Do conservatives really value hard work?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/
    One basic idea is that hard work should be rewarded. Obvious, right? I mean, we're supposed to be economists here! People respond to incentives, and they are risk averse. A winner-take-all society is not very conducive to hard work; I'm not going to bust my butt for 30 years for a 1% shot at getting into The 1%. But I am going to bust my butt for 30 years if I think this gives me a 90% chance of having a decent house, a family, some security, a reasonably pleasant job, a dog, and a couple of cars in my garage. An ideal middle-class society is one in which everyone, not just anyone, can get ahead via hard work.

    Liberals have tried hard to construct such a middle-class society. They came up with worker health and safety regulations, weekends, Social Security, labor unions, public schools, living wages, government-subsidized housing loans, grants and loans for college, earned-income tax credits, job retraining, and tax breaks for health care. Some of those ideas worked spectacularly, some failed. Many had mixed results. But the basic idea was sound: not just to give people handouts, but to make them feel as if they deserved what they were getting because of hard work.

    Conservatives, meanwhile, are all too often divided on whether they actually believe that hard work works. Plenty of conservatives have undermined Cowen's hard-work-and-discipline bloc by saying that success in life is all due to natural differences in ability. These "I.Q. conservatives" see inequality as the natural order of things. They have focused on getting people to accept their place in society and learn to live with what they have, rather than strive to move up in the world. This is a very Old British sort of conservatism, a nobility-and-peasants ethos dressed up in the faux modernism of psychometric testing.

    Conservatives need to look in the mirror and ask themselves: "Do we really want people to work hard and be disciplined? Or do we just say that in order to keep the peasants from getting restless, when deep down we believe that it's all about good genes?" Because if it's the former, conservatives should do some hard thinking about what actually gets people to work hard. And they should think about how to respond to those among their colleagues for whom it is simply the latter.


    I might add that for social conservatives, it's not hard work that really matters, but Calvinist predestination and outward manifestation of being part of the elect that seals your superiority in society.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Nov 18, 2011 12:48 AM GMT
    i suspect they value inherited money more.



    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 12:48 AM GMT
    This is exactly the problem with neoconservatives. They don't actually celebrate or push for policies that reward hard work. In fact, they have helped game the system to reward idle assets and securities gambling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 12:50 AM GMT
    thinkprogressFox Nation: ‘God Bless Income Disparity’ | Polls show that Americans are increasingly concerned with growing income inequality in the country, but conservative news outlets and think tanks are pushing back with their own reports praising the widening gap between the rich and everyone else. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, argued on their blog that “economic inequality is not necessarily an injustice, but rather a necessary component of any prosperous society.” Now, Fox Nation, the social media spin off of Fox News, has chimed in with their own story citing one obscure economist: “Economist: God Bless Income Disparity.” They tweeted the story as simply “God Bless Income Disparity”:

    foxnation.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 12:54 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidDo conservatives really value hard work?
    No, they value getting the finished product as fast and as cheaply as possible.
    But that trait can't be pinned just to the conservatives. It's more of a get-rich-quick mindset shared by many.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 1:09 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidThis is exactly the problem with neoconservatives. They don't actually celebrate or push for policies that reward hard work.


    Because Mr. Socialist....

    "Policies" don't reward hard work, unless you are talking about the old Soviet Union.

    Please realize that the Soviet Union failed two decades ago because of the idea that "policies" will regulate "work."


    The Soviet Union was a communist country not a socialist one, dumbass.

    And, yes, policies can reward hard work whether in the private or public sector. If your business has merit based raised, it is rewarding hard work.

    If you stopped flooding the forum with your sad strawman arguments and weird hash tag titled threads, and actually read something you might somehow clear the Randian cobwebs from your brain. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:28 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThis is exactly the problem with neoconservatives. They don't actually celebrate or push for policies that reward hard work. In fact, they have helped game the system to reward idle assets and securities gambling.



    LOL, your rewarded for hard work with a paycheck.

    People who invest money are smart. You let your money work for you by investing. The higher the risk the higher the potential profit. If you lose out, you lose out. People get rich by being smart with money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 3:56 AM GMT
    Conservatives do, but Republicans don't. (Unless its' their illegal housekeeper.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 4:41 AM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    Christian73 saidThis is exactly the problem with neoconservatives. They don't actually celebrate or push for policies that reward hard work. In fact, they have helped game the system to reward idle assets and securities gambling.



    LOL, your rewarded for hard work with a paycheck.

    People who invest money are smart. You let your money work for you by investing. The higher the risk the higher the potential profit. If you lose out, you lose out. People get rich by being smart with money.


    To quote your doppelganger, "Incorrect." The vast majority of the wealth created int eh financial services industry is done through graft, gambling and exploiting the status of "too big too fail", not in creating anything productive or passing those profits onto workers. In fact, our leading industry is planning to layoff tens of thousands of workers while they have record profits. That's nothing more than simple greed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 6:45 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    thinkprogressFox Nation: ‘God Bless Income Disparity’ | Polls show that Americans are increasingly concerned with growing income inequality in the country, but conservative news outlets and think tanks are pushing back with their own reports praising the widening gap between the rich and everyone else. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, argued on their blog that “economic inequality is not necessarily an injustice, but rather a necessary component of any prosperous society.” Now, Fox Nation, the social media spin off of Fox News, has chimed in with their own story citing one obscure economist: “Economist: God Bless Income Disparity.” They tweeted the story as simply “God Bless Income Disparity”:



    Water is also a necessary component of a prosperous society.
    Too much of a "good thing" leads to :

    in the case of water: drowning
    in the case of 1920s US Economic Inequality: Great Depression
    In the case of 1780s French Economic Inequality: Guillotines
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:21 PM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    Christian73 saidThis is exactly the problem with neoconservatives. They don't actually celebrate or push for policies that reward hard work. In fact, they have helped game the system to reward idle assets and securities gambling.



    LOL, your rewarded for hard work with a paycheck.

    People who invest money are smart. You let your money work for you by investing. The higher the risk the higher the potential profit. If you lose out, you lose out. People get rich by being smart with money.
    You obviously aren't "smart"..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:23 PM GMT
    Who said anything about "hard work", it's "smart work" that ultimately gets rewarded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWho said anything about "hard work", it's "smart work" that ultimately gets rewarded.
    THANK YOU.. now get back to dismantling the PUBLIC education system..........


    Boy do the colors show when ya fuck up!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2011 2:33 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWho said anything about "hard work", it's "smart work" that ultimately gets rewarded.

    Correct. Also amusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-wins-taxonomy.htmlAs a follow-up to my last post [i.e. why some conservatives really don't value hard work], here's my attempt at a taxonomy of "who wins" under various economic systems. You may perhaps detect a smidgen of a hint of bias, but pay no heed. ;-)

    Hunter-Gatherer Society: No one wins.

    Classical Slaveholding Society: Those who choose the right parents win, everyone else loses.

    Feudalism: "Winning" means knowing your place, serf! Now be so good as to polish my boots.

    Theocracy: "Winning" comes only in the next life. Now send us your money and you will be on God's good side.

    Marxism (theoretical): Everyone wins equally! (details to follow...)

    Marxism (applied): Everyone loses equally...but if we had just implemented it correctly, everyone would have won equally! (details to follow...)

    Laissez-Faire Capitalism: Anyone can win big, if he works 0.001% harder than the people standing next to him!

    Ayn Randism: The Ubermenschen would win if those darn Untermenschen just stopped their looting and mooching!

    Nazism: The Ubermenschen will win, the Untermenschen will make lovely decorative candles.

    Japanism: Everyone wins (as long as he is born with a Y chromosome, does well on his entrance exams, and swears lifetime fealty to a large famous corporation with good connections in the bureaucracy, mafia, and ruling political party)!

    Europeanism: We just need to define a better measure of "winning." Such as how many teenage girls are currently partying at my villa. Bunga bunga!

    Tea Party Conservatism: Every Real American would win, if those lazy blacks and Mexicans stopped stealing our hard-earned money with All Those Government Programs. Now keep your hands off my Medicare!

    Mushy Milquetoast Middle-of-the-Road Mixed-Economy American Liberalism: Everyone can win a reasonable amount, as long as they work hard and play by the rules. And if someone gets lucky or has a great idea they can win even more.


    And the winner is...Ayn Randism!

    Easy choice, right? :-)


    I actually personally favor Japanism/Koreanism. Where's the mafia when you need them?icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-wins-taxonomy.htmlAs a follow-up to my last post [i.e. why some conservatives really don't value hard work], here's my attempt at a taxonomy of "who wins" under various economic systems. You may perhaps detect a smidgen of a hint of bias, but pay no heed. ;-)

    Hunter-Gatherer Society: No one wins.

    Classical Slaveholding Society: Those who choose the right parents win, everyone else loses.

    Feudalism: "Winning" means knowing your place, serf! Now be so good as to polish my boots.

    Theocracy: "Winning" comes only in the next life. Now send us your money and you will be on God's good side.

    Marxism (theoretical): Everyone wins equally! (details to follow...)

    Marxism (applied): Everyone loses equally...but if we had just implemented it correctly, everyone would have won equally! (details to follow...)

    Laissez-Faire Capitalism: Anyone can win big, if he works 0.001% harder than the people standing next to him!

    Ayn Randism: The Ubermenschen would win if those darn Untermenschen just stopped their looting and mooching!

    Nazism: The Ubermenschen will win, the Untermenschen will make lovely decorative candles.

    Japanism: Everyone wins (as long as he is born with a Y chromosome, does well on his entrance exams, and swears lifetime fealty to a large famous corporation with good connections in the bureaucracy, mafia, and ruling political party)!

    Europeanism: We just need to define a better measure of "winning." Such as how many teenage girls are currently partying at my villa. Bunga bunga!

    Tea Party Conservatism: Every Real American would win, if those lazy blacks and Mexicans stopped stealing our hard-earned money with All Those Government Programs. Now keep your hands off my Medicare!

    Mushy Milquetoast Middle-of-the-Road Mixed-Economy American Liberalism: Everyone can win a reasonable amount, as long as they work hard and play by the rules. And if someone gets lucky or has a great idea they can win even more.


    And the winner is...Ayn Randism!

    Easy choice, right? :-)


    I actually personally favor Japanism/Koreanism. Where's the mafia when you need them?icon_lol.gif


    Economically Japan seems nice...socially..it's like if you do anything against the grain (or are a woman, or are young) no one will EVER take you seriously, the elders seem to look down on the younger generations (once they become teens) with such disdain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 12:43 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.
    Chainers used the word "anarchists" to describe the entire OWS movement..

    I had to school the tike on the definition..........icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 2:32 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.

    If you think it is retarded, it is obviously over your head. There are different definitions of socialism, including the description per Marx and Engels, and the definitions used to describe (including self-describe) politicians and political parties in present day Europe.

    And btw - don't waste time with your typical crap of googling and cutting and pasting definitions to impress me. You don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 5:07 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    intentsman said
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.

    If you think it is retarded, it is obviously over your head. There are different definitions of socialism, including the description per Marx and Engels, and the definitions used to describe (including self-describe) politicians and political parties in present day Europe.

    And btw - don't waste time with your typical crap of googling and cutting and pasting definitions to impress me. You don't.


    If the meaning of these terms are as fluid (and thus meaningless) as you want them to be, how can anyone lack understanding of them? Maybe each instance of one of these words being used intends a different meaning. Meanwhile it is still you and the right which throws these words around without a clue to anything they may or may not mean within your imprecise fluidity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 6:10 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    intentsman said
    Water is also a necessary component of a prosperous society.

    Nobody commented before so I'm reposting an irrelevant bizarre EU ruling about advertising which only affect marketers who can't think of anything more clever than "avoid dehydratation" as a beverage advertisement.


    Yeah.
    So you are saying that water is not a necessary component of a prosperous society?

    In context:
    intentsman said
    Heritage Foundation saideconomic inequality is not necessarily an injustice, but rather a necessary component of any prosperous society.

    Water is also a necessary component of a prosperous society.

    Too much of a "good thing" leads to :
    in the case of water: drowning
    in the case of 1920s US Economic Inequality: Great Depression
    In the case of 1780s French Economic Inequality: Guillotines


    While the exact amount of a "good thing" required to cross the line into "too much" might be debatable, It's undeniable that current US economic inequality is at or near the level that preceded the Great Depression. It's also hard to deny that the economy would be in better shape if 47% of Americans could afford not only income tax, but also healthier foods, consumer goods, services, gym memberships, higher education, fine dining, driving cars, entertainment, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 9:14 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    socalfitness said
    intentsman said
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.

    If you think it is retarded, it is obviously over your head. There are different definitions of socialism, including the description per Marx and Engels, and the definitions used to describe (including self-describe) politicians and political parties in present day Europe.

    And btw - don't waste time with your typical crap of googling and cutting and pasting definitions to impress me. You don't.


    If the meaning of these terms are as fluid (and thus meaningless) as you want them to be, how can anyone lack understanding of them? Maybe each instance of one of these words being used intends a different meaning. Meanwhile it is still you and the right which throws these words around without a clue to anything they may or may not mean within your imprecise fluidity.

    Basic premise false. Multiple definitions do not imply fluidity. The term "socialism" has been used for decades in Europe by parties named "Socialist" and by politicians who considered themselves "socialist". Their goals can be compared to those by the progressive left in the US and by Obama in particular. The label is accurate, toxic, will be used, and will stick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 9:27 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    intentsman said
    socalfitness said
    intentsman said
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.

    If you think it is retarded, it is obviously over your head. There are different definitions of socialism, including the description per Marx and Engels, and the definitions used to describe (including self-describe) politicians and political parties in present day Europe.

    And btw - don't waste time with your typical crap of googling and cutting and pasting definitions to impress me. You don't.


    If the meaning of these terms are as fluid (and thus meaningless) as you want them to be, how can anyone lack understanding of them? Maybe each instance of one of these words being used intends a different meaning. Meanwhile it is still you and the right which throws these words around without a clue to anything they may or may not mean within your imprecise fluidity.

    Basic premise false. Multiple definitions do not imply fluidity. The term "socialism" has been used for decades in Europe by parties named "Socialist" and by politicians who considered themselves "socialist". Their goals can be compared to those by the progressive left in the US and by Obama in particular. The label is accurate, toxic, will be used, and will stick.


    This is laughable because the the lack of understanding between socialism and communism you see is demonstrated by your thought leaders on the right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 9:33 AM GMT
    intentsman said
    socalfitness said
    intentsman said
    socalfitness said
    intentsman said
    socalfitness saidAmusing to see the lack of understanding between socialism and communism demonstrated by the left, our home grown socialists.


    This is one of the most retarded things I've heard today, and I've even been on FaceBook. It is the right wing who throws around these words without a clue to their meanings.

    If you think it is retarded, it is obviously over your head. There are different definitions of socialism, including the description per Marx and Engels, and the definitions used to describe (including self-describe) politicians and political parties in present day Europe.

    And btw - don't waste time with your typical crap of googling and cutting and pasting definitions to impress me. You don't.


    If the meaning of these terms are as fluid (and thus meaningless) as you want them to be, how can anyone lack understanding of them? Maybe each instance of one of these words being used intends a different meaning. Meanwhile it is still you and the right which throws these words around without a clue to anything they may or may not mean within your imprecise fluidity.

    Basic premise false. Multiple definitions do not imply fluidity. The term "socialism" has been used for decades in Europe by parties named "Socialist" and by politicians who considered themselves "socialist". Their goals can be compared to those by the progressive left in the US and by Obama in particular. The label is accurate, toxic, will be used, and will stick.


    This is laughable because the the lack of understanding between socialism and communism you see is demonstrated by your thought leaders on the right.

    Whether some do not understand the difference between socialism and communism has no bearing on the applicability of the term socialism to label the progressive left in the US by those who do understand. Another example of your faulty logic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 5:20 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Another example of your faulty logic.


    For faulty logic, lets look at your unsupportable claim that the lack of understanding between socialism and communism is demonstrated by the left. Any lack of understanding between socialism and communism is demonstrated by the thought leaders on the right, such as Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, O'Reilly, Coulter...