)
___________

Brooks concluded in his book that religious conservatives who live in traditional families, who also oppose all socialist forms of wealth redistribution donate the most. What impresses me the most about Brooks' data was not so much the conclusion, but the way he formatted his study. Liberals....that is all liberals were compared to a very specific segment of the conservative population: Church going, 2 parent families who also oppose government let wealth redistribution. All of a sudden, an apples to oranges (liberals to conservatives) study was done and it fast became an apples to Sunkist Navel Oranges From Orange County Florida Grown Between August 2007 and February 2008.

Funny stuff that is.

Brooks actually acknowledges in his book that being conservative doesn't necessarily make one charitable (nor does being liberal necessarily make one stingy) but as most--that's MOST not all--conservatives profess some sort of religious belief or who were raised within some kind of religious tradition, it is reasonable that most charitable giving comes from religious conservatives. And as most people who push hardest for more government funded programs are secular liberals, it is not remarkable that the stats reflect that.

Nor is it remarkable that it is mostly the religious who start most social programs in the private sector. It's pretty darn hard to find any group of Atheists who are ministering to the homeless in the slums of Calcutta or funding and staffing a leper colony or setting up long term hospitals for AIDS sufferers in an African jungle. It isn't the Atheists who show up to give hands on help at every disaster from a major prairie fire in Kansas to an earthquake in California to a hurricane zone in Louisiana. But the Mennonites are there every time. I know all this to be true. You can believe it or not. I don't really care.

As opposed to your link showing that "a conservative"--"a" presuming singular--represents support for what all conservatives do as expressed in your statement that "conservatives hate social programs'.

For backup on the social spending, however, you can find any fact or figure for just about any year you want to know about here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html

0 Replies

I didn't see conservatives complain when Bush provided trillions in welfare for the super rich. It was in the form of tax expenditures (cuts). But God forbid giving a few billion to poor kids for healthcare coverage.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I didn't see conservatives complain when Bush provided trillions in welfare for the super rich. It was in the form of tax expenditures (cuts). But God forbid giving a few billion to poor kids for healthcare coverage.

I don't recall that Bush was opposed to healthcare for poor kids. He (and most conservatives) did oppose another mega-costly entitlement for families earning up to $82,000 plus and included kids that were already covered under other plans. The intitial estimates for the expanded program were 35 billion and experience should tell us that the estimate is usually one half or less of the actual expense involved in one of these entitlement programs. Had the Democrats in Congress been willing to leave SCHIP at its existing levels, I'm pretty sure Bush would have signed it has he did allow mega increases in health spending during his term of office.

But folks can't have it both ways. We either have to say no to some social spending or continue to see the budget spiral out of control. Bush is going to be damned either way he goes, but I think he did the right thing this time even though he did give the Democrats some powerful ammunition to use in their ads in the fall election.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The desire to help these "unfortunates" is born of smug sanctimony and only perpetuates their "misfortune."
Yes of course, at least that's what jesus said in his loaves and fishes speech.

I tend to think Jesus was quite capable of distinguishing the truly unfortunate from the social parasites.

And if he couldn't, BFD. He was just a jewish carpenter who live a couple of millenium ago.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm pretty sure that I recall that McG once revealed he is not of the Christian faith, and I don't know about Finn. But I bet the two of them mostly agree on the best way(s) to help the poor.

Which is pretty much how I think Jesus would advise on helping the poor.

I would be delighted if you got a straight answer from Dys or TKO, RL, but it sure would be interesting if you did.

(Addendum: Acknowledging that TKO did respond of sorts which sort of negates his disdainful metaphor of the loaves and fishes I think.)

For the Record, and whomever else might care, I am not a Christian, nor a Jew. I am not a Muslim, a Hindu, a Pagan, a Zoroastrian nor a Sikh. I am not a member of the Bahai faith, nor am I an animist (although I think they are cool). I am not a Jain, nor a Buddhist (Zen or otherwise), and I do not believe the Dalai Lama is a Living God. I may approach a Taoist but not that closely.

I believe in a Creator who deeply cares about "his" creation, but I acknowledge that much as man and his ape brain could not comprehend the Krell (see "Forbidden Planet"), I cannot comprehend all that God might consider.

I believe the meek will inherit the earth only after the strong have abandoned it.

I believe that Liberals who (by their own reckoning) slyly introduce what Jesus may or may not have thought into political and philosophical discussions are dolts, transparent hypocrites, or closet "Churchies."

I believe that Good Ole Dys' stetson is too tight and has restricted the flow of blood to his brain.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Jesus was a liberal.

Glib, but supportable?

Jesus ridding the Temple of money-lenders was the action of a conservative.

The adherence, by Jesus, to the Laws of the Old Testament was conservative.

The fact that Jesus, clearly, cared about the poor and unfortunate is not evidence that he was a "Liberal." Liberals are not the only people in the world who care about the poor and unfortunate and it is a indication of liberal sanctimony (not to mention The Big Lie) that they argue otherwise.

One might, foolishly, cast conservatives as greedy misers, but this is a function of partisan passion not political intellect. There is absolutely nothing within the concept of conservativism that suggests that the poor and unfortunate should be left to suffer alone. There is also nothing within the concept of liberalism that suggests that the poor and unfortunate should deserve extraordinary attention.

Jesus' concern for the poor and unfortunate was neither Liberal, nor Conservative.

How this concern might be addressed takes us to the Left-Right fork in the road.

Did Jesus call for the state of Israel, such as it was, or the Roman Empire to attend to the poor and unfortunate? Perhaps. As I am not a biblical scholar I cannot attest that there is nothing in the Gospels that suggest same, however my personal reading of the Gospels and the teaching I received as a young Lutheran, strongly suggest to me that the call to care for the poor and unfortunate was directed at the individual and not the collective --- fairly conservative there.

It is ironic that self-professed secularists so often attempt to seize the endorsement of Jesus. Try for at least a small measure of intellectual integrity - won't you?

If Jesus was a conservative and not a liberal, so what?

If he was a liberal, and not a conservative, so what again?

An objective analysis, rooted in actual, not perceived, elements of the two ideologies will, to my mind, clearly categorize Jesus as a conservative.

This does not mean, at all, that liberalism is the mind set of The Devil, and only a fool would think so.

I don't believe Jesus was a deity, but whether he was or whether he was "merely" an enlightened sage, I seriously doubt he cared or cares one whit about the petty partisan political squabbles in which we engage.

0 Replies

Finn, really, your ramblings are not worth the paper on which they are not printed. It has been awhile since I read such a mish-mash of self-serving BS. I will know better than to read your garbage in the future.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Finn, really, your ramblings are not worth the paper on which they are not printed. It has been awhile since I read such a mish-mash of self-serving BS. I will know better than to read your garbage in the future.

Finn's comments addressed the subject being discussed, were on point, offered some interesting perspective whether or not you agree with it, and he did not make a single ad hominem reference.

Your post is directed as an insult at another member and doesn't even make pretense of addressing the subject being discussed.

And you call HIS post ramblings?

0 Replies

Fox, you don't think that the following is ad hominem?

"I believe that Liberals who (by their own reckoning) slyly introduce what Jesus may or may not have thought into political and philosophical discussions are dolts, transparent hypocrites, or closet "Churchies."

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, you don't think that the following is ad hominem?

"I believe that Liberals who (by their own reckoning) slyly introduce what Jesus may or may not have thought into political and philosophical discussions are dolts, transparent hypocrites, or closet "Churchies."

Only if you or somebody else considers himself a liberal who has done that. However I don't find that line in the specific post you seemed to be addressing.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I believe that Liberals who (by their own reckoning) slyly introduce what Jesus may or may not have thought into political and philosophical discussions are dolts, transparent hypocrites, or closet "Churchies."

Well, that's mainly done by conservatives here - somehow they must justify the "Christian" in their parties' names Laughing

0 Replies

Speaking of propaganda...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know