Pensive wrote:
Quote:
Cause it's not us Republicans. We're honest. We tell you we wont give you a free ride and expect everyone to pull their own weight.
If someone ran for office on that position they wouldn't make it past a primary.
Not since Richard Nixon I suppose.
But that's because the idea that the government shouldn't give people a free ride is really an attack on poor people has been a Dem talking point ever since. Again. You're seeing the result of the manipulation, not the core position. While Republican candidates do avoid speech that can be interpreted as an attack on the poor, they *do* oppose the idea of large social spending.
You're free to call it dishonest to not fall right into the opposing sides rhetoric, but at it's core the platform and agenda are consistent and no one is surprised if/when Republicans oppose increases in social spending.
Quote:
A much better message is to tell people who already believe that they are pulling their own weight (when they are not), that they won't have to work any harder to support the lazy @#%^s who are not already pulling their own weight (who may or may not be doing so). It's not about contributing your share to the country; it's about manipulating selfish @#%^wits into stealing from their country by convincing them that they really "earn" more than they do.
Um... Yeah. Is this where you insist that lowering taxes is the same as welfare? Cause I think we've had this discussion. Funny thing is that it mirrors the recent "boiling water is not the same as not freezing it" argument. Not taxing someone is not the same as giving them money, no matter how much you try to make it appear that way.
Quote:
It's just a bit foolish to idealize the republican message as more "honest" than the liberal one. It's not dishonest of a liberal to state that we should spend money as to give everyone a set form of benefits; It's not like a liberal believes that the money or work will just materialize from nothing.
It is dishonest when the liberal argues his point purely by inundating the public with images of the horrible consequences of *not* acting on some cause, generating a massive emotional response, and then labeling anyone who points out that these things should be balanced with the costs involves to pay for them as somehow desirous of inflicting those horrible consequences on people.
Honesty would be pointing to a problem, presenting a solution along with the cost, and then letting people weight the two against each other when deciding whether it's worth it. Democrats go far far out of their way to avoid ever discussing the costs involved. That's dishonest.
Kinda like during the last campaign, when Obama made all these promises about all the things he would do when president. What happened when conservatives said that he would have to either raise taxes or create a deficit to do them? We got bashed mercilessly. Called names. All that was seen was the groups who were in need, not the costs that would have to be paid.
Quote:
Maybe you mean "pessimistic" instead of "honest."
No. I mean "honest". I mean that we need to stop the rhetoric that says that having the government provide you with food, housing, education, and medical care is a "right". It's not. It's a benefit. One that society might be willing to pay for. But only if we're honest with ourselves about what we're doing. When we label those things as rights it's exactly so that we can avoid the cost assessment by labeling anyone who brings the issue up as somehow violating people's rights (among other mean things).
There are lots of social programs that I actually support. I'm not a libertarian, after all. But we need to be honest about what we're doing. When we pay for everyone to receive a K-12 education, we're not doing it because every child has a right to have an education provided for him, but because we as a society have decided that it's worth the cost to us to have a more educated population. Nothing more. It's dishonest to declare it otherwise.
Same thing with every single social programs. These are not things we "must do", but things that are nice to do (maybe even that we "should do"). We should be honest about why we're doing these things so that we can rationally assess the degree to which they are needed. If you use the sort of rhetoric that is currently used to justify these things, you can ultimately justify *any* expense at all. Just find someone who would benefit by having some money spent and demonize anyone who would oppose it.
It's intellectually absurd, but that's overwhelmingly how most people come to support such things. And I'll be honest and admit that some Republicans participate in this as well (the labeling). But of the two parties, you are much more likely to find Republicans who view and express social spending in a cost-assessment manner than Democrats. Democrats do it because it's how they gain support among the people. Republicans do so because if they don't, they become the victims of the very attacks I've mentioned.
It really is about honesty. Democrats make it seem as though the social programs have no cost. And I'm not just talking about monetary costs. I honestly believe that the recipients of these programs lose a good chunk of liberty in the form of increased dependence on the government as well. I know that many of you disagree with that, and that's your right. But to me, that's an even larger crime by the Left than just hiding the cost in dollars. I really do see the Democrats as a party that enslaves those it claims to help.
on too tight.
