How Conservative Economics Leave Families On Shaky Ground

[iwasthere]

Kind of wonder what Locke, FDR, JFK, and LBJ would have thought of how their philosophies panned out. My guess is that they would have "turned" conservative.

they would not turn thier backs on the people in the states but work what they been dealt with during their term in the white house.

[Dan Moadus]

Merry Christmas to you, socialist Santa.

[irishbobcat]

That's only your stupid opinion on how they turned out, Dan.....

Liberalism works....a lot better than your Gilded Age Neo-Con Political thought.....

which wants to turn America into Dicken's London setting for a Christmas Carol.....

Merry Christmas to you, Mr. Dan Modus Scrooge!

[Dan Moadus]

Kind of wonder what Locke, FDR, JFK, and LBJ would have thought of how their philosophies panned out. My guess is that they would have "turned" conservative.

[irishbobcat]

John Locke, father of liberalism......FDR,JFK,LBJ

[Dan Moadus]

In my first post I challenged Dennis to tell us how he came to be a liberal, (other liberal minded people feel free to chime in) and what did he read that re-enforced his beliefs. He has yet to reply. I have put this question to other liberals on other forums from time to time and have yet to get an answer. I'm beginning to suspect that liberals do not read much, and that they come about their liberalism by signing on to some emotional dogma told to them early in life, without ever questioning or testing its validity.

If we don't get any answers from Dennis or some of the "resident" liberals, can we assume that anything they say has not been reasoned out? Certainly Dennis doesn't appear to be able to put in writing any of his thoughts or arguments. He offers nothing here to suggest that any of the views he posts are his, and he doesn't respond to any critical replies to his posts other than childish retorts. I think its time he be made to defend himself and his offerings with some facts and reason instead of a flurry of identical posts. If he fails to do this, I think we have to look at anything he posts as nothing more than his recommendations of the thoughts of others.

[Rick Rowlands]

I have to wonder how those 93% of households fared between 2003 and 2008.  I will bet that their economic security was pretty damn good during that time period.  Those were some pretty good years.

Now of course there will be economic insecurity during a recession.  The economy is turning around now, and we will see the economic security of Americans again improve.  The two greatest drivers of that are the upcoming congressional gridlock and the continuation of the current tax rates. 

[Dan Moadus]

Dennis, that article overlooks so much. How easy is the life of a liberal. It is the easiest thing to believe in, just let your emotions take you where they will. Always couched in compassion, always claiming to just want to make the road of life a little easier. Liberals are generally content with themselves, because their hearts are in the right place.

I have many liberal friends who feel just as you do, and I know that it is simply from the goodness of their hearts that they feel as they do. You may be the same. Sadly though, most of them do not spend any time examining their beliefs, they do not read anything that may challenge their views. If the truth be told, most of them if pressed, would not be able to tell you how they came about their beliefs.

I think there are only two types of liberals. There are those who's hearts are filled with compassion for the poor, and those who's hearts are filled with hatred of the rich.  Both are constantly in search for some method of shrinking the disparity, and do not understand, nor care that there is no way to achieve what they want without using "force".

Opposing them we have conservatives, who for the most part are realists. They understand that life doesn't deal good hands equally. They are just as compassionate as the liberals (more compassionate, if their levels of donating to charities is an indicator), but can rise above pure emotionalism and understand what history teaches about this quest for fairness.  Conservatives are wary of those who want to use the governments powers to force fairness, because doing so just doesn't have a good track record.

Liberals in their quest for fairness find that it can not come about simply by teaching it from a pulpit or a blackboard, any hopes of achieving it must come from government power used to manage the economy. They are unmoved by history, which to date offers no example of a managed economy succeeding in bringing about economic equality, unless of course, you mean making people equally destitute.

They think, if only they could take a crack at it, they could make it work. They seem to be capable of only looking at the immediate effect of an economic proposal, without seeing any of the indirect effects. A good example would be the minimum wage laws. It seems so rational to think that people should be paid enough to survive, doesn't it? They pass a law dictating that no one could be paid less than what they believe a "fair" wage should be, and allow themselves the satisfaction that they did what was right. Unfortunately, they do not consider all the indirect effects their actions caused. Think about a chess player who could only think about how his opponent would react to his next move. How successful would he be if he couldn't project ahead and see all the various possibilities that would stem from just one move.  Planning an economy successfully would be equivalent to being able to look ahead a few thousand moves in chess. Not likely right?

We know that we are born a clean slate, so somehow or another our political beliefs were developed. I can tell you that I grew up in a family that was solidly liberal and I would probably have followed my fathers beliefs had I not had enough curiosity to explore the opposition.  Ayn Rand's books probably had the greatest early effect on me and started me on a course to conservatism. Milton Freidman's "Free to Choose", Barry Goldwater's "Conscious of a Conservative" and William F Buckley's writings all effected me to a degree.  Recently I find that I learn the most from followers of Ludwig Von Mises and Freidrich Hayek, both of the Austrian School of economics. I just finished "Meltdown" by Thomas Woods which clarified a lot of things, and have to say that recently I read what I consider one of the easiest to read, most convincing and thoughtful books on conservative economics called "Inclined to Liberty" by a man named  Louis Carabini. Oh! I can't forget Glenn Beck's book "Broke". I am reading it now, and can not say enough about it.

I have also read a few books written by Liberals which left me unimpressed enough to not remember their names, and would be open to reading some of the books that guided Dennis' beliefs. I am going to rely on Dennis to tell us what books he read that gave him his liberal philosophy. Considering how he dominates the posts here, I think that he at least owes us that. Don't you agree?

[irishbobcat]

How Conservative Economics Leave Families On Shaky Ground
By Isaiah J. Poole

it should come as no surprise that as a result of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the economic insecurity of average Americans is at an all-time high. What should be shocking is the insistence of conservative policymakers on heightening that insecurity, creating an economy that shifts increasing levels of risk onto people least able to manage that risk.

A new report by Jacob Hacker, Philipp Rehm and Mark Schlesinger offers new perspective on why the conservative efforts to decimate the social contract, from health care to retirement security, have to be fought. Simply put, ordinary families just can't handle the Darwinian world that conservative policymakers want to drag them into.

The report also explains why, if anyone needed any more of an explanation, why voter disenchantment with progress on the economy was so widespread this past fall.

Based on a series of scientific surveys, the report, "Standing On Shaky Ground," found that in the 18 months from March 2008 to September 2009, fully 93 percent of households experienced at least one substantial decline in their wealth or earnings or a substantial increase in nondiscretionary spending, most often for medical needs or assistance to family members. One-fourth of families experienced an income decline of 25 percent or more. Based on previous research, the share of Americans experiencing large income losses was higher in 2009 than at any point in the last quarter century, the report said.

But what the study also found is that a majority of families find themselves buffeted by multiple "economic shocks." For example, three out of four households that experienced a job cutback also experienced a shock in another economic realm, either related to health care, loss of personal wealth (such as a decline in value of a home or retirement assets), or family (death, divorce or a relative's financial crisis).

Mark Schlesinger, in discussing the report at a New America Foundation forum, said such multiple blows will thwart the best attempts of a working-class family to "save for a rainy day." For these families, he said, "that rainy day turned into a rainy year, complete with mudslides, famines and an accumulation of other uncertainties that no one could reasonably be expected to protect against."

The report also found that "28 percent of all Americans were either very or extremely anxious about their economic prospects" in surveys taken during 2009. One reason that statistic is significant is that households who believe their basic economic well-being is at risk are less likely to engage in the kinds of risks that could prove beneficial to themselves and to the economy as a whole, such as starting a business. Instead, these people will take a defensive crouch in order to buffet themselves as best they can against the next economic shock.

Given the report's findings, why would we tolerate steps to dismantle the current Social Security system, leaving people to the wiles of the stock market; privatize Medicare and Medicaid, leaving people unprotected against uncontrolled increases in health care costs; and put further limits on the protections we have traditionally afforded working people when they become unemployed or disabled?

What we have seen, and the report helps bear this out, is that our current safety nets are already too tattered to protect families from the multiple economic shocks they may experience. Shifting more risks onto the families that are already having a hard time managing the risks they already experience is the wrong direction. We have to keep the goal of strengthening Social Security, health care programs and other income protection programs at the core of an economic growth and shared prosperity agenda.