Progressives vs liberals

[Le duke]

Based on ( more not all) democrats would rather have the government use tax money to help people than to just go next door to your neighbor to give them groceries, help with the kids, fix or repair something, you know just use common sense ( yes i said it ) Common Sense. 

I think everyone would prefer that. No one wants the government to be forced to take care of children to prevent them from being malnourished or starving. Or seniors, for that matter.

And yet, that’s not reality. If the good will of neighbors was actually sufficient, that would be great, but it’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

there was no "good" way to pull out of Afghanistan because we spent 20 years installing a corrupt puppet government that didn't have the support of the people. 

Biden pulling out and taking the heat of the unavoidable collapse was the most courageous thing he's done his entire life.

Yep, Trump couldn't do it.  Neither could Obama.

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Based on ( more not all) democrats would rather have the government use tax money to help people than to just go next door to your neighbor to give them groceries, help with the kids, fix or repair something, you know just use common sense ( yes i said it ) Common Sense. 

I agree with this...there are people who feel it is the governments job to determine how people's money is spent to help those in need, and there are people, like me, who want to be able to choose how and where my money is spent in helping out those in need.  To me the "why" people get mad over these types of differences is because one is mandated and the other is based on choice.  I am all for helping others less fortunate, but it should be my choice who and when and how much, not the government, and definitely not some of you on these forums.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

I agree with this...there are people who feel it is the governments job to determine how people's money is spent to help those in need, and there are people, like me, who want to be able to choose how and where my money is spent in helping out those in need.  To me the "why" people get mad over these types of differences is because one is mandated and the other is based on choice.  I am all for helping others less fortunate, but it should be my choice who and when and how much, not the government, and definitely not some of you on these forums.

Personal charity is an inefficient and ineffective way of reducing poverty and hunger. That's just reality.

[Le duke]

but you don't want to criticize the Afghan pull out? 
from every objective standpoint it was a giant screw up.

I’d ask you provide examples, because I’d like to see you embarrass yourself speaking on an issue you know nothing about, and ask you to provide your own original thought, but you will invariably just provide a link to a Twitter post from an alt-right, maybe RT-correspondent blogger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, Le duke said:

I think everyone would prefer that. No one wants the government to be forced to take care of children to prevent them from being malnourished or starving. Or seniors, for that matter.

And yet, that’s not reality. If the good will of neighbors was actually sufficient, that would be great, but it’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed...except the divide happens when the government uses a broad stroke in terms of who needs what and how much...i.e., some people and the current administration support those who are in need no matter WHY they are in need.  I don't agree with that.  Again, I am all for helping the community and my fellow man/person/human, but I'd prefer to have control over that help.  I live by the saying, before you get help, you have to do something to help yourself first.  And no I won't entertain the discussion of the one off extreme-emotional examples some of you are going to inevitably throw out there.  

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Yep, Trump couldn't do it.  Neither could Obama.

If after 20 years of being carried by the world's #1 superpower, you still can't stand on your own, you never will.

And I don't think most people understand the level of grift and corruption in the "free" Afghan government. You know how bad you have to be to lose a popularity contest to the Taliban?

 

[Husker_Du]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

If after 20 years of being carried by the world's #1 superpower, you still can't stand on your own, you never will.

And I don't think most people understand the level of grift and corruption in the "free" Afghan government. You know how bad you have to be to lose a popularity contest to the Taliban?

 

you're going back to the why, not the how.

it was a disaster. 

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Agreed...except the divide happens when the government uses a broad stroke in terms of who needs what and how much...i.e., some people and the current administration support those who are in need no matter WHY they are in need.  I don't agree with that.  Again, I am all for helping the community and my fellow man/person/human, but I'd prefer to have control over that help.  I live by the saying, before you get help, you have to do something to help yourself first.  And no I won't entertain the discussion of the one off extreme-emotional examples some of you are going to inevitably throw out there.  

The real life consequence of this attitude is that you keep aid away from 10 people who "deserve" it, to prevent aid to 1 person who doesn't.

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Personal charity is an inefficient and ineffective way of reducing poverty and hunger. That's just reality.

My opinion for that statement is because most of the personal charity requires more than just a hand reaching out.  The government doesn't require anything but the hand; thus, it is easy to make that assertation.  

 

[uncle bernard]

6 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

you're going back to the why, not the how.

it was a disaster. 

There was no way to do it that wasn't a disaster. It was stay there forever, or let them collapse on their own.

How do you think they should have done it?

Edited October 25, 2023 by uncle bernard

[Bigbrog]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

The real life consequence of this attitude is that you keep aid away from 10 people who "deserve" it, to prevent aid to 1 person who doesn't.

BS...that is an emotional talking point based on political ideology and you know it.

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

BS...that is an emotional talking point based on political ideology and you know it.

No, it's reality. Sorry it hurts your feelings.

When you institute a bunch of bureaucratic hurdles to make sure only people who "deserve" help get it, you inevitably filter out deserving people (as well as significantly inflate the cost of the program). People won't know the right forms, the right sites, etc...

I think it is worth giving aid to someone who isn't helping themselves to your liking to make sure that every man, woman, and child who needs help gets it. That is a worthwhile trade off.

[Le duke]

BS...that is an emotional talking point based on political ideology and you know it.

If the individual citizens are the deciders, yeah, some people are going to be have-nots.

Whether it’s race, religion, or that-dude’s-cousin-banged-my-sister, people won’t give freely to everyone. We don’t live in utopia.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

No, it's reality. Sorry it hurts your feelings.

When you institute a bunch of bureaucratic hurdles to make sure only people who "deserve" help get it, you inevitably filter out deserving people (as well as significantly inflate the cost of the program). People won't know the right forms, the right sites, etc...

I think it is worth giving aid to someone who isn't helping themselves to your liking to make sure that every man, woman, and child who needs help gets it. That is a worthwhile trade off.

Who said anyone's feelings are hurt??  Boy some of you sure like to play psychics on here. 

I think you are missing a major point, I am not advocating for ANY bureaucratic hurdles...I am advocating for individual choice on how and how much money is spent.  And I'll throw out this caveat...I am NOT talking about disaster relief...that is a WHOLE other topic.  I am talking about individual people who need help.  There are plenty of PRIVATE charity organizations that do it 10 times better than the government.  And those who donate get to see how the money is spent and to whom.  And if you choose to give to people no matter what...FINE...than you give to organizations that do that...problem solved!

[uncle bernard]

28 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

you have been criticizing the US military on these boards all over the place. some i find justified (and frankly i thank you for posting about them b/c i was unaware of some situations).

 

Circling back to this, one of the most useful things you can understand is that we are much closer to a one-party state when it comes to foreign policy.

Almost all of the real work is done by unelected, career administrators within the state department and intelligence agencies AKA "The Blob."

Lawmakers come and go and put their stamp and spin on it, but the overall direction of our foreign policy is determined by these people. 

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, Le duke said:

If the individual citizens are the deciders, yeah, some people are going to be have-nots.

Whether it’s race, religion, or that-dude’s-cousin-banged-my-sister, people won’t give freely to everyone. We don’t live in utopia.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again I agree with the second half...and my personal choice would be to give money to organizations that align with what my ideas of a person of need is (more than likely what my ideas are would not be too far off from the vast majority of people)...I also would NOT take into consideration any of the things you say, but along those lines who are you or anyone else in the place to choose for me?

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Who said anyone's feelings are hurt??  Boy some of you sure like to play psychics on here. 

I think you are missing a major point, I am not advocating for ANY bureaucratic hurdles...I am advocating for individual choice on how and how much money is spent.  And I'll throw out this caveat...I am NOT talking about disaster relief...that is a WHOLE other topic.  I am talking about individual people who need help.  There are plenty of PRIVATE charity organizations that do it 10 times better than the government.  And those who donate get to see how the money is spent and to whom.  And if you choose to give to people no matter what...FINE...than you give to organizations that do that...problem solved!

No there aren't. You're describing a world that we don't live in. 

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Again I agree with the second half...and my personal choice would be to give money to organizations that align with what my ideas of a person of need is (more than likely what my ideas are would not be too far off from the vast majority of people)...I also would NOT take into consideration any of the things you say, but along those lines who are you or anyone else in the place to choose for me?

Because you live in our society. You drink our water, eat our food, use our roads, etc... If you don't want to chip in, go live in the woods by yourself.

[Bigbrog]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Because you live in our society. You drink our water, eat our food, use our roads, etc... If you don't want to chip in, go live in the woods by yourself.

Because you live in our society. You drink our water, eat our food, use our roads, etc... If you don't want to chip in, go live in the woods by yourself.

[Le duke]

Again I agree with the second half...and my personal choice would be to give money to organizations that align with what my ideas of a person of need is (more than likely what my ideas are would not be too far off from the vast majority of people)...I also would NOT take into consideration any of the things you say, but along those lines who are you or anyone else in the place to choose for me?

The lowest estimate I’ve seen is that 30 million Americans are food insecure.

In the richest country in the world, 1 out of 10 Americans is either hungry or malnourished.

Looks like people better up their charitable giving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ThreePointTakedown]

58 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

how disingenuous. the right didn't freak out over pulling out of afghanistan; the freaked out at the process which was an all time screw up.

you have been criticizing the US military on these boards all over the place. some i find justified (and frankly i thank you for posting about them b/c i was unaware of some situations).

but you don't want to criticize the Afghan pull out? 

from every objective standpoint it was a giant screw up.

Everyone freaked out. It was not a great situation. 45 put it into motion and 46 followed through with it. Didn't stop anyone from voicing their opinions. We shouldn't've been there in the first place let alone Iraq. 

Big giant screw up. Agreed. 

[Bigbrog]

11 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

The lowest estimate I’ve seen is that 30 million Americans are food insecure.

In the richest country in the world, 1 out of 10 Americans is either hungry or malnourished.

Looks like people better up their charitable giving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

So the government system is or isn't working???  

But overall I agree with what you are saying.  

Because I am the way I am, and it has NOTHING to do with not wanting to help those in need,  I'd love to dig into more of the data that indicates 1 out of 10 Americans is either hungry or malnourished.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

So the government system is or isn't working???  

But overall I agree with what you are saying.  

Because I am the way I am, and it has NOTHING to do with not wanting to help those in need,  I'd love to dig into more of the data that indicates 1 out of 10 Americans is either hungry or malnourished.

Charitable giving has never been higher and yet we perform worse than our peer nations who have higher taxes and universal programs. Maybe they're doing it the right way after all?

Maybe trusting millions of isolated individuals to distribute resources rationally with no planning or cooperation isn't the most efficient way to do things?

Plus, most charities are scams and tax write-offs for rich people.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Based on ( more not all) democrats would rather have the government use tax money to help people than to just go next door to your neighbor to give them groceries, help with the kids, fix or repair something, you know just use common sense ( yes i said it ) Common Sense. 

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. 

This seems like the process of addressing the climate crisis. Sure a dem can volunteer at a soup kitchen, but would also try to pressure the government to streamline programs and change tax code so that people can get enough assistance so the soup kitchen isn't necessary. So, I can see how you might think that one thing is better and you might be right about the numbers. But different actions can effect different outcomes.  

If you're pressured/guilted/obligated into volunteering/donating/tithing by the church does that really count?