Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[LCMS_No_More]

I beleive that the latter would be more benefical to everyone as a whole. I think it can be summed up as:

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to a fish, he eats for a lifetime.

What happens when the lake is poisoned?

 

[vern_humphrey]

What happens when the lake is poisoned?

Why did you poison it?

 

[Ender]

The poor are caught in the middle between two warring factions who just want to put forth their ideologies. This is why I reiterate that hypocrisy can come from the right and the left.

A liberal and a conservative are in a truck driving a load of food to the local homeless shelter when they come to a fork in the road. The liberal says “go left”, the conservative says “go right.” Which of them is being hypocritical and which loves the poor more? I have no doubt that there are people on both sides who would drive the truck downtown and sell half the supplies off the back but it is senseless to make that a blanket charge against everyone - not to mention its total irrelevance to the question of whether to go left or right at the fork.

It is not that either side wants to “put forth” its ideology; both sides want to solve problems based on what they think will work - something that is in no way properly called hypocrisy.

Ender

 

[Michaeljc4]

Perhaps a better question, Ender, is–based on our history, which fork leads to less poverty? The left fork (government intervention) or the right fork (individual charity)?

 

[vern_humphrey]

A liberal and a conservative are in a truck driving a load of food to the local homeless shelter when they come to a fork in the road. The liberal says “go left”, the conservative says “go right.” Which of them is being hypocritical and which loves the poor more? I have no doubt that there are people on both sides who would drive the truck downtown and sell half the supplies off the back but it is senseless to make that a blanket charge against everyone - not to mention its total irrelevance to the question of whether to go left or right at the fork.

It is not that either side wants to “put forth” its ideology; both sides want to solve problems based on what they think will work - something that is in no way properly called hypocrisy.

Ender

The difference is, some of us want the truck to get there.

Programs intended to “fight poverty” ought to have clearly-defined goals, with metrics so we can measure progress in achieving those goals. Projects which don’t work ought to be modified or abandoned.

And the people running the programs ought to be held responsible for the outcome.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps a better question, Ender, is–based on our history, which fork leads to less poverty? The left fork (government intervention) or the right fork (individual charity)?

We have seen the left fork lead to generations locked in poverty – the poverty rate was dropping like a stone in this country until the “Great Society” kicked in.

Next, we must distinguish between charity and social justice. Charity is the Corporal Works of Mercy. Social Justice is taking measures so that fewer people need charity.

Someone name me a true social justice program. Anyone?

 

[SoCalRC]

Perhaps a better question, Ender, is–based on our history, which fork leads to less poverty? The left fork (government intervention) or the right fork (individual charity)?

Pro middle class social policies have generally lead to more wealth and prosperity.

The land rush, rural electrictrification, the WW-II GI bill, are all examples. But the real biggies today are social security and medicare.

These two are a huge subsidy to the middle class. Without them, there would be a lot more deciding between paying for mom’s care or sending Jr. to college.

We don’t have to guess about the outcome of modern ‘trickle down’ economics, or right wing myths like tax cuts (even capitol gains tax cuts) paying for themselves. We’ve tried these twice in my lifetime. We have massive debt (roughly doubled in just 7 years) and a structural deficit. And even the Bush treasury department concedes that Bush’s capital gains tax cut will cost over $100B in revenue, even after adjustment for causal ‘growth’.

I still am not sure that the reluctance to accept the measurable reality instead of firmly held beliefs is hypocrisy or something more fundemental. Bush economics has failed to create enough jobs to keep up with population growth, wages are stagnant, savings have gone negative, and we’re now seeing indicators like foreclosures hit great depression highs. Is it really rational to insist that tax cuts for the first time in US history during war is not stupid and irresponsible?

 

[SoCalRC]

We have seen the left fork lead to generations locked in poverty – the poverty rate was dropping like a stone in this country until the “Great Society” kicked in.

What an odd argument - so you are saying the New Deal worked?

The actual data seems to suggest the opposite, BTW, but I’d still like to understand your reasoning.

Also, using your same argument, poverty dropped like a stone under Clinton, but has soared under Bush, should we use that as an indicator of the merits of each ideology?

 

[Michaeljc4]

Likewise, SoCalRC, unionization has been the greatest anti-poverty “program” in American history. As unions have faded, so has the middle class.

Social security raised millions of elderly Americans, as well as those with disabilities, out of poverty. Vern, however, is correct: the Great Society programs made matters worse, for the most part, especially in urban areas. I myself was a beneficiary of some of those programs in the early 70s, so I consider myself lucky…but I have a great mom who used them as a saftey net, not a lifestyle. I’m all for the government offering a hand up…but the danger, as we have seen, is that a program designed to help becomes one that fosters both resentment and dependence.

I’m all for a social safety net, but…measurable, defined benefits have to play a role.

 

[Ender]

We don’t have to guess about the outcome of modern ‘trickle down’ economics, or right wing myths like tax cuts (even capitol gains tax cuts) paying for themselves. We’ve tried these twice in my lifetime. We have massive debt (roughly doubled in just 7 years) and a structural deficit. And even the Bush treasury department concedes that Bush’s capital gains tax cut will cost over $100B in revenue, even after adjustment for causal ‘growth’.

I still am not sure that the reluctance to accept the measurable reality instead of firmly held beliefs is hypocrisy or something more fundemental. Bush economics has failed to create enough jobs to keep up with population growth, wages are stagnant, savings have gone negative, and we’re now seeing indicators like foreclosures hit great depression highs. Is it really rational to insist that tax cuts for the first time in US history during war is not stupid and irresponsible?

I admire your energy in continually finding creative ways of condemning all things Republican but you need to recognize that when you create a laundry list of supposed failures, if you include things that are transparently untrue you undermine the entire rant. For example, the unemployment rate for the previous two years never once went above 5.0%. It wasn’t until last month that the rate finally exceeded this (quite low) level - it reached 5.1%. By comparison, the unemployment rate in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, was 8.6% at the end of February '08 (down from over 10% the previous February).

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

What an odd argument - so you are saying the New Deal worked?

Nice try, but no cigar.

The actual data seems to suggest the opposite, BTW, but I’d still like to understand your reasoning.

And you can’t figure that out?

It’s simple – the demand for manpower and manufactured goods generated by WWII created prosperity - “trickle down” worked.

Also, using your same argument, poverty dropped like a stone under Clinton, but has soared under Bush, should we use that as an indicator of the merits of each ideology?

You must have some strange stones in your part of the country.

The poverty rate has moved up and down a few percentage points since the Great Society kicked in – but the dramatic plunge that followed WWII has been arrested.

A good part of the reason is that we have no social justice programs – that is, no programs that are designed to make people self-supporting and end the need for many of the “poverty programs.”

Another part is that the programs we have tend to lock people into poverty, generation after generation.

 

[BamaRider]

Dang Vern, you mean you’ve never been inspired by riding around seeing people on the dole?

 

[Michaeljc4]

Poverty Rate 1959-2006

This is US Census information, BTW.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Poverty Rate 1959-2006

This is US Census information, BTW.

If the right limit of the graph were extended to 1939, you would see an even more dramatic effect.

The sharp drop in poverty ended around 1969, when the Great Society programs began to kick in. Since then, poverty has bounced around between 11 and 15%, two ticks up, two ticks down.

Whatever the secret to ending poverty was, we lost the answer around 1969.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I don’t think that’s a fair accusation. The right aren’ really any more concerned about the poor than the left if you look at it that way. The poor are caught in the middle between two warring factions who just want to put forth their ideologies. This is why I reiterate that hypocrisy can come from the right and the left. Neither side is so innocent s they would the public to believe.

Actually, folks on the right are much more concerned. On the right, they, for example, help people find new jobs. We want people to be constructively employed.

People are much more capable than one might suspect.

Nothing to do with ideologies.

Just help folks to find a job.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Whatever the secret to ending poverty was, we lost the answer around 1969.

It beats me, too, Vern. All I feel like I can realistically do is pray for the poor, give as much as I can with $ and donated goods, and try to vote my conscience. If there is a single answer out there–right, left, or in-between–that shows us how to solve the problems poverty, I don’t know what it is.

Not to start a whole new topic, but I am in the process of giving up meat as a part of my diet. Now, don’t get me wrong: I love meat. Love it. But…I’ve been reading recently how much grain is grown in poor countries that are experiencing hunger, and how that grain is sold to feed animals bred for consumption in wealthier nations. My thinking is that by denying myself this pleasure, I’ll be more mindful of those who are in need, and I won’t be participating–in whatever small way–in the forces that help to create hunger. It may sound silly, but it is certainly a sacrifice. Hopefully it will help me grow closer to the poor, and to God. It’s a personal thing, I guess.

I will surely miss steak, though.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It beats me, too, Vern. All I feel like I can realistically do is pray for the poor, give as much as I can with $ and donated goods, and try to vote my conscience. If there is a single answer out there–right, left, or in-between–that shows us how to solve the problems poverty, I don’t know what it is.

Not to start a whole new topic, but I am in the process of giving up meat as a part of my diet. Now, don’t get me wrong: I love meat. Love it. But…I’ve been reading recently how much grain is grown in poor countries that are experiencing hunger, and how that grain is sold to feed animals bred for consumption in wealthier nations. My thinking is that by denying myself this pleasure, I’ll be more mindful of those who are in need, and I won’t be participating–in whatever small way–in the forces that help to create hunger. It may sound silly, but it is certainly a sacrifice. Hopefully it will help me grow closer to the poor, and to God. It’s a personal thing, I guess.

I will surely miss steak, though.

Actually, meat is a net gain – much of what cattle eat is grass, grown on land unsuitable for raising grain.

And the food problem is one of distribution. Part of it is due to high oil costs (oil is used for transportation and fertilizer.) Part of it is due to corrupt governments and tribal warfare blocking food delivery, disrupting local agriculture and so on.

A good example is Zimbabwe. The government essentially turned to land over to the mob, allowing people to drive out the large-scale farmers, and the country went from a food-exporting nation to a food-importing nation.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Actually, meat is a net gain – much of what cattle eat is grass, grown on land unsuitable for raising grain.

Actually, no, but I leave it to you to discover if you are interested. As I said, veering way off topic.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Before I write this let me state something about myself. I am not right wing, and I am not left wing. I hate Communism, Modernism, and all the other fads and modern heresies, just as much as I hate Capitalism and Libertarianism.

I want to rant about something I’ve noticed with Catholics. Especially the more conservative-minded ones. I mentioned it on another thread but it deserves its own.

If you embrace a position that is commonly held by left-leaning people that is not compatible with Catholicism, for example the idea that women should be able to be Priests, then you will be condemned. People will tell you about the traditions of the Church and Church teachings and remind you that obstinate persistence in your mistake is heretical.

However, if you embrace a position that is commonly held by the right, and is likewise out of step, then it’s just ignored. Nobody questions it. For example, the idea that the government should provide no social services to the poor, or that (as in the wal-mart thread) corporations have no obligations apart from their shareholders.

Catholics need to go beyond right and left. We should not uncritically swallow each and every thing as long as it fits our little self-conceptions and identities. We have to be Catholics first, and Republicans or Democrats second.

For example: It’s not okay to be a Catholic Democrat, but still support abortion on demand. It’s likewise not okay to be a Catholic Republican and support cuts in assistance to the poor and needy (and did you know the Bible compares robbing the poor to murder?!).

Don’t be afraid to offend your peers.

Well put. Political parties are essentially useless to a devout Catholic. I am an Independent for this reason since my conversion. It would be nice if someday a party emerged which was compatable with my beliefs. I’ve read all the Catholic voting literature, and while it is helpful regarding what type of candidate to look for, I can’t think of any in modern times. Absolutely not the potential nominees of the accepted two major parties of the U.S. My personal solution to this situation, (not voting for President, and simply focusing on local issues, and offices), is somehow, kind of liberating. It’s certainly got my family in a bit of a tizzy, though. They’re all doing sales pitches to me about their candidates. I just calmly try to explain why I can’t vote for this one or that one in good conscience. It’s not for lack of concern for my nation. There is just simply no one running who will advance the causes which I believe in and care about as a devout Catholic Christian, without doing terrible damage to some other thing I care about. I still love my country. I believe we’ll be in equally good hands in January with pretty much any one of the three. Whoever it is, I’ll pray for the every night, just as I do the current President. Maybe next time there will be somebody. You never know. I don’t worry about it really. I belong to my father in heaven, and will be respectful of the edicts of caesar as we are asked to be. I’ll simply continue to be a good citizen and pray for a change in heart among the larger percentage of my countrymen. I love the principles that our country was set up on, and I have faith that that we, as a people will realize how much power we have someday through the constitution, and will make use of that power, (without violence), for positive change. In the meantime, Peace to all, and good luck in November.

 

[SoCalRC]

I admire your energy in continually finding creative ways of condemning all things Republican but you need to recognize that when you create a laundry list of supposed failures, if you include things that are transparently untrue you undermine the entire rant. For example, the unemployment rate for the previous two years never once went above 5.0%. It wasn’t until last month that the rate finally exceeded this (quite low) level - it reached 5.1%. By comparison, the unemployment rate in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, was 8.6% at the end of February '08 (down from over 10% the previous February).

Ender

Ah yes, the cling to one statistic approach. There is a little problem with comparing the two statistics, people don’t ‘fall off’ the European metric as they do in the US.

In terms of standard and living and household wages, we’ve just fallen behind the UK for the first time in, well, ever.

Look at those corporate profits! Look at that unemployement rate! What is wrong with Americans, can’t they just feel the prosperity!

Presumably not, the President’s disapproval rating just hit 69%, an all time record…