ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

What Conservatives Don't Understand About Liberals

Updated on December 8, 2012

Conservatives Just Don't Understand

Women and men often seem to talk past each other, neither really understanding the other. In politics, it's the same. Conservatives really don't understand how liberals think.

That liberals don't understand conservatives is clear from the things they say and write about them. You get the impression, reading one side or the other, that they have never actually met and conversed with anyone whose opinion differs from their own.

Here are three questions that I, as a conservative, would like answered by honest, thoughtful liberals.

How Much Money Is Enough?

One: How much money is 'enough' for the government to spend?

In every election cycle we hear endlessly, from both right and left, how the right wants to cut this and cut that, reduce spending on all of the vital social programs that support our families, while the left wants increases.

Let's leave aside the cold fact that the right in America has hardly ever actually cut any government program or spending, and usually has added more. (Thanks a bunch, Dubya.) What I'm asking about isn't really the facts of the matter, but the thinking involved.

If what we spent last year wasn't enough, and what we are spending now isn't enough, how much is enough, for liberals? What would satisfy you and make you say, "We are doing everything we can."

This graph shows that in the US, governments at all levels are currently spending roughly 45% of all the money in the United States. You can argue the exact numbers, some people say it's something less than this, and other people counting differently claim it's higher. I'm not concerned about the absolute numbers here, but I really want an honest answer. Can someone please tell me how much is enough?

Is it reasonable that the government directly control 50% of the economy? 75%? 95%? I am not asking for an exact answer, just a round number, an idea of what your goal is. Please. Tell us conservatives what your reasonable limit is. You can't always just cry "More! More!" It makes you sound like a six-year-old.

Since I know there is at least as much brain-power on the left as on the right, that can't be what you are really saying. But we conservatives hear it and that sure is what it sounds like. I think like a conservative, and just can't understand what you are saying. Help me.

What Are The Limits To Power?

Two: What are the reasonable limits on government power?

To give one current contention, the left wants to control how we buy health care. Whether it ends up being Obama-care or some other plan, the left is sure that this is something best left to Washington. So, our health care costs are essentially nationalized, one way or another. I pay when you get sick and you pay when I get sick. Fine, sounds nice.

But the fact is, about half the people in the US think this idea stinks. So they will all have to be bullied and coerced into going along. Is that Okay with you liberals? What about the consequences for a democratic system, if a temporary majority can force, if not a majority, at least a strong minority, into a program they despise? Does this worry you, at all?

(Yes, I am perfectly aware that this argument cuts both ways, left and right. I am asking specific questions of liberals. If you have a similar list of questions for conservatives, write that article yourself. Please don't hijack this one.)

In addition, if health care is nationalized, then unhealthy behaviors will have to be limited somehow. Currently this is done by insurance companies, which raise rates on people who smoke, for example. I am assuming that a national health care system would account for smokers somehow. But how?

Do we want strangers from the government looking into our lives, sniffing out our bad habits? What about people who have 'alternative lifestyles', such as Christian Scientists, the Amish, or Gays?

As one example, it is an unfortunate fact that gay men with active homosexual lifestyles tend to spend a lot of time sick, with all kinds of diseases more common in active gays than in the general population.

(There is quite a vitriolic argument about just how strong this effect is. Please bear with me, I am using this as an example, not starting an argument on homosexuality. Check out the links; they are not to wacko right-wing websites.)

Just like smokers, but a lot worse. Smokers at least pay high taxes for their habit, offsetting some of the costs. There is no tax on gay men that I am aware of. Should the health care costs of that behavior be socialized?

Do liberals think the government should discourage smoking but ignore behaviors that have even worse outcomes? How about high-risk activities, like rock climbing or biking? Or should the government ignore smoking, and all other unhealthy behaviors?

Are there any rules that we conservatives can use to help us understand which unhealthy behaviors are sacrosanct, and which ones are to be punished by the government?

Just what does the government have to power to compel us to do, for our own good? What is the outside boundary? Liberals, as far as I can tell, think the government can be trusted not to abuse this power. We conservatives are not so convinced of that.

Why Do Blue States Pay Red States?

Question Three: Why is it wrong for Blue States to pay more in taxes and for Red States to benefit more from federal spending?

I have read a lot of complaining about this through the last couple of election cycles, but I confess I can't understand why this is a problem for liberals. Here is where I, a conservative, can not fathom the liberal thought process. I confess to a failure of imagination and empathy.

Most of the higher tax-paying states are very blue, like Illinois and New York. Here is a good article from Mother Jones, staking out the liberal complaint.

The comments that follow the article make particularly good reading. Those liberal people are pissed off! But, and here I get back to my question, why is this a bad thing from a liberal point of view ?

I thought (trying to think as a liberal) that the rich were supposed to support the poor. Am I wrong?

Rich states pay higher taxes. The big corporations based in rich states pay high taxes, and so do the middle and upper classes. Some of this money is sent to better the lives of people living in poorer states. Just to make it clear, states where there are fewer rich people, and more poor people. Like Louisiana and Mississippi.

I thought this was what liberalism was all about! Leveling society a bit, taking a bit that the rich don't really need and giving it to those who do. Helping the down-and-out. Here I will make a guess. Correct me if I am wrong, but is the problem that conservatives just don't act grateful? That we ask you to stop being so generous? That we try to elect politicians whom we hope will vote to end these gifts?

Many of us are happy enough to take the loot, since you are kind enough to offer it. But with the strings that come attached, it isn't turning out to be such a good bargain. So, we'd like you to stop, please.

And after all, it would be very easy for the blue states to end these subsidies that liberals seem so vehemently angry about. All you liberals have to do is elect to national office only politicians who promise to stop the payments.

Then, that money will stay in your nice, blue states. Where it can be spent in-state by local, blue politicians, any way you (they) please. Everyone is happy, right? The red states are happy because they got what they asked for, and the blue states are happy because they can spend that money on social programs for people who really want them, inside blue states.

Are you angry because we don't want your money? Seriously, I don't get it.

If you are a liberal living in a blood-red state, then I can understand your frustration. You can't get local politics to match your values. But why are liberals who already live in blue states so mad? Barack Obama sounds honestly and convincingly angry when he talks about Republicans sabotaging his goals.

But he is from Illinois, a reliably blue state, with lots of social programs. He was born in Hawaii (and let's not get into that stupid conversation!), another very blue state. Rather than fighting us conservatives, why doesn't he cooperate with us, so Illinois and Hawaii get to keep more of their money at home, where it is safely in the hands of liberal local governments?

Can't We All Just Get Along? Someone Might Lose An Eye, If We Keep Poking At Each Other

Okay, so I got kind of sarcastic there for a while at the end. But my questions are real. I really do want to know what liberals think. Honest, intelligent liberals. Real, honest-to-God liberals. The guys and gals who really do want our government and society to be better than they are today.

We are tearing into each other like wild animals, and it's only going to get worse as the big election approaches.

Comment On What Conservatives Don't Understand.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You won't get any direct answers. The liberal justification for anything is that it's fair and they care.

      To answer one of your questions, bad habits like overeating and smoking will be penalized because liberals don't support those rights. Risky homosexual acts and drug usage are supported, so that sort of thing will get a pass.

      But don't get old! That is definitely not supported, unless you are a Kennedy!

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Thanks WillStarr. I read one of your Hubs yesterday, about your new (lack of) relationship with Google. Good writing, even if the topic wasn't a happy one.

      I am hoping to get some liberals to actually answer the questions. We spend so much time talking past each other, and we use the same words to mean different things so often, that I think we really do need to encourage some empathy amongst us. US liberals AND conservatives are BOTH liberals, by world standards. Our differences are so slight, but our politics make them seem worlds apart.

    • chefsref profile image

      Lee Raynor 5 years ago from Citra Florida

      Hey Tmbridgeland

      Cool Hub, if there were more thinking like this we might come to some reasonable answers for issues in America. First of all to define myself, I always considered myself a centrist not a liberal, however as conservatives move steadily to the right I find myself espousing so called “liberal” positions. I still think good answers come from the middle, which curbs the excesses of the extremes.

      How much money is enough? There is no fast answer; the question should be how much should we be taxed, and how the money we are taxed is spent. During periods of high taxes and low taxes there has been economic growth. There is no evidence that lower taxes will spur job growth, if that were true we would be in boom times due to the Bush tax cuts. The conservative idea of a simpler tax code with lower rates makes sense if ALL the many deductions are removed. We still need a progressive taxation system so that people with large incomes, those that can afford to pay more do pay more. There is no historical evidence that higher taxes deters growth or investment, when people have extra money they either leave it in the bank and let the bank invest it or they invest it themselves. Paying high taxes on a high income make more sense than choosing to make a lower income to pay lower taxes. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire the deficit will lower with no additional tweaking. Bush tax cuts came at a time when the economy was booming and the economy has declined ever since. Restoring that pre-Bush tax level is about right in my opinion.

      Cutting the size of government makes sense only as a bumper sticker; the question is what should be cut? I think the size of the “Military Industrial Complex” is a drain with little reward unless you have Halliburton stock. What Eisenhower warned us about has happened. Conservatives like to clamor for more wars; did we learn nothing from Iraq? Do we really want a larger war in the Middle East with Iran? The same people complaining about gas prices are rattling their sabers at Iran. Attack Iran and watch gas prices. Does anyone believe the politicians that want war with Iran and promise lower gas prices? Those politicians depend on the stupidity of the electorate to get elected, gas prices are part of a global market. How would we pay for another war? More deficit spending and another round of tax cuts? We tried that in Iraq. I must be a patriot, when the military went to war, we were asked to go to the mall, so I bought shoes. Previous wars used to entail sacrifice from citizens.

      Instead of building things that explode, we should be rebuilding America, roads and schools, helping educate people to compete in a global market place, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Our spending on bombs takes away what could have been spent to compete in a global market. In order to keep taxes low on the wealthy we have been busy reducing what we spend on the poorest among us. Food aid has been reduced; pizza is considered a vegetable in schools. Roads and bridges are unsafe all across America, local fire fighters and police service have been reduced. How much is it worth to have the fire department answer quickly if your home is on fire?

      The limits to power.

      I have a personal interest in this one. I am uninsurable because I am diabetic. My COBRA will run out in June and according to government policy when I have been uninsured for 6 months I will be able to acquire a government mandated health insurance policy. (I’m not sure if this is part of Obama Care) If I am unable to get insurance at any price guess who pays? You do! Your taxes and increased insurance costs will pay for my care if I have to use the emergency room. Under this dreadful Socialist Obama Care, in 2014 I would be forced to buy my own healthcare. I think I like it better when you have to pay my share but services to the uninsured are poor. So, my question to you is, do you really want to pay for my health care? Or should we all pay something to cover our own care? I used to think conservatives were heartless but they are fighting to pay for my healthcare. Thank You. The idea of insurance is to spread out the risk so we all pay for each other’s risky choices. If you have unprotected sex or smoke I pay and if I drive too fast or engage in some risky sport, you pay. Insurance makes the most sense when there is a large pool of buyers and we all engage in some risks, unless you plan to die young.

      As far as thinking the government is filled with good kind people, I have yet to meet anyone with that idea. Most of us are convinced that government is grossly inefficient and controlled by business. We want to improve not abandon the government. We have agencies which should be protecting the people, instead they are staffed by the very businesses they should be regulating, that’s a good definition for Fascism. Nevertheless we would like the agencies to do a better and more efficient job of protecting us. The fact that rivers no longer catch fire and the air is breathable is due to government agencies doing their jobs. When drugs are dangerous, meat is tainted or corn is genetically modified it is a sign of the failure of regulatory agencies. The liberal answer is to improve the agencies while the conservative answer is to abandon the agencies and rely on the businesses to self regulate. There are countless examples of businesses trying to pass off shoddy or toxic materials or polluting the environment and that requires government oversight to lessen the damage. All that conservatives offer in this regard is buyer beware.

      Red State Vs Blue State

      No idea but my guess is that it is about the thought of biting the hand that feeds you. Sometimes the same people that line up for food stamps or welfare condemn the people that provide the funds. If the blue states really did cut off those funds, would the red states have people starving in the streets? In any event, we see no red states refusing federal monies except for a few rare cases when a conservative wants to make a show of principle.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Thanks you, Chefsref. This is the sort of answer I am looking for. I will think about what you wrote a while before I reply. I would like to make one point. You seem to be very aware of the best liberal arguments. But it also seems you accept the liberal viewpoint on conservative positions uncritically. Conservatives have no interest in leaving people starving in the streets, or allowing business to get away with selling tainted products, and on to etc. Those are crude political talking points, slander meant to stop debate.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The President of the United States, who certainly ought to know better, recently said conservatives want dirty air and water!

      How absurd, and how immature. Why would anyone want dirty air and water?

      Think about that, Chefsref.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Agree, that was pretty dumb, but that is a political argument, by a politician. I am more interested in what normal people think, not the election rhetoric of politicians. You should check out Chefsref's Hub on silly things Republican politicians have said. I am trying to get clear what the man-on-the-street liberal thinks about their own ideas.

    • chefsref profile image

      Lee Raynor 5 years ago from Citra Florida

      Hey Timbridgeland

      My apologies, what I am arguing against is the most extreme conservative positions and I am aware that many, I hope most conservatives would hold more reasonable positions. It is unfortunate that both parties are being controlled by thee wings instead of from the middle. That apples to what Obama said too, he is fighting for the left wing of the party.

      I have found that when we engage each other, rather than shouting at each other we can get along. Too many of us on both sides are quick to call each other names and dismiss viewpoints

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Thanks. These extreme positions of conservatives must be so extreme they don't show up on any forum run by conservatives. Now, I am sure you can find someone, somewhere who believes these things. The US political ecology runs from the Weathermen to the Nazis. These people are simply not relevant politically, though they may blow up the occasional police station. Bringing them up as representative of either liberal or conservative normal thinking is an unfair smear.

      I have to ask you, do you believe that our current political leaders, any of them on either the right or the left, want to leave people to starve?

    • chefsref profile image

      Lee Raynor 5 years ago from Citra Florida

      Of course not, that's another extremist bumper sticker slogan. My point is that there should be some plan offered to help those who cannot help themselves. Simply cutting off assistance or eliminating agencies is not an answer to problems, it is an extreme position that hurts people. Not every person who gets assistance is a "welfare queen" and not every action by a government agency is destructive. People should offer solutions not bumper stickers. We each see the same problems, the position of the far right is to let someone else deal with it and the position of the far left is to let government do it. Neither of those has been successful and the solution is in smarter government not bigger government. There should not be a revolving door between the agencies and business and the agencies budgets should not come from the same businesses they regulate. There must be someone in this country smart enough to regulate the regulators and work for the people.

      As far as extremists are concerned they are the ones that get the press, very little rationality gets in the news, it's boring.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Thanks! We are getting on the same page here. If I seemed a little sarcastic in that last comment, well, I apologize. Conservatives are used to seeing ads run by liberals showing us throwing grandma off a cliff. Really. Don't know if you saw that one or not. I suppose similar things happen to liberals in hot election seasons. I'll reply at length on my next break at work.

    • Jason R. Manning profile image

      Jason R. Manning 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

      TMbridgeland, what a terrific hub you have written. Cut right through the political garbage and let’s get to the meat. I agree with Will, you are not going to get a specific number as that would require sticking to a promise.

      It is very obvious with each year how more single mothers with children require additional government assistance, and those children grow up with fewer skills than ideally required. The process feeds itself and year after year, more government support is asked for. Just like the debt ceiling, there is no end in sight, offer more breathing room, that is spent, offer more breathing room, that gets spent. I’d rather be a member of a party that has the moral courage to say “no,” enough is enough.

      And as we can see, our military is “useless” in the eyes of the left because its only means is to defend Halliburton…what a terrible comment. I wonder how long Taiwan would last if America pulled everything out of the Asian pacific region and told Japan we are not going to defend anything in their region? I wonder how the Polish would feel if we turned away and told them we are done, don’t ask us for any protection. I wonder how long Columbia would last on their own if we decided to forsake them. Ahh, but liberty in other countries doesn’t matter because Chavez is such a good guy, why worry, conservatives really misunderstand him…

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Thanks Jason. I am hoping to provoke a good conversation here. The comments above from Chefsref are on target. I appreciate talking with an honest liberal. But, too many liberals believe uncritically what they are told about conservatives. I want to burst some stereotypes. You are right, I doubt I will get any solid answers.

      If you look at European leftists, they only stop when their economies go bankrupt. Then, as soon as things get a little better, they go right back to pushing for more government.

    • profile image 5 years ago from upstate, NY

      This is a great Hub, voted up and awesome, I love all your arguments! Your first two questions are great because it demonstrates the absurdity of leftist reasoning. Shouldn't any reasonable person be able to give a straight answer to how much spending and government power is enough? I suspect some on the left, know the real answer to these questions but are wise enough to keep it to themselves!

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois, thanks for the comment. So far I have gotten one honest liberal to take a stab at answering these questions. He did pretty good, but still wasn't really able to give solid answers. Perhaps it's because they don't have any answers? Or have never even considered the questions?

    • profile image

      Ivan Karamazov 5 years ago

      The reason liberals are pissed off about Red States benefitting from federal aid that we pay for is because conservatives like Scott Brown (who put his daughter on "Obamacare", as you guys like to call it) and others lambast those programs and try to start a witch hunt at pretty much every turn while you are benefiting from our intiatives. Way to look the gift-horse in the mouth.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 5 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Thanks Ivan! Apreciate the note. About what I thought. But I have to ask you, why don't you guys just stop giving us the money? It would be easy to do, just vote for politicians who agree to defund these programs. Then you get to keep the money in Blue states where you can spend it however you think best. Your local Blue politicians can create these programs on a states level. Most states already have them anyway.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa


      There is a difference in the mentality of the people you speak of, which is a normal trait. Basically THE IDEOLOGIES is what makes the world go around and around. Something like a husband and a strong wife who gets into a heated confrontation. Politics is no different except that we give the politicians our rights ( when elected ) to argue for us. We relinquish the power of the people.

      Today, the Democrats and the Republicans, the major parties, have been infiltrated with activist, radicals and progressives. It appears that the progressives have the upper hand in deciding legislation.

      The progressives have been in control when the Democrats took majority control of Congress in Jan.2007. For the last 5 years the Democrats have had 2/3s control of our government. Don’t seem right when the President and the Democrats complain as to what they inherited from the past administration since they were in power when the economy went into a recession.

      We the people will have the power in the Nov. elections to decide who stays and who goes.

      The real question will be answered as the saying goes, ‘’fool me once, your fault, fool me the next time, my fault.’’

    • Veritas Separatim profile image

      Luke A. Hall 4 years ago from Ohio

      As a political scientist I have to say that I have had the pleasure of many long and arduous debates with many of my liberal colleagues. From what I have gathered, the problem that you are experiencing is not so much what they are saying/doing but rather the lens through which you are asking your questions.

      The modern Progressive cannot exist in a world of reality. Indeed, the entire progressive platform is built upon the "possible" rather than the "actual." Liberal progressives create policy aimed at the creation of a better society- whether or not that is actually practical, probable, or attainable. Theirs is a world filled with only the promise of what they see as possible and not what currently is.

      For a brief example, let's highlight liberal economic policy regarding social welfare. You see, to a liberal progressive, Social Welfare is the right thing to do because it helps people in the sense that it improves their quality of life by providing additional revenues. Now economically, this makes absolutely no sense to make investments unless you are getting a return on the investment, hence Conservative's constant chattering that we should cut Social Welfare based on sound economic principle. To the liberal, this sounds like the rich robbing the poor... even though its more like the middle class and wealthy wanting to retain more of their wealth and spend it on things that actually help the economy like investing, saving, or buying goods.

      To understand the Progressive Liberal you have to understand their world view and their deep desire to create a Utopia. We conservatives think that this is rediculous of course, and they think we are all way to harsh and lack imagination. Maybe we are too busy putting our imagination into free enterprise to have dreams of a Utopian society. Hope this helps. I enjoyed the post.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 4 years ago from usa


      Check these links, maybe an insight to what our government is now all about.


      An American citizen named Willard Mitt Romney

      There is a difference.

      The Obama's don't want this video to be seen in 2012

      Untold story

      Romney: Redistribution does not get people back to work

      The Truth on big oil earnings. The big government wants ‘’ fairness ‘’

      Government Subsidies: To oil/gas $ 4 billion To alternate energy $90 billion

      the President supports.’’ the truth ‘’ Friend or Foe?

      Who are the progressives in the government?

      Obama's General Motors [GM] Tarp Bailout - The Untold TRUTH

      GOVERNMENT WASTE? It was reported that for the past 5 years, the Social Security Trust fund has paid $400 billion to dead federal employees.

      COBURN REPORT 9million ways to balance the budget CUT WASTE

      In Nov. ,we can be the judge and jury. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!

    • Jean Bakula profile image

      Jean Bakula 3 years ago from New Jersey

      OK, you got me, I'll read one more.

      The thing with liberals is that they think conservatives are mean spirited and just count their money all day. I know I've painted an ugly and unfair picture. But they really do seem to only care about themselves. They blame people on disability for not working and call them lazy. They have no sympathy for people who work a 40 hour week for minimum wage, who cannot afford to send their kids to college, never go on vacations, can't afford dentist and doctor appointments, stuff like that. How much money is enough to help them? I don't know.

      I think the health care will begin as it did when we were forced into managed care in the--hmm-early 1990's? We had to change doctors to go to ones we never met, because the ones we went to for years were often not covered under our policies. Our relationship with our doctors is a lot about trust. I have scoliosis, and had 2 surgeries at ages 6 & 10, and still have serious trust issues with medical personnel. Then we had to get referrels for everything, each little test. The doctors no longer made money, and it wasn't a good thing to be a doctor anymore if you did it to make a high salary. So the doctors were forced to see X amount of patients each day. This went on for about 10 years, and finally all the referral stuff stopped. But some good hearted doctors will just take what your insurance will pay, and some will take that and you are responsible for the rest. That seems fair, but if you have a chronic and pre existing condition like I do, sometimes I owed my chiropractor hundreds of dollars. So there were all kinds of glitches, paperwork, and it was hellish. I suspect Obama's plan will be like that too, BUT it has the potential to provide all Americans with healthcare, and I believe they should have that. I don't know the road to getting there though, it will be bumpy.

      I live in NJ, and we have the highest or one of the highest real estate taxes in the US. We are one of the if not the most densely populated state. But we live close to New York and the Jersey shore, and that's really fun and entertaining. We have good schools for the most part. We could use better public transportation, but the nearness of a lot of things makes living here worth it. It seems that in red states you get a lot more for your money. I have a real estate license and am shocked that you can buy a four BR and 4 bath house with a dining room, living room, kitchen, full finished basement, garage, a few acres of land, a wrap around porch, and more, for about $250,000. That would get an 1,000 square feet in a small ranch in NJ (sort of like what I live in). I don't have a problem with helping farmers if they need it, but I also read that some are paid to grow crops we don't need. I don't believe all I read though. I would pay more to help anyone worse off than I am.

      It does seem to liberals that red states have people who are a lot less educated than blue states. They seem to believe outright lies without trying to research the facts. I think Obama is trying his best, but there's no cooperation. College is a big issue, and right now the best schools are $50,000 + a year, and the young people aren't getting jobs in their chosen fields. I believe senior year in HS should teach computer skills, basic car maintenance, cooking, and basic fix it kind of stuff around the house you need to live. By that time the kids only need English and gym anyway. We don't have enough blue collar workers anymore. Nobody knows how to make anything. When I was that age you couldn't advance in a job without a degree in college, but know it's too expensive and the young people have no jobs, and aren't really prepared for basic life skills.

      So a lot needs to be fixed. But we all have to meet each other halfway. Sometimes I think if we had more than 2 political parties, we would have more to choose from. I don't remember the country being this polarized before the past 20 years or so. I don't want a Utopia for everyone, but I'm not going to step over my neighbor's body if he's lying in the street for fear it might cost me some money. R's have to stop acting so meanspirited (yet they are so spiritual, I won't even go there).

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

      Jean Bakula

      Just to let you know from past experience, the D's are just as meanspirited as the R' s. That's the world we live in today.In Congress when the majorities are a very small margin, we would believe that some on the other side would be honest and vote at times against the party for the good of the people.Both sides ask for our vote to go to Congress and work for the people,just in most cases a broken promise until the next election.May I suggest if you follow politics try watching C-SPAN ( LIVE AND UN CUT )for a true picture as to the idiologies of both sides in action.

      Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

    • profile image 3 years ago from upstate, NY

      "Is it reasonable that the government directly control 50% of the economy? 75%? 95%? I am not asking for an exact answer, just a round number, an idea of what your goal is. Please. Tell us conservatives what your reasonable limit is. You can't always just cry "More! More!" It makes you sound like a six-year-old."

      My sentiments exactly, to agree that the government should control over half the economy seems like treason to me but I believe this to be a very legitimate question. This is the question that should be answered in a very straight forward way.

      "Just what does the government have to power to compel us to do, for our own good? What is the outside boundary? Liberals, as far as I can tell, think the government can be trusted not to abuse this power. We conservatives are not so convinced of that."

      Somebody telling you what to do for your own good is the role of a parent and if not it should raise red flags and plenty of them because this is the thinking of a tyrant.

    • Jean Bakula profile image

      Jean Bakula 3 years ago from New Jersey

      That is true. I think the government is getting overinvolved in our lives. And C-Span is probably the only way to get true "news" all the networks are biased. Many of the shows just come out and say they are based on the opinion of the person whose show it is.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

      Jean Bakula

      For some insight for the thoughts of friendly conversation on what is happening in the political world, tune in on Saturday morning on Fox News. Give it a try. Each of the 4 programs cover a variety subjects related to the economy, jobs and congressional activities.

    • Jean Bakula profile image

      Jean Bakula 3 years ago from New Jersey

      Thanks Jon. I will do that. It is true that in this political climate, none of the politicians care what's best for the people, even though they have to answer to their constituents. That must mean that a lot of good people who could be in political positions are out there, they just don't want to go through all the BS. Or have their whole family exposed to be picked apart. I was a treasurer for my local Dem party for a few years, and I was shocked at how dirty and corrupt it was on even that level. It was both parties, and I stepped down, because it seemed to me they were all out for themselves or for power. I was in it mostly for environmental reasons, when my husband was alive, but both sides would not come to agreement over the most trivial details. It got too tiresome. However, on the larger level, they really have to try to cooperate with each other, and they aren't.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 3 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      The system is corrupt. The right grassroots tea party is trying to throw out the corrupt republicans, the left needs to do something about rotten dems.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa

      tmbridgeland .

      The system isn't corrupt, what's corrupt are the players in the system. Senator Coburn exposes $9 Trillion WASTE in Gov agencies

      An old story

      1/30/14 House Leaders Send Letter To President Obama

      The Constitution is the foundation of our government , it is being abused and fractured by the leadership in the majority party, specifically by the President and Senator Reid.

      In Nov, the people are the only ones able to correct the situation as it exists today by VOTING. Vote the bums out!

    • Jean Bakula profile image

      Jean Bakula 3 years ago from New Jersey

      I like that, "the system isn't corrupt, the players in the system are." It seems people need to vote in the earlier level elections, and pay attention to the players before they advance in there careers. Their actions need to be scrutinized. Otherwise they rise to the highest positions, and it's too late to fix what's broken.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 3 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      I have to argue, even if it is just semantics. I say the system is corrupt, and you say, no, it's just the people. My reply is that the system is nothing without the people. Even a perfect system, on paper, will have flaws when put into practice by real human beings.

      So my question from a few days ago remains, why hasn't the left, and there are a lot of good people on the left, tried to throw out their bad apples? They keep putting seriously flawed, even criminal people in high office. How many on the left have worked to get Eric Holder fired and prosecuted, for example? No one that I have heard of.

      The right has at least started fighting back against the inbred, corrupt party elite. Why hasn't the left?

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa


      '' I have to argue '' Well than, one must define the system since the system may be in the eye of the beholder. We have a fractured government today only because ideologies are more important than the people who elected our officials to office.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 3 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Ideologies don't bother me. They provide guidelines to behavior. People without strong ideology are unpredictable. The problem is when people think their ideology IS the real world, not just our best attempt to model the world. I am pretty ideological, but try to test it against real events, to see if my ideology holds up. Although I am over 50, just a few years ago I had to conclude that I was mistaken about one thing I had previously believed.

      I think 'the problem' that the US is having right now isn't so much ideology, but corruption. The left and the right, at the highest levels, isn't in the game to advance their ideology so much as to advance themselves personally. I don't think the leadership of the republican party really cares if taxes or spending go up, as long as they keep getting reelected.

    • Jean Bakula profile image

      Jean Bakula 3 years ago from New Jersey

      I have wondered why Obama has stuck with advisors who aren't really respected, and even some who screwed up. It's nice to be loyal to people, but not if they aren't doing what they are supposed to do. Most Presidents clean house a few times by now.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 3 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Hi Jean. I have my own suspicions as to why Obama has not cleaned house.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 3 years ago from usa


      BO Know exactly what he is doing A MEDIA COVER UP? … Benghazi Whistle blower Hearing on C-Span3 live and un edited! POTUS ‘’ to tell the TRUTH

      SHARED AGENDAS -BARACK OBAMA we have a president that ignores the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (Congress)

      . United States is the single-largest contributor to its work and in tax dollars help fund UN 'hate camp' in Gaza: documentary

      OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, admits.......

      WHOIS WHO in US Gov … Obama banned this video media?


    Click to Rate This Article