I see this a lot among military personnel, contractors and civilians (tea partiers) and it always makes me giggle. The ones complaining the most about the government are the ones.. sucking hardest on the government's teat. I hear the same is true for many of the "Republican" states, they are the ones who get the most aid from the federal government. Anyhow, I'm not fond of my liberal socialized Army medical care. It is actually pretty shitty, but something like that should be the standard minimum care for everyone in the US.MetatronM said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why are the young left and the old right?
- Thread starter Flying_Phoenix
- Start date
- Status
MetatronM said:
I am just stating what is going on with Tricare, not working on the outside I have no idea how that works. And man as most can tell you, the Military Medical system borders on inept to passable dependent on where you are stationed, I think no one in their right mind would want it used as a template for a National services.
JoeBoy101 said:
Fair enough. I'm just not seeing what you can do to 'fix' it. How do you decide if it was the woman or man at fault? I almost would rather have a man 'suffer' to support his kid if he was set up rather than have a kid be unsupported because a deadbeat father got off because of the law. I think. I mean, the system will always be wrong sometimes. But, I would rather have the father, who decided to have sex, have to pay for a kid he doesn't want rather than have a kid, who was randomly born and never chose this, to not have support from a father who didn't want him but had sex with his mother anyways.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
tekumseh said:
This is a great post.
Devolution
Member
JABEE said:
Of course not, but all things considered it's cheaper even if the woman purchases a bunch to give her sex partners.
Maybe the people who want to argue financial separation of men from babies they don't want should recognize the financial inequality inherent in making women pay out of pocket for contraception.
krameriffic
Member
This thread needs more distinction between fiscal and social liberalism and conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is a perfectly fine idea as far as I'm concerned.
Sadly, that distinction is not made clearly enough so anybody with a fiscally conservative disposition gets lassoed in with a bunch of crazy Christian fundamentalists from the deep south. You get this image of racist old white plantation owners or evil bloodsucking corporate CEOs. On the flip side, social liberalism gets associated with a bunch of treehugging bleeding heart fuckhead liberals like those crazy bastards in PETA. You get this image of a college student with long flowing hair playing an acoustic guitar and smoking a joint in his local park preaching about "free love" and other stupid shit.
It's much simpler than a bunch of prejudiced preconceived notions of liberal and conservative. People typically get set in their ways and maintain their personal philosophies as they get older. Old people are considered conservative relative to the modern image of liberalism because that's the very nature of a political Zeitgeist: it changes over time.
It was once considered liberal to let a black lady sit at the front of a bus. It's not the action that was liberal: it was the perception of that action at the time. That perception has changed, and hence those old folks who are so set in the beliefs that characterized their youth are now considered heartless conservative fucks.
Sadly, that distinction is not made clearly enough so anybody with a fiscally conservative disposition gets lassoed in with a bunch of crazy Christian fundamentalists from the deep south. You get this image of racist old white plantation owners or evil bloodsucking corporate CEOs. On the flip side, social liberalism gets associated with a bunch of treehugging bleeding heart fuckhead liberals like those crazy bastards in PETA. You get this image of a college student with long flowing hair playing an acoustic guitar and smoking a joint in his local park preaching about "free love" and other stupid shit.
It's much simpler than a bunch of prejudiced preconceived notions of liberal and conservative. People typically get set in their ways and maintain their personal philosophies as they get older. Old people are considered conservative relative to the modern image of liberalism because that's the very nature of a political Zeitgeist: it changes over time.
It was once considered liberal to let a black lady sit at the front of a bus. It's not the action that was liberal: it was the perception of that action at the time. That perception has changed, and hence those old folks who are so set in the beliefs that characterized their youth are now considered heartless conservative fucks.
WickedAngel
Banned
Cubsfan23 said:
Liberalism isn't exclusive to the young and poor.
/yourargument
Alucrid said:
Well, fault is immaterial if a child is being born. The legality of the entire issue is complicated at best given that, when it comes to abortion, the mantra is its not a child, but as soon as a woman says she wants it, magically it does become a child. Morally, it makes sense to make the deadbeat father support the child. But at the same time, morally I don't agree with abortion and morally think a father should be on the hook as soon as he decides to have sex. Legally, the situation is drawn out all the way almost until the child is born. I myself would never fight child support, but then, I wouldn't go to bed with a woman unless I was sure about her and her about me.
To the status quo: Legally, the inequity pisses me off, but morally, its probably the best that can be done, from the father's side. So I guess, same as you, I don't really see a way to 'fix' it.
empty vessel
Member
krameriffic said:
I'm a socialist and would consider myself a fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatism is about getting the most bang for your buck in a manner that advances the welfare of all. So, for example, if you do not support some kind of national health insurance, you aren't a fiscal conservative, because national health insurance is the cheapest and most efficient way for all members of society to be secure in their health. Indeed, it's the cheapest and most efficient way for me to be secure in my health. And I'm in the top 5% of income earners.
And I'm not young.
Except in my head.
Devolution said:
How about the woman? If she wants the decision and the baby then she can be fiscally responsible for it. People just want to have their cake and eat it too, but so many people are immature and irresponsible.
I fully support women's rights and think the choice to carry a baby or not is entirely theirs, but decisions come with responsibility, own up to them.
Devolution
Member
JoeBoy101 said:
It's a great avenue, more availability of contraception is better for everyone. In fact it pisses me off that a) a bunch of health insurance providers do not cover them and b) some people actually want to limit or ban their availability.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Many fiscal conservatives would disagree with that definition. To me fiscal conservatism is about not spending beyond your means aka deficit spending. If you want that shiney new social program and there isn't enough money.. either more money needs to be raised or spending elsewhere needs to be cut. You can't keep reaching for that credit card. It is nice to want things but if the money isn't there..empty vessel said:
On the other hand, sometimes you need to invest in things that done bring an immediate benefit like education or healthcare. Life is complicated and isn't as clear-cut as the two extreme sides like to pretend. Centrists ftw~
ElectricBlue187
Member
Another thought: old conservatives perhaps are right leaning because they see the world for what it is: a world that rewards selfishness and shuns cooperation except where cooperation can help you achieve a selfish goal. Young people are conditioned to think that selfishness is wrong and have not yet realized that though cooperation might be BETTER for a society, it is human nature to take for yourself and fuck the welfare queens.
Invisible_Insane said:
The study identifies two brain types, those who react more strongly to fear, and those who are more willing to take risks.
The study is interesting because all of human society can be distilled into a giant 'collective' brain. Just as our brain have internal limits telling us to not do something, human society also have the same limits.
It is ultimately a good thing to have both in a society for the organism to function properly.
A society with no fear can do reckless things and destroy itself. A society with all fear becomes stagnant and inward looking.
And there are examples in human history where this occurs.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Because the young still have to deal with people they don't like.
Old people have succesfully ignored, fled from, survived, beaten, seen killed off most people they didn't like.
And while this is part joke, part cynical remark: you do have to take into account that with each person less from "your generation" or "your group", your chances of getting into an argument with someone who is respected enough by you to force you to deal with cognitive dissonance is going to decrease.
Old people have succesfully ignored, fled from, survived, beaten, seen killed off most people they didn't like.
And while this is part joke, part cynical remark: you do have to take into account that with each person less from "your generation" or "your group", your chances of getting into an argument with someone who is respected enough by you to force you to deal with cognitive dissonance is going to decrease.
LordAzrael
Banned
Conservatism is for those who are the "haves" in society. Want to keep the status quo and whatnot. But more and more the conservative party here in the US is getting regressive, yearning for the good old days etc. If anyone of any sense thinks about it, the good old days weren't any better for the average joe, but were better for the rich. What boggles my mind is that a lot of poor people I know are conservative and whine about days past.
Are they retarded? Or just short sighted? I know I am still young (23), but conservatism certainly seems to benefit no one except the most wealthy.
Are they retarded? Or just short sighted? I know I am still young (23), but conservatism certainly seems to benefit no one except the most wealthy.
In some societies threads like these are also considered insulting to the elderly where their status would be respected. In anycase,
There may be broad realities in young being more liberal and old being more conservative, but what broke the Democrat's power in the US for example is many of the FDR democrats dying off.
Also, Liberals like to point to their parties winning 'by a landslide' in university campus elections and imply some undemocratic force is somehow skewing the results into losses, sometimes overwhelming on election day.
But the trend of growing conservatism , at least insofar as on the issues of fiscal spending, and social issues is not a young/old divide, but a generational one. And there is a generation of eligible voters who are more conservative than their parents, or rather side with conservatives on issues even if you don't consider them 'conservative' with a big C.
There may be broad realities in young being more liberal and old being more conservative, but what broke the Democrat's power in the US for example is many of the FDR democrats dying off.
Also, Liberals like to point to their parties winning 'by a landslide' in university campus elections and imply some undemocratic force is somehow skewing the results into losses, sometimes overwhelming on election day.
But the trend of growing conservatism , at least insofar as on the issues of fiscal spending, and social issues is not a young/old divide, but a generational one. And there is a generation of eligible voters who are more conservative than their parents, or rather side with conservatives on issues even if you don't consider them 'conservative' with a big C.
LordAzrael said:
Brainwashed with lies, fear and propaganda so these people will vote and protest against things that are in their best interest and will not help them socially or financially in any way, shape or form.
"If the Bush tax cuts expire, no jobs will be created!"
Ashes1396 said:
Haven't seen any stats, but it's a generalization which a lot of people would agree with. This is just analyzing why it is.
Renmei said:
Fiscal conservatism is a good thing....but not when you are cutting taxes left and right for the wealthiest people (for no reason except ideological reasons) and in the process having to cut social programs for the poor/middle class to pay for those cuts. That's just stupid.
Shockingly the people who want to ban them are often the same people who want to ban abortions.Devolution said:
My problem with the "man needs to have a say too!!!" idea is that the ideas proposed basically give the man all the say: if he wants her to have an abortion, he can certainly leverage the idea of not giving money to do so. If you're in a healthy relationship, the decision to have an abortion would be discussed between both partners. Ultimately, it's her body, so it is her decision.
I'm now going on 30, and as the US continues the frightening creep to the right, I've continually felt more liberal.
Machine
Member
Ugh. The amount of rhetoric and poor reasoning in this thread is giving me a headache.
As someone in their mid-40s, I will note that most of my friends were more liberal in their 20s and are more conservative now. In almost every instance, the catalyst for their change in viewpoint was becoming a parent (NOT because they became "wealthy"). I guess anything that threatens to make your paycheck smaller when you're trying to provide for your familiy is a bad thing. Some of them have gone from ultra-liberal all the way to tea party craziness.
As someone in their mid-40s, I will note that most of my friends were more liberal in their 20s and are more conservative now. In almost every instance, the catalyst for their change in viewpoint was becoming a parent (NOT because they became "wealthy"). I guess anything that threatens to make your paycheck smaller when you're trying to provide for your familiy is a bad thing. Some of them have gone from ultra-liberal all the way to tea party craziness.
chaostrophy
Member
Machine said:
So conservatives are ok with having children they can't afford. Good to know, with all the BS they've spouted about "welfare queens" and so forth.
Devolution
Member
Machine said:
Are the ones with more kids the tea party crazies?
Devolution said:
I'd say birth control is relatively cheap and accessible. Even in Mississippi, you can get basic health women's health services which includes paps, breast exams, blood test, BC, immunizations, and condoms for free without any stipulations, so I'd be surprised if other state health departments didn't provide some low cost women's health services. Even if you have to pay for the drugs and have no insurance, you can get the option of more than one brand and still pay only 9 bucks a month. Many franchise pharmacies sell BC at a loss to get people in the doors.
UltimaPooh
Member
DanteFox said:Once you get old you start seeing the larger picture and realize how dumb liberalism actually is.
Alternatively they can't grasp the big picture and revert to a "it's all about me" worldview.
LordAzrael
Banned
Machine said:
You're kinda backing up what I'm saying. Having kids makes you think less of other people and more on your own family, sure I can understand. Doesn't make it right. If you cannot provide for a family on your income or less, don't fucking have one. Abortions are legal for a reason.
Just because you have a family makes the rest of humanity more inconsequential? Sounds fair as shit to me.
(as a backing point, my parents had several children and were liberal to the core. its possible to be both)
EDIT: didnt notice abortion was brought into the mix before me. and I still stand by what I said.
Devolution
Member
J-Rod said:
There are places for low cost women's health services, but they're also taking hits from budgeting crises, and oh look at what's happening to the federal aid that goes to those. (hint: republicans want to cut places like Planned Parenthood off entirely).
Machine
Member
Devolution said:
Not really. I'm not sure what the catalyst is for tea party fanatacism. One of my friends spent half a day trying to convince me that the core ideals of the tea party (before it was invaded by opportunist republicans) were well worth considering.
Note to poster commenting on welfare queens: While the conservatives may have blown the "welfare queen" issue out of proportion, they do exist. I grew up in Flint, Michigan and have had first-hand experience when them. It's a good idea to maintain a healthy skepticism but you should know that there is often a grain of truth buried inside the propaganda and rhetoric.
UltimaPooh
Member
Seda said:
It's called a Libertarian. Generally.
Machine said:
Of course. Any time you have a system, there will be those who will exploit it. It's inevitable. We should try our best to root out those making unfair use of the system, to be sure, but not at the expense of those who do need it and are using it properly (which is the majority in about ever welfare system). I have no problem with rooting out the abusers, it's just that the people who push the most for that, usually have the agenda of eliminating or significantly reducing the program in general.
Or what in Europe is called Liberal Conservatism.UltimaPooh said:
I'd argue that fiscal conservatism isn't really a good way to describe libertarian economic policies. (Not saying that as criticism)
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Wow. Words can't describe the utter stupidity of this.LordAzrael said:
empty vessel
Member
ksan said:
I would agree, since libertarian economic policies are among the least efficient way to accomplish certain ends. Libertarianism is an ideology. Fiscal conservatism is a pragmatic approach to solving problems.
It's easy to say screw the man when you aren't the man?
That's the TL;DR shorthand for the lengthier post in my head.
The fact that he was fucked over demonstrated to him personally that the system is sexist as hell, just the way you like it.
Some people don't "get it" as easily and need an eye opener.
People like you probably never will, because you've convinced yourself that inequality is equality.
That's the TL;DR shorthand for the lengthier post in my head.
Devolution said:
The fact that he was fucked over demonstrated to him personally that the system is sexist as hell, just the way you like it.
Some people don't "get it" as easily and need an eye opener.
People like you probably never will, because you've convinced yourself that inequality is equality.
Canadian Psycho
Banned
I wholeheartedly agree with all that. I'm 34 and living on my own (except when I have my son, i.e. every other week). I live in socialist Quebec and it's rather depressing. The media, for one, is totally one-sided here (guess which side).Tenks said:
This is a great post, but I think it's more conservative than you think. Just because you have had success and are charitable with your money does mean that is a "liberal" view. In fact, I think it is in line with most conservative thinking in that you are making the decision of where your money goes. I think the more traditional liberal view would be to take whatever you would be charitable with and let the government decide where that money is best spent to help society.
As I have earned more money, I have no problem butting checks to worthy charitable causes, but I'll be damned if I ever cut that check to the government so they can waste it. Your Dad sounds a lot like mine - worked 30+ years in an auto factory, made a good living and put 3 kids through college. He worked some long ass hours, but never really complained about it. My mom worked for a CPA for about 20 years after all the kids were in school and they are living a comfortable retirement. I always tell them to please not leave anything for us - they have earned it and should spend every last penny.
- Status