The Prevailing Problem Mentality

[Hobbit]

As I watch this unbelievably long and stupid election cycle, and I see so many things people demand from their politicians, I fail to grasp why. I see people express their views of right and wrong only to be shouted down by someone foaming at the mouth about forcing morals or some such nonsense. Eventually, it hit me. Too many people are looking at the entire country in terms of government regulation and control. I believe most do it unconsciously. It comes as instinct to them. They may even think they represent freedom...in the form of more government control over other freedoms that might inconvenience that freedom. I think it breaks down into two categories.

1: The first category of government control assumption strikes in the form of government regulation, control, and spending as a knee-jerk reaction. When a problem presents itself, many Americans no longer ask the question, "Wow, what can I do about it?" and instead ask the question, "When are those politicians in Washington going to do something about it?" It's really scary. Even if the problem is fairly local, they rarely think of the city council or state government, or better yet, solving the problem as private citizens, but instead, the first thought goes straight to Capitol Hill. If a behavior is undesirable, they seek to ban it. If an action is favorable, they seek to subsidize it. In their minds, all things that have any positive or negative bearing on the world in any way must be either regulated, banned, or subsidized by the federal government.

2: The second attitude that causes so much foaming at the mouth is the assumption that all Americans are operating under the first mentality. Express your displeasure at premarital sex and your desire to see people stop practicing it, and you'll likely get a sermon about government control over MY body, even if you never even imply a desire to use the law to enforce your point of view. The idea that somebody might abhor a behavior or product but not seek a law against it is foreign and alien to them, a concept that makes as much sense as liking a food, but never eating it. Thus, any and all expression of your views is seen, to them, to have an implied "...and there should be a law about it," at the end.

Combined, these two attitudes are leading to an environment in which there is no room to live and let live. Opposing viewpoints may not be civilly held by friends. The home for determining who is right and who is wrong is moved from friendly debate to sweeping legislation and appellate courts. It is inconceivable for a Christian and secularist to be friends, as the Christian must always seek to oppress the secularist moralistic, theocratic laws while the secularist seeks to press religion out of the public and behind closed doors only. Those who favor abstinence and monogamy cannot befriend the sexually 'liberated,' as the former will constantly be trying to outlaw all sex and birth control except between a married couple in the missionary position while the latter will seek legislation forcing schools to teach children that, despite anything their parents say, there never has been nor ever will be anything wrong with treating sex like a handshake, as long as you use protection.

In the end, this attitude, more than any one political party or ideology, has led to the division of this country. Where once we had a diverse but united republic where those of vastly opposing views could live without fear of having their views oppressed, we now have a compartmentalized society divided into warring tribes using the bludgeon of the law to attempt to force all others to their point of view. While some tribes are more guilty of this than others, all are guilty and are convinced only of the guilt of everyone else.

There are three levels of guidelines to dictate your actions outside of your personal agenda. Those three levels of guidelines are: legal, ethical, and moral. Until the country as a whole sees that, of the three, legal should be as loose as can be allowed without anarchy, while moral should be something most people must hold themselves to, rather than an all-reaching federal government, then the country can never truly heal.

[typomaniac]

It's not the second attitude that causes most of the foaming at the mouth. It's the very systematic efforts from conservative interests - through mouthpieces like Coulter, Rush, and O'Reilly - to stir up more and more hate.

[April15]

Hobbit,
You may be on to something!

[avatar4321]

It's not the second attitude that causes most of the foaming at the mouth. It's the very systematic efforts from conservative interests - through mouthpieces like Coulter, Rush, and O'Reilly - to stir up more and more hate.

I dont see how talk radio stirs up hate or what it has to do with this thread.

I agree with the premise original post though.

[Hobbit]

It's not the second attitude that causes most of the foaming at the mouth. It's the very systematic efforts from conservative interests - through mouthpieces like Coulter, Rush, and O'Reilly - to stir up more and more hate.

What causes foaming at the mouth is when such mouthpieces express what they believe is the right thing to do, and many others assume they want laws made about it, but what really causes all of the 'hate' accusations is when they challenge the mentality directly and proclaim that maybe government shouldn't be the solution to much of anything, and since those stuck in the aforementioned mentality assume that all things must be loved or hated and that all things loved must be government endorsed, their first mental connection is that these people hate the poor, minorities, etc. because they want to defund government endorsement of those people.

[gabosaurus]

A very intelligent and educated viewpoint, Hobbit. I don't agree with some of it, but I can't deny many of the points. Well done!

[Yurt]

you should post this on the blog

[typomaniac]

What causes foaming at the mouth is when such mouthpieces express what they believe is the right thing to do, and many others assume they want laws made about it, but what really causes all of the 'hate' accusations is when they challenge the mentality directly and proclaim that maybe government shouldn't be the solution to much of anything, and since those stuck in the aforementioned mentality assume that all things must be loved or hated and that all things loved must be government endorsed, their first mental connection is that these people hate the poor, minorities, etc. because they want to defund government endorsement of those people.

If they really didn't want the government to be the solution to much of anything, they would have opposed going to war halfway around the world. :slap:

[Yurt]

If they really didn't want the government to be the solution to much of anything, they would have opposed going to war halfway around the world. :slap:

please attend MFM's english colloquial class

[Dilloduck]

If they really didn't want the government to be the solution to much of anything, they would have opposed going to war halfway around the world. :slap:

REALLY ? Now are your making fun of Bush in Africa or all of the Congressional shopping junkets ? :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

REALLY ? Now are your making fun of Bush in Africa or all of the Congressional shopping junkets ? :laugh2:

Not intentionally. Just pointing out how silly it is to connect today's conservatives with the idea that government "shouldn't do much of anything."

[Dilloduck]

Not intentionally. Just pointing out how silly it is to connect today's conservatives with the idea that government "shouldn't do much of anything."

I think blowing the shit out of assholes is OK if they or any of thier friends kill Americans. Even if its far away. No clean up.

[Kathianne]

you should post this on the blog

Damn, I was going to steal it! A very good suggestion.

[Hobbit]

If they really didn't want the government to be the solution to much of anything, they would have opposed going to war halfway around the world. :slap:

This would be an example of thinking in extremes, and failing to realize that much of anything and anything at all are not one and the same. As put forth in the Constitution of this great nation, the federal government does, in fact, have the sole right to prosecute wars on behalf of the union. In fact, our first clash with radical Islam came when Jefferson decided to put the Barbary Pirates out of business.

[Hobbit]

you should post this on the blog

Well, I made a profile on the blog, but I have no idea how to post anything.

[Yurt]

Well, I made a profile on the blog, but I have no idea how to post anything.

its not that user friendly.

ask jim, he will show you.

[typomaniac]

This would be an example of thinking in extremes, and failing to realize that much of anything and anything at all are not one and the same. As put forth in the Constitution of this great nation, the federal government does, in fact, have the sole right to prosecute wars on behalf of the union. In fact, our first clash with radical Islam came when Jefferson decided to put the Barbary Pirates out of business.

You can backpedal all you like, but the absurdity is still there.

Jefferson wouldn't have dreamed of cutting taxes while waging war (nor did he).

[Hobbit]

You can backpedal all you like, but the absurdity is still there.

Jefferson wouldn't have dreamed of cutting taxes while waging war (nor did he).

That's because Jefferson didn't inherit a country with such a high and oppressive rate that lowering taxes actually raised revenue, which has happened the last 3 times taxes were cut. Geez, most federal revenue then came from tariffs.

[typomaniac]

That's because Jefferson didn't inherit a country with such a high and oppressive rate that lowering taxes actually raised revenue, which has happened the last 3 times taxes were cut. Geez, most federal revenue then came from tariffs.

You're kidding, right? Look at the tax rates in Europe.

[DragonStryk72]

I am Christian (Born and raised, plus 6 years of catholic school), and a number of my friends are Wiccan, Asatru, or other assorted Pagans. At times though, I catch them complaining about the a-hole christians (the former is not a requirement of being the latter), but they just say Christians, and then I'm stuck having to jump in to defend my own faith.

I've always had my faith, but I've never made any attempt to try and push people toward my way of thinking. Lead by example, instead of by preaching.

I see alot of truth in what Hobbit says, this has become a thing where they seem to think that if I were 'really' christian, I would be convinced that they are all going to burn in hell, but I've learned two very important precepts from the Bible:

"Jude not others, lest ye be held by those judgements in heaven"

and

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, Give unto God that which is God's"

[Psychoblues]

These people need the preaching, DS72.





I am Christian (Born and raised, plus 6 years of catholic school), and a number of my friends are Wiccan, Asatru, or other assorted Pagans. At times though, I catch them complaining about the a-hole christians (the former is not a requirement of being the latter), but they just say Christians, and then I'm stuck having to jump in to defend my own faith.

I've always had my faith, but I've never made any attempt to try and push people toward my way of thinking. Lead by example, instead of by preaching.

I see alot of truth in what Hobbit says, this has become a thing where they seem to think that if I were 'really' christian, I would be convinced that they are all going to burn in hell, but I've learned two very important precepts from the Bible:

"Jude not others, lest ye be held by those judgements in heaven"

and

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, Give unto God that which is God's"

They always falter when thinking for themselves.

[DragonStryk72]

These people need the preaching, DS72.
They always falter when thinking for themselves.

No, they don't, and it would be a mistake to assume that they do. they do think for themselves, and we have had a number of debates, serious and not so serious. I can be there for them when they fall, I can help them back to their feet, but in the end, their path is their own to walk.

These are not bad people, they help out in the community, they stand up for their beliefs, they just believe differently than I believe, and I do not begrudge them that, nor will I.

My only difficulty is when they use the broad term Christian, and I get lumped in with a bunch of people who have their head up their ass. A number of these people are where they are precisely because of the ones who have preached and preached. Love, and genuine caring brings people, not proselyting and brow-beating. Were they to be interested in coming back into the fold, wonderful, I'm the first one there to help, but again, that has to be of their own will, and in their own way.

[Psychoblues]

Been there, done that, went again, did it again and again and again. These jerks need the preaching, DS72. Even Jesus warned against them.



No, they don't, and it would be a mistake to assume that they do. they do think for themselves, and we have had a number of debates, serious and not so serious. I can be there for them when they fall, I can help them back to their feet, but in the end, their path is their own to walk.

These are not bad people, they help out in the community, they stand up for their beliefs, they just believe differently than I believe, and I do not begrudge them that, nor will I.

My only difficulty is when they use the broad term Christian, and I get lumped in with a bunch of people who have their head up their ass. A number of these people are where they are precisely because of the ones who have preached and preached. Love, and genuine caring brings people, not proselyting and brow-beating. Were they to be interested in coming back into the fold, wonderful, I'm the first one there to help, but again, that has to be of their own will, and in their own way.

Their will is to follow their preachers, DS72, and I don't think their preachers are so smart at all, do you?

[DragonStryk72]

They aren't jerks, they just kind of forget that not every Christian is Falwell. My buddy Josh seems to be coming around a bit, but then, I think it's more for the pancake breakfasts I do with Scouts, than anything else (I make me some good pancakes).

[Hobbit]

You're kidding, right? Look at the tax rates in Europe.

The fact that European socialists have chosen to tax their countries into poverty doesn't change the fact that the last 3 times our taxes were cut, revenues increased. Your 'lowering taxes in the middle of a war' argument didn't pan out, so you're changing subjects.

[JohnDoe]

The fact that European socialists have chosen to tax their countries into poverty doesn't change the fact that the last 3 times our taxes were cut, revenues increased. Your 'lowering taxes in the middle of a war' argument didn't pan out, so you're changing subjects.

ummmm, the bush tax cuts did NOT pay for themselves, as Reagans did....even the creator of the idea Laffer/ the Laffer Curve guy, said that these past tax cuts did not....

It depends on the kind of tax cut, on whether it will generate more in taxes than if no tax cuts were made at all... not all tax cuts pay for themselves and produce more in revenues than they would end up getting with just the normal growth of our economy.... (there is a thread on Laffer that has a link to what Laffer has said on this, but don't have the time to get it right yet)

And note that tax revenues increase every year, with normal growth.... our gvt now collects over 2.5 trillion from us, during Reagan they collected less than 1 trillion from us....time with our growth, increases tax revenues, with or without an income rate increase or decrease.....

I am not trying to knock down that tax cut SOMETIMES, if done RIGHT, increase tax revenues immediately and do pay for themselves....but am noting that NOT ALL tax cuts do this....and President Bush's tax cuts did NOT increase revenues immediately, as did the tax cuts under Reagan and Kennedy, so we went in to an immediate deficit spending mode and only after 2005, did we increase revenues to the level we were collecting right prior to them taking affect in 2002... All the charts and numbers that were presented the time that this was discussed here on the site, showed such, with any kind of analysis and that Laffer was correct in his statements regarding this...at least if my memory serves me! hahahahahahaha!

Anyway, we have added nearing 5 Trillion to the 5 trillion cumilative debt already of our country's history the past 7 years, bringing us to the 10 trillion in total we are nearing the hitting of....in 2008/2009.

Tax cuts did not pay for themselves or bring in more revenue other than a slight tick up in key areas after a few years in to their effect, the other increase comes from the normal growth in our economy, not enough to pay for themselves in a short period of time...this can be seen and is evident, with the increase in the national debt the past few years.

Regardless, borrowing money from China and japan and Saudi arabia to pay for our bills is killing the dollar, and all of our livelyhoods, silently almost, and slowly.....but it is happenening none the less.

if you cut taxes, cut spending, bottom line...otherwise our indebtiveness to other nations will come back to bite us in the ass imo.

jd

[avatar4321]

If they really didn't want the government to be the solution to much of anything, they would have opposed going to war halfway around the world. :slap:

I dont see how actually wanting to follow the constitution and keep the federal government limited in scope is somehow incompatible with defending ourselves when that is a legitimate constitutional action of the government.

I don't see how opposing the governments use of entitlement programs to enslave people has anything to do with self defense.

[avatar4321]

You can backpedal all you like, but the absurdity is still there.

Jefferson wouldn't have dreamed of cutting taxes while waging war (nor did he).

yes, but jefferson didnt understand how tax cuts work at the time.

Besides the problem isnt tax cuts. the problem is liberal overspending.

[Hagbard Celine]

I agree with your points, but you're still looking at things from a partisan point of view. The other point of view isn't the problem that's keeping you from living your life the way you want to. And social liberals aren't the only people who assume the government should have its hand in moral issues. The very idea of government involvement in moral issues is a conservative one rooted in the church. Liberals wouldn't be concerned about the government sticking its nose into issues about "my body" unless there was a very real threat of exactly that. Hell, even in the last election cycle we saw conservatives put forth a bill to amend the Constitution itself with the travesty that was the "marriage amendment." It's as if we've become so collectively stupid that we need to make a law to remind us of who we can get married to despite the fact that the Constitution relegates the issue to the states. I'd go so far as to say that every time we see a federal bill being put forth to make a moral opinion "law," it's a conservative doing it. I'm of course refering to abolishing abortion, abolishing gay marriage, abolishing flag burning, etc. I agree that people need to stop relying on the government for everything. Self-reliance is a value that is waning in our country. What I'm most afraid of is losing myself to the prevailing attitude of mediocrity that cloaks this country. I fight every day against it and it's my worst nightmare that I'm going to wake up in 15 years still suckling my paycheck from the corporate teet, paying a $400-a-month car lease, a $3,000-a-month mortgage, floating on credit card debt and looking forward to watching American Idol every night of the week. *shudders*
Be your own boss, keep learning useful skills, keep debt low and stay in shape. -That's my mantra.

[MtnBiker]

Besides the problem isnt tax cuts. the problem is liberal overspending.

Liberal yes, but unfortunately not just Democrats.

[JohnDoe]

yes, but jefferson didnt understand how tax cuts work at the time.

Besides the problem isnt tax cuts. the problem is liberal overspending.

My Dear God! Avatar, who added $4 TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt the 6 years they were in total control of the house, the senate and the executive branch?

One word answer:

Republicans.

I can not believe how blinded by the Right you seem to be....with the kind of blatent bullcrap lines that you posted above....there is NO ROOM to TALK anymore by Republicans that they are the wiser and better crew in office if you don't want to grow the size of our gvt....NO PARTY IN RECENT HISTORY has grown our gvt spending more in dollars than these crop of republicans in office.

You may want to believe that the people you pick and choose to represent you believe the same things you do about a smaller gvt, but their actual ACTIONS HAVE SPOKEN much louder than words".....and the numbers show this as FACT.....not some dreamed up fiction.

jd

[MtnBiker]

Did Avatar say liberal overspending or Democrat overspending?

[Hagbard Celine]

Did Avatar say liberal overspending or Democrat overspending?

Why did he say "liberal overspending" if he didn't mean Democrats? Why didn't he just say "overspending?" He's either partisan or he's redundant. Either or.

[MtnBiker]

You believe "liberal overspending" is redundant?

Good, it is.

[avatar4321]

My Dear God! Avatar, who added $4 TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt the 6 years they were in total control of the house, the senate and the executive branch?

One word answer:

Republicans.

I can not believe how blinded by the Right you seem to be....with the kind of blatent bullcrap lines that you posted above....there is NO ROOM to TALK anymore by Republicans that they are the wiser and better crew in office if you don't want to grow the size of our gvt....NO PARTY IN RECENT HISTORY has grown our gvt spending more in dollars than these crop of republicans in office.

You may want to believe that the people you pick and choose to represent you believe the same things you do about a smaller gvt, but their actual ACTIONS HAVE SPOKEN much louder than words".....and the numbers show this as FACT.....not some dreamed up fiction.

jd

i said liberal. i didnt specify Democrat or Republican.

You still dont get it yet. Those Republicans werent conservatives. Thats why we are so freaking pissed at them.

[avatar4321]

Why did he say "liberal overspending" if he didn't mean Democrats? Why didn't he just say "overspending?" He's either partisan or he's redundant. Either or.

Because even a complete moron would understand that there are liberals in the Democrat and Republican party

[JohnDoe]

i said liberal. i didnt specify Democrat or Republican.

You still dont get it yet. Those Republicans werent conservatives. Thats why we are so freaking pissed at them.YOu know good well that Liberal is synonymous with Democrat in most every thing that you post. Why would I think differently now?

Only recently have I ever heard the word "liberal" associated with a republican by conservatives and that is with them recently labeling John McCain as a "liberal"..... and NOT even for his spending habits or lack there of....?

There were not but a handful of republicans that did not go along with the president's spending budgets and overspending. It was THEIR AGENDA that the money got spent on, and their agenda, is your agenda, the republican agenda, if you voted them in to office.

And yes, i commend SOME of the republicans that are NOW speaking out on the spending like drunken sailors that they did while in office....but it is a day late and trillions of dollars short, imo. Where were you the first year they overspent budget by $600 BILLION DOLLARS, if the SS surplus money they borrowed is added in to it??? Where were you the next year they added another $600 billion to the national debt? or the following year they overspent AGAIN another $600 billion, thus added to the national debt? or the next or the next or the next $500-$600 billion they added to the debt from over spending after that each and every year?

jd

[gabosaurus]

The infrastructure and social fabric of the U.S. is in trouble. Mostly because we spend more tax dollars helping other nations than we do on ourselves.
Taxes are going to go up. Because they need to. The country runs on your taxes. The country has to improve.
It won't be a huge tax increase. Because of all the money diverted back into our budget from the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Fuck them. Fuck the entire Middle East. Our country is more important than that entire region.
Keep the troops in Afghanistan. Get out of the Middle East entirely.

[Gaffer]

All they have to do to stop the wild spending is stop tacking on pork to the bills being passed. If each bill has to be voted on individually without being added to another bill there would be far less spending and waste.

[avatar4321]

YOu know good well that Liberal is synonymous with Democrat in most every thing that you post. Why would I think differently now?

Only recently have I ever heard the word "liberal" associated with a republican by conservatives and that is with them recently labeling John McCain as a "liberal"..... and NOT even for his spending habits or lack there of....?

There were not but a handful of republicans that did not go along with the president's spending budgets and overspending. It was THEIR AGENDA that the money got spent on, and their agenda, is your agenda, the republican agenda, if you voted them in to office.

And yes, i commend SOME of the republicans that are NOW speaking out on the spending like drunken sailors that they did while in office....but it is a day late and trillions of dollars short, imo. Where were you the first year they overspent budget by $600 BILLION DOLLARS, if the SS surplus money they borrowed is added in to it??? Where were you the next year they added another $600 billion to the national debt? or the following year they overspent AGAIN another $600 billion, thus added to the national debt? or the next or the next or the next $500-$600 billion they added to the debt from over spending after that each and every year?

jd

ive never used liberal as synonymous with Democrat in anything I've posted. Im glad to see you actually read what I say. Because I've complained time and time again about liberal Republicans.

You honestly arent saying that we are upset over McCain because he is a conservative are you?

[Hagbard Celine]

Because even a complete moron would understand that there are liberals in the Democrat and Republican party

I'm assuming you understand it then? I'm glad we got that out of the way.

[typomaniac]

All they have to do to stop the wild spending is stop tacking on pork to the bills being passed. If each bill has to be voted on individually without being added to another bill there would be far less spending and waste.

Yeah, there'd be zero spending of any kind, because no bill would ever get passed.

Sorry Gaff, but it's clear from your post that you don't have the first clue about how Washington works (insofar as it works at all).

[Gaffer]

Yeah, there'd be zero spending of any kind, because no bill would ever get passed.

Sorry Gaff, but it's clear from your post that you don't have the first clue about how Washington works (insofar as it works at all).

If it can't pass without pork it doesn't need to pass. I know enough about how washington works to say that I don't like it. And I can say the same for you.

[typomaniac]

If it can't pass without pork it doesn't need to pass. I know enough about how washington works to say that I don't like it. And I can say the same for you.

Well, you're right about that: I do know enough about how Washington works to say that I don't like it either. But as long as congress members need huge piles of cash for their campaigns, they're going to keep demanding pork for their donors. No way around that reality.