I understand what conservatives are/what conservative ideologies are.
The point is, none of those examples that were given are because "Conservative". The point being raised deserved an honest answer and you didn't give one.
As I pointed out, because conservatives are traditionalists. That varies by culture. In Russia, for example, some people pine for the traditions of Communism to come back. In context, they're conservative, even reactionary. In their own cultures, so are Islamists & Teahadists, too.
Conservatives resist change to their traditions or want things to go back to some idealized vision of the past when their traditions held more sway.
I understand what conservatives are/what conservative ideologies are.
The point is, none of those examples that were given are because "Conservative". The point being raised deserved an honest answer and you didn't give one.
I don't understand all of the complaining. I mean, the White House says this is a wonderful thing. Would they lie to you?Bored with your job? No worries—now you can quit, thanks to the generosity of other taxpayers. Want to retire early? No worries—now you can, thanks to the generosity of other taxpayers, and also thanks to the higher premiums that young people will be forced to pay on your behalf. The White House’s apparently sincere belief—echoed by progressive pundits at MSNBC, The New Republic, and the L.A. Times—is that it’s a good thing for fewer Americans to be economically self-sufficient.
If you’re one of the chumps out there who still toils away at a challenging job, and still pays taxes so that others can “pursue their dreams,” you have a right to resent the White House’s argument.
The simplistic lameness of the conservative whining in this thread is appalling.
I rather suspect that this will actually reduce total govt subsidies. Really. On one side, you have people who could afford to exit the workforce with small subsidy, often older successful people who've worked their whole adult lives. On the other, you have people who would enter the workforce if jobs were available, younger people with families, often heavily subsidized.
Which is where we come right back around to the conservative delusion that there are enough jobs for everybody. Quite the contrary. This better allows those who need jobs to obtain them. It creates upward mobility openings in the market at the same time, which is the only kind of trickledown that's really meaningful to working people.
Figure it out. Who needs a job more? Boomers who've done well but are a few years & a few dollars short of retirement, or younger people in their 20's & 30's who are un- and under- employed?
It's not job creation, but it might as well be for the people who will get to work or get to move up.
The simplistic lameness of the conservative whining in this thread is appalling.
I rather suspect that this will actually reduce total govt subsidies. Really. On one side, you have people who could afford to exit the workforce with small subsidy, often older successful people who've worked their whole adult lives. On the other, you have people who would enter the workforce if jobs were available, younger people with families, often heavily subsidized.
Which is where we come right back around to the conservative delusion that there are enough jobs for everybody. Quite the contrary. This better allows those who need jobs to obtain them. It creates upward mobility openings in the market at the same time, which is the only kind of trickledown that's really meaningful to working people.
Figure it out. Who needs a job more? Boomers who've done well but are a few years & a few dollars short of retirement, or younger people in their 20's & 30's who are un- and under- employed?
It's not job creation, but it might as well be for the people who will get to work or get to move up.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/congressional-budget-office-report-obamacare-103278.html
Good story from Politico on both parties' misrepresentation of the CBO report.
Are you that dense?
The topic of the discussion is this:
Working harder, smarter, and more hours, is getting you less and less ahead of the person who decides to work fewer hours, or not work at all. The rewards of these programs are going towards those who work less.
Yes this will have more openings for people who want to work more, but I do wholly question your statement these are "upward mobility openings".
So the question then is, is this new base level of living that's being set, sufficient? For me it is not. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to break out and move upwards. That is the disincentive.
The unemployment rate fell in January, which ought to be good news. But it isnt. Over the past decade weve fallen into a strange and puzzling wonderland of opposites, where economic recovery comes with no growth and unemployment rates drop but people arent working.
Such a wonderland was discovered by Alice in Lewis Carrolls playful tale. If I had a world of my own, Alice said, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isnt....
After years of standing in unemployment lines, unable to find work, millions have given up. Only 63 percent of the population is currently employed or looking for work, down from 66 percent when Mr. Obama took office.
In the past year an additional 2.5 million Americans under the age of 55 abandoned the search for a job.