Dissonance

[Happy Monkey]

Foreign policy is run by politicians and government aid programs are run by civil servants. My opinion of civil servants is higher than my opinion of politicians.

[jaguar]

A barracks is the same in australia but you barrack for a team, which is when you say 'Carn the $team!', usually very loudly after a few. Just to confuse things further That's usually followed by something like 'COME ON WARNEY YOU FAT TUB OF LARD', we love our sportpeople. I'm crossing my sports there though.

[smoothmoniker]

Was working on a record in Sydney a few years back, and got invited down to Melborne to see the Anzac's Day footie. We asked our hosts which team we should "root" for, and got a horified look in response.

Rooting is a vulgar expression for getting your sex on, which would be a very odd way to "barrack" for your team.

Go Bombers.

-sm

[wolf]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Rooting is a vulgar expression for getting your sex on, which would be a very odd way to "barrack" for your team.

Worked jolly well for the rainforests though, didn't it?

[jaguar]

bombers?
Sydney?
*hangs head*

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by jaguar

bombers?
Sydney?
*hangs head*

Melborne. Stayed with a gentleman named Colin Carter, who was a league commissioner, he was an essendon fan, so we were essendon fans.

-sm

[Undertoad]

I have stayed out of it but I know the, uh, compassionate conservative answer to the original question, from having been a compassionate libertarian.

The compassionate conservative believes in people more strongly than the liberal - that people have the ability to overcome problems in their lives, that the individual has the ability to spend his/her money more intelligently than the government, and that in the end the individual's choices will result in a better overall condition.

The compassionate conservative says that when we offer public support to people, we reduce them in spirit, by reducing our expectations of what they are capable of.

The compassionate conservative believes, not that there should be no safety net for people, but that the family and other civic-level groups are capable of providing a far better safety net than the government. And that these entities are losing their footing in the world, because if there are government programs, there is less *need* for the family and other civic-level groups at all. The compassionate conservative says government programs are inevitably full of waste because of their nature and will never do a truly good job of providing for the people.

I offer all this for a level of understanding, not because I am a compassionate conservative.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I have stayed out of it but I know the, uh, compassionate conservative answer to the original question, from having been a compassionate libertarian.

The compassionate conservative believes in people more strongly than the liberal - that people have the ability to overcome problems in their lives, that the individual has the ability to spend his/her money more intelligently than the government, and that in the end the individual's choices will result in a better overall condition.

I try not to get into these types of conversations, but this was curious.

Wouldn't the rate of pay for many jobs have to improve greatly in order for individuals to spend/save their money more intelligently? I guess I'm looking at it as better wages, better incentive to save. I don't know of anyone that doesn't like the aspect of a "cushion". Living exactly check to check without hardly anything leftover to save/spend isn't the greatest way to live, IMO. Oh and lower prices for goods and services wouldn't hurt either.

The compassionate conservative believes, not that there should be no safety net for people, but that the family and other civic-level groups are capable of providing a far better safety net than the government. And that these entities are losing their footing in the world, because if there are government programs, there is less *need* for the family and other civic-level groups at all. The compassionate conservative says government programs are inevitably full of waste because of their nature and will never do a truly good job of providing for the people.

Better hope there isn't any major drama in that family that's supposed to provide for those members that are in need. That could put a *slight* damper on receiving any funds/aid. In many cases, "blood" doesn't mean a damn thing, except that you share DNA.

I offer all this for a level of understanding, not because I am a compassionate conservative.

Understood. :thumpsup:

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The compassionate conservative says government programs are inevitably full of waste because of their nature and will never do a truly good job of providing for the people.

There are 7367 employees at the Veterans Administration making more than $100,000.00 per year.

[wolf]

At least I remember my response originally posted to this one ...

I'm gonna bet that most of those people aren't the doctors providing direct care.

Note to UT: trying to post this I got stuck in a loop with the "30 seconds between posts" timer. It wouldn't let me post at all!!

I even dragged out the stopwatch and let it go for a full minute before trying to post.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There are 7367 employees at the Veterans Administration making more than $100,000.00 per year.

And do you know what they do at the Vets. Adim? Well, the joke goes, "What has arms and legs and flies? The dumpster at the VA!" If they can't cure it (and they can't) they cut it off!

Originally Posted by Brianna

And do you know what they do at the Vets. Adim? Well, the joke goes, "What has arms and legs and flies? The dumpster at the VA!" If they can't cure it (and they can't) they cut it off!

And I might add, the Vet in need of help that they send flying out the door. The VA is very inconsistent. If a vet gets let go from the service because of a service connected disability, they'll bend over backwards trying to help. But if a vet is already out of the military with a service connected disability, he'll have to go through 7 different hells trying to prove his case. And the quality of medical care dispensed by the VA mostly sucks. But back to the topic at hand:

Originally Posted by Smoothmoniker

And therein lies the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberal ideology holds that it is the function of the state to change the face of the nation. They believe that social engineering is a valid function of the government. Conservative ideology holds that it is the function of the state to serve the limited universal goals of the nation as efficiently as possible. Justice, common defense, education.

I tried to reply to this, SM, just as the Cellar had its massive meltdown, so I don't think anybody saw what I wrote before it became a million dancing electrons somewhere in the Philly area.

Please define what you mean by "social engineering." The term sounds Orwellian to me. Would you consider compulsory education to be social engineering? Certainly, compulsory education has changed the face of society. Today most Americans can at least read the names of those whom they vote for. Our national Interstate system greatly adds to the ease with which citizens can travel from one area to another. We are a far more mobile society than we would be without it. Public libraries allow even the poorest citizen access to the great works of literature, to the latest information on science and technology, and to the complete set of both our federal and state laws. Knowledge is power, and the public library is there to empower any individual with information that only the wealthy would have access to otherwise. All these things sound like social engineering to me. Are you against them?

I couldn't agree with you more that change first begins in the hearts and minds of the citizens of a democracy. Government imposed change is little short of tyranny. However, isn't it tyranny, also, when the government refuses to make changes that a majority of the people want? Something like 62% of all Americans are in favor of universal health care*, yet the government is making no moves in this area due to the fact that special interests with plenty of money are in control of the congress. I fear our democratic ideal is quickly becoming a thing of the past.


* I had the citation for this in my original post which got gobbled up by the cyber demons. If you are interested, I'll track it down again.

[DanaC]

You raise an interesting point Marichiko. I wonder if America would be the powerhouse it currently is in the world, if she had SubSaharan African levels of literacy.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by marichiko

On the other hand, people who gravitate toward the other end of the political spectrum seem to be pretty free in their criticisms of the country, but more concerned about the well-being of its individual citizens. Like we should have better governmental security nets for the old folks or people who get sick or who need help because they're had a run of misfortunes in their lives.

I think hard left and hard right pretend to respect the individual but when the rubber meets the road neither trusts their fellow citizens to make the most appropriate choices for themselves. More and more we insert law as the lubrication between people where community might suffice. This tendency moderates as you move toward the center where Americans share more values, but it never goes away (ignoring Badnariks <1%). It will be interesting to see how both parties market their positions, from here on out. Bush is in a bad spot with the fiscally responsible and Kerry is only "not Bush" to the anti-war crowd. To some extent they both have problems with their natural base which will lead to tension when they go for the center.

Originally Posted by Griff

I think hard left and hard right pretend to respect the individual but when the rubber meets the road neither trusts their fellow citizens to make the most appropriate choices for themselves. More and more we insert law as the lubrication between people where community might suffice. This tendency moderates as you move toward the center where Americans share more values, but it never goes away (ignoring Badnariks <1%). It will be interesting to see how both parties market their positions, from here on out. Bush is in a bad spot with the fiscally responsible and Kerry is only "not Bush" to the anti-war crowd. To some extent they both have problems with their natural base which will lead to tension when they go for the center.

I think you are correct in your perception that the extremes on either end have little faith in their fellow citizens. I don't consider myself an extremist (I may be a liberal, but I don't believe in socialism, for example). However, I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in the American voter either. The percentage of those who vote continues to drop, and those who do vote seem to be remarkably ill-informed. To quote Yeats' famous lines:

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

This seems to me even more appropriate now then at the time when Yeats first penned those words.