stuff that makes me wonder

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree, if you want more taxes, increase the defecit, and a larger govt
ya need to turn the dial. He is consistant with his message, so much so
that if ya miss listening for a few months ya pick up right where you left.

I've tried a few times to listen to some Rush... but find him completely insufferable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which is why stroking the audience, as you put it, is not a reason conservative talk is more successful than liberal.

Is there a subliminal message here? "The point" as described here is unclear.

The point was made in my initial post.

That you didn't hear it simply means you didn't hear what millions of others did.

That assumes that they did.

Being talented encompasses more than just being entertaining. He's not so entertaining that he would so avidly and for so long be listened to just for entertainment. Contrary to what you "hear" and what "tone" you perceive, millions of others hear and percieve a philosophical and political discussion. And the "spawn" are not mere copy cats. They have their own "talent" and "tone" and many do have guests who they interview, and some of those guests are "liberal," and interesting, informative discussions ensue.

I've never said there's no philosophy involved in the formula, or that a copy cat can succeed without any talent. Though, I do think the philosophy is subordinate to the entertainment.

You do need to get rid of that "I'm not sure" locution that you often use. Just say "I disagree." Even though it may have a harsher "tone," it is more honest. And if you really are not sure if you would agree, wouldn't it be better not to comment since you would not have formed an opinion? And if "that" good implies some good, but not good enough for you, well, it's good enough for millions and obviously good enough to make it more successful than liberal talk radio.

I disagree. Just because something isn't black and white or you haven't reached a conclusion doesn't mean there may still be an opinion.

Entertainment, as far as radio is concerned, IS "nutrition." Of course, you mean entertainment as a mild pejorative, a superior put down of lesser stuff that can't approach the level of NPR. Perhaps NPR is not as popular because it is boring. Entertainment CAN be derived from substance. Powerful, substantial, truthful, persuasive political and philosophical discourse is very "entertaining" and "nutritious" to open and inquisitive minds.

Agree that NPR can be quite boring, but perhaps part of that is because you often get information closer to the source, rather than what's been processes multiple times to increase it's entertainment value. Cable news is particular bad in this regard.

But ultimately, the primary motivation of talk radio is to build a base of listeners to drive advertising revenue, I think Rush has even said as much of himself. Would this be possible if the message wasn't reassuring to the listener? I don't think they could do it on pure entertainment value alone.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's pretty simple.

Conservative hosts tend to reassure their audiences. Look at Rush, the message is always that you're fine just how you are...

Liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong.

Most people would rather be stroked than provoked.

-spence

You have completely, and I mean completely, gone off the deep end. I mean, yuo are actually scary.

Liberals challenge each other? Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz ask tough questions of their guests?

You are really, really out there.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have completely, and I mean completely, gone off the deep end. I mean, yuo are actually scary.

Liberals challenge each other? Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz ask tough questions of their guests?

You are really, really out there.

First off, you're supposed to be calling me Pyle.

Secondly, the issue isn't really if people like Maddow or Schultz ask tough questions. It's that their subject matter tends to be reactive and as such appears negative.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

First off, you're supposed to be calling me Pyle.

Secondly, the issue isn't really if people like Maddow or Schultz ask tough questions. It's that their subject matter tends to be reactive and as such appears negative.

-spence

"their subject matter tends to be reactive "

But then why do they call themselves "progressive"?

Still waiting for your answer on how we get an additional $60 trillion to pay for unfinded entitlements? Anything? Anything at all? Or are you waiting for Ed Schultz to tell you what to think?

"the issue isn't really if people like Maddow or Schultz ask tough questions"

You really have a way of denying what you said 5 seconds ago when I show how stupid it is. YOU SAID that liberal programmers tend to "challenge their audience". When? When do they ask their audience, with reasonable supporting arguments, if conservatives have better ideas? When do liberal programmers ask public labor unions why they can't live with 401(k)s like the rest of us? Almost NEVER. The last thing liberals want to have is honest debate, which is precisely why they resort to demonizing conservatives. It's easier to make people irrationally afraid of conservatives (by saying we hate poor people), than it is to debate us. That's why liberals like to storm the stage to keep conservatives from talking, and conservatives almost never do that. We want those discussions, because it's so easy to make the liberal agenda look absurd. Just like I'm doing to you right now. Instead of admitting you might be wrong, you deny what you posted 10 seconds ago.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The point was made in my initial post.

The point you asserted but never really "made" in your initial post was that the reason conservative talk radio is more popular than liberal talk is that it "tends to reassure their audiences" and that Rush's "message is always that you're fine just as you are . . ." And that "liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong. Most people would rather be stroked than provoked." You never demonstrated this, merely asserted it. I similarly used your hearsay method of simply asserting that reassuring stroking also occurs in the liberal talk shows and the "something's wrong" discussions to challenge audiences and callers happens in conservative talk shows so that your assertion is flawed.

That assumes that they did.

Yes, I assume that millions heard what you did not, otherwise he wouldn't consistently hold the audience, and many, as well, say as much when they call. Plus, there is one that assuredly heard what you didn't--me.

I've never said there's no philosophy involved in the formula, or that a copy cat can succeed without any talent. Though, I do think the philosophy is subordinate to the entertainment.

Phew! At least you admit the philosophy is there. Progress! Ugh, the philosophy is part and parcel OF the entertainment.

I disagree. Just because something isn't black and white or you haven't reached a conclusion doesn't mean there may still be an opinion.

If your "not sure" that the venue produces that good of a discussion, then your "not sure" that it doesn't. So where or what is the opinion there?


But ultimately, the primary motivation of talk radio is to build a base of listeners to drive advertising revenue, I think Rush has even said as much of himself. Would this be possible if the message wasn't reassuring to the listener? I don't think they could do it on pure entertainment value alone.

-spence

All media must build a base of listeners or else it talks to nobody. And all who participate in the building and maintenance of that base must get paid. And there must be value for that base or it will disappear. This is the stuff of life. There must be mutual stroking or starvation will ensue. Various media has its niche. Talk radio can be about many topics. There are financial shows. There are health shows. There are religious shows. Some talk shows are political to a great degree. Some are "conservative" and some are "liberal." The Conservative ones seem to be more popular. Is conservatism more entertaining? Is there even the remotest possibility that, at least as presented on these shows. that it is more persuasive?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I've tried a few times to listen to some Rush... but find him completely insufferable.

Ya, I feel your pain JD, similar to me listening to Obama, teleprompter
or not.

[zimmy]

Part of the popularity of conservative talk radio is the effectiveness of inciting anger in the listeners. Most liberals I know are just not very angry. Alot of the conservatives I know have wonderful lives and families, but spend an inordinate time obsessing about the government taking their money and coming for their guns.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Part of the popularity of conservative talk radio is the effectiveness of inciting anger in the listeners. Most liberals I know are just not very angry. Alot of the conservatives I know have wonderful lives and families, but spend an inordinate time obsessing about the government taking their money and coming for their guns.

Was it conservative talk radio that incited all that anger observed in Occupy Wall Street? Most of the liberals you know must not listen to liberal talk radio with its share of angry, bitter, sarcastic calls and commentary. And they certainly are not affected by the inflammatory speech of the liberal politicians. And the lot of the conservatives you know are indeed strange. None of the conservativesf I know spend any time inordinately obsessing about government taking there money or coming for their guns. They do care about government overspending and raising taxes to do so. You, apparently, consider that inordinate. Conservative talk radio does have a lot of discussion about government spending. Perhaps you think there is just too much talk about it. Government has to do what it has to do. That's government's business. We should just tend to our wonderful lives and how we can sensibly spend our own money and not be so concerned how government spends its money. But the inordinate obsession over government coming for our guns--really? Most conservatives I know don't own a gun. Most of the liberals I know, do own a gun or two. That's probably due to the different cities that you or I live in. Whatever obsessing there may be is the concern for personal protection, not government confiscation. Sure, there is the desire to have or maintain rights to carry or own. But inordinate obsession? As for conservative talk radio, though the subject comes up, it is a small portion of the talk, but not an inordinate obsession. And the talk revolves around rights such as second ammendment. Of course, as we know, the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to the twenty-first century.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

All media must build a base of listeners or else it talks to nobody. And all who participate in the building and maintenance of that base must get paid. And there must be value for that base or it will disappear. This is the stuff of life. There must be mutual stroking or starvation will ensue. Various media has its niche. Talk radio can be about many topics. There are financial shows. There are health shows. There are religious shows. Some talk shows are political to a great degree. Some are "conservative" and some are "liberal." The Conservative ones seem to be more popular. Is conservatism more entertaining? Is there even the remotest possibility that, at least as presented on these shows. that it is more persuasive?

As I've said several times, I think the content is inherently more self reassuring.

The audience for conservative talk radio is really quite diverse, if it was that much more persuasive you'd think it would be creating more conservatives.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Was it conservative talk radio that incited all that anger observed in Occupy Wall Street?

There were a few thousand people involved in occupy, there are millions of conservative talk show listeners. Not every angry person is incited by cons. talk radio. Many are.

And the lot of the conservatives you know are indeed strange.

They do care about government overspending and raising taxes to do so. You, apparently, consider that inordinate.

Difference between caring and obsessing, especially when reality is distorted by obsession.

Most of the liberals I know, do own a gun or two. That's probably due to the different cities that you or I live in. Whatever obsessing there may be is the concern for personal protection, not government confiscation.

It is probably 50/50 gun ownership between liberals and conservatives I know. However, I have heard from conservatives for twenty years that the governement is "going to take your guns." I know several of them stock piled ammo when Obama was elected because they thought he would make it illegal. It wasn't based in reality. In the same way that some middle class people complain about Obama raising taxes on them, even thought there federal taxes became lower when he came into office.
The wackos like Rush make their living off people with that mentality

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

t is probably 50/50 gun ownership between liberals and conservatives I know. However, I have heard from conservatives for twenty years that the governement is "going to take your guns." I know several of them stock piled ammo when Obama was elected because they thought he would make it illegal. It wasn't based in reality. In the same way that some middle class people complain about Obama raising taxes on them, even thought there federal taxes became lower when he came into office.
The wackos like Rush make their living off people with that mentality

It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes.

I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process.

Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As I've said several times, I think the content is inherently more self reassuring.

Ah . . . more progress. In your initial post you unqualifiedly stated it, as if it were ipso facto true. Now, you've shifted to you "think" it. World of difference. This is just your unsubstantiated opinion formed through the filter of your unique vision into your self reassuring Spencerean opinion. Still doesn't, just because you think it, make it so.

The audience for conservative talk radio is really quite diverse, if it was that much more persuasive you'd think it would be creating more conservatives.

-spence

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

As you say, not every angry person is incited to anger by con talk. My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk. That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote. That again, is why I pointed out the Occupy crowd, but, on the national scale in terms of movements, political speech, partisan temperaments, what is the evidence that conservatives are angrier than liberals? Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard. No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes. I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process. Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally. -spence

I like it. Some grounds for agreement. Gun nuts and tax freaks, even talk wackos--stereotypes to create wedge issues rather than true representations of conservatives or liberals. I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.

I was thinking of Thomas Sowell's book "Intellectuals and Society" where he tries to make this point repeatedly. It's perhaps the weakest element to what would otherwise be an excellent book.

I do think conservatives have in the past had the upper hand here, although as I noted more recently, both sides seem to react today more to (often manipulated) perceptions than reality.

This I believe, is fundamental reason so many conservatives are troubled with the state of the GOP.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk.

You are probably right, I just think they are a very small, loud, minority.

That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote.

Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard.
Probably true.

No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

I am not limiting this to a circle of friends. I didn't really know any liberals until I was a teen. Everyone I knew growing up was a republican, so I feel I have a fair amount of experience with rural, bible belt, conservative mentality. Until I was out of high school and out of that area, I believed alot of the crap that was spewed. The New England conservative is typically in many ways a very different creature.

message too short

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

message too short

You mention that when you were growing up everyone you knew was a Republican and had the rural Bible Belt "conservative mentality." That's one of the paradoxes of present-day "conservative" and "liberal" monikers. When I was growing up in Detroit a lot of Southern Bible Belt folks migrated to Detroit to work in the auto factories. Most of them were Democrats. They saw American history differently than what was being taught in Northern schools-- Abe Lincoln was no hero to them. Their brand of "conservatism" was an antebellum code of states rights and white, Christian Baptist, racial pride--ferociously so. Most of the white people that I knew then were nice, hard-working folks, but racist--and Democrats. It was a different brand of conservatism than what we consider the political conservatism of today. Those folks wanted to conserve a culture that transcended political party. They may have differed heatedly on who to vote for, but not on their racist cultural views. Same for the rural Bible-Belt folks, whether they were Democrat (mostly), or Republican, they were culturally the same and they wanted to preserve (conserve) that culture. The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated. Today's true conservative is classically liberal. The political liberal of today, at least at the ruling and academic level, sees the Constitution as a hinderance to achieving a more egalitarian society which can only be achieved by force of government.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

Aahh . . . my black brother . . . may we see the light together.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios.

Are you speaking of the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives"? If so, then you're admitting a slanted point of view when you see the difference filtered through the eyes of liberals ("most liberals I know"). How about seeing it through the eyes of classical liberal "conservatives" such as the tea-partiers that liberals love to denigrate. They don't like or agree with liberals and so-called "conservatives" with either a D or R in front of their name who are "maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially." They are very much against the "crony capitalism," that, perhaps you've failed to notice, is supported by the Dems as well and who receive as much or more from big business as Repubs. The massive growth in wealth and power of both corporations and the Federal Government has risen under both parties, even though they may mouth promises and slogans to the contrary. There is a "progressive," anti-Constitutional belief in big central government power in both parties--the Dems just being farther down that road at this point than the Repubs, though a 100 years ago, Republicans were leading the progressive march. It is nearly useless to talk about that mushy center of both parties that more or less coalesces along the path of central power both in government and in business "too large to fail."

Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity.

The problem with this overreaching centralized power is that it sees all decisions on what's "best for the country as a whole" as its responsibility. Under the system this country was founded, most of those decisions began with individuals at local and State levels, and was fueled by an engaged citizenry who valued and were Constitutionally empowered to practice self government. The Central power was limited, though powerful within those limitations. Now, both parties have, approved by willing progressive accomplices in the Supreme Court, transferred much individual and local power to the Federal Government, and a few decide for all "what is best for the country as a whole."

It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes.

Adjusting various tax rates for various people is more of a political trick for power and goes against the only "equality" that the Constitution respects and a country of free individuals must have--equality before the law. It's a class war smokescreen to appease the many into thinking they are benefitting against those who oppress them, and are being protected by a nanny state that is actually making them dependent on continuous government growth to ensure that they needn't worry too much--the government will carry out the final two freedoms of FDR--freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of course, want and fear are two of the greatest motivators of individual action and responsibility. Once the government can take that burden from you, you are from then on in its care.

The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

I don't know about Omega Protein and Perdue or Bay health. And the things that various Republicans and Democrats have fought over have wavered back and forth to a mix beyond imperfection. Mostly, it was usually, in the past 100 years, none of their business, in the classical sense. They were too often deciding things we should decide for ourselves. One of the major differences, and there are many and of great weight, between classical liberal "conservatives" and "progressives" is that the latter want to create that quantum universe where they can throw a stone in the water without creating ripples. They don't see that their egalitarian, collectivist, legislation does not operate in a static world where nothing other than some impossible "equality" is forced, and do not recognize the dynamic nature of our universe--the force will create counter ripples. And those ripples will smooth into a new status quo, which, when the stone that is thrown is against individual freedom and responsibility in the name of a collectivist equality, that new status quo will be a more quiescent, less vigorous people, more and more marching after the same meager drummer.

[zimmy]

The quantum universe analogy is pretty deep. In the same way my use of obsessive was a bit overboard, your projection of what "classic liberal progressives want" is a bit overboard, no?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The quantum universe analogy is pretty deep. In the same way my use of obsessive was a bit overboard, your projection of what "classic liberal progressives want" is a bit overboard, no?

I don't believe I mentioned "classic liberal progressives." Never heard of such. If you mean classic liberal conservatives (I may have just invented that term, don't know), what they WANT is not overboard--Constitutionally limited government, devolution of power from the politicians back to the people. In terms of what they can actually GET--that may be overboard. Such "conservatives" are a minority even in the Republican party. Maybe the Libertarians are really these "conservatives." Maybe they exist even in the Democrat party. I see the Tea Partiers as this type, but, obviously, still being somewhat a nation of individuals, not everybody in any group is in total politically philosophical agreement. But there is a common thread that exists for group cohesion. Again, for those that I call classic liberal conservatives, that common thread is a return to the Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and its recognition that we are governed by consent of the governed not by consent of the government. If that is overboard, how so?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

I was a liberal before listening to conservative radio post 9/11.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

"conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially "

I hear this all the time from liberals, that Republicans are all in the pocket of big business. Zimmy, I'll concede that "big business" gives a lot of $$ to politicians, and that most of that $$ likely goes to Republicans. But please answer me this, Zimmy. If it's problematic when corporations buy political influence from Republicans, how is that any different from what happens when labor unions buy influence from Democrats? Labor unions also give $$ to politicians, and virtually all of it goes to Democrats. And when those Democarts reward the unions with insane benefits, that $$ gets confiscated from me in the form of property taxes.

Most towns and states in this country are crippled with debt from insane benefits promised to public labor unions (certainly it's a huge issue in New England).

So again, if you are concerned about Republicans selling favors to "business", why aren't you equally concerned when Democrats sell influence to labor unions?

"They invade Iraq for oil"

Excuse me? What oil? Presumably unlike you, I was there with a gun in my hand. I hear a lot of kooks say we invaded for oil, I'm just wondering where that oil is? We won in Iraq, so where is our loot? Do you think that all conservatives who supported the war, now all have their own oil wells? If so, where do I go to get mine? And if you think only conservatives wante dto invade Iraq, I suggest you look at the Senate vote. Those who wanted to "invade for oil" included right-wingers like Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer...

"It is just different priorities, I guess. "

Here's the difference in priorities. Conservatives think the best way to help those in need is that for those who can work, to get a good job, with upward economic upward mobility. Liberals would rather expand their voting base by giving all these people welfare, which has the side effect of crippling these people for life. Conservatives want everyone to be well off. Liberals want poor people to vote for liberals, even if that means crippling them by making them addicted to welfare.

Another difference in priorities...conservatives don't want to leave our grandkids with crippling debt. Liberals seemingly have no issue with that, because I don't know a single liberal who suggests that we need massive spending cuts and entitlement reform. And EVERY SINGLE TIME a conservative suggests that the only way to fix this is to cut spending, liberals shriek "YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!" Liberals frame the issue to make it sound like all we need to do is tweak taxes on the wealthy, but the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to tax our way out of this (if we could solve all our problems simply by tweaking taxes on the rich, no one would be opposed to that). Conservatives don't like this reality any more than liberals do...the difference is, we admit the ugly reality and want to roll up our sleeves and begin the difficult task of fixing it. Liberals would rather ignore the problem so as to get re-elected. And leave the problem for our kids and grandkids.

Tell me where I'm wrong.