I have read some Hobbs and Kant. I didn't agree entirely with what either of them said, and I didn't want to pursue a degree in philosophy. So while I have read and understand their theories, I am not going to waste our time here debating those point.

The only set of progressives that I really take an interest in are the set that founded this Country. I find myself conservative because I believe that their belief in the individual was correct. I believe that Constitutionally limited Republic was brilliant and there is little we can do to improve upon that system. I have read Marx, but I have also read enough Orwell to understand that human nature will always prevent Utopia. That does not mean that I don't believe that people can help each other. It just means that I would rather error on the side of the individual to provide aid over the side of the collective to do the same. A good argument for that fact is the point that Republicans in Congress give far more voluntarily than Democrats do. (Those Republicans were supposed to be the group that subscribed to the notions of limited government and individual rights, but clearly they failed at that and the American people spoke last night) I am a Conservative with a belief in our Constitution, because I believe that our Constitution is what enabled the list of things you named that progressives are responsible for. I do believe that our society benefits more from having a smaller constitutionally limited government because government on a federal level is inherently inefficient. I disagree with your notion that “that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources.” I think small groups with wealth tend to contribute proportionally more than the use. I don't think you honestly find an example in the last 200 years where that is not true. After all in our current system (forgive the numbers) but the top 25% contribute 80% of tax revenues, I don't think that same top 25% is using 80% of the public's resources, quite the opposite I would actually wager.

But hey Chris lets go ahead make some snide comments about logic and sinew.

I have read some Hobbs and Kant. I didn't agree entirely with what either of them said, and I didn't want to pursue a degree in philosophy. So while I have read and understand their theories, I am not going to waste our time here debating those point.

The only set of progressives that I really take an interest in are the set that founded this Country. I find myself conservative because I believe that their belief in the individual was correct. I believe that Constitutionally limited Republic was brilliant and there is little we can do to improve upon that system. I have read Marx, but I have also read enough Orwell to understand that human nature will always prevent Utopia. That does not mean that I don't believe that people can help each other. It just means that I would rather error on the side of the individual to provide aid over the side of the collective to do the same. A good argument for that fact is the point that Republicans in Congress give far more voluntarily than Democrats do. (Those Republicans were supposed to be the group that subscribed to the notions of limited government and individual rights, but clearly they failed at that and the American people spoke last night) I am a Conservative with a belief in our Constitution, because I believe that our Constitution is what enabled the list of things you named that progressives are responsible for. I do believe that our society benefits more from having a smaller constitutionally limited government because government on a federal level is inherently inefficient. I disagree with your notion that “that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources.” I think small groups with wealth tend to contribute proportionally more than the use. I don't think you honestly find an example in the last 200 years where that is not true. After all in our current system (forgive the numbers) but the top 25% contribute 80% of tax revenues, I don't think that same top 25% is using 80% of the public's resources, quite the opposite I would actually wager.

But hey Chris lets go ahead make some snide comments about logic and sinew.

I have read some Hobbs and Kant. I didn't agree entirely with what either of them said, and I didn't want to pursue a degree in philosophy. So while I have read and understand their theories, I am not going to waste our time here debating those point.

The only set of progressives that I really take an interest in are the set that founded this Country. I find myself conservative because I believe that their belief in the individual was correct. I believe that Constitutionally limited Republic was brilliant and there is little we can do to improve upon that system. I have read Marx, but I have also read enough Orwell to understand that human nature will always prevent Utopia. That does not mean that I don't believe that people can help each other. It just means that I would rather error on the side of the individual to provide aid over the side of the collective to do the same. A good argument for that fact is the point that Republicans in Congress give far more voluntarily than Democrats do. (Those Republicans were supposed to be the group that subscribed to the notions of limited government and individual rights, but clearly they failed at that and the American people spoke last night) I am a Conservative with a belief in our Constitution, because I believe that our Constitution is what enabled the list of things you named that progressives are responsible for. I do believe that our society benefits more from having a smaller constitutionally limited government because government on a federal level is inherently inefficient. I disagree with your notion that “that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources.” I think small groups with wealth tend to contribute proportionally more than the use. I don't think you honestly find an example in the last 200 years where that is not true. After all in our current system (forgive the numbers) but the top 25% contribute 80% of tax revenues, I don't think that same top 25% is using 80% of the public's resources, quite the opposite I would actually wager.

But hey Chris lets go ahead make some snide comments about logic and sinew.

I have read some Hobbs and Kant. I didn't agree entirely with what either of them said, and I didn't want to pursue a degree in philosophy. So while I have read and understand their theories, I am not going to waste our time here debating those point.

The only set of progressives that I really take an interest in are the set that founded this Country. I find myself conservative because I believe that their belief in the individual was correct. I believe that Constitutionally limited Republic was brilliant and there is little we can do to improve upon that system. I have read Marx, but I have also read enough Orwell to understand that human nature will always prevent Utopia. That does not mean that I don't believe that people can help each other. It just means that I would rather error on the side of the individual to provide aid over the side of the collective to do the same. A good argument for that fact is the point that Republicans in Congress give far more voluntarily than Democrats do. (Those Republicans were supposed to be the group that subscribed to the notions of limited government and individual rights, but clearly they failed at that and the American people spoke last night) I am a Conservative with a belief in our Constitution, because I believe that our Constitution is what enabled the list of things you named that progressives are responsible for. I do believe that our society benefits more from having a smaller constitutionally limited government because government on a federal level is inherently inefficient. I disagree with your notion that “that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources.” I think small groups with wealth tend to contribute proportionally more than the use. I don't think you honestly find an example in the last 200 years where that is not true. After all in our current system (forgive the numbers) but the top 25% contribute 80% of tax revenues, I don't think that same top 25% is using 80% of the public's resources, quite the opposite I would actually wager.

But hey Chris lets go ahead make some snide comments about logic and sinew.

Certainly, anyone getting a trust fund dinner is also occasionally receiving a free lunch. Unless you count the Gov funded inspector who made sure the meat was safe, the gov regulators who made sure the water was potable, the gov regulators who made sure the roads were safe, All paid for by the taxpayer handing over the lunch sans disease, spoil and bacteria. But I digress.

And that just to answer your first sentence.

Your conservative optimism vs liberal pessimism is the polar opposite of Hobbesian origins of the conservative ethos. Hobbes' estimation of man's innate motivations was quite brutal. He is well considered the father of modern political conservatives. Kant thought that man was innately good and that humanity would slowly march forward, ethically, philosophically, politically. And it, inarguably, has. Kant is largely thought of as the father of modern liberalism.

As to the rest of that paragraph I can only guess at the logical leap you make, pessimism leading to a need for government. I really think you ought to diagram that sentence as its root hangs precariously, without sinew, from its conclusion.

Okay, next, the dollar argument. Your argument seems to be that it is more efficient to hand a dollar to a needy person than to filter that dollar through a government entity? And, you seem to think that without mandate enough people with dollars will hand them over to people who might rightfully need dollars rather than keep that dollar for to pay fees on a second yacht. It would seem that history teaches us small groups with wealth tend to keep it, despite their disproportionate use of the public's resources.

Well, I suddenly realize I need to watch as a black man named Barack Hussein Obama is quite possibly elected president in a country where, before progressives got ahold of it:

Black people were slaves, mostly;
women couldn't vote,
half of all Seniors (before social security) were literally starving,
factories polluted air and water,
miners died like they do now in China (30 a day?),
reading was for those who could afford it or the clergy,
and on and on and on and on….

Actually they mean quite a bit.

On base level it is optimism versus pessimism. A belief that man is good enough as an individual to do what is right versus a belief that only through the collective of government can good be achieved.

Let me put it to you this way, if I were to go and give a dollar to someone how much would that person get, a dollar right. But if I must rely on the govt. to come an take that dollar, pay the bureaucracy and transportation, how much actually shows up with the person that needs it? 20 cents 30 cents maybe. So you tell me what is the rationale behind having a government do the redistributing, putting aside the implications of giving something to somebody that did not earn it, and just focusing on the logistics.

The reason I can see is that you don't think people will give of their own volition, so we must rely on the govt. to take it from them. Right? Isn't that rather pessimistic? It boils down to a belief that individual is in capable of helping another without the government forcing him to do so.

I personally reject that idea. I believe we as individuals as the majority are going to help our fellow man, and I believe logistically that the person in need is better served by getting the whole dollar rather than the 30 cents after the government wastes 70 cents to get it to them.

I suppose, I would have less problem with Robin Hood Socialism if it didn't have to be run through our Federal Govt. which is run by two corrupt political parties. Both parties pander to the notion “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” Our federal govt. is not constitutionally supposed to to ever pay Paul.

Your post reads like the bumper stickers of local Republican diplomacy. “There's no Free Lunch!!”

Honestly, do you pretend to pass off all of these straw men as levelers of considerate charges? Does one of these trite, emotionally bereft, pubescent charges actually mean anything when examined?

So all married couples earning above $250K should rationally divorce under the Obama tax plan. As an unmarried couple their exemption would be $400K, or $200K each. An anti-marriage tax plan does not strengthen our society. That indeed is the heart of the matter.