Why are cities more liberal?

[Spartan]

Because conservatives tend to want to control what other people do with their lives...for instance same gender marriage. If conservatives truly were interested in less intrusion they wouldn't want to pass a constitutional amenment and other laws defining what we can do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah... ok. That is the only example that I can agree with you on.

Liberals support more government control on all aspects of your lives like healthcare, social security, down to seatbelt laws, gun laws and this type of thing. Most conservatives want to give people more options and more say on how THEIR OWN money is being spent, where as liberals give the impression, whether it is true or not, that the average person is not smart enough to handle their own money.

I agree that marriage is a personal thing, and I dont think the government should interefere with that aspect of a persons life. This is a perfect example of something that wont ever directly affect me, so I see no problem. Libertarians do have a few good ideas.

[rusthebuss]

Wow buddy... you'd better hope there are no disabled people posting in this forum.  You've genuinly offended me.  My mother is disabled due to a stroke that she had that was caused by a brain hemmorhage that was caused by an infection in the blood due to a surgeon that was sloppy when he was trying to remove a hernea that she got from giving birth.  Now she has almost no use from her left hand and very limited use of her left leg.  She can't even get to the bathroom without hte help of a family member or personal care attendent.

She sits in a chair and cries about it because she has tried and has failed every time.  She had a job working at a hotel and had to quit because she kept falling and hurting herself and got herself put in the hospital.

If we had been living in Kansas or Texas or some other 'red' state, she'd be dead right now.  Because of the services that the Minnesota government has provided to her, she is slowly getting better because of physical therapy and personal care at home.. all paid for by the state's health care program for the working poor and disabled.

When you make ill sighted comments like that you have no idea with what you are toying with.  Peoples' lives are at stake.

Yes, my mother used to be a republican who owned a family run resort.  She worked very hard to scrape a living and still pay the bank.  Now we are without that resort and she cannot work.  Luckily her husband works 50-60 hours/week to pay the bills.. but that doesn't say much.

By all means... cut her off.  She's lazy, right?  She sits in her chair and cries about being disabled.  And what did the "champion" republicans do?  They proposed bills that would have cut off her health care to balance the budget.  Ahhh... a balanced budget at the cost of a few lives is worth it, is it?  Because they were whiners anyway, right?  She abused hte system!  I can garauntee she'll never vote for a conservative again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said there were cases that people can't help.........I was directing it to people that do have the ability to do things and was praising them for attempting to be a part of a functioning society. You need to read my point. There are people claiming to be disabled and yet they are painting a house so they could attempt to do some kind of job with assistance.

[rusthebuss]

Yeah... ok. That is the only example that I can agree with you on.

Liberals support more government control on all aspects of your lives like healthcare, social security, down to seatbelt laws, gun laws and this type of thing. Most conservatives want to give people more options and more say on how THEIR OWN money is being spent, where as liberals give the impression, whether it is true or not, that the average person is not smart enough to handle their own money.

I agree that marriage is a personal thing, and I dont think the government should interefere with that aspect of a persons life. This is a perfect example of something that wont ever directly affect me, so I see no problem. Libertarians do have a few good ideas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry but same gender marriages do affect us. Can you imagine how are medical insurance would increase and such. It effects taxes and everything and would start all kinds of bad things to normal couples by causing a domino effect and the average hetro household would suffer for it.

[Ruso]

When i started this topic i never imagined it would get to where we are -- it is kind of amazing...

I think most people on here --even though we diasagree-- are pretty respectful (although a few of you are whackos and not even worth responding to)

[dixiecupdrinking]

Sorry but same gender marriages do affect us. Can you imagine how are medical insurance would increase and such. It effects taxes and everything and would start all kinds of bad things to normal couples by causing a domino effect and the average hetro household would suffer for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please.

There are lots of words to describe your arguments but the most polite one is "weak."

No. I can't imagine how "medical insurance would increase and such." I can imagine how "medical insurance would increase" because deserving spouses would receive their partners', much like straight spouses receive it. It might affect tax income by allowing gay couples to file jointly. If the nation is dependent on the tax income of gay couples who aren't allowed to file together, well, maybe we ought to start treating them better so they don't move to Canada.

It would be a lot better for white couples if we taxed the hell out of blacks and didn't let them marry, too. Why don't we just do that since we're the majority and in charge?

[Dale]

dixiecupdrinking -

I do want to concede, here and now, that you have absolutly the most Southern-appropriate username on this forum.

[dixiecupdrinking]

dixiecupdrinking -

I do want to concede, here and now, that you have absolutly the most Southern-appropriate username on this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a lyric from a song that I happened to be listening to one day, actually. But I miss Dixie on certain days, and I condone drinking most anything.

Maybe someone from Chicago will know the band.

[paperback]

Sorry but same gender marriages do affect us. Can you imagine how are medical insurance would increase and such. It effects taxes and everything and would start all kinds of bad things to normal couples by causing a domino effect and the average hetro household would suffer for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

last time i checked "the average hetro household" wasn't the only type of household in america.

[MJLO]

I don't see how the gay marriage question, is in anyway relavent, to this topic, I'll take the libertarian stance on this one, and request that we move on to more prevalent and less devisive topics.

I have a thought, a question really. I have heard people say how cities with liberal Ideals, will be more sucessful. I am from a city that is if anything conservative, perhaps turning more moderate in it's thinking. In recent years it has started to thrive because of so much money being poured into it's Downtown. I'm going to make the arguement that how liberal a city is has not as much to do with it, but rather how much investment, takes place within the city that allows it to thrive. With a solid financial foundation, you will attract those people who will contribute to the vitality of a city, and it's quality of life. Cities like Minneapolis would be not nearly as successful if they were just "liberal", but rather they are vibrant financial centers with thriving economies. The "liberal" notion to me, is only an after thought. People with liberal Idealogues don't make the city, the things that attract them to the cities however do. Things such as high paying, Jobs. These things in turn give us nightlife, culture, and recreation. Take Detroit for example, the city is very liberal, but for the past five decades has struggled tremendously, because there has been such disinvestment and flight from the core. When the high paying Jobs left, so did the support jobs, and service sector of the city's economy. But it's still liberal.

[SOCOM]

It has been 44 years since Minneapolis had a Republican Mayor and I can't remeber any Republican city council members. In fact, I don't know if the Republicans even run any candidates.

Makes me wonder-- have the Republicans given up in the cities? -- or is it that they simply have no solutions for urban problems and therefore can't win an election?

This is not a Jab --but an honest question.

[MrSmith]

Defense spending is another area which is not sacrosanct. I'm all but certain there has been much waste, and imprudent foreign entanglemts have yielded bitter results.

Does it then follow that welfare should remain ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it does follow that welfare should remain. My point with the Military analogy was to show you that the military is an ongoing expense -- it does not eliminate the need for a future military --the military is designed to provide for our defense today. That's it.

Likewise welfare will not solve poverty. As long as there are jobs that don't pay a living wage (and there always will be) we will need welfare. It is what prevents more people from being on the street than already are.

[MrSmith]

I hope I can offer some insight as I do tend to vote Republican, although I am very much a moderate with liberal viewpoints on certain social issues.

I guess I'm stating the obvious here, but I think its very simple.  The Republican party (generally speaking of course) just doesn't care as much about cities as Democrats do.  I don't mean that as an insult, but it should be noted that Republicans are serving their base, which consists of a good majority of suburbanites who would die without a car, and tend to favor the building/widening of highways over mass transit as well as other issues that would "better" a city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is what i really have realized. In general, conservatives, have abandoned the cities. You could argue it is because they can't win, but I would say they can't win because they don't offer workable solutions --just look at the debate going on here --lots of the conservative side just won't acknowledge that their is a problem in this country of what is known as the "working poor".

[Dale]

That is what i really have realized.

[MrSmith]

And of course we conservatives will argue that there are better ways of helping the 'working poor' than welfare, which is itself, arguably, harmful.

Indeed, I might argue that welfare has yielded worse results than 'doing nothing'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, we will all be working poor soon enough as health care costs in this country rise. My company has had price increases of 25% in insurance costs per year for the last 3 years. Qwest telephone is now asking employees to pitch in $350/month for health insurance.

I'm sure when the government comes in to bail out middle class America like they are doing with pensions you won't call it welfare --but in reality it is....or is it welfare for the poor that is terrible, but it is fine for the middle class?

If welfare is bad for the poor then it is bad for the middle class too -- they should just rely on chaity -- right?

[Dale]

Well, we will all be working poor soon enough as health care costs in this country rise.  My company has had price increases of 25% in insurance costs per year for the last 3 years.  Qwest telephone is now asking employees to pitch in $350/month for health insurance.

I'm sure when the government comes in to bail out middle class America like they are doing with pensions you won't call it welfare --but in reality it is....or is it welfare for the poor that is terrible, but it is fine for the middle class?

If welfare is bad for the poor then it is bad for the middle class too -- they should just rely on chaity -- right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm also oppossed to the government 'bailing out' the middle class. I'm for government getting the hell out of the bailing out business.

And welfare is not 'charity' either. Though the program may have arisen from charitable minds, it quickly became an 'entitlement', which of course charity is not an entitlement, it's charity.

[rusthebuss]

The problem for welfare for the "poor" is that it just seems that it is a crutch for people who want to be lazy. Yes there are people that really are trying but lets be honest is that the people trying is not that high of a percentage. Like I said before if you make those who don't work volunteer in their community as a requirement or clean streets I bet the number of ones playing the system would drop dramatically. Also the country is being built on the backs of the middle class so if it fails the country fails.

[MrSmith]

The problem for welfare for the "poor" is that it just seems that it is a crutch for people who want to be lazy. Yes there are people that really are trying but lets be honest is that the people trying is not that high of a percentage. Like I said before if you make those who don't work volunteer in their community as a requirement or clean streets I bet the number of ones playing the system would drop dramatically. Also the country is being built on the backs of the middle class so if it fails the country fails.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I could just as eaily argue that Finacial aid, free public education and pension bailouts are a crutch for the middle class who spend all their money on big houses, SUV's, boats, trips etc. and then when it comes time to pay for college and time to pay for retirement they think they are entitled.

But you are correct, we give them these entitlements because it makes the country stronger to have a healthy, educated group of citizens and the same argument can be used to support basic social programs.

The idea of having welfare people clean streets etc. is great -- I have no issue with it. In fact, In Minnesota they tried something similar by getting prisoners to pick up trash -- it ended because middle class department of transportation workers complained that their jobs were being taken. You would have to find a job that no one is doing and i'm not sure what that would be? I'm also not sure what people with Children would do?

[Snowguy716]

Just what kind of world do you want to live in, Dale?

I'm interested to know. Because, as it is, you are wishing the middle class to be pushed down the ladder by astronomical healthcare costs, lower wages, and less retirement security.

I see your view as an idealistic regulation free free-market capitalistic economy in which the people are rewarded through hard work, dedication, and a charitable attitude towards those in need.

But the reality is much different. Today, we live in a nation where the free-market economy rewards those that are already rich and powerful, and power is rewarded more heavily than hard work. Those with power are forming monopolies and oligopolies that are pushing wages and quality of life towards the bottom while the cost of living increases dramatically.

The people that live in abject poverty would be much worse off if it wasn't for the taxes that the rich and powerful are forced to pay to the government so that the workers that they exploit can have affordable housing, basic healthcare, and a good education... which, are, unfortunately for the "upper" class, an entitlement to all.

We've come a long way since 1800. I dare say that during the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s we progressed quite nicely. The economic failure of the 70s had nothing to do with liberal policies or high taxes... but a squeeze on the oil market.. the very thing that the liberals have been trying to get out of since the '60s anyway.

If the government isn't going to bail out hte middle class or the lower class, then who will? What happens to you, Dale, if you lose your job because your company decides it wants to downsize its workforce or force paycuts.. and you can't do anything about it, because you're just one little ant in the corporate machine?

A neo-liberalist economy sounds great until the economic ills of this country come walking to your doorstep.

[Snowguy716]

I also agree...

People need to save more money. But the problem right now is that your typical Joe Dirt of rural South Dakota doesn't know the first thing about finding a good place to save his money. A standard savings account pays less than the rate of inflation so you are losing money by saving... and you are penalized if you put savings in a CD and an emergency warrants you to take it out early.

People should be responsible for themselves.. if they can. Some people can't afford to save 5 or 10% of their pay check and put money in their 401K or their IRA.. becuase the rent is due, the cupboards are getting empty, and they still haven't gotten that raise that they were promised.

Many of my friends are working 2 jobs for nearly 70 hours per week just to pay rent, have a decent car, and have just enough extra to eat out at a mid-priced restaraunt once or twice a week. Even in high tax, high service, higher minimum wage ($6.15/hour) Minnesota, life ain't a bouquet of flowers. But one of my friends gets health care through MinnesotaCare and another gets it from Medical assistance because she's going to college. (Medical assistance is almost completely government subsidized for people with the lowest incomes and situations. College students are eligible for it, because the state sees it as a good investment to keep its future college-graduates healthy.)

[Dale]

Just what kind of world do you want to live in, Dale?

I'm interested to know.  Because, as it is, you are wishing the middle class to be pushed down the ladder by astronomical healthcare costs, lower wages, and less retirement security.

I see your view as an idealistic regulation free free-market capitalistic economy in which the people are rewarded through hard work, dedication, and a charitable attitude towards those in need.

But the reality is much different.  Today, we live in a nation where the free-market economy rewards those that are already rich and powerful, and power is rewarded more heavily than hard work.  Those with power are forming monopolies and oligopolies that are pushing wages and quality of life towards the bottom while the cost of living increases dramatically.

The people that live in abject poverty would be much worse off if it wasn't for the taxes that the rich and powerful are forced to pay to the government so that the workers that they exploit can have affordable housing, basic healthcare, and a good education... which, are, unfortunately for the "upper" class, an entitlement to all.

We've come a long way since 1800.  I dare say that during the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s we progressed quite nicely.  The economic failure of the 70s had nothing to do with liberal policies or high taxes... but a squeeze on the oil market.. the very thing that the liberals have been trying to get out of since the '60s anyway.

If the government isn't going to bail out hte middle class or the lower class, then who will?  What happens to you, Dale, if you lose your job because your company decides it wants to downsize its workforce or force paycuts.. and you can't do anything about it, because you're just one little ant in the corporate machine?

A neo-liberalist economy sounds great until the economic ills of this country come walking to your doorstep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What kind of world would I wish to live in ? Good question. I suppose a world in which I am entrusted to the monies I have earned. A world in which I am free to share what I have earned with the people I choose, in the measure I choose, with conditions, stipulations and expectations appropriate to the situation.

And though I would not wish to lose my job, remember, it is not *my* job as though it were an entitlement. Again, I think this is a major area of disagreement between us.

[MR-2]

Yeah... ok. That is the only example that I can agree with you on.

Liberals support more government control on all aspects of your lives like healthcare, social security, down to seatbelt laws, gun laws and this type of thing. Most conservatives want to give people more options and more say on how THEIR OWN money is being spent, where as liberals give the impression, whether it is true or not, that the average person is not smart enough to handle their own money.

Incorrect. You're thinking of conservative and downtrodden democrats that favor more social control. I'd like to note that republicans support the same things, along with censorship, and other things. This is 'morality' legislature that is popular on both sides of the aisle in the US. True liberals are all about social rights. The fundamental disagreement between liberals and libertarians is whether central economic control leads to more or less social rights ultimately, and what types work. That's another debate entirely.

I am baffled where you got the notion that liberalism = control.

[Dale]

Incorrect. You're thinking of conservative and downtrodden democrats that favor more social control. I'd like to note that republicans support the same things, along with censorship, and other things. This is 'morality' legislature that is popular on both sides of the aisle in the US. True liberals are all about social rights. The fundamental disagreement between liberals and libertarians is whether central economic control leads to more or less social rights ultimately, and what types work. That's another debate entirely.

I am baffled where you got the notion that liberalism = control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Liberalism does indeed advocate control, even coercion, albeit as regards different issues.

[Snowguy716]

I guess entitlement to a job would be where we disagree.. that is a very communist ideal on my part. (Everyone has a right to work.. and since everyone has a right to contribute to society, they have a right to benefit from it.)

Liberal=more government control.

This can be right and wrong on both "ends" of the political spectrum. You have to remember that political views are better explained on a compass rather than a line. On the left extreme you have communism, on the right extreme you have neo-liberalism (no market regulation)

And then you have two other ends of hte spectrum on the top and bottom: Authoritarianism and Liberatarianism.

Left-winged authoritarians are what you think of when you hear the Soviet Union. This quadrant of the spectrum is called "Statism" in which the state (government) exercises large control over economic and social aspects of life. (All aspects.)

This is where you get your idea of liberal=control. On the other end, where Republicans fall, you have large control over social issues (no abortion, gay marriage, censorship, etc.) but little control over economic issues.

On the bottom of the spectrum is where most of the liberals in this forum probably fall.. more government control of business and economies and less over personal decisions.

On the right side you have what our country defines as liberitarianism... little government control on social or economic issues.

Today we have four well known political parties that try to fill each quadrant of this political compass.

On the upper left (Liberal-Authoritarianism) you have the democratic party. The party tries to issue social control over things like guns but has more liberal economic policies. The party has become more centrist in the last 15 years proposing less social control than in the past and less economic regulation. (This is generally speaking.) At the extremes of this quandrant, you have hte likes of Josef Stalin.

On the upper right (conservative-authoritarianism), you have the republicans. In recent years, the republican party has shifted to the right economically and has shifted considerably towards the top towards authoritarianism since WWII. The party that freed the slaves and championed women's voting rights today seeks to bar gays from marrying and women from having abortions. On the extreme end of this quadrant, you have fascism.

On the lower right (conservative-liberitarianism), you have the liberitarians. The party is relatively new, although its ideas are not. The likes of Thomas Malthus was a self described liberitarian. At hte extreme end of this spectrum, you have anarchism.

On the lower left (liberal-liberitarianism), you have the greens. The greens believe in little social control with heavy economic control (which includes the environment, since our environment is largely an economic force, not a social one. Without it, we wouldn't have life, let alone business.) The greens are a relatively new party in the last 30 years since environmental concerns have grown. There is no real description for the extreme end of this quadrant, except perhaps local communism. The indigenous tribes of hte world fall the closest to this category because they are not centralized, yet they all work together to form a community (a commune). While social control is strict, it is decided by the tribe rather than by a large government.

a website, www.politicalcompass.org, has a survey of 50 or so questions that you can answer, and it tries to place your political ideology. I would recommend trying it and seeing where you lay compared with world leaders.

[GRDadof3]

a website, www.politicalcompass.org, has a survey of 50 or so questions that you can answer, and it tries to place your political ideology.  I would recommend trying it and seeing where you lay compared with world leaders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm. 2.63/-1.23. None of the contemporary leaders are in my quandrant

[MR-2]

It's a good way to introduce the concept of socially separate groups that might see the same on economic terms (or vice versa) to someone who isn't familiar with concepts like statism and libertarianism. The political compass test itself is a bit inaccurate though. It ignores the reason for the answers to the questions, that can be wildly different from the assumed reasoning.

You haven't really demonstrated how liberalism = government control though. Republicans are not considered socially liberal. Communists aren't economically liberal, although they are sometimes considered that as a misnomer.

And I'm not going to take the test again, but I remember being around -5, -5 last time.