Why are cities more liberal?

[rusthebuss]

Exactly...conservatives will do nothing!! The solution is to do nothing?! Fabulous!!

You confirmed my hypothesis 100%.

And why will you do nothing...becuase you assume you know the types of people who use welfare (unwed mothers, people too lazy to get a job etc...).  In fact many of the people on welfare have jobs...they just are not jobs that pay a wage that is livable.  In fact the subsidized healthcare program in jepordy of being cut in Minnesota was only available to people who had jobs!!

And, if your premise is correct that without welfare people would search harder for alternatives then why in the world should we give to charities --afterall it is just another form of welfare encouraging these people to be careless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That i disagree with about charities. Besides that is a choice or a freedom that we have and welfare is taken from us whether we like it or not. I am a conservative but i don't want people to suffer and you sir have made ill assumptions and stereotypical remarks, which liberals are known for being hypocritical, that suppose liberals are trying to stop. I just feel that these people should be forced to do some sort of community service, if they are not disabled, to give back for what they are receiving and that is it. The system was designed for a good cause but I grew up some what poor and watched majority of people laughing at playing the system and telling me I'm stupid for getting a job.

[Dale]

Exactly...conservatives will do nothing!! The solution is to do nothing?! Fabulous!!

You confirmed my hypothesis 100%.

And why will you do nothing...becuase you assume you know the types of people who use welfare (unwed mothers, people too lazy to get a job etc...).  In fact many of the people on welfare have jobs...they just are not jobs that pay a wage that is livable.  In fact the subsidized healthcare program in jepordy of being cut in Minnesota was only available to people who had jobs!!

And, if your premise is correct that without welfare people would search harder for alternatives then why in the world should we give to charities --afterall it is just another form of welfare encouraging these people to be careless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm fairly certain you've misconstrued my meaning. In addition to 'not-doing', I also proposed 'undoing'. And by 'not doing', I did not mean to suggest not caring (much to your dissappointment ?). And I say 'undoing' because my desire would be to abolish a system (welfare) which has yielded much bitter fruit.

And my principle complaint with welfare is not that lazy people will seek it (though undoubtably they will), but that, for many, industry, creativity, fidelity, and the like, are less necessary in the welfare state. And I have many other complaints as well.

As to why private charities are superior, one reason is that such organizations are typically closer to the ills, and can act discretionarily, ensuring that recipients are helped in more intelligent ways. And of course there is the problem of bureacracy.

But though private is superior to public, nothing beats personal initiative. Even private charities can be an easy out when people you know cry out for personal attention. I'm not saying this is true of you, but I know liberals who appear to love people *in the abstract*. They prattle on about social ills yet they do not lift a finger to address them (and, yes, conservatives are also susceptible to the charge).

What do you do when you see a man lying on the sidewalk just off of Hennepin ?

[rusthebuss]

Welfare system should be more of education not hand outs. We do need a crutch for when we all fall down but it also has become descrimination against a race. When someone is getting more because of the color of their skin its plain wrong. I know this first hand.

[PeninsulaKiddo]

Welfare system should be more of education not hand outs. We do need a crutch for when we all fall down but it also has become descrimination against a  race. When someone is getting more because of the color of their skin its plain wrong. I know this first hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Therein lies the core of the issues of affirmative action. I think that people, no matter who they are or what ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, what-have-you, will always take advantage of welfare. Very seldom does welfare money get to where it needs to be the most... oy.

[MrSmith]

That i disagree with about charities. Besides that is a choice or a freedom that we have and welfare is taken from us whether we like it or not. I am a conservative but i don't want people to suffer and you sir have made ill assumptions and stereotypical remarks, which liberals are known for being hypocritical, that suppose liberals are trying to stop. I just feel that these people should be forced to do some sort of community service, if they are not disabled, to give back for what they are receiving and that is it. The system was designed for a good cause but I grew up some what poor and watched majority of people laughing at playing the system and telling me I'm stupid for getting a job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dale was being hypocritical --he said giving something for nothing leads to laziness etc. and that is why he is against welfare -- but he also said he thought charity was a better solution --but that is also giving something for nothing which invalidates his argument --i was simply pointing that out. I made no assumptions, i was pointing out the fallacy of his argument.

You are right, that charity is different from being forced (taxed) for welfare -- but that is a completely different reason than what Dale gave as an argument.

It is fine to say you don't believe you should be forced to give your money to help others. But, why is it ok to take my money to pay for schools? why is it ok to take my money and give it to other countries in the form of Tsunami aid? why is it OK to take my money and use it to build Iraq? Why is it ok to take my money to fund somebody elses college education? The government does this all the time.

And, yes, I believe whenever and wherever possible people should be forced to work for welfare --but once again you assume welfare recepients are not already working. And you assume there are always jobs available. If that were true we would not have an unemployment rate at all.

[MrSmith]

Welfare system should be more of education not hand outs. We do need a crutch for when we all fall down but it also has become descrimination against a  race. When someone is getting more because of the color of their skin its plain wrong. I know this first hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like white people like me got for 200 years? Yes that is wrong. And it is wong if you gave a black women $250 in welfare and a white women $200 --but i am unaware that this happens.

[Dale]

Dale was being hypocritical --he said giving something for nothing leads to laziness etc. and that is why he is against welfare -- but he also said he thought charity was a better solution --but that is also giving something for nothing which invalidates his argument --i was simply pointing that out.  I made no assumptions, i was pointing out the fallacy of his argument.

You are right, that charity is different from being forced (taxed) for welfare -- but that is a completely different reason than what Dale gave as an argument.

It is fine to say you don't believe you should be forced to give your money to help others.  But, why is it ok to take my money to pay for schools?  why is it ok to take my money and give it to other countries in the form of Tsunami aid?  why is it OK to take my money and use it to build Iraq?  Why is it ok to take my money to fund somebody elses college education? The government does this all the time.

And, yes, I believe whenever and wherever possible people should be forced to work for welfare --but once again you assume welfare recepients are not already working.  And you assume there are always jobs available.  If that were true we would not have an unemployment rate at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm. Well, at least I'm being talked *about*.

[MrSmith]

Hmm. Well, at least I'm being talked *about*.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, i don't disagree with certain arguments being pressented by Dale and others.

People should not get unlimited handouts and they should work. People should take their own initiative and charities can offer services better than the govt.

But you make false assumptions about the people on welfare and you make false assumptions about how much private charity can really do and you make false assumptions about what life was like before welfare.

You also equate welfare as the start or cause of our urban ills --when in reality drugs are the real problem and they in turn cause, crime, gangs. pregnancy and the lack of initiative. Drugs feed the cycle...not welfare.

The problem I have is that you focus soley on the cheats and not on real people. It is actually conservatives who have the "abstract" notion of people --- and I would argue that it is because you don't live among diverse populations.

Which brings us full circle --it explains why cities are liberal because we live reality while the suburbs live in stereotypes and unfounded assumptions.

[Dale]

Honestly, i don't disagree with certain arguments being pressented by Dale and others.

People should not get unlimited handouts and they should work.  People should take their own initiative and charities can offer services better than the govt.

But you make false assumptions about the people on welfare and you make false assumptions about how much private charity can really do and you make false assumptions about what life was like before welfare. 

You also equate welfare as the start or cause of our urban ills --when in reality drugs are the real problem and they in turn cause, crime, gangs.  pregnancy and the lack of initiative.  Drugs feed the cycle...not welfare.

The problem I have is that you focus soley on the cheats and not on real people.  It is actually conservatives who have the "abstract" notion of people --- and I would argue that it is because you don't live among diverse populations. 

Which brings us full circle --it explains why cities are liberal because we live reality while the suburbs live in stereotypes and unfounded assumptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, now you're just coming apart in sections. Why don't you address me ?

[dixiecupdrinking]

I frankly don't know what nashvillebound was trying to say, although I quite agree that he said it well. But maybe you ought to get out a little more. you know, actually meet a few conservatives. 

Of course you're not likely to find many in those alledgedly 'diverse' urban environs. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but you are likely to find plenty in Atlanta's North Fulton suburbs, where I lived for 8 years....

I may have biases, Dale, but they are educated ones I assure you.

[Dale]

Okay then, let's try another angle, MrSmith. Let's say you're poor, and have a job offer, which you can't get to because you have a dead battery. Now what can the government do but assure you your check will get to you by the 3rd, which is a good two weeks away, by which time your job is likely to be filled ?

Ah, but individuals, or a group of individuals can buy you a new battery, thus ensuring that you get to your job. You see, private charities can individualize care in the way a welfare state cannot. The former can help people *more intelligently* than the latter. Thus, I do not contradict myself when I suggest that some forms of giving are better than other forms of giving.

[Guest]

There are two main reasons why a private charity is a more efficient avenue to deliver temporary assistance to those in need. 'Dale' illustrated the first reason, a private charity is able to better direct its limited resources to achieve a bigger 'bang for its buck'. I have seen study after study that shows the inefficiencies and waste as a result of public agencies dispersing funds. The figures most often cited state that only $0.05-$0.10 of every federal dollar earmarked for welfare actually reaches the intended recipient. The balance is eaten up by bureaucracy, mismanagement and fraud.

A great study can be found here

http://www.beaconhill.org/Testimony.html

'Mr. Smith'

I agree with some of your thoughts in theory, but just like the mythical utopia, earthly realization is harder to achieve.

In addition I think you miss the point when you state,

"By "welfare" do you mean the financial aid that paid for my college education? Or do you mean the huge tax break I get on my $475,000 condo mortgage? Or perhaps by welfare you mean the incredible tax breaks just given to the oil companies or to sports teams for stadiums.

Ok...I am being sarcastic but seriously...the middle and upper class is a huge consumer of government handouts!"

I see you comparing apples to oranges between the government attempting to redistribute wealth buy taking earned income from one group of citizens and giving said income to another group of citizens vs. the government allowing people and business to keep more of their own earned income. To equate the two is a huge leap in logic.

[MrSmith]

There are two main reasons why a private charity is a more efficient avenue to deliver temporary assistance to those in need. 'Dale' illustrated the first reason, a private charity is able to better direct its limited resources to achieve a bigger 'bang for its buck'. I have seen study after study that shows the inefficiencies and waste as a result of public agencies dispersing funds. The figures most often cited state that only $0.05-$0.10 of every federal dollar earmarked for welfare actually reaches the intended recipient. The balance is eaten up by bureaucracy, mismanagement and fraud.

A great study can be found here

http://www.beaconhill.org/Testimony.html

'Mr. Smith'

I agree with some of your thoughts in theory, but just like the mythical utopia, earthly realization is harder to achieve.

In addition I think you miss the point when you state,

"By "welfare" do you mean the financial aid that paid for my college education? Or do you mean the huge tax break I get on my $475,000 condo mortgage? Or perhaps by welfare you mean the incredible tax breaks just given to the oil companies or to sports teams for stadiums.

Ok...I am being sarcastic but seriously...the middle and upper class is a huge consumer of government handouts!"

I see you comparing apples to oranges between the government attempting to redistribute wealth buy taking earned income from one group of citizens and giving said income to another group of citizens vs. the government allowing people and business to keep more of their own earned income. To equate the two is a huge leap in logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taking my money and giving it to a college student in the form of grants was redistributing wealth!

[MrSmith]

Okay then, let's try another angle, MrSmith. Let's say you're poor, and have a job offer, which you can't get to because you have a dead battery. Now what can the government do but assure you your check will get to you by the 3rd, which is a good two weeks away, by which time your job is likely to be filled ?

Ah, but individuals, or a group of individuals can buy you a new battery, thus ensuring that you get to your job. You see, private charities can individualize care in the way a welfare state cannot. The former can help people *more intelligently* than the latter. Thus, I do not contradict myself when I suggest that some forms of giving are better than other forms of giving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree some forms of giving are better than others. I agree that charities do a great deal for this country and are preferred --but it is not and has never been enough. It is why Catholic charities --the number one private provider of social services is against more cuts --because they are already spread to thin.

Aside from magically creating more charity or turning back time before welfare you still have no real solutions.

[Spartan]

Something I have noticed as I read over the MANY posts that I missed in the past two days is that many of you have a very well defined idea of what a suburb is and what the 'city' is. Nothing wrong there, but since when did cities not include their suburbs? How many of you live in the city limits but still not downtown? I defy you to find any city outside of NYC and SF that are solely defined by their downtown being where everyone lives. I think that the argument that the only true urban environment is in a downtown setting is invalid.

I am not saying that suburban areas are somehow urban. I am saying that there is not some line that you can draw to define the true urban area- there are shades of grey that you must consider. What about trolley car suburbs, or the areas that were suburban 20 or 30 years ago, but are in a transitional phase into a more urban setting now? What about new urbanism? You can't simply ignore these things.

Cities don't stop at the city limits.

Exactly...conservatives will do nothing!! The solution is to do nothing?! Fabulous!!

You confirmed my hypothesis 100%.

And why will you do nothing...becuase you assume you know the types of people who use welfare (unwed mothers, people too lazy to get a job etc...).  In fact many of the people on welfare have jobs...they just are not jobs that pay a wage that is livable.  In fact the subsidized healthcare program in jepordy of being cut in Minnesota was only available to people who had jobs!!

And, if your premise is correct that without welfare people would search harder for alternatives then why in the world should we give to charities --afterall it is just another form of welfare encouraging these people to be careless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. A good conservative wants to help these people too. They offer help in a different manner though. Think of welfare recipients as people in a raft at sea with no sail. Instead of giving checks and a life jacket and saying wait some more, we will bail you out soon (ie: liberals), a conservative would give them an ore and say you have to do the work, learn new skills, but you will make it to shore under your own power, and we will try to make the economy more condusive to job creation.

It doesn't always work out that way, but that is what they ought to be thinking. This is not all conservatives mind you, just the good ones.

I believe helping people with education is the key. The problem lies in the people who have no ambition to make something of themselves. They don't care about education for whatever reason. These are the people that ruin if for those who genuinely need welfare- "the moochers" -if you will. Uneducated people (or perhaps ignorant ones) tend to use the blanket statements that welfare is a total drain on society, etc.

I have done the research and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is generally a good system. If helps people out so long as they put effort into helping themselves. The checks stop if people aren't making the effort to get a job or education.

BTW, for those who dont know- I am about as conservative a person as they come.

[MrSmith]

No. A good conservative wants to help these people too. They offer help in a different manner though. Think of welfare recipients as people in a raft at sea with no sail. Instead of giving checks and a life jacket and saying wait some more, we will bail you out soon (ie: liberals), a conservative would give them an ore and say you have to do the work, learn new skills, but you will make it to shore under your own power, and we will try to make the economy more condusive to job creation.

It doesn't always work out that way, but that is what they ought to be thinking. This is not all conservatives mind you, just the good ones.

I believe helping people with education is the key. The problem lies in the people who have no ambition to make something of themselves. They don't care about education for whatever reason. These are the people that ruin if for those who genuinely need welfare- "the moochers" -if you will. Uneducated people (or perhaps ignorant ones) tend to use the blanket statements that welfare is a total drain on society, etc.

I have done the research and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is generally a good system. If helps people out so long as they put effort into helping themselves. The checks stop if people aren't making the effort to get a job or education.

BTW, for those who dont know- I am about as conservative a person as they come.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, I think we mostly agree. Eliminate bad and wasteful programs, use charity when possible and teach people to be self sufficient. I agree 100%. I also agree that some people have no ambition.

My argument with Dale was that he wanted to eliminate completely the welfare system.

As for your raft analogy... i would use the following:

Think of welfare recipients as people in a raft at sea with no sail. a conservative would give them an ore and say you have to do the work, learn new skills, but you will make it to shore under your own power. A liberal would first give them water, food and a life jacket so that their chances of success were increased.

[Dale]

I agree some forms of giving are better than others.  I agree that charities do a great deal for this country and are preferred --but it is not and has never been enough.  It is why Catholic charities  --the number one private provider of social services is against more cuts --because they are already spread to thin. 

Aside from magically creating more charity or turning back time before welfare you still have no real solutions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welfare is a real solution ? Solution for what ?

But, no. I have no prescription for the utopian society you seem to demand of conservatives.

[Dale]

Honestly, I think we mostly agree.  Eliminate bad and wasteful programs, use charity when possible and teach people to be self sufficient.  I agree 100%.  I also agree that some people have no ambition.

My argument with Dale was that he wanted to eliminate completely the welfare system.

As for your raft analogy... i would use the following:

Think of welfare recipients as people in a raft at sea with no sail.  a conservative would give them an ore and say you have to do the work, learn new skills, but you will make it to shore under your own power.  A liberal would first give them water, food and a life jacket so that their chances of success were increased.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or think of welfare as a system in which capsized boaters could receive leaky rafts, as many as needed (although there would likely be a 2 to 4 week wait).

[Spartan]

Honestly, I think we mostly agree.  Eliminate bad and wasteful programs, use charity when possible and teach people to be self sufficient.  I agree 100%.  I also agree that some people have no ambition.

My argument with Dale was that he wanted to eliminate completely the welfare system.

As for your raft analogy... i would use the following:

Think of welfare recipients as people in a raft at sea with no sail.  a conservative would give them an ore and say you have to do the work, learn new skills, but you will make it to shore under your own power.  A liberal would first give them water, food and a life jacket so that their chances of success were increased.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Based on your description, a liberal is just prolonging the time of failure. Food is useless if you have no means to get out of a bad situation. Personally, I'd rather be starving with that ore, than be well nourished but unable to get to shore.

Still, that isn't entirely relevant sine we are in agreement.

[Dale]

MrSmith -

Or, if you will, a liberal would make sure he gave the capsized boaters *my* water, food and lifejacket.

[Ruso]

As a few of you might know, Chile, the southern SouthAmerican nation, is already considered a first world nation. For some,  because of the bloody dictatorship of the 70s, with Pinochet. Now Chile signed  the free trade treaty with the USA. Despite their current "leftist" president, they did implement extremely capitalist policies. The welfare system, for example, was eliminated. Instead, they promoted a bank-like option. Anyone who needs economical help, asks for bondings , yet they have to pay them later. It is much more complex, but I got to g. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stupid me, not bondings, loans. As long as there some organization that gives financial aid, there is no problem. If you ask for state money, they would not give it to you, they would loan it.

[Dale]

Stupid me, not bondings, loans. As long as there some organization that gives financial aid, there is no problem. If you ask for state money, they would not give it to you, they would loan it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assumed that 'bondings' meant loans.

So are you Chilean, Ruso ?

[MrSmith]

Based on your description, a liberal is just prolonging the time of failure. Food is useless if you have no means to get out of a bad situation. Personally, I'd rather be starving with that ore, than be well nourished but unable to get to shore.

Still, that isn't entirely relevant sine we are in agreement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said i would give them an ore and instuction...but an ore is useless if they are starving and thirsty.

And you hit the problem on the head -- they first need to have the means to get out of a bad situation.

I would describe the means need to survive in society as

--basic healthcare

--education

--housing

--food

--transpotation

--safety

Which again gets back to my orignal question. How do we help those that don't have these things. We can get them a job but if it is too far away from affordable housing and offers no healthcare how successful will they really be.

[Dale]

MrSmith -

Welfare is not analogous to giving people an oar and instructions. That's private charity. Welfare is the leaky raft (when we can get around to it).

Rather than pit conservatives against liberals, perhaps we should compare welfare to true compassion. True compassion is not concerned with throwing out liferafts. True compassion goes over the side and pulls the capsized aboard. Welfare can never do this.

And I'll address some of the items you mention shortly.

[MrSmith]

MrSmith -

Or, if you will, a liberal would make sure he gave the capsized boaters *my* water, food and lifejacket. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't take all your water or all your food, but if someone was starving I would take some of your food--absolutely.

As a society we make it possible for people to make money by providing, education, security, roads, govt. and other infrastructure. Since as a collective we partially made success possible people have an obligation to pay (in the form of taxes) for maintaing the infrastructure. But success also comes on the backs of others --afterall we all buy things from low-wage earners and you may even employ them.

So don't think you obtained that Bread and water all on your own.