Relationships
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Can one of our GOP supporters explain to me the Gingrich love?
So it seems clear to me that I won't agree with what some of you are saying, and you won't agree with me. That's fine by me - I don't have a problem with it, and I do understand a lot of your POV, but as I already stated, I try to look at these issues from a logic standpoint, not an emotional one. Is that good? Maybe not, but it's how I work.
The "problem" for me in being a Social Liberal along with a Fiscal Conservative is that there isn't a clear line of demarcation where one ends and the other begins. Finances pay for Social issues. Social issues have an effect on Fiscal decisions. It's hard to make overwhelming generalizations (I say, generalizing *g*), so in those cases, I try to make decisions based on what I know. And I'm still learning.
And so should we all, I think. I believe it's mature and responsible to know the other side, to listen to talk radio or talk shows that might be diametrically opposed to our way of thinking. "Know thy enemy" is always good, although in this case, I believe that looking at "the other side" as the "enemy" isn't useful as we still have to live together, work together, function together and this attitude is what creates partisanship and a weaker government. But understanding where "the other side" comes from is important. Educating ourselves can only help us all. Because the other side isn't going to go away, no matter what we might like to see happen. Working together is the only way any of us can succeed.
I wholeheartedly believe that one of government's specific purposes is to 'level the playing field' such that every child has access to opportunities for advancement. Sure, a kid in the inner city will never have the same access to opportunities as a Rockefeller, but at least give that kid a fighting chance. I never thought thought of this as a controversial opinion, but I'm finding more and more it is. I think a lot of conservative elected officials (and yet to be elected officials) like to point to some mythical Horatio Alger, pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps, type of story. But what about kids who are born into a cycle of poverty? Who are provided with failing schools, absentee families, violence, poor nutrition, etc.? To expect a child growing up in that sort of circumstance, with few (or no) role models in his or her every day life, to be able to even conceive of a better life, is a pipe dream. And expects a super human type of response from that kid. In my mind, this is where government must come in.
Those same to be elected officials also like to point to a mythical Welfare Recipient - a lazy, unmotivated, over-fertile (and always female) person who wants to somehow game the system. I'm quite sure these types of people are few and far between.
FTR, I do believe that there's no way the system can support its growing obligations without some pretty significant reforms, and the main areas we have to address are Medicare/Social Security. From what I recall, those two programs account for about 2/3 of the budget. I think anything other than revamping entitlement programs focused not on the mythical Welfare Recipient, but rather on Grandma and Grandpa (or more accurately in my case, Mom and Dad) is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
"That chick wins at Penises, for sure." -- Fenton
I AM that Horatio Alger example and even I think that outlook is bogus. I was homeless, had parents who were either abusive or drug addicted/mentally ill, we were homeless, I lived in foster homes, etc. and I've gone on to be a productive member of society (so fukc off Newt for telling me I had no motivation because I was born to really poor parents in really poor neighborhoods).
There are very specific people from my childhood that I give heaps of credit to for where I am today. Those people believed in me and helped me to see that I could and should do something more. They were educators by the way. Programs like the ones Newt wants to cut made a huge difference for me. Not everybody born into that situation gets those people in their life/school to show them that they can be more and I know that the same options aren't there for everyone, because I've lived it. How could they ever expect to be anything different of their (God help us) president is telling them they are just lazy/criminal. I completely agree with Fenton that education programs are the root of giving people a fair chance.
Why would anyone want to take a minimum wage job if they were receiving more money in unemployment benefits? I can't wrap my head around how anyone can survive, let alone with a family, on min. wage.
My H and I are solidly upper middle class, on paper. But between student loans, day care, the ridiculous cost of living we don't have much left at the end of the day.
For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, unless by liberal you just mean you're anti-war and pro-civil rights.
Part of being liberal, I think, means believing that public education ought to be a priority, and believing that there are vulnerable members of our population who need a safety net and income support, whether temporary or permanent. All of those things cost money, and too many people use fiscal conservatism to starve those programs of money.
Wendy, I want to hug you.
I don't really know how I feel anymore. I agree that education is very important and probably where we need to focus the most. However, I think it should be done at a more local level because what the heck does some guy in California know about what my small town in MA needs? although I can also understand that places like the 'Cuse probably would end up with less funding and they wouldn't be able to get the services they need. and I guess with how mobile our society is now it makes more sense for things to be handled at the Federal level. GRRR. I used to think I knew the answers, turns out I don't know jack.
Me too. I've been trying to figure out what I'd cut realistically, and I honestly don't know. I hear defense budgets suggested a lot, but I know that translates to more skilled jobs lost (my own included, potentially) and worry about the impact to the economy and unemployment rates. I also think about all of the military people that I work with every day and care about and I cringe to think about how those cuts might be manifested relative to their safety. On the other hand, does a particular senior political official really need a 60" plasma instead of the current 55" plasma display screen in his/her airborne stateroom? Yeah, probably not.
Fallin- I apologize that I really can't come up with anything better to respond to your astute run-down than a "YEAH!!!"
Well said!!
Yeah, well that's the real problem, isn't it.
There are wastes in all departments of government, education and defense included. It's not like we need to cut a program, what we need is better oversight into the money management in the programs to cut that shiit out. If we did, we would probably have enough money to run those programs well and even better than we do currently.
It's the same problem with welfare and unemployment in this country. People want to cut them because they programs are failing. Well, they are. But that doesn't mean the concept of welfare or unemployment should be nixed altogether. And that is what frightens me about the conservative agendy many times. It's like they throw their hands up and say "well, we sucked a big diick on that program. Guess we should just scratch it completely."
You're not alone Mashed. I'm often in the same boat.
I start out with the basic question of "who benefits and who pays?" It's not a complete answer, but I feel like it strips away some of the extraneous argument and gives a clearer picture. Then I usually ask how the status quo got where it is (sometimes there's a good reason!) and if those reasons still apply. If I'm feeling practical I'll ask if changing things is worth the cost.
But I don't always know where to go from there. Worse, if feel disconnected from the political process. I don't feel like anyone in power wants to listen, and I worry that I'd be vilified if I were getting heard. You guys give me a lot of hope and help me look at things in new ways.
I like what you said about being grateful, because yeah, me too.
"The meek shall inherit the earth" isn't about children. It's about deer. We're all going to get messed the fuckup by a bunch of cloned super-deer.- samfish2bcrab
Sometimes I wonder if scientists have never seen a sci-fi movie before. "Oh yes, let's create a super species of deer. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG." I wonder if State Farm offers a Zombie Deer Attack policy. -CaliopeSpidrman
"The meek shall inherit the earth" isn't about children. It's about deer. We're all going to get messed the fuckup by a bunch of cloned super-deer.- samfish2bcrab
Sometimes I wonder if scientists have never seen a sci-fi movie before. "Oh yes, let's create a super species of deer. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG." I wonder if State Farm offers a Zombie Deer Attack policy. -CaliopeSpidrman
I actually believe that there is a concept of socially liberal fiscal conservatism. And I think that there can be a way to make government leaner but still provide a basic social safety net. I just have no faith in government officials to find bipartisan (or more appropriately, unpartisan) ways to address our nation's woes without incorporating pork and special interests and gobs of waste. I think that the health care legislation just showed yet another example of how government mucks up conceptually laudible goals. I wish there were someone who could find a way to make every aspect of government more nimble, more adept at addressing real needs without tons of waste.
These are my pipe dreams. And honestly, I don't know that any elected officials we have in the arena now are up to the challenges we face. Makes me sad.
....and often liberals say, "well maybe it doesn't really work but at least it's lots of money going to people who need/deserve it." Funny, I just read (like an hour ago) an article that described these two sides of the coin in this way. And he pointed out that, well, they're both right to a point. And of course they're both wrong, too. Would be nice to bring those two points of view to the middle and find some solutions.
It is funny that you say this, because I have spent most of the day working to finalize some language to be put in a bill that actually is bi-partisan, and the better part of 6 years in the making (I have only seen most of it this year but have worked on the periphery prior to it). It is a bill that will streamline a very good social program that helps many people (but has lots of fraud and misuse), to save almost a billion, but still help those in that it is intended to serve directly and indirectly. The thing that cracks me up the mos is the guy that was tasked to get this done is one of the most conservative guys I have ever met, but once he learned the program he wanted to see how he could save it. I really hope that it goes through this year...
I think there can be a balance. I went to a very Libertarian law school (maybe it's libertarian with a small "l," can never be sure). We were always taught that there are market failures, in which case it is appropriate for government to step in. One example that they would give is national defense - the market probably wouldn't provide for those services on a national level (maybe weapons production, but not the actual human capital), so it's not wrong for the government to step in. For me, it's a matter of making government more limited, where appropriate, but still letting it regulate where needed (particularly where it keeps me employed, but that's an aside).
As far as social issues go, I look at them apart from financial. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, for example - as long as a person isn't hurting another or doing something immoral (like having sex with children), they are entitled to decide for themselves.
Ohhh, I hope you aren't putting language in about the program I work on! Hah. That would be awkward.
Newt wants to get children to work in schools so they can "get to work" and help their familes so that Welfare becomes extinct. I am not anti welfare, so I completely disagree with Newt's approach. I just miss John Huntsman:( Maybe in 2016.
Politics are emotional and personal, or noone would vote or talk about it. I also think that people need to be resonable/not vote on one issue (one-issue voting).
Newt tells it like it is and that is what some like in a canidate. Some like good hair. Some like evangelical. Some like a gentleman. I dunno, it's a free country.
On another note, this board, and all you ladies' points prove that this is a great nation where WOMEN actually have a voice. So to cut eachother down, and be sarcastic is backwards. Suffragettes would be so dissapointed.
"That chick wins at Penises, for sure." -- Fenton
Actually, the fore-fathers of our country fought for you to have that right. But I have tried the rubber hose thing, I didn't like it.
I guess I don't vote on taxes at all because Republicans may lower them and Democrats may raise them but I've never, ever seen the slightest change in even my disposable income, much less my financial lifestyle based on who is in office. I just can't see how who is in office matters to my pocketbook, but I can see how who is in office matters to civil rights and social programs.