Progressive versus conservative, and why?
Progressive.
Side Score: 5
|
 |
Conservative.
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
It's a salad of words and meanings. Technically you can be "progressive" about regressing. When libs call a group by some name with a meaning, you can be guaranteed that group is not that word. Like "Antifascists" who use fascist techniques and promote fascist ideas, anti-Nazis who hate Jews, "Progressives" who promote regressive ideas, Black lives Matter who demonizes blacks who aren't liberal, "Moderate Islam" which promotes ideas that are further right and more extreme than "extremist Christians", or "Social Justice Warriors" who promote socially unjust ideas. Side: Conservative.
|
Under conservatives taxation is less so you get to keep more of what you earn. The progressives over taxation on the wealth and job creators along with those in the upper earnings bracket is a disincentive for entrepreneurial enterprise and to acquire the much needed skilled executives to fill posts of leadership and responsibility. Having great chunks of your earnings deducted to finance layabout's benefit cheques is galling in the extreme. Social benefit handouts were meant to be a safety net for those who temporarily fell on hard times. The big problem is that so many have used this handout of taxpayer's money as a hammock. Side: Conservative.
1
point
2
points
1
point
Do you want healthcare Healthcare? People have healthcare, as long as they pay for it. Healthcare isn't some inalienable right given to us in the Constitution. to ban torture I agree that torture is immoral and doesn't actually help organizations gain information, but it's not like any prominent progressives are campaigning on that issue. true religious liberty for all religions What do you mean by true religious liberty? There's nothing preventing you from being what you want to be. You can profess whatever belief you want. gay rights Gays have rights, all of them. They can marry and have sex and adopt children. and to help the poor and needy? The poor and needy? Who are these people specifically? Those who cannot support themselves financially and choose not to do so? Or those working two jobs with 2 kids trying to improve their situation? In any case, those who make an effort should receive benefits for their work. But, the government shouldn't be throwing money out the window and into poor, unemployed, and lazy lowlifes just so they can fund their drug addiction. Side: Conservative.
1
point
Do you want healthcare I have healthcare. to ban torture Ever heard of hell? True religious liberty for all religions, gay rights "A friend of the world is the enemy of God" "For a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination to God." Can I sleep with my daughter? Or are you an incestaphobe? And how is incest any more wrong than a man having sex with a man? and to help the poor and needy? Conservatives give more to charity, to starving foreigners, and catastrophe assistance, and the numbers aren't close. Liberals just talk about it because it makes them feel good. Doing something or actually giving money doesn't seem to.be a liberal requirement. Side: Conservative.
A substantial issue with many Social Democrats and the corresponding policies is a failure to understand what the Government already offers & awards to citizens within certain qualifying parameters. For instance, 'college affordability', 'mistreatment of the poor', and 'affordable health-care' are a few prominent topics on the Progressive agenda. Now, in order to accurately criticize/critique the current set-up, it is vey important to understand what, in fact, it is i.e. the current precedent. For example, below is a copy of two former posts of mine relating to Higher Education and Government Financial Aid. Then, I will expand on this to make a further point: --------------------------------------- Post #1 Free Community College? Community College already is free (if you're wise). Students qualify for Pell Grants up to $6000 per year from the federal government, and possibly a single or couple thousand dollar worth of grants from their state, if applied. Then, as long as a student is enrolled at least half-time in school, they are eligible to receive about $6000-$8000 per year--no strings attached. My local Community College is $1500 per semester for full-time students, or $3000 per year. Then, a student could go to Community College for 3 years, earn multiple associates degrees in disciplines that credential them for post-graduation jobs in the $40,000-$75,000 range; all free of charge, plus the government pays you $12,000 which you are able to invest in anyway you please--which, if you are savvy, is a strong basis for building more money, credit score, etc. etc. The bigger question is; what is everyone complaining about? Why are they so unable to see the 'chess board' accurately and play a good game? Post #2 Higher Education Should Be FREE! The Government already provides pretty substantial student aid programs in which students can potentially go to College for free or a limited cost. Federal Grant programs are offered at around nearly $6000 per year, state grant programs with eligibility for 6 years, although they vary by state, are typically between $1000-$4000 per year with eligibility for 6 years, Stafford Loans go up to $60,000 for undergraduates disbursed with $12,500 per year basis, Perkins Loans for those with extreme need are several thousand per year, etc. etc. Then, the average student is eligible for about $48,000 in grants (i.e. does not have to be paid back--"free money"), and $60,000 in low interest rate loans, which is a figure of $108,000 for undergraduate study alone--with more offered for graduate school students and those with demonstration of extreme financial need. If played right, one can attend a big state school program (e.g. like UCLA, Michigan, Ohio State, University of Florida, etc.) essentially free of cost or with limited low interest loans that one is allowed forgiveness on. Considering this, it seems that the 'average' person is very much unaware of the (rather generous) offers that the government already has guaranteed for them. One of the major issues, as I see it, is the dependency vs. independency status which links a person to their parents until they turn 24 years old. If this would change to 18 years old, then people would have a lot of opportunity and control over their lives with a potentially very bright future easily available--if planned and used in a sensible manner. --------------------------------------- Now, in addition to this, schools offer low-price healthcare programs to students, buffet-style meal plans, etc. etc. All of this can easily be covered inside of the Grant money range, which means that for 6 years (or more, depending upon how you 'play it'), any citizen 18 years or older has access to housing, education, healthcare, and multiple daily buffet-level food supply which will all be covered by the Government either in full or deferred payment to a later point with very reasonable payment plan(s) and low interest rate which, in-it-of-itself, has Loan Forgiveness options. Again, this is for any one individual, if you are married, then this financial potential immediately doubles--or, people can work in trusted pools/groups of friends and/or associates to increase their financial leverage. Excess money is not asked for back, rather it is the individuals to use as they please. This could include Real Estate investment, or other investments, that can set a person up for life afterword with very little to no real risk. Furthermore, this does not even include Welfare programs, Public Housing programs, and more--which also can be utilized by citizens. More details about such programs can be discussed in a subsequent post, if desired--which, of course, these programs increase the ability citizens have to 'succeed' in life, all provided by the current Government set-up--this isn't Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein proposals, this is already what exists in the USA. Side: Conservative.
|
