revel wrote:Whereas a church will simply give the unwed mother some cast off clothes.
along with a sermon, abstinence indoctrination and a government funded "faith based" pamphlet promoting marriage.
kind of like the religious version of the bumper sticker regarding hitchhikers from the '70s;
"cash, grass or ass, nobody rides for free"
DontTreadOnMe wrote:revel wrote:Whereas a church will simply give the unwed mother some cast off clothes.
along with a sermon, abstinence indoctrination
and a government funded "faith based" pamphlet promoting marriage.
kind of like the religious version of the bumper sticker regarding hitchhikers from the '70s;
"cash, grass or ass, nobody rides for free"
Luckily the part in red I don't think has come true yet. I hope it don't.
georgeob1 wrote:revel wrote:
People can say all they want about how much churches do and how little government does, but it is all a bunch of huey. Before government decided to help the needy; the poor died and couldn't go to the doctor and all that sort of thing.
Don't get me wrong, i am all for anyone wanting to help the poor, be it a church or an individule or whatever. It just can't be a substitute for government help. There is a sure fire system in place through government that does not depend on the whims or the temporary goodwill of volunteers. It is like the difference between having a steady job or doing odd jobs wherever you can find it.
The US government's boastfully named "War on Poverty" is now nearly 40 years old. Does anyone seriously believe it has significantly reduced poverty, or that its principal welfare, head start, CETA, public housing, and other programs were a success? Most of these programs were dismantled because they wasted a lot of money, did not work, and spawned side effects that often worsened the situation they attempted to cure.
Government certainly can promote beneficial economic activity by all segments of the society through fair tax policies, public education and health programs, suppression of crime, and support for ownership and savings by people at all levels in the economic ladder. However it has been repeatedly demonstrated that government cannot wholly eliminate poverty. The socialist attempts to do so have generally cost the people their freedom and resulted in near-poverty for all.
So you believe head start was a waste of money and didn't work? I know that is not true.
The rest of your post is full of a bunch of crock as well. Of course the government can't get rid of all poverty. "The poor will always be with us." However, like I said, it is a system where things can be worked out and looked at repeatedly so that needs can be met as best as it can.
I should add that the main reason for welfare is to help those in need; it is not meant to be a profitable undertaking.
georgeob1 wrote:I won't argue with your sugestion that governments of both stripes tend to meddle exccessively and merely raise dust at best, and make a mess at worst.
However, I believe the proposition that Democrats have done it less since Reagan is based only on a relative lack of opporunity. The best political feature of the Clinton years was the absolute deadlock in Congress which prevented any action by either party. (Again we see the truth of the adage that the government that governs least, governs best.).
One can attempt to imagine a Gore presidency, but fortuately we were spared the reality.
It was not because of a dead lock, but because Clinton was a smart President and reformed welfare without it hurting anyone. He was the one who pushed the welfare reform. Bush and the republicans have just threw all his good work out the window in various ways.
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v66/n6/welfare.6o.html
revel wrote:
It was not because of a dead lock, but because Clinton was a smart President and reformed welfare without it hurting anyone. He was the one who pushed the welfare reform. Bush and the republicans have just threw all his good work out the window in various ways.
l
I think you have your facts wrong. Clinton was a smart President. He was the Democrat who decided to support the Republican issue of welfare reform when it became evident it would pass in a Republican controlled Congress and had wide popular support.
THe Republicans have done a fairly good job of softening the recession that resulted from the collapse of the stock market boom of Clinton's second term and which was well underway when Bush took over.
dyslexia wrote:Quote:The socialist attempts to do so have generally cost the people their freedom and resulted in near-poverty for all.
so are you saying Bush is a socialist?
georgeob1 wrote:dys,
A cheap shot - mere word play. Beneath your usual standard.
Maybe not so cheap. I find it remarkable that Irving Kristol and many other prominent neo-conservatives had started out on the far left. True to their roots, they and their followers have continued to advocate the use of government for telling people how to behave -- except that they now do it from the opposite side of the political spectrum. They also specifically advise their Republican friends to depart from the libertarian thread of the Republican tradition, the people who
didn't come from the left. As Kristol himself puts it in his essay
The Neoconservative Persuasion: "Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked."
So even if the letter of Dys's remark might count as a cheap shot, I think he has a very good point when you consider the spirit of it. I wish the John McCains, Arnold Schwarzeneggers, and Rudolph Giulianis would wake up to it and chase the Neocons out of town.
That being said, I think there are numerous ways in which the rich could finance programs to help the poor to a much greater extent than they currently do now. <- Me
Of course they can...so can you, but do you want anyone to force you to do so? <- Finn
Sure. I'd like someone to force EVERYONE to do it. I think it would make things better for everyone. Even the rich - though they would like to ignore the poor and pretend that the problem will go away, it won't.
As for your claim that there are no American gentry, I think that there is a simple corrolary that will suffice to explain my position:
Finn, you state that the rich are rich because they took risks. In some cases, I can see this being true. In a Gentry system, some people move into the system by taking risks and being elevated. The only difference is that instead of titles or 'Nobility,' we have money here in America.
The supposition that what seperates the rich from the poor is the willingness to take risks is so completely false, I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps some questions:
Do you believe that the only major risks in life are financial? You state 'These people are taking risks you will not take.' I don't see why you believe that is true; the fact that I don't focus my life on money or even really care about it won't stop me from opening my own business, not so I can be rich, but so I can be happy]/i] doing something I like.
The supposition that the rich are rich because they 'are willing to take risks' is just another hollow justification along the lines of the English gentry - There is an inherent difference between the two groups of people (rich and poor) in which one is superior and one is inferior. And it's the poor person's fault they are poor, as well; obviously if they had taken more risks they would be richer, by your reasoning.
Your couples with a combined income of 300k a year, how many risks did they really take to get to the point they were at? Did they grow up, go to school, go to grad school, land a job doing something, and now are making lots of money due to the fact they were good at it? Because, while that's great and I applaud it, there's not a ton of risk involved there, yaknow....
Changing the morals of our society, to where the acquisition of wealth and stuff becomes meaningless (as it is, truly - just ask ol' J.C.) is imperative to the future of our society.
Cycloptichorn
Thomas wrote:
So even if the letter of Dys's remark might count as a cheap shot, I think he has a very good point when you consider the spirit of it. I wish the John McCains, Arnold Schwarzeneggers, and Rudolph Giulianis would wake up to it and chase the Neocons out of town.
Interesting point. Perhaps I don't fully understand just what ideas are referenced in the epithet, 'neocon'.
Though I am suspicious of government generally, and tend to prefer almost any effective non government solution to a public problem, to one operated by government, I am not willing to embrace an orthodox libertarian view of things. This country, for one, has become too complex and is, and has long been, far too heterogenious in the makeup of its population, for such a system, strictly adhered to, to work without permitting injury to too many people. I think that makes me a mainstream Republican. Am I a neocon too?
to be fair to George I did offer a bit of a barb with my comment but it's intentioned meaning was clearly overt. It's reasonably obvious the the democratic party has dressed the populace in a cloth of drab likeness one size fits all greatest good for the masses just as it's reasonably obvious that the "modern" republican party has done the same but under the guise of "conservative" values. They equally distort and cajole the public into needless conformity thereby reducing the very essence of freedom. in simple terms both the republicans and democrats suck when it comes to repecting individual rights and responsibilites. were I only as smooth of tongue as Bernie I could have said this better, so it goes.
georgeob1 wrote:Perhaps I don't fully understand just what ideas are referenced in the epithet, 'neocon'.
If you are interested in understanding them, you may find Kristol's
above-referenced article worth reading. (It's about 1500 words long.) Kristol is the founding father of neoconservatism, so he gives a much more reliable account of what it is than I could give you-- especially since I greatly dislike this brand of conservatism. I wonder if the philosophy outlined by Kristol resonates with you though.
georgeob1 wrote:Though I am suspicious of government generally, and tend to prefer almost any effective non government solution to a public problem, to one operated by government, I am not willing to embrace an orthodox libertarian view of things.
No thinking and honest person can embrace a consistently orthodox view on things, no matter what the person's ideology is. It's in the nature of thinking. But if you are suspicious of government generally, that almost certainly means you're not a neocon.
Well I read Kristol's article, and I do recognize the ideas. My chief impression is that it is yet another example of the sophomoric, self-obsessed examinations of one's own political belly button lint, that I joyfully stopped reading years ago. This stuff may be excusable on the part of an owner editor trying to peddle his magazine, but serious people should not take it seriously.
The political ideas offered in the article are ones with which I generally agree, or, more accurately, prefer to the available alternatives being offered, but which I regard as merely means to an end, as opposed to important or particularly meaningful in their own right.
Lower taxes intended to stimulate economic growth are better than more government social welfare programs that waste money and yield secondary effects worse than the primary ones they promise, but fail, to cure. Both options have undesirable side effects, but those of the former are easier to correct.
The problems of declining birthrates and increasing coarseness and vulgarity in the ever more ubiquitous intrusions of modern communications do suggest the need for new or renewed public attitudes with respect to the production, rearing, and education of children. Whether this is done through contemporary religion or a renewed interest in Seneca, or even the sentimental paganism of Julian, is of little concern to me. It is a real problem and certainly a citizen of a European nation with female fertility about 30% below that required for equilibrium might be concerned about it. .
The Western world is confronted with a challenge by the Islamic one which is a bit unhinged right now - full of energy, very young and fertile, outraged by the realization that they have been badly dealt with in the history of the last two or three centuries, and subject to the appeal of zealots who would lead them in a renewed Jihad against - us. One either rises to meet such challenges or is overcome by them. Europe right now is showing all the fortitude and courage in confronting this issue that France did in 1938-1944 with respect to Hitler. I believe that encouraging the development of democratic and secular governments among the Islamic states is a necessary means of containing and eventually deflecting this threat.
I do not believe that we have a transcendent mission to spread democracy to the world willy-nilly. Certainly the propaganda that was used by (Democrat) American presidents to encourage the American public to join in WWI and later WWII was, at best, an illusion and at worst a lie. We had no real reason to prefer Britain, France and Russia to Germany and the Hapsburgs in WWI, and I believe our entry in that war was a great error. But that is another subject. This is then one 'Neocon' idea which I reject out of hand.
Perhaps I agree with some of the ideas currently associated with "Neocons", but I do so for pragmatic reasons, and not from any adherence to the doctrine they preach which is, like most of its kind, an illusion, a chimera, ... nothing at all.
georgeob1 wrote:Perhaps I agree with some of the ideas currently associated with "Neocons", but I do so for pragmatic reasons, and not from any adherence to the doctrine they preach which is, like most of its kind, an illusion, a chimera, ... nothing at all.
Sure. But I'd wager that you would have have said the same thing about Johnson's "Great Society" in the sixties, correct? If you did, and if you weren't a liberal back then, I don't think you're a neconservative now.
Nice to see some folks digging into the neo-conservative literature. All in all, they are a bright crowd, but many fundamental ideas held sit in direct opposition to representative democracy - government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is, in the neoconservative view, neither desireable nor plausible.
While I agree that the notion of a Neo-con cabal being the power behind the throne, is well overblown, I do believe there is a loosely constructed Ne-con philosophy which has been informed by Straussian ideas and which, through its proponents, attempts to influence government policy.
The political commentary publications and academic think tanks do have a fair measure of influence on government policy. I find this is fortunate as it suggests that there is some actual thinking going on behind the scenes.
A discussion of the Neo-con philosophy or of Straussian ideals can be interesting but it doesn't shed as much light on the Bush Administration as some would think, unless one believes Bush is a disciple of Strauss, or merely a puppet of
that segment of his advisors who can be defined as neo-cons.
georgeob1 wrote:revel wrote:
It was not because of a dead lock, but because Clinton was a smart President and reformed welfare without it hurting anyone. He was the one who pushed the welfare reform. Bush and the republicans have just threw all his good work out the window in various ways.
l
I think you have your facts wrong. Clinton was a smart President. He was the Democrat who decided to support the Republican issue of welfare reform when it became evident it would pass in a Republican controlled Congress and had wide popular support.
THe Republicans have done a fairly good job of softening the recession that resulted from the collapse of the stock market boom of Clinton's second term and which was well underway when Bush took over.
Actually I think you have your facts wrong. When Clinton wanted those reforms, the republicans were not in control for one thing. The rest about that so called recession that you all like to push, pure propaganda.
george
How can you, after confessing just previously that you weren't sure of what or who the term 'neocon' designated, then go on to make the confident claim that 'neoconservative' influence is imaginary or insignificant? You have not been doing your homework...bad bad george.
thomas is onto the story and finn is much closer than you to getting it right.
Finn suggests that this element has limited influence on Bush personally, and on the administration. I'm sure thomas would agree with that, and so do I. There are other discernible influences as well (eg Grover Norquist and the Christian Right most evidently) who definitely are NOT supporters of Straussian notions, but very happy to work with folks like Kristol to create and maintain Republican/conservative dominance.
But direct influence on Bush doesn't give us the entire picture. Norquist, for example, has influence in Washington and on the Republican Party machinery (thus on real aspects of governance, slowly accumulated over two decades) which arguably may, in the long run, lead historians to suggest he's a greater real influence than Bush.
