jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (53 posts)

Why do Liberals have so much faith in Government?

  1. jackclee lm profile image73
    jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago

    As a conservative, this is one thing that I have not comprehended as much as I try...
    Please answer this question.
    With all the failings of so many government programs, and abuses, and corruption and miss managements...why do we want more of it?
    I wish someone will give a justification or at least an explanation.
    This is not a trick question. I really want to understand.
    In conversations and debates here on HubPages, it boils down to what we trust or rely on getting solutions to problems. Whether it be healthcare or social or environmental or other issues, why do some think that big government is always the only solution?
    Somethings are needed and can only be provided by our government such as national defense and border enforcement and the highways, and space exploration...

    Why so many federal agencies and with duplication of efforts and bureaucratic red tape?
    The second part of my question is - is there a better way? Through local government and private sector and charities?...

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Because they trust a giant, self serving committee to do what the country needs more than they trust their neighbors, friends and family to do it?

      Or just because it's the easiest way to get more "free" money for their projects?

    2. mike102771 profile image85
      mike102771posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Now I am not saying I agree with any of it I just want to try and give an answer.


      It could be that in the past local governments brought about segregation the private sector pollution and dangerous products (that are unsafe at any speed) and many charities are religious based (and we all know how they hate the religion). Since the FRD presidency people have been led to believe that the federal government was here to help (despite Pres. Reagan’s warning). Over time people have seen the feds helping from SS, Medicare/Medicaid, clean water act, child labor and anti-segregation laws. Remember it took the feds to step in and desegregate the schools. 

      It could also be that the conservatives are looking for what’s wrong only seeing the bad and never the good.

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        Mike:  You make some good points.  Churches can't provide health care for 325 million people.  Communities can't build interstate highways or send a man (or woman) to the moon.  There are some things that only our umbrella government can provide, study and/or discover. 
        When conservatives say they want government out of their lives, they mean they wand less regulation restricting what they want to do, possibly at someone else's expense.  Now if only they would be willing to get government out of our bedrooms and women's bodies.

    3. profile image73
      Setank Setunkposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      In America Liberalism is essentially Idealism. Conservatism is a default political assignment for anyone who is not a vapid Idealist. You should avoid labeling yourself with either of these deceptive monikers; or Moderate for that matter.
      The Rule of Law and Lawyers are the main problem with modern governments.

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        I know what you mean. When I tell people I am a Conservative, they automatically assume I am a racist bigot...
        They don't even understand what a conservative stands for.
        When I explain some of my principles, they usually agree with me...

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      You don't have to be politically conservative to think government can be more efficient. That's a false assumption.

      But ignoring that, what do you take "big" and "small" to mean in relation to government? Where is the threshold at which small government becomes big and vice-versa?

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        The threshhold for me is no more than 10% of GDP. The endless increases year over year of federal budget is crazy. No other private organization operate this way...

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Sure they do - organizations operate that way.  WalMart has a higher and higher budget, each year for maintenance of their stores, as well as labor and nearly all other costs.

          Of course, their physical assets increase each year as well...

        2. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          That figure seems a bit random.

          Surely the minimum size a government needs to be depends on the range of responsibilities it is asked to fulfil by society, and how efficiently it can fulfil those responsibilities.

          Assuming efficiency is always desirable, won't the optimal size always be: the size that enables a maximally efficient government to fulfill all the responsibilities society places on it?

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            The actual size has hovered around 20% of GDP since 1980. It varies a bit based on the health of the economy. It hasn't been lower than 10% since 1940.

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

          2. jackclee lm profile image73
            jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

            It is not the role of government to take care of everything. That is the fallacy of the left. As Katrina clearly demonstrated, sometimes, personal responsibility and common sense should be the goal. If you rely on government, you will be disappointed at some point.

    5. wba108@yahoo.com profile image82
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      From what I've observed, the biggest dividing line between liberals and conservatives is Christianity or at least the belief in a Christian world view. Conservatives on a whole, hold to a Christian world view and therefore realize fallen mankind is by nature corruptible therefore are rightfully suspicious of government power because government is made up fallible humans. Conservatives tend to believe only God can be fully trusted and therefore believe in the safety and freedom of an accountable and limited government. Conservatives also believe that as government expands liberty shrinks and that society will only flourish if a free peoples lean on God and embrace and promote Christian principles to improve society.

      Liberals on a whole, reject a true Christian worldview and the Christian faith itself in favor of secular humanism, a social gospel and so called social justice. Humanism holds to the belief that man is evolving and perfectible given the right environment and guidance and that "man is the measure of all things", hence all truth is relative and evolving, subject to human opinion and therefore not absolute. Liberalism holds that that the vehicle of perfecting the human race is achievable through an enlightened government -run by the enlightened ones -liberals of course- and through neutral ?(not likely) and scientifically experts in government bureaus.

      So I guess to fully answer your question, I would have to say that liberals are willing believe that the government can be trusted with nearly limitless godlike power, despite a long history saying otherwise, because liberalism is more of a secular religion than a rational or principled political philosophy.

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        That is a pretty good answer. I guess, no facts can change someone's faith. If you equate liberalism with a religion, the ideology is part of their faith.
        I would still like to hear from a liberal as to his explanation.
        Thanks.

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          So science and reason are the enemy?

          Is the answer superstition? Or guesswork?

          The reality is that  science and reason have increasingly been shining light into areas that make it a little more difficult for powerful groups like the tobacco companies, oil and coal and Wall Street to make money.

          Those industries have developed playbooks to undermine attempts to rein in their excesses.

          Direct the natural resentments and hatreds of ordinary folk at the academics, journalists and government agencies and you start to make the problem go away.

          Trump is dissolving some of the most important elements of government which is going to mean less quality data to base judgments on, and rein in dangerous  practice.

          It is going to be a billionaire bonanza and you will be footing the bill.

          1. jackclee lm profile image73
            jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            What science are you referring to? The NOAA, which try to manipulate raw temperature data to show there is no pause in the global warming over the last 17 years?
            I am an engineer by training. I rely on data and models and hard facts.
            The problem with climate change science is that it has been politicized by some environmentalists.
            I wrote extensively on this topic. There is a disconnect between reality and some projections.

            1. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Honestly, the biggest problem for certain businesses is scrutiny.

              Selling cigarettes? Destroyed by scrutiny.
              Smog producing cars? Destroyed by scrutiny.
              Toxic financial products? Destroyed by scrutiny.
              Trump University? Destroyed my scrutiny.

              Obviously, scrutiny is a problem. Trump is dealing with it.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

          Me too.

    6. Onusonus profile image84
      Onusonusposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      It is because they never take into account the fact that there most likely will be somebody who gets into office that they don't like who does not share their same world view.
      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18301891_1118848971581613_6623326950907902351_n.jpg?oh=c2c18a9cf6daf20af48be8f874aa2300&oe=59B7668C

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        lol...

    7. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Do you think an individual or corporation is incapable of abuse, corruption and mismanagement?

      That's why government exists. It doesn't take a liberal to support the existence of government.

    8. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      It is quite simple. The reason why people or liberals, as you state, trust or rely on government so much is that they are to lazy to change it themselves. It almost always fails because the anonymity of it all is the deniability of responsibility. The best part is that the government just perpetuates the failures because the people will do nothing about it other than throw a quick temper tantrum with a quick fix and blame somebody else when it fails.

  2. jackclee lm profile image73
    jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago

    I would take issue with your last statement. As one conservative, if a federal program works as designed, I would have no problem supporting it and funding it.
    My problem has always been that most of these programs does not work and in some cases do more harm than good. I am not advocating doing nothing, just alternative solutions that works. In many instances, private charities have done a better job. We should look to expand those and minimize what does not work. It is just common sense.

    1. jackclee lm profile image73
      jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        You have to take into account the fact that the Liberal press does not report much of this and the Libs only get their info from the Liberal Press.

        1. mike102771 profile image85
          mike102771posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Just look at how the mainstream media called Obama care a success even with all the graft and corruption in its development and the utter failure of the over priced website.

        2. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          That is how it is with Liberals in my own family that I love dearly.  Its best to avoid certain topics because of that.  Wonderful people, but there is that thin line.  Its best to cultivate quality time with friends and family.

    2. mike102771 profile image85
      mike102771posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      I wasn't arguing the validity of the programs or charities I was trying to answer why Libs like the Feds over the locals. The question you asked.

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your input. I got it. There are some good results from these programs and they are willing to live with some inefficiencies and even fraud... as long as in the big picture, people are better off in the long run. I just hope they can see a better alternative that our founders warned us about...

        1. mike102771 profile image85
          mike102771posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          I wouldn't hold my breath on that

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        I think you're right - liberals will look at and consider only the successes of programs, while conservatives will mostly look at the negatives.  And vice-versa of course for conservative programs.

        Example: SS contributions are made for a lifetime, whereupon we can expect to get back a tiny fraction of what would have been there with a competently administered investment plan for our contributions.  Liberals will say that the elderly have an income, where they wouldn't have otherwise (which is true), while conservatives will point out that SS "benefits" govt. far more than the people as it is little more than a ready source of money for pet projects of politicians (also true).

        1. mike102771 profile image85
          mike102771posted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          Actually people receive more in payment in retirement than they paid in. It is why SS is called a ponzi scheme by many.

          It could be argued that Roosevelt developed SS to fund the first and second New Deal and that is why the money went into the general fund. They probably didn't think most people would live to see retirement.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Next time you get a statement from SS, build a spreadsheet with the values of what was contributed.  Assume a nominal 10% per year return (less that what is seen for long term investments in the stock market) and look at what you would have in 40 years.  It will astound you - I should have been a multimillionaire and be getting 100,000 per year from interest alone.

            THEN brag that people get more out than they put in.  Yes the do...but that doesn't change that they should be getting 10X what they do.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

              Hi, Wilderness. Thanks a lot for the déjà vécu sensation. The last time I heard this absurd spreadsheet scenario was back when Bush “43” was floating the idea of privatizing Social Security. It sank like a rock back then and it hasn’t become any more realistic since. This myth is only touted when the financial markets are doing well because all of the logical flaws are more obvious when the markets are doing poorly.

              I hope you won’t mind too much if I respond to this fantasy with actual facts since both the spreadsheet and the stated conclusions are fatally flawed. Using an arbitrary construct to compare real Social Security benefits to purely imaginary investment profits was debunked long ago as a prime example of illogical thinking based on the fallacy of false equivalency. {1}   

              Paying Social Security taxes and investing in the stock market are NOT equivalent activities. They are two completely different and totally incomparable concepts.

              A tax is not an investment!

              Taxes paid into Social Security are NOT invested in equities nor are there any net gains and losses that accrue to accounts under individual names to be paid out in later years. To the contrary, Social Security taxes are contributions into a program that provides regular monthly incomes for all working Americans and their dependents when they retire, become disabled, or die. The same contributions provide additional benefits for their spouses and their children. How much is ultimately paid out in benefits is never determined by the total amount that a worker paid into the program but rather from formulas and regulations that apply uniformly to all participants.  While investment profit is never guaranteed as implied in the post, Social Security benefits are assured by the commitment of the government of the United States.

              Besides treating Social Security taxes as though they are identical to investments, the spreadsheet representing a fictitious stock portfolio has been blatantly designed to be misleading and to produce an improbable result. In the process, it 1) treats an assumption like it is a fact, 2) misrepresents typical stock market results, 3) exaggerates the historical performance of investments, and 4) conveniently ignores the ever-present realities, risks, and uncertainties inherent in the financial markets.

              How to make an assumption look like a fact:

              "Assume a nominal 10% per year return (less that (sic) what is seen for long-term investments in the stock market) and look at what you would have in 40 years." The reader is told to "assume a nominal 10% per year return" so the result after 40 years is just another assumption, one with a huge (obviously unstated) margin of error, and one that is simply a whimsical fantasy totally inconsistent with real world historical data.

              How to misrepresent typical stock market results:

              The spreadsheet guarantees a 10% compounded annual return when in the real investment world no such guarantee exists! roll

              How to exaggerate historical investment performance:

              Just claim without citing any authority that 10% annual return is less than what is seen for long term investments in the stock market when, in fact, that statement has never been true for any 40 year period in modern history.

              The Investing section of U.S. News and World Report said in 2012:
              “If there's a venerable rule of thumb in the world of investing, it's that over the long haul you can expect to earn about 7 percent a year in stocks, beating bonds and just about any other asset class most folks would dare to invest in. That's 7 percent in ‘real’ (inflation-adjusted) total return—the capital appreciation of the stock plus whatever it generates in dividends." {2}

              How to ignore the realities, risks, and uncertainties in financial markets:

              Clearly, using an imaginary portfolio robotically processed by a biased spreadsheet ignores the real world experiences of thousands of shareholders. Consider, for example, those heavily invested in Enron, Washington Mutual Bank, Polaroid, Bethlehem Steel, the “Dot Coms”, etc. who watched their money evaporate in bankruptcies during the last two decades.

              Other data from Morningstar, Inc. also confirms that the long-term average annual compounded (realized) return on U.S. large-cap stocks has only been about 7% after inflation over the past 100-plus years. Factor in real world taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, then include other items like investment fund management fees and watch that 7% begin to approach 5.5%. {3} 

              How to ignore important investment considerations like RISK.

              It is so easy to make up any rate of return and plug it into a spreadsheet (it is, after all, pure fantasy) but the contrived formula does not guarantee that everyone will actually see the same result. We have already seen how the spreadsheet “assumes” a rate of return that is larger than the historical average return in the real world. We also know that higher yielding investments come with much greater risk. The higher risk does not guarantee the intended result built into the spreadsheet. Instead, the higher risk reduces the probability of achieving it.

              How to ignore another important pitfall:TIMING.

              The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell 50.7 % from 13,930 to 7,063 between Oct 2007 and Feb 2009. It didn’t fully recover from that decline until Feb 2013. If anyone really had to depend on investment income for their retirement, had actually stopped working, and had begun to draw from their only retirement assets near the very beginning of that 5-year period of negative annual returns, they would certainly be living their final years considerably worse off financially than this misguided spreadsheet suggests. In addition, two years later the DOW experienced another seventeen months of negative growth between Jan 2015 and July 2016 forcing even further liquidation of crucial portfolio assets on anyone struggling to maintain a pre-retirement standard of living. {4}

              How to further deny reality:

              Studies show that a 20-year-old worker has a 1-in-4 chance of becoming disabled before reaching full retirement age. {5}  Yet, I don’t see anything in the spreadsheet about the workers that become disabled early in their careers, are unable to work, and consequently, can not continue making contributions to the imaginary spreadsheet portfolio. Does the spreadsheet still guarantee them $100,000 every year too? Does the spreadsheet still guarantee them income 10X greater than Social Security for the rest of their lives?  Hell no! The spreadsheet doesn't actually guarantee anything to anyone.

              In the final analysis, the conclusions derived from this spreadsheet are useless no matter what investment return is used. An average return implies some investors may experience more than the average but the spreadsheet does not say anything about the others who will experience less.  This level of uncertainty, doubt, and risk is the unacceptable result of illogical thinking.

              I’m sorry to say this but the spreadsheet is voodoo logic. The $100,000/year retirement income you fantasize about is not real. It is pure fiction, a calculation made in a virtual world that can't be dragged into the real world and treated as a fact. Just like the imaginary and unsupported claim about income 10X greater than Social Security benefits, it is irrational to expect retirement income based upon wishful thinking.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
              {2} http://money.usnews.com/money/personal- … ks-extinct
              {3} https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/03/3 … an-assume/
              {4} https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EDJI?p=%5EDJI
              {5} https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10029.pdf

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                Needless to say I heartily disagree, partly because you are assuming that I think SS IS an investment.  I don't - the only "investment" properties in SS contributions is to the pork projects of congress.

                BUT.  If that money were deposited into a mutual fund, say mirroring the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones, then it is quite valid.  Your example of a sudden drop in 2007 is worthless - I plainly stated that it was for a 40 year period.  And yes, both the Dow and the S&P consistently return over 10% average over a 40 year period. There are ups and downs, but the final figures indicate that 10% is valid.  Should you look at either one from 1973 to 2013 (when you say it had recovered) that 10% is valid.  If you look at it from 1960 to 2009 (around the worst of the fall), the 10% is valid.  Of from 1977 to today. 

                Nor do I believe for a second that one in four workers will be disabled before they reach 65.  Nor is the risk unacceptable...assuming contributions for 40 years.  You are confusing statistics with specifics, and choosing specific years to boot.

                From your link: "Since 1926, the S&P 500 has produced an annualized total return (including capital gains and reinvested dividends) of 6.6 percent, after inflation."

                Notice that this includes the great depression, with it's 90% fall.  It also adjusts for inflation, which I did not.  (I did, however, include reinvested dividends).  Take those two figures out of the equation and I'm sure you will find a figure over 10%.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this


                  Wilderness, I’m back. Sorry to take so long.

                  Thank you for your reply. Repeating what I already said would be fruitless. So, I will simply summarize the only two points that really matter and then move on:

                  1.
                  A. Based on the original statement ("Assume a nominal 10% per year return," the formula is an assumption.
                  B. A spreadsheet can not turn an assumption into a fact. Therefore,
                  C. all results of the formula are assumptions too. 

                  And…
                  2.
                  A. The formula is an assumption about stock market transactions that never occurred and the results depend on accumulated contributions.
                  B. Social Security benefits are real, guaranteed receipts that are not related to stock market activity and do not depend on the total taxes paid into the program.  Therefore, based on the statement, "they should be getting 10X what they do,"
                  C. the mental process that compares activities that are not equivalent and concludes that they should have equivalent results is illogical thinking known as “false equivalency.”

                  Thanks for reading, Wilderness. I hope you and Mrs. Wilderness have a marvelous Mother’s Day weekend. smile
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. jackclee lm profile image73
                    jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Check out the cato institute... they have a lot of policy statements that indicates a reduced size of government is the key to wealth in America.

  3. simpulntb profile image61
    simpulntbposted 3 weeks ago

    Good topic. Take a look

  4. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 weeks ago

    It really is an incredible question. The notion that the US could simply dump democratic government and everything would be fine...

    Democracy has, for most of its history, been about providing elites with a way of solving their differences without recourse to violence.

    After the American revolution around 15 percent of the population had a vote. You needed to be white, male and wealthy, or at least well to do (property owning). This was similar to the qualifications in the UK.

    To have gotten to the point, on both sides of the Atlantic, that the vast majority of adults can vote is an amazing achievement. Only seriously deluded individuals would contemplate surrendering their hard won rights.

  5. Jennifer Snelling profile image61
    Jennifer Snellingposted 2 weeks ago

    The reason liberals (I'm left-centrist myself) rely on the federal government more pertaining to certain issues amidst the corruption and blackmail that has been going on over the years is this: We realize that these issues, these programs that are funded, go back to the federal government. Local governments, private sector organizations, and non-profit organizations can do so much; therefore, the operational means (i.e., funding via grants, further administrative support) would always go back to the federal government. It's sort of like a "one hand washes the other" perspective.

    Local/state governments, private sector organizations, and non-profit agencies can do as much. However, they would always need extra assistance from a higher-level source of government at some point. This would also apply to passage of laws.

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Right centrists also think this way.

  6. road2hell profile image79
    road2hellposted 2 weeks ago

    corporations are too greedy and hungry to achieve the bottom line at all costs.  Thus no regulations and minimize costs are more important than the protection of our environment and the health of a society.  A progressive government is closer to a democratic society: for the people, by the people and of the people than a conservative one.  A conservative is only wanting to support the status quo -- the rich, the privilege, and the corrupted.  The government which is most interested in protecting the society from the selfish self-interests groups can improve the living conditions for the not-so-to-do.  The weakest link of a healthy society are the organizations not in the least in the welfare of the individuals or the groups.  If a corporation or organization showed more interest in contributing to the welfare of a society, I would change my mind.  And I don't mean just make contributions to charities which can be easy be abused by corporate looking for their own handouts; for example tax deductions - just to focus on the bottom line.  Money isn't everything and in the worng hands - corruptive and abusive.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      There are good Republicans and bad Republicans. Just like there are good Democrats and bad Democrats.
      The question is what exactly defines the good ones from the bad ones in each party?

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

        The answer is easy. It is the one who follow the Constitution.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
      Kathryn L Hillposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      <A conservative is only wanting to support the status quo -- the rich, the privilege, and the corrupted.> This is an example of the bad conservative. There are good conservatives.

  7. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 weeks ago

    The biggest problem for Americans is imagining good government. I've said before I grew up in a rare period in history when the UK government was genuinely helpful so I can vouch for the fact that they exist.

    That should be your focus: government that helps you acheive your objectives in life. 

    It won't come easy. Good government is an enemy to the corrupt, the amoral, the greedy and the selfish. Those groups will fight like crazy to keep their noses in the trough.

    1. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      That is very well said, Will.

    2. jackclee lm profile image73
      jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      Wil, I have yet to see good government in my 60 + years living here in the US.
      Big government programs, by definition, has built in inefficiencies and corruptions. It is better for local government to handle most issues because they understand it better and will come up with local solutions that is optimized. Better yet, a private charity will do even a better job in some cases because their motivation is different.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
        Kathryn L Hillposted 13 days ago in reply to this

        And why is what you have written here oh so true?

        1. jackclee lm profile image73
          jackclee lmposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          You only have to look at the various federal programs that have failed. The VA has failed our veterans...the food stamps program estimated fraud where people are selling their EBT cards for cash...the disability claims have doubled since 1985...why? The EPA over reach in pollution regulations where CO2 is now regulated and putting coal workers out of work...the post office running deficits year after year.. and not to mention the failed ACA where many exhanges have gone out of business...

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            And Yet road2hell wrote: <The government which is most interested in protecting the society from the selfish self-interests groups can improve the living conditions for the not-so-to-do.> He also wrote:  <A progressive government is closer to a democratic society: for the people, by the people and of the people than a conservative one.>
            He has faith in the government and believes it should be "progressive."
            What is he not getting?

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 days ago

    In what ways are are bad republicans at odds with The Constitution? In what ways are Bad Democrats at odds with it?

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image82
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 days ago

    Basic Conservatism:
    An aversion to rapid change; a belief that tradition and prevailing social norms often contain within them handed down wisdom; and mistrust of attempts to remake society so that it conforms to an abstract account of what would be just or efficient. 
    A desire to preserve the political philosophy and rules of government articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
    A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, through cultural norms.
    A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, using cultural norms and the power of the state.
    An embrace of free-market capitalism, and a belief in the legitimacy of market outcomes.
    A belief that America is an exceptional nation, a shining city on a hill, whose rightful role is leader of the free world.
    A belief that America should export its brand of democracy through force of arms.
    The conviction that government should undertake, on behalf of the American polity, grand projects that advance our "national greatness" and ennoble our characters.
    An embrace of localism, community and family ties, human scale, and a responsibility to the future.
    A belief that America shouldn't intervene in the affairs of other nations except to defend ourselves from aggression and enforce contracts and treaties.
    A desire to return to the way things once were.
    Affinity for, identification with, or embrace of Red America's various cultural cues. (For example, gun ownership, a preference for single-family homes oriented around highways rather than urban enclaves organized around public transit, embrace of country music, disdain for arugula and fancy mustard, etc.)
    Disdain for American liberalism, multiculturalism, identity politics, affirmative action, welfare, European-style social policies, and the left and its ideas generally.
    A desire to be left alone by government, often coupled with a belief that being left alone is a natural right.
    A principled belief in federalism.
    The belief that taxes should be lower and government smaller.
    The belief that the national debt and deficits put America in peril.
    The belief that whenever possible, government budgets should be balanced.
    Consciousness of the fallibility of man, and an awareness of the value of skepticism, doubt and humility.
    Realism in foreign policy.
    Non-interventionism in foreign policy.

    FROM https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … ve/252099/

    1. jackclee lm profile image73
      jackclee lmposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      A pretty good summary. The only one I have issue with is conservatives want to return to the way things were.They don't. They want change to come about slowly and surely with careful deliberation and voted by the people. That is democracy at work. The Consitution with the Amendment process is the way to move forward, not by supreme court fiat.

 
working