• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Both Conservatives and Liberals Want Fairness

Winston said:
Overall both conservatives and liberals are concerned that society is unfair.

There is a running talking point among conservatives that, the hard working people are footing the bill for the lazy bums. This is a desire to address a fair playing field. Why do I pay more in taxes and receive the same benefits as someone who pays less?

Liberals want equal opportunity for people who happened to be born on an unlucky day. And they support what measures to address this unfairness... such as free college or UHC.

Both want a fair society, how do we get there?
Click to expand...

Good thread topic.

IMO, the problem is whining. All and all, we have it pretty good. Be you rich, poor, white, black, educated and skilled or a bit slow and stuck working at Walmart, you're going to fair better here than in, say, Argentina. But...that won't stop the whine.

Middle class whites whine because they no longer have a free ticket to high paying, low skill jobs and living in neighborhoods with no brown people. Brown people whine because we crack down harder on street crime than we do white collar crime. But, if both groups keep their noses clean, make the right decisions and pursue viable careers: don't get pregnant at 16 or get a degree in music appreciation, they can do quite well here.

The exception to that is getting sick, which ACA would limit damage done. But, the Cons want to gut that saf ty net. Why? Because it's named "Obama" care. If it was called McConnell-Ryan care, they'd love it.
 
MrWonka said:
I'd like to see a citation for that.
Click to expand...

"Who Were Those Clinton-Mccain Crossover Voters?" vs. 1-in-10 Sanders Primary Voters Ended Up Supporting Trump Survey Finds.

Just to clarify, 16% is bigger than 10%. Even if you take the most generous number of Sanders supporters, 12%, it's smaller than 16%. The smallest number I've found for Clinton voters is ~12%. So the strongest possible case you could make is that if you cherry pick the smallest number of Clinton crossovers and the largest number of Bernie crossovers, they would approximately break even within the statistical margin of error (which should be in the neighborhood of ~2% points).
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Yes.


Hillary won the majority of votes despite being torpedoed by a bull**** hack job witch hunt investigation. She lost because a bunch of my way or the highway crybabies decided to make a protest vote and or stay home.



You can sit there and claim Bernie would have won all you want, there is absolutely no way to know whether he actually would have or not. But if he would have won it would have been because 100% of Clinton backers would have done what was in America's best interest and voted for him just like they did Obama.

We need politicians that are willing to work together to do what is in the best overall interest of America even if they aren't madly in love with every bill that gets passed. If the far left is going to have a my way or the highway attitude about things then they're not that much better than Republicans.
Click to expand...

I don't think Bernie would have won necessarily, because "socialist" is still a dirty word to most of the middle. The opposition file was also 2 feet thick during his primary run up... Bernie would not have made it through a general unscathed.

I think Kaine or O'Mally would have fared ok, simply by being Not Trump. But the Clinton Machine was not to be stopped. The decision looked very undemocratic - not of the people or by the people, but the chosen of the party elites. And that's why she lost.
 
FieldTheorist said:
"Who Were Those Clinton-Mccain Crossover Voters?" vs. 1-in-10 Sanders Primary Voters Ended Up Supporting Trump Survey Finds.

Just to clarify, 16% is bigger than 10%. Even if you take the most generous number of Sanders supporters, 12%, it's smaller than 16%. The smallest number I've found for Clinton voters is ~12%. So the strongest possible case you could make is that if you cherry pick the smallest number of Clinton crossovers and the largest number of Bernie crossovers, they would approximately break even within the statistical margin of error (which should be in the neighborhood of ~2% points).
Click to expand...

This doesn't really talk about Sanders voters who went third party. I'm more interested in those numbers. The people that went Sanders to Trump are likely not ideologs, many may have just been sexist more than anything. I literally heard a female friend of mine tell me she couldn't vote for Hillary because women have hormones.

I'll grant you that both the Clinton and Sanders voters that ditched were higher than I expected though.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I don't think Bernie would have won necessarily,

....

I think Kaine or O'Mally would have fared ok, simply by being Not Trump.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Okay, buddy. Have a good day.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I don't think Bernie would have won necessarily, because "socialist" is still a dirty word to most of the middle. The opposition file was also 2 feet thick during his primary run up... Bernie would not have made it through a general unscathed.

I think Kaine or O'Mally would have fared ok, simply by being Not Trump. But the Clinton Machine was not to be stopped. The decision looked very undemocratic - not of the people or by the people, but the chosen of the party elites. And that's why she lost.
Click to expand...

Actually, socialism is less a 'dirty word' than the populist word historically misused to denote a form of socioeconomic order that contradicts human behavior patterns and therefore did not work. When someone says he is a socialist, he is less a bad boy than that he should not be trusted.
Nobody in his right mind would have voted for Senator BS. But then, voting for Trump was an odd choice too.
 
I can't believe, nearly a year later, people are still talking about what might have been. Geez, deal with reality already!
 
Cephus said:
I can't believe, nearly a year later, people are still talking about what might have been. Geez, deal with reality already!
Click to expand...

Of all words uttered by tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: It might have been.

Mitt Romney could have been presiding over a great nation and strengthening his party, but no.....
 
MrWonka said:
It doesn't matter whether you love Centrist Democrats or not. You're not winning anything without them, so rather than continuing to bash and divide you're going to have to do a better job of persuading. Don't go around lamenting divisiveness while being divisive.
Click to expand...

You mean exactly like the 'centrist' (neoliberal corporatist) Democrats?

Sure I'll work together with them to thwart the greater threat of the Republicans, but that doesn't mean I won't identify them as the enemy within that they are, nor fail to treat them with the suspicion they deserve and have sorely earned as usurpers of the party from the FDR/Bernie wing, who have clinged so desperately (and now tenuously and undeservedly) to power ever since.
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
Overall both conservatives and liberals are concerned that society is unfair.

There is a running talking point among conservatives that, the hard working people are footing the bill for the lazy bums. This is a desire to address a fair playing field. Why do I pay more in taxes and receive the same benefits as someone who pays less?

Liberals want equal opportunity for people who happened to be born on an unlucky day. And they support what measures to address this unfairness... such as free college or UHC.

Both want a fair society, how do we get there?
Click to expand...

We already have equal opportunity. If we made the social system harder to live with, maybe people would get off the asses and work!

In fairness, part of the problem is penalizing low wage work. If you lose dollar for dollar social benefits, when yo work, what incentive is there to work? This is the biggest thing I see that hold people back from climbing the ladder.
 
Winston said:
Overall both conservatives and liberals are concerned that society is unfair.

There is a running talking point among conservatives that, the hard working people are footing the bill for the lazy bums. This is a desire to address a fair playing field. Why do I pay more in taxes and receive the same benefits as someone who pays less?

Liberals want equal opportunity for people who happened to be born on an unlucky day. And they support what measures to address this unfairness... such as free college or UHC.

Both want a fair society, how do we get there?
Click to expand...

Fairness is fine and desirable in society as long as it doesn't involve government. Government should be driven by equality - the exact opposite of fairness. Fairness is subjective. Government cannot be "fair" to somebody without being "unfair" to others. Equality is objective and the only appropriate goal for government. So I would say that, if you are correct, then both conservatives and liberals are dead wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We already have equal opportunity. If we made the social system harder to live with, maybe people would get off the asses and work!

In fairness, part of the problem is penalizing low wage work. If you lose dollar for dollar social benefits, when yo work, what incentive is there to work? This is the biggest thing I see that hold people back from climbing the ladder.
Click to expand...

The baby born to a welfare mom addicted to crack doesn't exactly have the same opportunity as one born to a middle class upward bound married couple, but then, there really isn't a way to bring that about that I can think of.

That people who work, even at unskilled labor, should have more than people who choose to live on the dole, on that we can agree. There is a strong disincentive for people with few job skills and a government paycheck to go to work, including loss of income and loss of health care. That needs to change.
 
Winston said:
Overall both conservatives and liberals are concerned that society is unfair.

There is a running talking point among conservatives that, the hard working people are footing the bill for the lazy bums. This is a desire to address a fair playing field. Why do I pay more in taxes and receive the same benefits as someone who pays less?

Liberals want equal opportunity for people who happened to be born on an unlucky day. And they support what measures to address this unfairness... such as free college or UHC.

Both want a fair society, how do we get there?
Click to expand...

The difference is that liberals want everyone to get the same results, conservatives want people to have the same opportunity. I was born and raised poor and am now holding a good job, at an employer that I've worked for for 30 years. NO ONE helped me. not my parents, grandparents or anyone else, I was the one who busted my ass and was the best damn employee my employer ever saw (I still have the eval with those words on it). What we ask for is that everyone have equal opportunity, but the results of that opportunity are entirely up to the individual. Liberals are always pointing to the results of what happened to people, but the VAST majority of the disparity between the people they are comparing is not because of lack of opportunity, but lack of effort/diligence. If I or any one of the millions of Americans who rose above poverty can do it, then so can those claim that they are disadvantaged. I'm pretty well above average intelligence, but I have co-workers that aren't and have done well for themselves. So what's the difference between the guy whining about not having a job and the thousands of people I work with?? It's effort. They all had the same opportunities, it's just that some took advantage of those opportunities, while others did not.
 
faithful_servant said:
The difference is that liberals want everyone to get the same results, conservatives want people to have the same opportunity.
Click to expand...

First off your definition of liberal is everyone that do not agree with you. There are so many differences, so stick with the actual labels please.

Old fashioned Socialists want "the same results"... these people are rare as hell in the modern world and in politics.
Modern Socialists and Social Democrats, people in the center of politics and "left leaning" conservatives, all want people to have the same opportunities but have to admit that the system is not geared to that.
Modern Conservatives, Alt Right, old school conservatives all want everything for themselves and use the excuse of "same opportunity" to promote class warfare.

I was born and raised poor and am now holding a good job, at an employer that I've worked for for 30 years. NO ONE helped me. not my parents, grandparents or anyone else, I was the one who busted my ass and was the best damn employee my employer ever saw (I still have the eval with those words on it).
Click to expand...

Chances are then, you are white and male. For the rest of the population the darker the skin and the different the sexual organs, the harder it is.. because of the "white conservative male" putting up roadblocks to remain at the number one position.

Now my late father, was born before WW2 into a Danish society that looks a lot like modern day US/UK. A society built up around class. His father was a welder at a shipyard so it was expected that my father would follow him in that direct.. manual labour. He became a bricklayer. However in the 1950s, Danish politicians on the left and center, fundamentally changed society by opening up higher education to everyone, much to the disgust of the Conservatives who dominated lawyers, business and so on. Before 1950s, it was only the wealthy that could afford it. My father grasp that helping hand, and came out with a civil engineering degree, with a minor in architecture. Had it not been for the changes in law, making higher education free (or near free), then this would never ever have happened. Today, anyone in Denmark can become whatever they want as long as they have the skills...

What we ask for is that everyone have equal opportunity, but the results of that opportunity are entirely up to the individual.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what modern "liberals" want.. but that is not what Conservatives want. If it was, then they would not be putting up roadblocks at ever intersection possible.

Liberals are always pointing to the results of what happened to people, but the VAST majority of the disparity between the people they are comparing is not because of lack of opportunity, but lack of effort/diligence.
Click to expand...

Depends on country.. in the US hell no. Race and where you were born has a huge impact, if not bigger impact than effort/diligence. Baron Trump can sit on his ass for the rest of his life, and still get into the best schools and get the best jobs just because of his daddy. He has far more opportunity and has done zero effort for that opportunity. Now a poor black kid in the projects has a very little chance of getting out of the projects regardless of how intelligent he is.

If I or any one of the millions of Americans who rose above poverty can do it, then so can those claim that they are disadvantaged. I'm pretty well above average intelligence, but I have co-workers that aren't and have done well for themselves. So what's the difference between the guy whining about not having a job and the thousands of people I work with?? It's effort. They all had the same opportunities, it's just that some took advantage of those opportunities, while others did not.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a white male who had the benefit of the post WW2 boom. Reality is totally different. When you send CVs to hundreds of places and dont get an interview, but when you change your name from Juan to John on the CVs, suddenly the interviews pour in from the EXACT same places, then you know your bs about opportunity and effort are nothing but horse manure with slipstick on it.

I understand you fully btw, and frankly in the ideal world I would agree.. but we dont live in the ideal world (unless you are in Scandinavia), so that is why the system has to be corrected so that one small portion of the population does not dominate for no good reason other than being white and male.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The baby born to a welfare mom addicted to crack doesn't exactly have the same opportunity as one born to a middle class upward bound married couple, but then, there really isn't a way to bring that about that I can think of.

That people who work, even at unskilled labor, should have more than people who choose to live on the dole, on that we can agree. There is a strong disincentive for people with few job skills and a government paycheck to go to work, including loss of income and loss of health care. That needs to change.
Click to expand...
If you are going to include the way parents bring up their kids, then I agree. We have free education to the 12th grade. Just how do you suggest society impose it's will on making that child learn?

The opportunity is their, and it would be the mother holding up the child. Not society.

I am all for the so called "safety net," but I want to see positive motivating reasons to get out of it. The current system tends to keep people trapped in it. I won't claim to have such solutions, but it would help if we let them keep more of the social benefits they already have as they climb the ladder to self sufficiency.

It just appalls me to see those using the safety net as a hammock.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The baby born to a welfare mom addicted to crack doesn't exactly have the same opportunity as one born to a middle class upward bound married couple, but then, there really isn't a way to bring that about that I can think of.

That people who work, even at unskilled labor, should have more than people who choose to live on the dole, on that we can agree. There is a strong disincentive for people with few job skills and a government paycheck to go to work, including loss of income and loss of health care. That needs to change.
Click to expand...

Yes. I once had an employee, a black woman with a masters degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University. The amazing thing about her is that she was born and raised in Cabrini Green, one of the most notorious public housing projects in Chicago by her single mother. She overcame a lot to achieve what she did. So the opportunity is there. It takes more effort for some to take advantage of it than others but it is there.

I think it is fine for the "dole" to take of those who cannot work but it should not be available to those who can. Actually none of this should be a role of federal government. It belongs in the private sector.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you are going to include the way parents bring up their kids, then I agree. We have free education to the 12th grade. Just how do you suggest society impose it's will on making that child learn?

The opportunity is their, and it would be the mother holding up the child. Not society.

I am all for the so called "safety net," but I want to see positive motivating reasons to get out of it. The current system tends to keep people trapped in it. I won't claim to have such solutions, but it would help if we let them keep more of the social benefits they already have as they climb the ladder to self sufficiency.

It just appalls me to see those using the safety net as a hammock.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts. The answers are we can't make a child learn. We can lead the horse to water, so to speak, and you can't make the parent actually do any parenting.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We already have equal opportunity. If we made the social system harder to live with, maybe people would get off the asses and work!

In fairness, part of the problem is penalizing low wage work. If you lose dollar for dollar social benefits, when yo work, what incentive is there to work? This is the biggest thing I see that hold people back from climbing the ladder.
Click to expand...

The moment the US has relative equality of access to education, nutrition, healthcare, and the litany of other important, formative advantages wealth provides, is the moment we can claim there existing a relative equality of opportunity.

A child born into crushing poverty in Compton or Detroit simply doesn't have nearly the same opportunity as a rich kid born to wealthy and connected hedge fund manager parents; if you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself. Yes, it is possible for someone to defy the odds and beat a tilted system to rise above their circumstances, but that isn't equality of opportunity.

As to people using the dole as a hammock, they're far and away the exception, not the rule (the vast majority of people want to feel useful and enjoy a standard of living exceeded by the impoverished bare survival it allows). However, I certainly agree with the concept of the welfare trap, and the implementation of a safety net that doesn't penalize work with substantial benefit clawbacks for each dollar earned; those clawbacks should be so gradual as to be irrelevant to employment considerations.
 
PeteEU said:
First off your definition of liberal is everyone that do not agree with you. There are so many differences, so stick with the actual labels please.

Old fashioned Socialists want "the same results"... these people are rare as hell in the modern world and in politics.
Modern Socialists and Social Democrats, people in the center of politics and "left leaning" conservatives, all want people to have the same opportunities but have to admit that the system is not geared to that.
Modern Conservatives, Alt Right, old school conservatives all want everything for themselves and use the excuse of "same opportunity" to promote class warfare.



Chances are then, you are white and male. For the rest of the population the darker the skin and the different the sexual organs, the harder it is.. because of the "white conservative male" putting up roadblocks to remain at the number one position.

Now my late father, was born before WW2 into a Danish society that looks a lot like modern day US/UK. A society built up around class. His father was a welder at a shipyard so it was expected that my father would follow him in that direct.. manual labour. He became a bricklayer. However in the 1950s, Danish politicians on the left and center, fundamentally changed society by opening up higher education to everyone, much to the disgust of the Conservatives who dominated lawyers, business and so on. Before 1950s, it was only the wealthy that could afford it. My father grasp that helping hand, and came out with a civil engineering degree, with a minor in architecture. Had it not been for the changes in law, making higher education free (or near free), then this would never ever have happened. Today, anyone in Denmark can become whatever they want as long as they have the skills...



Yes that is what modern "liberals" want.. but that is not what Conservatives want. If it was, then they would not be putting up roadblocks at ever intersection possible.



Depends on country.. in the US hell no. Race and where you were born has a huge impact, if not bigger impact than effort/diligence. Baron Trump can sit on his ass for the rest of his life, and still get into the best schools and get the best jobs just because of his daddy. He has far more opportunity and has done zero effort for that opportunity. Now a poor black kid in the projects has a very little chance of getting out of the projects regardless of how intelligent he is.



Spoken like a white male who had the benefit of the post WW2 boom. Reality is totally different. When you send CVs to hundreds of places and dont get an interview, but when you change your name from Juan to John on the CVs, suddenly the interviews pour in from the EXACT same places, then you know your bs about opportunity and effort are nothing but horse manure with slipstick on it.

I understand you fully btw, and frankly in the ideal world I would agree.. but we dont live in the ideal world (unless you are in Scandinavia), so that is why the system has to be corrected so that one small portion of the population does not dominate for no good reason other than being white and male.
Click to expand...

I've sent CVs to hundreds of places and haven't gotten a call back. Is it because I'm white?

Boy, I'd sure like to see some of this privilege everyone's been talking about!
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I've sent CVs to hundreds of places and haven't gotten a call back. Is it because I'm white?

Boy, I'd sure like to see some of this privilege everyone's been talking about!
Click to expand...

You totally missed the point....but that is to be expected.
 
PeteEU said:
You totally missed the point....but that is to be expected.
Click to expand...

If I didn't get a callback... What possible reason could explain why not?
 
Surrealistik said:
A child born into crushing poverty in Compton or Detroit simply doesn't have nearly the same opportunity as a rich kid born to wealthy and connected hedge fund manager parents; if you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself. Yes, it is possible for someone to defy the odds and beat a tilted system to rise above their circumstances, but that isn't equality of opportunity.
Click to expand...
Opportunity and resources are not the same thing. They both have access to n education, and can do well if they apply themselves. Granted, more money opens up more and better opportunities, but don't take the stance that poor living condition means no opportunity.

The first step is to get your foot in the door. Anywhere. From there you can open new doors.

Surrealistik said:
As to people using the dole as a hammock, they're far and away the exception, not the rule
Click to expand...

Not from my experience, but then I live in Portlandia.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I've sent CVs to hundreds of places and haven't gotten a call back. Is it because I'm white?

Boy, I'd sure like to see some of this privilege everyone's been talking about!
Click to expand...
I had a similar experiences twice in my life. It often happens with high unemployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom