Slow down there Nigel - You are sounding dangerously like Margaret Sanger.  Conservatism is about 'right to life'; not about "culling the herd".

Not sure how it is you've decided to be the arbiter of "what Conservatism is about" but I'm no Sanger supporter... I'm not talking eugenics, I'm talking about giving people the freedom to fend for themselves, and not stealing from the successful, productive members of society so the lazy and the incompetent can feed off us. I actually WORK to support my family, I pay for medical insurance, I pay my taxes, and I cannot see any CONSERVATIVE justification for Welfare programs that take my money and give it to slackers who don't work, instead of giving it to MY KID'S future.

Nigel wrote:Not sure how it is you've decided to be the arbiter of "what Conservatism is about" but I'm no Sanger supporter... I'm not talking eugenics, I'm talking about giving people the freedom to fend for themselves, and not stealing from the successful, productive members of society so the lazy and the incompetent can feed off us. I actually WORK to support my family, I pay for medical insurance, I pay my taxes, and I cannot see any CONSERVATIVE justification for Welfare programs that take my money and give it to slackers who don't work, instead of giving it to MY KID'S future.

I can see where you are coming from but one of the problems is Social Security.  Social Security was never meant to be a retirement fund but it is one now.  Millions of seniors, who I might mention worked hard for alot of years to be part of the system they were promised, cannot just be jerked off it because it is an entitlement program.  I don't see Social Security ever going away but I see you not collecting anything until you are 104 years old because the system is broken, the Federal Government has taken social security funds and used it for other things so there is no longer a trust fund and no one seems to be trying to fix it.  As the Baby Boomers continue to enter retirement, the system is only going to continue spiraling into failure.  

There are alot of people who are collecting social security under SSI who need to be dropped off the dole as well as other entitlement programs that need to go poof into the air and people made to go to work.  Those little girls in the inner cities who keep pumping out the babies for their Child welfare checks should be made to go through training of some type and made to go to work.  Government handouts create nothing  but more sheep who hold out their hands and then vote for the Democrats to keep their freebies coming.  As long as the Dems keep getting control of the budget and the R's keep spending like drunken sailors, nothing will change.  Liberalism=socialism=communism.  It's a fact, Jack, I mean Nigel.

Some days you have to wonder how humanity actually survived before the New Deal.

I have two traditionally un-conservative beliefs.  One is that I am conditionally pro-choice (NO, I don't wan't to get in a discussion of abortion), and the other is that I believe that there is a need for a minimal level of welfare.

I used to believe that all welfare should be abolished.  Then I was listening to Rush several years ago when he was discussing welfare a lot, and the next day I saw a History Channel show on the Irish Potato Famine.  In this show they quoted a British Lord making many of the seemingly common sense arguments against welfare.  For instance, this Lord simply argued that the Irish potato farmers should simply plant something else.  The argument that welfare should not be given to people who are in a certain position by virtue of bad decisions (like planting an entire country with the same species of disease-susceptible potato), or who have other alternatives (like planting wheat, corn, or rye) IS a sound argument - but only on an extended time-scale.  

The British Lord's suggestion was obviously preposterous because the bad potato crop was already in, there was no way to plant, grow and reap something else, and people were already starving.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I think a limited, TEMPORARY welfare system is essential not just for moral reasons, but also for the negative impact on the economy that could result if people who, suddenly and temporarily, find themselves in hard times are doomed to remain in hard times.

Another argument against welfare is that charities would pick up the slack if welfare were abolished.  Again, over a longer-term this may be mostly true; but, there are times when large numbers of people simultaneously fall on hard times, and the only (I can't believe I'm going to say this) efficient way to help everyone affected is to have a government program.  I feel dirty even suggesting such a thing, but remember I'm speaking of temporary assistance in emergencies, near-emergencies, or sudden market failures -- I am NOT suggesting that women should be granted lifelong welfare payments which only increase with more bastard children, or that people should get welfare if they have other current options.

In short, some degree of temporary welfare is, I think, a must for any government -- both to protect individuals and the economy.

Eyas wrote:I have two traditionally un-conservative beliefs.  One is that I am conditionally pro-choice (NO, I don't wan't to get in a discussion of abortion), and the other is that I believe that there is a need for a minimal level of welfare.

I used to believe that all welfare should be abolished.  Then I was listening to Rush several years ago when he was discussing welfare a lot, and the next day I saw a History Channel show on the Irish Potato Famine.  In this show they quoted a British Lord making many of the seemingly common sense arguments against welfare.  For instance, this Lord simply argued that the Irish potato farmers should simply plant something else.  The argument that welfare should not be given to people who are in a certain position by virtue of bad decisions (like planting an entire country with the same species of disease-susceptible potato), or who have other alternatives (like planting wheat, corn, or rye) IS a sound argument - but only on an extended time-scale.  

The British Lord's suggestion was obviously preposterous because the bad potato crop was already in, there was no way to plant, grow and reap something else, and people were already starving.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I think a limited, TEMPORARY welfare system is essential not just for moral reasons, but also for the negative impact on the economy that could result if people who, suddenly and temporarily, find themselves in hard times are doomed to remain in hard times.

Another argument against welfare is that charities would pick up the slack if welfare were abolished.  Again, over a longer-term this may be mostly true; but, there are times when large numbers of people simultaneously fall on hard times, and the only (I can't believe I'm going to say this) efficient way to help everyone affected is to have a government program.  I feel dirty even suggesting such a thing, but remember I'm speaking of temporary assistance in emergencies, near-emergencies, or sudden market failures -- I am NOT suggesting that women should be granted lifelong welfare payments which only increase with more bastard children, or that people should get welfare if they have other current options.

In short, some degree of temporary welfare is, I think, a must for any government -- both to protect individuals and the economy.

Yes what youre suggesting is a TEMPORARY PROGRAM for EMERGENCIES. Like a RAINY DAY FUND. BUT TAX-AND-SPEND WHINY LIBS blow all the money on LONG TERM ENTITLEMENTS for POT SMOKING HIPPIES who dont WANT TO WORK.

Liberals push DANGEROUS SOCIALIST NONSENSE like MEDIACARE and SOCIALIZED RETIREMENT, SCOILAIZED HOUSING, and FOOD STAMPS for people who DONT WANT TO WORK.

In my opinion, a RAINY DAY FUND or something like that is a VERY CONSEVATIVE sort of IDEA.

PRO CHOICE EH? LETS HAVE A LOOOONG ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT ONE, LIBERAL(just kidding)

Nigel wrote:We don't need to REFORM these damn SOCIALIST PROGRAMS, we need to ELIMINATE them! I am talking ELIMINATE Food Stamps, ELIMINATE Social Security, ELIMINATE Welfare, ELIMINATE Medicare and State-supported health programs...

I AGREE IN FULL, with THAT SPESIFIC  part of that message......It got a little CREEPY later on but it was good otherwise.