What this obviously highly biased author writes is completely wrong.For example, look at the response to the hurricanes. We have seen
individuals, not government, provide rescue boats, water, food, shelter, etc..
to those in need. Now that some of the storms are past, we see volunteers, not
government going out to help.Look at the history of the US. It used
to be that we had charity hospitals that were funded entirely through donations,
providing one of the safety nets. The Shriner's Hospital is a great
example of this.Look at the community food pantries that help the
truly needy.The author also ignores the scientific data showing that
it is the Conservatives that have taken care of the poor much better than the
liberals ever have.Socialism does not work. How many of those
safety nets would not be needed if it wasn't for the effects of large
government?To "marxist" yes Marx and his ideas should join
his predecessors. They should be boxed up and buried. As you have admitted
Marxism leads to nowhere. You will destroy innovation following that path. Why
@Susan Storm "I am often appalled by my party that claims to be followers of
Christ yet are unwilling to do anything to help their fellow man"...---#1. No "party" claims to be followers of Christ. That's
something you do as an individual, not as a Party.#2. Helping your
fellow man... can be done several ways To some it's a hand-out. Others
it's tough-love. To some it's giving a hungry man a fish. To others
it's teaching him to fish.It's not black-or-white. Both
approaches can work. It's not your Party or the highway.Just
because we do things differently does not make one party "good" and the
other party "evil".They both do some good. And both get
things wrong.But I'm getting real tired of people who get all
sanctimonious about their party.There's not an ounce of
difference between the two partys when you zoom out and look at them in general.
Democrats have just as bad a record of following Christ, and Democrats have
just as bad a record in actually solving Poverty in America.So
don't be appalled at your neighbors, and don't judge them. Especially
don't judge them by the "Party" you think they belong to.
@liberal larry "Once you believe that a well run government can't deal
with societies problems where do you go from there?"It depends
how you define "well run". The U.S. has had a leadership void in the
White House and Congress for many decades. Both political parties are
worthless.@Utah Girl "Conservative principles begin with
"where's mine?" and end with "if you're vulnerable, get
out of my way."Liberal principles begin with "I'm
entitled to what you have" and end with "if you're vulnerable,
I'll take what you need from my neighbor and give it to you".@Susan Storm "I am often appalled by my party that claims to be followers
of Christ yet are unwilling to do anything to help their fellow man."Liberals and conservatives have a different notion of what it means to
"help their fellow man". Liberals considerate it compassionate (and in
their best election interests) to get people dependent on government.
Conservatives want people to be independent and survive on their own hard work.
The president and CEO of Next Generation Freedom Fund telling Conservatives how
they should live and what they should do... interesting.I'm
sure I want a CEO telling me how I should live, and how we all need to be
property aligned.Not sure you're aware of this Paul but... many
Independents are Conservative. So we don't align perfectly with either
party. We are a very diverse group. So don't expect Conservatives to
perfectly align with any specific political ideology. We're gonna be all
over the place. That's what being "Independent" means.
@Paul MeroI am a conservative because of the Golden Rule. Fifty
years of liberal policies have been devastating to the family -- most
particularly, to minority families. Inter-generational dependency on welfare is
neither dignifying nor elevating. I don't want this for my family, and I
don't want it for other families. Let's try something else.
(cont'd from my previous comment). I said that the
'charity' government gives (like Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid,
etc) are no more or less 'charitable' than the 8% "dividend"
Bernie Madoff paid to his "investors" for close to half a century!My family received MedicAid for a few years. Receiving it seemed like a
godsend. For 18 years previously, I paid high premiums for health insurance that
gave my family lousy coverage (no dental or eyecare), high co-pays, and high
deductibles.My parents and grandparents received Social Security
payments, and MediCare, etc. Yes, many will claim, "But we pay into it!"
We should get what we deserve.Governments all across this land,
decades ago, outlawed pyramid, otherwise called 'Ponzi' schemes,
because sooner or later, they go bust.But, what govt has determined
illegal, because it is immoral, for private entities to do, it has made legal
for itself to do.That 77% will rise to 92% by about 2015 (8 yrs
away). And that's not long away! Bunce pointed out to
Congressman Crockett that the US Constitution never authorized charity. And
Bunce's arguments against it are convincing. Read it & change your
Mr Mero is an apt word smith. Some of what he insinuates is wrong, though, about
'conservatives' and 'conservatism' I agree with. And, I
agree we need to see humans, and not mere 'moral principles' in
isolation.That said, however, I would disagree with the concept that
all 'conservatives' believe in even "an austere safety net",
as I am supposing he is speaking of 'government' providing that
'safety net'. The other day I read an exceptional speech
the well known, once congressman, Davy Crockett gave there. Google, Davy
Crockett and "not yours to give". Take the few minutes it will require
to read the whole article.Among the principles 'this'
conservative (i.e., me) believes, is that our government was never established
to serve as a 'charity'. His speech, and his background story of
meeting and talking with a constituent, one Horatio Bunce, is educational.Right now, 77¢ of ever $1.00 the Federal govt spends goes to cover
the 'safety net' Paul Mero supposes even 'conservatives'
believe govt should provide. It is, imo, as wonderful as it seems to recipients
(& I have been 1), it is as much a Ponzi scheme as was Bernie Madoff's.
(plz read my follow up to this comment)
I agree. It's really easy to tell someone to "pull themselves up
by the bootstraps" when they themselves are doing well financially, are
healthy and have a normal functioning family.I am often appalled by
my party that claims to be followers of Christ yet are unwilling to do anything
to help their fellow man.
It is true that trickle down economics or supply side economics is an antiquated
and false theory just as much as Keynesian economic theory.However,
I would argue the GOP is overt in its advocacy for rewarding the hoarding of
wealth; but more importantly creating a system to stack everything against the
middle class and small business owner. However, the progressives are covert in
creating a system that likewise exploits the poor by creating dependency while
leveraging ignorance and dire economic circumstances to likewise benefit the top
10% at the expense of the 90%.Democrats and Republicans are both
beholden to the wealthy and the interests of the wealthy. Democrats and
Republicans do not represent the small business owner, the two job wage earner,
or the loyal professional and blue collar worker.Both parties
understand all to well the golden rule corollary; he/she who has the gold makes
the rules.We were founded on the idea of escaping monarchy and
aristocracy; yet we very much are governed by the same in a more stealth like
manner in the form of the faciliators: Democrats and Republicans.
You cannot grow a nation with "tax breaks for the rich". The GOP is based on wealth hoarding. They care for nothing but themselves. I am glad people within the Republican Party are waking up to what Mitch
McConnell and Paul Ryan are all about!
The author makes some very valid points about the dichotomy conservative
ideology presents.I remind the author a similar contradiction exists
with progressive ideology that preaches choices without consequences ; or that
we are all obligated to bear the consequences of the choices of others. Modern day liberals as well as conservatives have no bearing on wisely
evaluating the simple concept of sustainability as evidenced by our debt. Both
ideologies teach rights without responsibility.What the author does
provide is valid arguments about how wrong political ideology is. It also
provides insight as to why political parties are the absolutely worst
organizations that exist in America.Politics is taking two equally
important values and creating conflict with them as opposed to balancing them to
address issues with compassion and equity; yet without compromising
accountability and individual consequences. Politics is about creating false
conflict; not objective root cause problem solving and balanced education of the
issues that we face from a realist perspective.We need to abandon
party and ideology if we truly want to solve problems and get things done.
The fundamental flaw with this entire piece is that it assumes that one's
view of government action is one's view of the world. I believe in freedom
as the God-given right of every person. I also believe I have an obligation to
be charitable. But neither of us has the right for force the other to be
charitable. The Founding Fathers made clear that there was nothing
in the Constitution which allowed the legislative branch to engage in charity.
Charity is your own personal obligation. Unfortunately, many in our country now
view themselves as charitable if they vote for laws which give assistance to the
poor using other people's money. (The bottom 80 percent of tax payers pay
only 16% of income taxes).In 1900 the U.S. Poverty rate by todays
definition was over 50%. By the mid 1960s it was about 15%. Since we passed
the Great Society legislation and spent $20,000,000,000,000 on poverty programs,
we have obtained poverty reduction of less than 2%. We spend over
$60,000 in welfare per house in poverty each year and yet see virtually no
improvement. I want government out of the charity business precisely because I
care about the poor.
Or, Once a special interest group pummels their opponents into submission it is
so much easier for everyone to get along on a particular issue.
Thanks for the thoughtful piece Mr. Mero.
Conservative principles begin with "where's mine?" and end with
"if you're vulnerable, get out of my way."
What did he say?
The content of the economics discipline is key. Marx must be allowed to join
his predecessors Smith and Ricardo in that discipline. Until that happens
economics will remain crippled and unable to assist conservatives in clearing
Ever since Reagan the conservative trend has been to vilify government. Once
you believe that a well run government can't deal with societies problems
where do you go from there?Corporations, churches, think tanks,
non-profits, can not fill this void. Once the right veers back
towards the sane center this country can get back on track!
Paul Mero calling out Conservatives and the heartless behavior? For a decade he
extolled the virtues of Conservatives. What changed Paul? Guess his views depend
on whom is signing his paycheck.