Is conservatism making a comeback?

I understand, and don't wish to destroy class. What I don't support is that class divisions are so enormous. It's disgusting that the top 2% of the population control 40% of the wealth, and the bottom 80% control around 15% of wealth.

Yes, people get sudden raises into prosperity. But the vast majority don't. And we can't base our ideas off the odd fluke. And you're going to be tired in the morning. :lol:

 

Yeah, the ACA rollout has obviously been a disaster.

But what I find strange is the same conservatives who say the Affordable Care Act is "socialized medicine" seem to forget that the the ACA was originally a Republican plan, and one implemented by a Republican presidential nominee. Now, I'm not saying I support the ACA, but there is definitely a level of hypocrisy on the conservative side.

That's politics, though.

 

I doubt it, but I don't see Indiana voting for a Democrat President again or allowing same sex marriage any time soon. For years, the area I live in had a Democrat representative in the House. When he became our Senator? They voted a Republican into his empty seat. I say they because that bitch Walorski does not represent me, no matter how much she claims to. I didn't vote for her.

 

Not aimed at you specifically: conservatism is unquestionably dying only if you use the relatively narrow confines of sexual (inc. LGBT) liberalism and perhaps gender equality and religious dogmatism. In terms of attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism I'd argue it's more hostile than ever in the USA and Europe, especially since 9/11. Nationalism is in the mores, and for the USA specifically imperialism is quite well-entrenched. And in the closely correlated economic issues, neo-classical economics is very much the mainstay.

And then you have to remember that historically and internationally, both major USA parties are right: one is veers between centre-right and right whilst the other veers between right and far right. Someone who claims to be 'left' in the USA is probably only speaking relatively.

 

Okay, a few myths to dispel here.

The feds ARE doing their jobs, considering even before the racist and unconstitutional SB1070 went into effect, the number of people entering the US illegally has slowed to a trickle. SB1070 allowed any cop to pull over/arrest anyone he thought might be here illegally, so that would mean only Mexicans and Hispanics would be stopped and harassed repeatedly because they thought he was here illegally.

Another conservative myth. The reforms made during the Clinton administration mandated that anyone receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), had to either search for a private sector job or work for the state. And most of the people you talk about "leeching off the system" have disabilities that aren't necessarily visible. Sure, maybe somebody with spina bifida may be able to work, but my cousin with severe Asperger's sure can't. I have an aunt with a $9 an hour job, three boys and a $700/month rent payment. Yeah, she gets food stamps. And your answer to that is "Get a job?"

Obama is actually pretty conservative, considering A. he's surrounded himself with conservative advisers, B. He's appointed numerous Republicans to his Cabinet (Chuck Hagel, a Republican Senator from Nebraska, who was still filibustered, Ray LaHood, etc.) and C. Almost every single time Republicans showed resistance, he caved. (2010 tax issue, DREAM Act, Syria, the public option in the ACA, the list goes on and on.)

Stop right there. Republicans/conservatives have absolutely no right to talk about the economy, considering that every single jobs bill has been filibustered in the Senate, and not even brought up in the House. In fact, the House since 2011 has decided to sit on its hands and do absolutely nothing. The economy's not going to get any better until Democrats either A. reform the filibuster, or B. win a 60 vote majority, or even more unlikely, the House actually decides to get off its ass and begin to do something.

 

There are abuses in the welfare system. Take for example this video where this woman refuses to get a job. There should be some incentive for her to get off the system, but there isn't.
Got Blood Pressure Meds Handy? You'll Need 'Em For This. - Chicks on the Right - Chicks on the Right

 

Here are a few more examples of people who through their hard work started companies that made them billionaires.
Charlie Ergen: Was the son of an Austrian imigrant. He started a company in 1980 selling satellite TV systems door to door. You may have seen his TV ad where he is delivering a C band Satellite dish on his bike. Through his hard work the company he started, EchoStar founded Dish Network, one of the two satellite TV companies in the US.

William Gates: His parents were lawyers, but that didn't get him his money. When he started Micro Soft (the original name) he had very little money. It was through his hard work, and some shrewd business deals it became MicroSoft that we know today.

 

And there are hundreds of millions who have worked just as hard without much reward. The odd incident doesn't mean that there's equality.

Tell me there's equality when black literacy rates are equal to white, when people don't have to work multiple jobs to still be in debt, and when Wall St. doesn't own the people.

The reality is that power is held by mostly hereditary luck; shares are inherited, the subsequent position on boards, money itself, and the massive influence money gives due to the US system means that you can basically inherit the ability to change an electorate.

 

My mom works 100 times harder at her job (chiropractor/small business owner) than my dad does (engineer), my mom spent 8 more years in school than my dad did, and my mom makes about 1/3 what my dad does in terms of income. Hard work and talent alone won't take you very far. It's all about who you know and which path you choose.

 

The point is there is opportunity, but one must work to take advantage of it. If you punish success by taking money from those who achieve it, there is no incentive to do more. Likewise if you can live just as well on welfare as you can on minimum wage there is no incentive to get off welfare. When enough people decide that, the system pays out more than it takes in, and collapses.

---------- Post added 22nd Nov 2013 at 01:09 PM ----------

It is about ambition, and what path you choose. I will admit, that I have taken a job that pays less than what I can make in my profession, because I am comfortable here. I do know people in other businesses that could use my skills that pay more. It is my choice not to take that path.
Having said that, I am not taking any government assistance.

---------- Post added 22nd Nov 2013 at 01:12 PM ----------

Small business owners do work harder than most anyone in corporate america. They are CEO, CFO, accountant, salesman, janitor, secretary, and then, in your mom's case chiropractor. That said, once they do start to make enough money, they can, and often do hire someone to fill those other positions as the money comes available. They are a job creator.

 

Er, no. Even in Australia (which is far more egalitarian, but not really good, either), I have the immense privilege of being able to attend good schools, go to a good university, and get a good job in the public service. Even in Canberra that is a lucky position to be in.

Meanwhile, in the rest of Australia, most people can't get more than a $50,000 p.a. job (take into account the massive cost of living here), live in eternal debt, and many people from working families won't even get the basic education I can take for granted.

Now, let's look at the US. Immense competition due to population, institutionalised racial inequality, more people than jobs, an education system that basically requires wealth to be good, universities that most can't afford, and jobs that don't cut it for the vast majority to live reasonably. Then let's look at the US rich. The top one percent control more than double the bottom 80% control.

There's not an amazing "land of opportunity". Class (and that goes into how the actions/treatment of your ancestors was) determines your future. You're shaped in a way that doesn't speak equality by the circumstances of your class.

---------- Post added 23rd Nov 2013 at 07:20 AM ----------

Ever heard this saying?

I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First; the streets weren't paved with gold, second; they weren't paved at all, and third; I was expected to pave them.

 

There is always a way up, if you have the ambition to get there. Starting at a community college level. You don't have to go to harvard to get a good job. Even if you do finish at a big school like them you don't have to start there. My local community college is only $117/credit hour. Even if you want a more expensive school, student loans are easy to get regardless of past credit. It is also much easier to get a grant for school if your family doesn't have money. Yes, in some of the poorer cities, the schools don't get as much money as in higher income areas. School however is what you make of it, not how much money your school has.

 

Yeah, I'm going to have to say no.

School is not what you make of it. When your school is basically training for prison, where there's no learning, where half the kids don't get enough food and have no reason to respect authority, then education is not simply a personal choice.

Student loans are easy? Tell a poor black kid in a poor community that she can go to a prestigious urban grammar school, go to Yale, become a successful lawyer and have no debt. It's not realistic.

There is no equality of opportunity in America. Do you really think the starting point for all is the same as it is for the rich and white?

 

Prestigious grammar school, not necessary. If the school is actually just training for prison, then the entire school district needs to be fired, opening positions for good teachers, principals and adminsitrators. And no, they probably can't afford yale, but they don't need to. Again using my home state as an example, first two years at a community college at #117/credit hour. Complete the degree at University of Wyoming, for $118/credit hour, and guess what, you can still be an engineer, or a lawyer. Once hired it is your performance, not what school you went to that makes you more money.

 

Then why do white, middle and upper-class men get a disproportionate promotion in the workplace? You can't say that white men are inherently better.

Equality isn't a reality in the US. In any case, too many poor people won't even know how to do the basic stuff to get ahead. Don't lie about inequality just because it's an uncomfortable reality.

 

Are people equal, no, and they will never be. They do have an equal opportunity though if they have the ambition.

 

But that's exactly the point. Your whole argument is based off a fiction. Opportunity isn't equal when the starting points are so unequal.

Are you saying anyone who isn't a straight white man from a rich family isn't ambitious?

 

You always have the opportunity to better yourself. Will you become as rich as Bill Gates? Unlikely, but possible. You would have to do like he did and create something that there was a need for that did not exist prior. DOS, and Windows. If you look prior every computer company built their own incompatible OS, and Gates got lucky to partner with IBM.
You can however grow up in the Detroit Public school system, and starting in community colleges move up to being a lawyer, engineer, or doctor, and having a good living.