Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tell me I am wrong-- everyone should vote conservatively and act liberally

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I feel like there is a big problem with partisanship in the U.S.... no big secret there. In fact, I think that most people would agree with me here. There is no problem in aligning yourself with a party, in unity problems can be conquered. However, there is such a division within the political system due to partisanship that nothing can get done... The thing that baffles me about this is that nearly everyone agrees on so may things, how can absolutely nothing get done in Congress? The thing that ends up dividing us (besides petty social issue) is process. Conservatives and liberals cannot agree on the process that will solve many of our problems... For example: if you take a system like welfare, both conservatives and liberals agree that some people both need and deserve help. Whether it is in finding a job, getting health benefits, food to eat, every person deserves chances to get their life o track. Then you have both parties also agreeing that the system we have in place is abused... The conservatives exaggerate it and the liberals overlook some of the cons due to pride issues on both sides... but the simple fact is that the system we have put into place is not really satisfying either party or helping the right people (overall, not for every case).

So then, the question is, how do you go about a system like welfare? Vote conservatively and act liberally. Put someone into office that requires everyone to have to try... Make it socially unacceptable to abuse help and make everyone need to work in order to survive... Make competition something that is encouraged and reward harder workers with more benefits. Above all else, don't force anyone to pay taxes and dump money into programs that "help" other people. Make this, instead, choice. Morality, then, needs to be slightly reformed. As a child, if you are raised in a liberal fashion, then when your neighbor needs help, it should be your moral duty to help that person. Both Christians and liberals should already do this, yet who has the money to when they are forced to spend so much on taxes and entitlement programs? HELP THY NEIGHBOR, and support the welfare of your family, that should be the goal.

Help your community, and delegate your funds locally... This is where we should be liberal as human beings. Promote freedom of speech and accept all others, but do not abuse the power of speech... Regulate your families in how they conduct their lives, but do not tell others how to live it. Help who you think needs to be helped, but don't force others to help you...

A more communal sense of living and a harder-working country CAN be achieved. Our school system is failing because it is run too liberally. BUT our education system is failing because it is run to conservatively. Our neighborhoods are failing because our schools and education systems are failing, and our country is failing because of a lack of morality. WE CAN FIX THIS. We need to start voting for freedom, and we need to start teaching our children values, hard work, acceptance, and the power of caring for those around you.

Partisanship is doom... Set aside pride. It is time to start the revolution. LET PEOPLE LIVE AS THEY WANT TO! But don't expect me to pay for them to live unless I know who they are...

I can only hope that what I have said makes any sense. I have thoughts on this, but it isn't just easy to express them by talking to myself. If something I say isn't clear, please let us discuss this further and I know everyone could see my point.




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I like this idea a lot. I might phrase it a bit different, but I think the concept is the same.

Personally, I am much more comfortable with charitable giving, or even better yet, direct assistance to those in need, rather than a forced tax/entitlements systems managed centrally. As an example, my dad is 80 and collects social security. So many efficiencies could be gained if I could simply redirect my SS contribution directly to my dad. But as it is with the tax burden, I am able to do very little.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
ok...i'll tell you that you're wrong. try this experiment, and if you can fix this effectively than you will have a blueprint to work from......
every city has beggers on the street asking for money or work, if you can help these few down and out people to achieve some type of normal life in your community, then it would be worth it to try and do the same thing on a much grander scale....to me, voting liberally and acting conservatively is a much better route to take.
edit on 11-5-2012 by jimmyx because: spelling



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
conservative and liberal are dead terms. terms that in america usually mean the opposite of what they're intended. whats conservative about spending craps loads of money on nonsense and waging war after war? the probably liberal from an economic prespective, but if you'd ask a republican most would ( are at one period most) say thats a conservative thing. basically anything republicans do is considered conservative and anything dmeoncrats do liberal, despite of what a rational person might see. but thats because peoples attach themselves to ideas stopping them from seeing the ultimate prespecitve(that one must have if he wants to be truly rational). a human will tell you a human life is more important than a horse's life. a hrose would most likely say something different if he could talk. a wise man knows no different, life is life- all come from nothing and all going back to nothing

but to answer ur question-just act like a human. voting is a way to find a leader. humans don't need leaders anymore. but first whats a leader? a leader is someone who sees something before everyone else, so naturally he goes in the direction first-this people follow him making him a leader. that is not what we're doing. that is not how we get our leaders and thats not who they are. every individual needs to become their own leader. the govt needs to take care of roads and picking up trash,not much else. one day we'll have to learn to take control of our minds, thats the only things wrong with us. we're letting our minds control us and we're just acting like slaves to it.
edit on 11-5-2012 by biggmoneyme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


But the opposite does not work as well... By acting conservatively then you would not let the government take things into its hands. You would be letting the government fix everything, which is not conservative ideology. Reduce regulations that prevent things from getting done, then make sure to get things done... But vote conservatively to ensure freedom in people's actions, then act liberally to take it upon yourself, and not the government, to help people in need.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 


And that is very true. Like I said, social issues is now the seeming division between Republican and Democrat... which is pathetic. Conservative and Liberal are seemingly dead in practice and I agree it is an issue. But in concept it remains true here...

And exactly why you should vote conservative (true conservative mind you) to prevent useless wars, and act liberally in a local sense, promoting peace. That way wars won't be just avoided due to cost but also due to morality... that should make a difference overall in how things are run in the long haul, no?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
So this is just a re-hash of "If the government didn't provide welfare, some charity would step up and take care of the problem".

The problem is...no one is stopping charities from helping out...many are and they simply can't do enough on their own.

So please, tell me why government stepping out of the problem, putting many more people into a situation where they need help, is going to cause some charity to magically be able to take care of the problem that they can't take care of right now with government help.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


EXACTLY! Why should I be forced to spend my money on people I do not know? Helping people is a great thing to do, do let me help people I know. If my best friend is homeless, in a heartbeat I would donate some of my paycheck to their cause-- because I trust they would not abuse my help and because if they started to abuse it, I could retain any help I give them at my discretion...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
I like this idea a lot. I might phrase it a bit different, but I think the concept is the same.

Personally, I am much more comfortable with charitable giving, or even better yet, direct assistance to those in need, rather than a forced tax/entitlements systems managed centrally. As an example, my dad is 80 and collects social security. So many efficiencies could be gained if I could simply redirect my SS contribution directly to my dad. But as it is with the tax burden, I am able to do very little.


so, a person paying into social security a couple of hundred dollars a month due to his low paying job...that money would go directly into their 80 yr old mothers account for all of her needs.
you might want to go back to the time in our history BEFORE social security was passed into law, and see how much "charitable giving" was actually going on, and (sarcasm) see how well that worked out.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Many people refuse to be charitable simply because they think the money from their paycheck is charity enough... Let it be choice and more charity will pop up in places it needs to pop up into... I would rather help problems that I live close to than problems I cannot see, if that makes any sense. Not that I do not have it in my heart to help people I do not know, I just do not have it in my head. It makes no sense. Help the people I know first, and I think other people are on the same or at least a similar wavelength.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You're not Wrong.

You asked.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
I like this idea a lot. I might phrase it a bit different, but I think the concept is the same.

Personally, I am much more comfortable with charitable giving, or even better yet, direct assistance to those in need, rather than a forced tax/entitlements systems managed centrally. As an example, my dad is 80 and collects social security. So many efficiencies could be gained if I could simply redirect my SS contribution directly to my dad. But as it is with the tax burden, I am able to do very little.


Oh give me a break...what is your huge tax burden???

Things like welfare didn't just start because someone thought it was a good idea...it started BECAUSE the charities couldn't keep up with the problem.

People need to look at history to see why we have our current programs...going in reverse is not the solution.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Many people refuse to be charitable simply because they think the money from their paycheck is charity enough... Let it be choice and more charity will pop up in places it needs to pop up into... I would rather help problems that I live close to than problems I cannot see, if that makes any sense. Not that I do not have it in my heart to help people I do not know, I just do not have it in my head. It makes no sense. Help the people I know first, and I think other people are on the same or at least a similar wavelength.


If people are refusing to be charitable because they are made that the government is taxing them...I really doubt they have it in their heart to start donating to charity just because they have a little extra cash in their pocket.

Nothing is stopping people from donating and paying taxes...and for those that have extra cash to donate, their taxes aren't killing them.

Go back and look at history to see why government needed to step in...it wasn't just because they were bored. What makes you think anything will be different this time around?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
every city has beggers on the street asking for money or work, if you can help these few down and out people to achieve some type of normal life in your community, then it would be worth it to try and do the same thing on a much grander scale....


How many of those beggars are actually down and out and how many of them are out there because they want to be?

I moved away from a city where the really needy moved up and on within 4 months time. The vast majority of the beggars were career beggars on a multitude of programs and assistance (quite a few were getting veterans benefits and had nicer clothing, shoes and jewelry than I could ever have and others still actually owned the businesses they were panhandling in front of) and were there day in and day out for decades.

You cant go around assuming every hand out is a hand in need because in my experience the ones actually in need hate being out there and do something rather quickly to fix their situation.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 
The central theme I could get behind, the specifics?

Not so much.

S&F tho, for thinking outside the box.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





If people are refusing to be charitable because they are made that the government is taxing them...I really doubt they have it in their heart to start donating to charity just because they have a little extra cash in their pocket.


Exactly.

And like you say. These people should go back and look at why welfare was demanded by the people. And why it was needed. The Government should have a think about that too.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Nonsense
Vote conservatively...because you can give a poor person a ham sandwich without the government.

Thats the most trivial aspect of liberal mentality (social nets). Big things is oh, not allowing manufacturing plants to dump toxic sludge in your drinking water, telling corporations not to spew out toxic clouds over a town, etc...

Liberals want to stop wars based on nothing much (no, Obama is not a liberal). Liberals want the government to get out of the business of religion all together and let churches decide verses reward some ceremonies and not others, etc.

The social safety nets such as food stamps and the like are tiny aspects of the overall picture...personally, I don't want to give my neighbor a sandwich...I don't stop and give every person asking for some money for food a few bucks, because they are everywhere...let the state give them something, make measures to make sure its going towards exactly that (I give em cash, they get dope...gov gives them a card to get food, they get food). Vote conservatively..what is conservative voting anyhow? Pro-theocratic principles, or pro-corporatist principles? Which version you discussing?

Fiscally, I want the government to focus on eliminating waste and corruption...whatever they do to become a very lean and value for dollar venture verses just use wheelbarrels of money to sort issues out...thats the biggest problem imo, not the programs we have, but the incredibly wasteful practice involved. Frankly, if we ran a tight ship, we could have a lot more step up programs..we could be almost as good as places like Denmark, Switzerland, etc.

I used to think that spending wisely was considered being fiscally conservative. I have learned that the current idea of fiscal conservativism is basically removing programs from anyone not rich and in return giving bonuses to corporations to outsource our jobs.

The premise holds no weight.


I am with what another said earlier..vote liberally, be conservative. I don't want the government to tell me when to pray, or what god I should believe in..in my home, I may be a prophet, but the government shouldn't give me anything for it. I personally cannot go up to the paper plant and ask them to please stop dumping their garbage in my canal..they would laugh at me then escort me off the property..but a law can clamp down on them being toxic, etc.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


EXACTLY! Why should I be forced to spend my money on people I do not know? Helping people is a great thing to do, do let me help people I know. If my best friend is homeless, in a heartbeat I would donate some of my paycheck to their cause-- because I trust they would not abuse my help and because if they started to abuse it, I could retain any help I give them at my discretion...


so, you yourself, in your own lifetime, recieved absolutely no help from anybody that you didn't know" really?
so millionaires and billionaires paid for their own policemen, their own firemen, their own paved roads, their own hospitals, thier own sewage treatment palnts, their own water companies, their own electrical grids, their own armies, their own clean air, their own airports and runways for their travels, their own FDA for food and drug safety testing....etc.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Go back and look at history to see why government needed to step in..


You mean like when the Pharoh needed pyramids built?

Or like when a lesser race needed cleansing?

Or like when non-Christians existing somehow threatened the apocalypse?

Or like when a minority population thought it could just sit at any lunch counter?

Government only exists to march toward totalitarianism. Any semblance of altruism is just tyranny with sugar on top.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I resonate with the thread title and also support your non-partisan attitude.

The thing is, what is right for me individually in my private life is not necessarily right for the country as a whole. People tend to project their private situation onto the whole, which is problematic because the needs of the collective are vastly different from the needs of the individual. For example in my private life I am a generous giver to those in need, but would never prescribe such a course of action for those in fiscal responsibility for a whole country.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join