My own opinion poll

[El_Gato]

I've had a theory about how the election would turn out so I thought I'd run a little unscientific poll here to see if I'm right.

Simply vote for the ONE that fits best how you feel about the election.

[kmax]

My feelings about this poll are pretty much the same as my feelings about this election:

Are you sure there isn't another option?

[rtb]

Ok, I have made up my mind to vote for Bush for one reason, Social Security. You may think this is the craziest thing ever for a 23 year old to focus on, but I want to know that If I am paying into the system for the next 30 to 40 years that I am going to get something back. Kerry has promised not to fix social security while Bush is pushing for some semi-private system.

With issues like the war I don't think one can fix the situation better than the other, we are in a mess and getting out of it will be very tough. The economy is not the President's fault and neither President will create jobs. I hate it when they claim they will.

So there is my two cents on the situation.

[SonomaCat]

Ok, I have made up my mind to vote for Bush for one reason, Social Security. You may think this is the craziest thing ever for a 23 year old to focus on, but I want to know that If I am paying into the system for the next 30 to 40 years that I am going to get something back. Kerry has promised not to fix social security while Bush is pushing for some semi-private system.

With issues like the war I don't think one can fix the situation better than the other, we are in a mess and getting out of it will be very tough. The economy is not the President's fault and neither President will create jobs. I hate it when they claim they will.

So there is my two cents on the situation.

Interestingly, I though Bush was backing away (denying, in fact) that he wanted to privatize Social Security, which was disappointing to me. I actually like that idea, but it must not poll well, because Kerry was using it as an attack item.

Yeah, I'm conflicted... I prefer the Republican economics, but don't like much else in the platform. When is that moderate party going to emerge that believes in small government both in terms of social programs as well as on the infringement of people's freedoms/rights?

[rtb]

Yeah, I'm conflicted... I prefer the Republican economics, but don't like much else in the platform. When is that moderate party going to emerge that believes in small government both in terms of social programs as well as on the infringement of people's freedoms/rights?

It will be a long way off to get a true moderate party in power, I wish it could happen quickly! Until then I will have to vote for the party that has the best economic policy.

[El_Gato]

Kudos to all because I think we are all of a similar mind-set.

I don't think you guys are moderates or wanting a moderate at all. You all sound to be good CONSERVATIVES, just like me.

Smaller, less-intrusive, less-wasteful, less-expensive government USED to be the Republican montra, but is no longer evident in ANY U.S. political party. I'm really afraid that this whole "government can fix it" mentality is going to ruin us economically. And if the economy is ruined, the nation is ruined.

If presidents controlled economies & jobs, why would we EVER have recessions and unemployment? I'm sick of politicians trying to convince us that they can & will "fix" things... Sorry for being redundant.

More later... My ranting needs a little better focus.

[SonomaCat]

Kudos to all because I think we are all of a similar mind-set.

I don't think you guys are moderates or wanting a moderate at all. You all sound to be good CONSERVATIVES, just like me.

Smaller, less-intrusive, less-wasteful, less-expensive government USED to be the Republican montra, but is no longer evident in ANY U.S. political party. I'm really afraid that this whole "government can fix it" mentality is going to ruin us economically. And if the economy is ruined, the nation is ruined.

If presidents controlled economies & jobs, why would we EVER have recessions and unemployment? I'm sick of politicians trying to convince us that they can & will "fix" things... Sorry for being redundant.

More later... My ranting needs a little better focus.

If that smaller government included the realization that government shouldn't be legislating morality and should treat everyone equally and without prejudice, then I'm with you. Unfortunately, the Republicans only believe in small government in terms of cutting taxes (while increasing spending). When it comes to people's private lives, they (the right wingers, anyway) think that we should be more like Iran than the Netherlands. I like the Netherlands better. They have better parties.

I do believe that the government should act as a safety net for the lesser fortunate people in society, but that must be done in a way that helps the situation rather than creating a system of dependency. I guess I believe in social programs for the most part, but only if they work. The problem we have is that it's really hard to turn off a program that doesn't work as self-interested people are good at playing the "You're mean" card. It's that belief that government does have some limited responsibilities beyond police and military that keeps me from jumping on the small libertarian bandwagon. Those guys take small government to a silly extreme.

[El_Gato]

Bay,

I think we're close in overall philosophy, but a couple of points...

I agree with you that goverment MUST treat all citizens equally and that lately politicians have had too much of a tendency of telling us HOW we should all live. Bottom line to me: Governments MOST IMPORTANT function is the protection of freedom for ALL its citizens.

You contradict yourself, however. On one hand you state "... government shouldn't be legislating morality and should treat everyone equally and without prejudice..." and then "I do believe that the government should act as a safety net for the lesser fortunate people in society...". Please show me in the Constitution where government is supposed to take on this role? And once you give that responsibility to them, government is then treating people UNEQUALLY. Giving government that power immediately gives them the OK to treat citizens differently; government should NEVER be in a position to decide which citizens or groups DESERVE assistance and which do not.

Why do some think goverment is the best way to determine who needs the help of a safety net? Social programs (or institutionalized charity, as I call it) run by governments have serious problems because they usually become too big, too wasteful, too neglectful, and far too open to fraud.

Ever hear of churches? Ever heard of the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the United Way? Those organizations are VASTLY superior to any social program offered by government. Why? Because they do a MUCH better job identifying those who truly need help and get them that help with a much lower "beauracracy" cost than does government.

I own a small business and I've been able to help a number of people with donations of goods & cash over the years; those that use that help wisely generally receive it again if necessary. But those that abuse it and/or don't use it to "better" their circumstances never receive it again. Government has a disturbing tendency of neglecting to follow up on those it helps and has created a system of dependency in far too many cases. It's as if all you need to do is qualify and then "who cares?" what you do after that.

Bottom line on social programs, Bay: Government has proven itself to be highly ineffective, at best, at implementing and administering charity. It does not have the directive and/or authority to take on that role and "traditional" sources do a much better job of helping those in need & providing a TRUE "safety net"...

Just my opinion & of course you're entitled to it! lol

Peace!

['93HonoluluCat]

I do believe that the government should act as a safety net for the lesser fortunate people in society, but that must be done in a way that helps the situation rather than creating a system of dependency. I guess I believe in social programs for the most part, but only if they work.

I don't mean to pile on here, BAC, but El Gato is right. However, I disagree with your thought for a different reason.

With the wealth of social programs, it has created a system of dependecy. When the money is coming from the government and one doesn't have a job, what motivation is there to actually get a job?

Please don't get me wrong, I think there are places where the government (in place of preferred non-government organizations (NGOs)) can lend a hand to help people stand on their own after they've been knocked down--but only to stand back up. It's not the government's duty to provide income for the people that don't care to find jobs.

And while that may sound terribly callous, there are lots of jobs out there for the people that care to go out and find them. Maybe minimum wage jobs is where they need to start, despite their personal misgiving about such "menial" jobs.

[SonomaCat]

I do believe that the government should act as a safety net for the lesser fortunate people in society, but that must be done in a way that helps the situation rather than creating a system of dependency. I guess I believe in social programs for the most part, but only if they work.

I don't mean to pile on here, BAC, but El Gato is right. However, I disagree with your thought for a different reason.

With the wealth of social programs, it has created a system of dependecy. When the money is coming from the government and one doesn't have a job, what motivation is there to actually get a job?

Please don't get me wrong, I think there are places where the government (in place of preferred non-government organizations (NGOs)) can lend a hand to help people stand on their own after they've been knocked down--but only to stand back up. It's not the government's duty to provide income for the people that don't care to find jobs.

And while that may sound terribly callous, there are lots of jobs out there for the people that care to go out and find them. Maybe minimum wage jobs is where they need to start, despite their personal misgiving about such "menial" jobs.

I agree that a lot of social programs (especially prior to the welfare reform pass under Clinton -- who was a much better Republican on this set of issues than Bush) have completely missed the mark and have created a dependency on government as opposed to helping people get back on their feet. However, simply because some programs have failed is no reason to remove government from this role altogether -- we just need to do it better and more efficiently. Easier said than done, of course, but that's not a good excuse for doing nothing.

To use an analogy that I'm sure you can relate to, just because we fought a war in Vietnam that didn't go particularly well, it's not a good reason to disband the military. The underlying need is still there -- it just has to be exercised and executed more effectively going forward.

As to El Gato's point about the Consitutional role of social programs... of course they aren't included in the body of the Constitution as a role of government -- very little is. I don't believe that the Constitution is a fully inclusive list of the roles that government can take -- it's main focus was to establish a system, and to then let the three branches of government work within that system. It's ingenious in that it allows for a flexibility to adjust to the issues that our country faced subsequent to its ratification. There are many absolutely necessary roles of government that aren't discussed in there, all of which are too numerous to list or discuss in this post.

I am all in favor of encouraging charity first (the above the line tax deduction for charitable contributions was a great idea), but I don't know if we can ever hope that private charities will ever have the resources and/or desire (as many are focused on helping only segments of the population -- their own religion, their own region, etc.) to help everyone who needs help. These charities also aren't immune to waste and abuse. The United Way in particular has had many problems with waste (embezzlement and excessive salaries for employees, mostly) within its ranks.

My theoretically perfect scenario would be to have an omnipotent and nonpartisan person with absolute veto power go through our federal budget line by line, striking out expenditures that either don't work or are otherwise wasteful. Absent the influence of the people who gain personally from the waste (constituents of our elected officials), I'm sure the amount of fat that could be cut would be amazing.

Of course, if any of that fat came from something that benefitted me, then I'd have to fire that omnipotent person and replace them with one that I like better... and so it goes.

[El_Gato]

Amen, honolulu.

"A hand up, not a hand out".

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this is the best example I've come across; a direct, real-life example of how government is ill-suited to be an effective charitable organization.

I own a gas station & convenience store and one Monday morning earlier this year, a couple I guessed to be in their mid-30's entered my store. It became obvious very quickly that they were drunk; they were loud, unstable, and when they walked past me I could CLEARLY smell alcohol on their breath.

After a few minutes staggering around the store, the couple brought to the counter 2 bags of potato chips, several candy bars, a bottle of Powerade, a bag of licorice, and a case of beer. After I rang up the items, they then took out a Food Stamp card. I informed them that I didn't accept them & they'd have to pay with cash or credit card. They didn't have enough so they simply walked out of the store, leaving all the merchandise laying on the counter for me to return to the shelves.

After replaying this scene in my head over the next few days, I realized the problem. If those people had been friends of mine & had been down on their luck, I'd have initially given them money to help them get back on their feet. But if I'd done that & then they showed up drunk in the morning wanting to spend my assistance on beer and junk food, do you think I'd ever help them again?

Of course not, but I'll guarantee you that couple is still getting help from Uncle Sam and/or Aunt Judy and therein lies the problem. Easy to get, easy to keep; where's the incentive to become "productive members of society"? Call me a "meanie" if you like, but I don't believe ANYONE in this country is entitled to a free ride on my money. I wish I had the tax dollars I've paid over the years that went to social programs; my kids would have a college fund and I'd have a decent start on retirement. As it stands today, however, my kids or I (or both) would need to borrow money for their college & I couldn't possibly retire on what I've managed to set aside (zero).

GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CHARITY BUSINESS.

[SonomaCat]

Of course it's frustrating for us to see people who abuse the system -- any system, for that matter.

But what about people who are in a situation where they CAN'T do anything about it? What about people with mental problems who simply aren't able to take care of themselves, or people who experience short term situations where circumstances are such that they can't make ends meet?

This is where we need the "safety net." That term shouldn't apply to people who are simply choosing to take the easy route -- it should be reserved only for those who need it.

Again, we can argue for the end of any program based on anecdotal evidence of its failures, but we still have to have something in place to create opportunities for success.

Trust me, I completely understand the frustration with people and politicians who think that spending more money on any program is the same thing as caring and will magically fix the problem (being in San Francisco, we have more than our share of this attitude). Often, that the opposite of the truth. At the same time, we do need thought out and adequate programs in place with the proper safeguards and philosophies to make sure that everybody in this country has an opportunity for success.