Nope, nobody wants to work for low wages, unless that's all they can get. Perhaps this is why so many small business fail?

Or perhaps its because the lowest wage potentials are far below what it actually costs to live on one's own in anything approaching comfort?

When you're pulling in only a few hundred a month after taxes (which are supposed to be helping to pay the way of people even poorer than you), and your rent is $300 plus utilities, and you've got to eat and keep your car running and gassed and so forth and so on, you start to realize just what the poverty level IS.

Of course, with the pitiful rate of military pay, I'm sure Baloo knows this already. And he was working for the richest boss in the country, the Federal Government!

(btw, I work for the city/state, and am STILL hoping for an actual living wage in a few years or so. PA pays its librarians pitifully -- but I can't afford to move!)

You'll have to forgive me, as I'm rather new to the political scene, but I'm not familiar with that term. Elaborate, please?

Regarding liberal and conservative as labels, you really have to distinguish between classic liberalism and what gets called "liberal" today. Same with conservatism, but in different ways. Both terms come out of past centuries where the conservatives wanted to maintain monarchy, traditional society, or traditional religion and the liberals wanted to expand democracy and personal freedom.

There are very, very few old-style conservatives in the US today. That's because, IMHO, most "conservates" support capitalism, and capitalism is the *least* conservative force ever to be unleashed in the world. That's why Karl Marx had great admiration for capitalism, and considered it the most productive, dynamic system ever invented by man (he also saw that it had flaws, it is not morally defensible, and thought that something even better would come through capitalism's self-destruction). Marx knew that capitalism, over time, sweeps away religion, family structure, and traditional village communities, and he approved of that.

Liberal has a different meaning today. I think old-style liberalism is a bit more intact than classic conservatism, but it exists more among non-Stalinist socialists and anarchists than with people who are called liberals now. Yes, there are people to the left of the democratic party who aren't communists, although they are more noticable in other countries. Classic liberals believed in minimal government interference in how people live their lives. But it's important to remember that classic liberals such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were pre-capitalist, and when they saw something that resembled the capitalism we have now, they hated it and called it tyranny!

So in a nutshell, here's what I think of most "Liberals" and "Conservatives" in the US today:

Conservative: Capitalism must be preserved by government using coercive power, and "social Darwinist" individualism should be our aim. Freedom without equality of condition, or equality of outcome. Conservative rhetoric about religion will be used to gain the support of electoral majories.

Liberal: Capitalism must be preserved by using government power, but in a more touchy-feely way, with social programs designed to give capitalism a human face. There should be a teensy bit more equality, and women and minorities should have a slightly bigger slice of the pie. Promises of greater government benefits will be used to gain the support of electoral majorities.

That's it.

------------------
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters."

Welcome, AlphaSquirrel.

Oh, and one of Jefferson's big shouting points is that, although the majority will generally rule, careful steps MUST be taken to protect the rights of the minority from oppression by the majority.

And so far, I haven't seen any of these "special" rights conservatives keep talking about... what's so "special" about not being wantonly fired?

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

Now let's see if I can jog my memory about what I wanted to say.......

First up, Baloo

The Axe Murderer should Die. Normally I don't support the Death penalty, but for savages, it should be in place. Paul Bernardo is one of them.

For some reason, I end up agreeing with most of your views, but doesn't mean I support them. No wonder it's hard for me to create a counterargument.

Omega

Uh, excuse me? No. Name one thing that true conservatives have done to help the "rich get richer while the poor get poorer".

Our conservatives are creating tax cuts which ultimately benefit the rich. In order to fund those tax cuts, programs designed to help the less fortunate get back on their feet are either being scaled back, or eliminated all together. There is evidence in Ontario that the gap between Rich and Poor is growing rapidly. More on my opinions on this later (don't jump to conclusions on me now......)

I, as a private citizin, would do everything I could to help her, but there is no legal basis for the US government doing so.

First you spelled citizen wrong.....

Second, I'll give you that remark. At least you have a point.

The conservative view in such a situation would be to help her help herself, whereas the liberal view would be to just give her a handout and walk away. "Give a man a fish" as opposed to "teach a man to fish"

Er no, the way I see things, it is the Socialist who would give handouts and walk away, the Liberal would try to help her help herself, but the Conservative would rather say that it's her problem, let her deal with it. (Taken from Baloo's earlier statements)

Now, as your comment about teaching a man how to fish, I agree wholeheartedly on this statement 100%. The only problem is when people take away their fishing rod (or net), that is taking away their ability to fish in the first place. I won't go into detail about this, but the Government has instituted a program called Workfare, that is working for your social assistance, which I'm totally in favour of. Unfortunately, there are some problems with this program, so hopefully it would be worked out.

So what do you propose? Making the rich poorer and the poor richer by force of law? I hate to tell you this (well, actually, no, I don't : ), but that's socialism. I suggest that the government tax everyone equally and let everyone do as they please with their property.

No, that's not my point. I don't support that, I never did. The intention is to help more who are less fortunate so THEY can help close the gap. Let the rich stay where they are, and help the less fortunate.

Jeff Raven

The only way to stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is for mankind as a whole to turn its pursuits not to the accumulation of money and objects, but to the pursuits of knowledge... Only then can we all be economically equal.

That's Star Trek for you.

AlphaSquirrel

I too, extend my welcome.

My view is that Conservative and Capitalism is one and the same. When Capitalists begin manipulating the puppet strings of politicians, it becomes an alarming situation. I'm not anti-Capitalist, we need Capitalism in society today, but when they have so great influence on our Conservative government, it's hard to see that government as impartial. Take note:

• Ontario sold a toll highway to a private firm. Instead of having tolls for the next 20 years, we now have a company that will continue tolling the highway, and which can jack up toll prices at any time without warning.
  
• Ontario is on side with Developers who want to build on precious environmental land.
  
• Ontario is allowing industrial companies to violate pollution laws. Coincidently, these same companies attend party fundraisers.
  
• It was the big businesses who wanted a tax break. Fine. At least offer a GOOD solution how, not off the backs of the poor.
  

Simply put, I'll have a hard time breaking my view unless the government convinces me. So far they haven't.

That's all for now. Hope this damn thing POSTS!!!!!!

It's good that someone brought up the US Constitution as a guide for what we can and cannot do in society. There's an interesting history behind this, and it goes back to the very foundations of American capitalism in the 19th century.

The two main political groups in the US in the first half of the 19th century were the Democrats, and the Whigs. Let's look at who were the touchy-feely liberals and who weren't:

The Democrats were the "Strict Constructionists." They believed that we should only go by what the constitution literally says, and not dream up new roles for the federal government based on vague interpretations of "general welfare," "interstate commerce" etc. The Democrats believed in rigid limits on government spending. They opposed protective tariffs, which acted as a massive subsidy for US manufacturing(in effect, like paying a 20 percent tax every time you bought a manufactured product). They opposed government aid to internal improvements like canals and railroads. They opposed government-chartered moneymaking entities such as corporations. They also opposed banks, monopolies, and paper currency.

Then there were the Whigs. Most people in the Whig party believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution. The government could take on new roles! They believed in an active role for the federal government to aid national development. They favored protective tariffs, aid to internal improvements, and federal regulation of the currency. They were pro-corporation and pro-banking industry. They supported programs where free homesteads would be given to farmers in the west. They tended to oppose slavery.

The Whig party disintegrated, mostly over the issues of slavery and sectionalism. But the economic program of the Whigs was adopted by the newly-formed Republican Pary in the 1850s, and defeated the old Democratic economic view.

If the Strict Constructionist Democrats had triumphed in the 19th Century, we would now be following the constitution much more closely. And the United States would now be like a third-world country.

Instead, the touchy-feely loose constructionist Whig-Republican policies won, and now we have an advanced capitalist economy that is very impressive. And this economy that we have exists as a result of massive government engineering!

But today, when someone suggests that maybe part of this government-engineered affluence should be engineered toward the workers who produce the wealth...well then, government suddenly becomes Big, Bad and Evil!

------------------
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters."

It is interesting to note that the rail system that crossed the country is a product of government intervention doing the bidding of business. A loose interpretation of the Constitution to be sure.

Moreover, the building of the railroads signals a period where the government acted a lacky for business and started the large, monopolistic, coporate robber barons (Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and C. Montgomery Burns*). A system that remained in effect until it became clear that unregulated capitalism left much to be desired.

*that one would be humor.

------------------
Thank God that we live in a country so hysterical over crime that a 10 yr old child can tried as an adult.
~C. Montgomery Burns

There's a lot of lattitude in between the extremes. I despise the prospect of government-as-surrogate-parent as much as I do that of government-as-lackey-to-business. Thus far, throughout history we have veered from one extreme to the other (or very nearly so).

The answer is simple, at least in America. Vote. Less than half the electorate even bothers during most elections, so they can afford to appeal to greed and cultivate fear. I'd like to see the glint of fear in the eyes of the politicians that would result from having to answer to all the voters, not just the ones who bothered to be counted.

--Baloo

------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.

http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm