cybercoma Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) Jack Cluth's editorial on the GOP suggests that it has nothing to do with traditional Conservatism and values. Instead, the GOP has become a party based on fear and a denial of the social contract. By the definition of today’s GOP, compassion is synonymous with weakness as charity is with enabling sloth and indolence. If you’re unable to do for yourself, whatever your situation might be, you have no right to expect government to do for you. Ill? Disabled? Uninsured? Unemployed? That’s too bad, but it’s not the responsibility of government to do for those unable to do for themselves.It’s as if Republicans have decamped from anything resembling compassion and migrated en masse to the Dark Side. They’ve rejected anything that smacks of humanity and embraced a Darwinian view of America as a place where the strong rightfully survive and the weak get what they deserve. I don’t know about you, but this philosophy has nothing to do with the traditional Conservatism that Republicans profess to revere. Traditional Conservatism doesn’t reject the social contract. It doesn’t genuflect to the oligarchy and the military-industrial complex. It doesn’t traffic in fear, hatred, and loathing. It doesn’t reject science. It doesn’t embrace fundamentalist Christianity as the ultimate and only authority on what America should be. Then again, this isn’t about Conservatism. It’s about doing whatever it takes to acquire, maintain, and increase power and control. It’s about enforcing Social Darwinism and Fundamentalist Christianity as the basis of the American experience and the law of the land. It’s about using fear, hatred, and propaganda in order to manipulate the American Sheeple into doing your bidding. Click here to read the full article Edited November 18, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Who is Jack cluth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) Who is Jack cluth? Yea...I was thinking the same thing. The "social contract" doesn't mean it has to be enforced by government. Entitlements are not rights. Looks like Cluth is a "D-list" blogger and social media standout. Edited November 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Yea...I was thinking the same thing. The "social contract" doesn't mean it has to be enforced by government. Entitlements are not rights. Actually, by definition, yes it does. And it doesn't matter who Jack Cluth is. We're here to discuss ideas on this forum, not engage in ad hominem attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Actually, by definition, yes it does. So you maintain that in the absence of government their can be no 'social contract'. This is simply not true. And it doesn't matter who Jack Cluth is. We're here to discuss ideas on this forum, not engage in ad hominem attacks. It matters to me....if it's his idea (not very original BTW). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 The GOP: The Party of pain, punishment, misery, and death Every political party exports pain, punishment, misery, death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 ...Every political party exports pain, punishment, misery, death Pretty much....they all rationalize such things in their own special way. That's how the NDP ends up supporting the bombing of Libyans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) The issue is not whether or not "government" should help people. The "government" does not create the wealth to redistribute. The real question is if "government" should forceably take wealth from one set of people to redistribute it to others. A good point made by the left is that the wealthy expect a government bailout if their investment and other activity don't work out as planned. I agree; I do not confuse a tragedy for the wealthy with a tragedy for the U.S. or Canada. Edited November 19, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) The issue is not whether or not "government" should help people. The "government" does not create the wealth to redistribute. The real question is if "government" should forceably take wealth from one set of people to redistribute it to others. No, the issue is whether government ought to do what is best for society as a whole, or whether it ought to be influenced by wealthy elites into doing what is best for them alone. It isn't just about taking money away from the wealthy to give to the poor. It's about twisting the rules, regulations and tax codes to enrich those who are already rich, and screw over the poor and middle class. For example, by any definable measure, national health care is infinitely better (and cheaper) for a people than the idiotic mess you have down south. The American people want it. The elites don't. They don't need national health care because they're rich, and some of them are making tons of money through overcharging Americans (ie, insurance companies, health care conglomerates, doctors, pharmaceutical companies). So does America have national health care? Nope. Not even close. The elites, and their bought and paid for politicians say no The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act is another fine example. A ridiculous law, written, actually written by the pharmaceutical lobby, passed mainly due to the efforts of bribed Republicans, which actually banned Medicare from negotiating prices. Again, the rich get richer, including Billy Tauzin, who was their chief lackey on the hill charged with getting it through, and the middle class and poor pay for it and get screwed by it. There's tons of examples of that nature which have nothing to do with redistributing money from the rich to the poor, but rather, the reverse. Do you think the tax code got the way it was by accident? The changes which benefited big corporations and the rich were put there by the politicians they bought and paid for, slowly accumulating over the years. Same goes for the subsidies so many industries enjoy. Oh, the Republicans are all for getting those lazy welfare bums off the public teat -- unless of course, they're corporations. Then, heck, money to them is just fine! The credit card industry got a law passed making it much harder for Americans who couldn't pay their credit card bills to declare bankruptcy, despite the fact everyone knows they do everything in their power to push credit on people who can barely pay it back (those who keep big balances wind up paying a lot more than guys like me who pay off their balance at the end of every month). But when the banks had problems they sure didn't object to getting bailed out, now did they!? Nawh, your system is corrupt, and growing more corrupt by the year. It's nonsense to suggest the complaints against this are just about people who want to take money from the 'productive' and give it to the 'non-productive'. And yes, I'm a conservative. But your Republican party stopped being conservative decades ago. They're just a crew of grasping, greedy, corrupt, self-serving vermin preying on the ignorant herd; not like wolves, but like jackals. Edited November 21, 2011 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 The real question is if "government" should forceably take wealth from one set of people to redistribute it to others. Power and wealth are virtually one and the same things. Let one get out of control and the other is sure to follow. A more equitable distribution of power would have prevented the gap between the obnoxiously wealthy and everyone else from getting so big in the first place but it's never too late to turn things around. Given it's enormity I'd say the wealthy will have little choice but to contribute something to the effort to span it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 For example, by any definable measure, national health care is infinitely better (and cheaper) for a people than the idiotic mess you have down south. No, actually a mix of public and private health care has proven to be better, especially compared to Canada, which has the most expensive and inefficient universal health care program "on the entire planet". And yes, I'm a conservative. But your Republican party stopped being conservative decades ago. They're just a crew of grasping, greedy, corrupt, self-serving vermin preying on the ignorant herd; not like wolves, but like jackals. Better dead than Red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 And yes, I'm a conservative. But your Republican party stopped being conservative decades ago. They're just a crew of grasping, greedy, corrupt, self-serving vermin preying on the ignorant herd; not like wolves, but like jackals. I was just talking recently about how conservatives used to stand for something. They used to believe that they had an ethical, if not moral obligation to care for society. It used to be that they were more paternalistic and understood that they had a certain responsibility to preserve the health of society. Whatever happened to that? It seems now the attitude has become, "what's mine is mine and too bad for you." It's as though they forgot that social welfare was the compromise the elite made for social stability. It wasn't a redistribution of wealth. Instead, it was an insurance on their wealth. Insurance that those below them wouldn't disrupt the social order. Conservatives have completely lost their way these days, at least the Republicans that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 I was just talking recently about how conservatives used to stand for something. They used to believe that they had an ethical, if not moral obligation to care for society. It used to be that they were more paternalistic and understood that they had a certain responsibility to preserve the health of society. Whatever happened to that? It seems now the attitude has become, "what's mine is mine and too bad for you." It's as though they forgot that social welfare was the compromise the elite made for social stability. It wasn't a redistribution of wealth. Instead, it was an insurance on their wealth. Insurance that those below them wouldn't disrupt the social order. Conservatives have completely lost their way these days, at least the Republicans that is. They did that through growing the economy, if you think handing out free money is the way to buy off the lower classes, I invite you to visit a first nation reserve in western Canada and see what dependance on gov't creates. If you don't have the elite doing their business, everyone becomes poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Who said anything about handing out "free money"? You think being on social assistance in any province is a party? You think people are living the good life on $536/month? Let's use Toronto for example $536/month gets you $110/month TTC pass (you need to get to those job interviews, buy groceries, etc) $100/month hydro $35/month phone (potential employers need to be able to contact you) $200/month groceries (incl. toilet paper, paper towels, deodorant, toothpaste, etc.) That leaves a person on social assistance in Ontario with $91 to pay rent. We didn't include clothing (gotta dress the part for the interview, no?), gas bill, water bill (usually included in rent) and we I haven't even mentioned entertainment yet. Yeah.... those lousy leeches. Living the high life on the public's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Yeah.... those lousy leeches. Living the high life on the public's money. How much public money is enough? Why should the rest of us keep working if minimum "public money" will be guaranteed to all? Yeah socialism...equal misery for all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Who said anything about handing out "free money"? You think being on social assistance in any province is a party? You think people are living the good life on $536/month? Let's use Toronto for example $536/month gets you $110/month TTC pass (you need to get to those job interviews, buy groceries, etc) $100/month hydro $35/month phone (potential employers need to be able to contact you) $200/month groceries (incl. toilet paper, paper towels, deodorant, toothpaste, etc.) That leaves a person on social assistance in Ontario with $91 to pay rent. We didn't include clothing (gotta dress the part for the interview, no?), gas bill, water bill (usually included in rent) and we I haven't even mentioned entertainment yet. Yeah.... those lousy leeches. Living the high life on the public's money. They are living better than people living for 0$ per month. If it costs that much to live in Toronto, then leave. that may involve walking/hitchhiking. And do you know how much that costs the rest of society to pay for that? Do you know what else we can spend that money on? If the guy off of pursuit of happiness can do it, surely to goodness someone with a 536 bucks per month advantage on him can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Yeah. Let's eliminate social assistance. Great idea, Einstein. I'm sure all of those people who can't work or are living in poverty will just up and disappear. There's not a single politician from any party that would suggest that. You're quite obviously not interested in having any sort of rational discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 So you maintain that in the absence of government their can be no 'social contract'. This is simply not true. It matters to me....if it's his idea (not very original BTW). Well... government comes from the social contract. People get sick of other people breaking it, and they create structured societies with authorities and rules. Do you know of a society where just having faith that people would do the right things worked out real well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Well... government comes from the social contract. People get sick of other people breaking it, and they create structured societies with authorities and rules. Their is no social contract. Show it to me...in writing. Hint: I don't live in Canada. Do you know of a society where just having faith that people would do the right things worked out real well? No worse than your fantasy of the current "social contract" being a bowl of cherries too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Their is no social contract. Show it to me...in writing. Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Yeah. Let's eliminate social assistance. Great idea, Einstein. I'm sure all of those people who can't work or are living in poverty will just up and disappear. There's not a single politician from any party that would suggest that. You're quite obviously not interested in having any sort of rational discussion. And your trying to play the guilt card and trying to make people feel guilty instead of proposing a solution that works. Enabling poverty by handing out free money does not work no matter how many guilt trips you try and pull. All you do is create inflation and make e eryone poorer. Why do leftists want to keep beating a dead horse. It's a bad idea and Europe just found out the hard way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Really? "The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a shit whether you live or die. There, you feel better now? - Dennis Miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Enabling poverty by handing out free money does not work no matter how many guilt trips you try and pull. Actually its works pretty good. Pretty much every society that evolves beyond living in mud huts has some form of this. Its not about enabling poverty per say, but maintaining political stability. Especially in a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Actually its works pretty good. Pretty much every society that evolves beyond living in mud huts has some form of this. Its not about enabling poverty per say, but maintaining political stability. Especially in a democracy. Yes....it's a lot more fun to build prisons for "political stability". Canada has finally seen the light on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 Yes....it's a lot more fun to build prisons for "political stability". Canada has finally seen the light on this. building prisons, developing the oilsands, ag boom, energy boom, yes we have. far more efficient than doling out welfare checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.