I wish I had the language skill of Ironman along with his delusions. I would not try to debate him.
Conservatives here do belive one thing almost universally and that is the suspicion that leftist would actually prefer more folks relied on the government. And by gov't, I mean other people's money.
By the way, I pretty much cant stand conservative talking heads because rather than relying on true principles; they cut off guests and espouse one side. I'm also not for nation building wing of the conservative party.
It woudl be nice if those than can gave enough to the truly needy poor joyfully, so welfare was obsolete. Given we are not doing that; I support some type of assistance. It's degrees and cutoff where I differ. I think if you can work and you dont; you don't get my money, basically. We may have to take your kids.
Oh I see. So you are more middle to center-right. That sounds kind of similar to a conservative southern Democrat or....can it be?....a moderate Republican? These days meeting a moderate Republican is like spotting a dodo bird.
Yea, the imperialist and neocon factions are nuts. They have gone off on some strange far right tangent that isn't much like traditional conservatism at all.
I actually have a fair amount of agreement with the last paragraph. You seem, to still be in this reality where we can discuss the pros and cons of varying degrees of social programs, as well as other solutions that don't involve socialization. Whereas many others these days just put their fingers in their ears and state the things they want to be true.
Frequently when I debate with people, it's on objective facts, where I can and do prove that I'm right. However we seem to be in agreement on most of the facts and could actually weigh different opinions regarding those facts. That's the way those discussions had been in the past, like if you watch the old presidential debates, like Kennedy vs Nixon maybe. Nobody is right or wrong for the most part, just a different subjective point of view.
I utterly refuse to accept something that is not true, but I'm very willing to look at things from the point of view of someone else.
What do you think about reducing the need for social programs and progressive taxation by regulating the market to stop people from rigging it in their favor, fixing prices (particularly labor), tightening antitrust type laws to break up some of these near-monopolies, etc? Something where the end result is a market that is free in actuality, rather than a market anarchy that can be controlled by whoever is the most powerful. So the market would be like a libertarian society rather than pure anarchy, where warlords rule however much of it they can take by force.
Or to give a small specific example, what if Wal-mart is required to pay their full time, career (not short term help) employees more, so that we don't have to pay for their food stamps?
I'd be interested to hear what you think about that sort thing.