I'm a conservative but I am coming around to the liberal idea of taking care of the needy.?

Conservative take care of the needy, we just don't use the government to do it.

No, you are not wrong!

Taking care of the needy is a human thing, not liberal or conservative. I am liberal, I believe of taking care of the needy, but I also think there should be strict accountability on the side of the needy as well, and don't believe in "free handouts."

I believe in many traditionally conservative values, so I don't ally myself with a political party, but I do have politicians I support. If it helps, make a list in what you believe in politically, and see which "side" you are more on. Maybe you're right down the middle, and that is OK too; this club welcomes all members!

It's the way that liberals are helping the "needy" that gets my goat. I will say that there are plenty of people out there that genuinely need some assistance, however, from personal experience (my wife manages public housing units for "low income" families) I have seen more often that not this system is abused. There are some families living in these houses that have 20-30 thousand dollar vehicles in the driveway. All they do is put them in a relatives name and everything is cool. Many work for cash, or just work enough to keep the benefits, even though there is full time work available. There are a few that have been in these houses for ten years or more. The entire system is seriously flawed but no one wants to do anythiong about it.

Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals. Conservative on average make up the highest income earners so they pay more in taxes so social program dollars are heavily funded by Conservatives. How else do you want us to take care of the needy?

Now quit this "I am a Conservative but"... routine. The only one that fall for it are the ignorant. If you truly are intelligent and believe in your convictions stand up and make the best argument. Until then stay home and let the big boys and girls play the game.

well if you like you can combine your ideas as a technology promoter

Iodine deficiency affects 2 billion peoiple worldwide I've read that it is curable at near 1c per person (maybe .5 to a few c)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency says Certain areas of the world, due to natural deficiency and governmental inaction, are severely affected by iodine deficiency, which effects approximately two billion people worldwide. It is particularly common in the Western Pacific, South-East Asia and Africa.

India is the most outstanding, with 500 million suffering from deficiency, 54 million from goiter, and two million from cretinism.

Among other nations affected by iodine deficiency, China and Kazakhstan have begun taking action, while Russia has not. Successful campaigns for the adoption of the use of iodized salt require education and regulation of salt producers and sellers and a public relations campaign directed at the public. The cost of adding iodine to salt is negligible.

thus even though I might believe conservatives have nationality preferences there is an opportunity to rescue people of a variety of appearances or beliefs CHEAP

I mean you could save russian girls with asian postcommunists or everybody

Oral rehydration therapy with unicef saves a life at just 10c per application

You can be a little liberal and cure a third of the world's people of major illnesses at a two thousandth the US annual federal budget

I'm a liberal who's going back to being libertarian!

Here are the two sides of the coin as I see it:

We have to take care of everyone because we really do live in a global society, and we will only be as strong as our weakest link. We will forever pay for the starving and ill no matter where they may be. Imperialism is over; bring on the world brotherhood.

People should learn to pay for things themselves. It's not that hard, just figure it out. You don't want to make sneakers at gun point for $4 a year? Too bad, you had better find a way to get a visa and get the f--- out of there. You're poor because you have no parents and you couldn't get an education? Well, better luck next life; I EARNED every penny that's in my bank account through hard, hard work.

So which one is right? I don't really know. I paid my way through college and I've always had two or three jobs to keep myself afloat; I've missed out on things, but I'm strong and independent. I have chosen to help the needy (homeless, starving, sick) in the past, and currently I choose to devote my time to myself. Ultimately, I believe that the first point of view will win out; in my lifetime, I know that the second will.

Late capitalism is a real mess, ain't she? Catch-22 all around. Do we make one last imperial run for the glory, or do we succumb to compassion? I can't say which is right.

I would say you were wrong if your idea of taking care of the needy involved the government. Remember anything you give the government as far as money - the first 20% is used in administration costs and “waste”. Most charitable organizations do a considerably better job with the same amount of money. Not saying you are right or wrong – just eliminate the government from the job.

I did forget to mention that statistically, conservatives give more to charitable organizations then Liberals do

First of all it is not wrong to want to help the needy, nor is it anti-conservative. It simply means that you are a kind individual, who wants to give the needy a "hand up". What Liberalism details is that it is the responsibility of all to care for the needy at any cost, without time limit, and via bloated govt bureaucracies that hold the poor down.

Perhaps you have heard that saying, "If you give a man a fish, he eats for today, but if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime" This is certainly true, and it is the basis of conservatism. We do not want to destroy the poor, but rather to make them active members of our economy, with unrivaled potential to make their dreams come true. Simply handing out money to the poor without helping them out of poverty is wrong, but it is the basis of Liberalism. Liberalism wants to punish the "rich" without any hope for the poor to become rich.

This is the way that Liberals hope to both gain personal power (they care for you at the cost of your money and potential) in exchange for a vote. Never have we seen a society where lowering the rich has elevated the poor. Only in our Democratic republic, with the aid of capitalism, have we seen our poor rise in society and become whatever they want to be.

Consider the poor immigrants who come here to share in the "American dream" perhaps some have needed some sort of assistance to subside in our society, but most have moved on to work hard and perhaps start their own business, gain wealth, hire workers, expand their businesses, and move up the social scale. Simply subsidizing the poor holds them into a holding pattern they find very hard to break free from.

I compliment you on your compassion, but you must also factor in the reality of our country and the greatness it holds for all it's people, and govt does not aid in this equation much.

Thanks!

Absolutely not. Im conservative, but want to take care of the poor. Welfare is not bad, as long as it is executed properly, which many times it is not. I have worked at soup kitchens and helped the needy. It is a good thing. I have personally fed homeless people.

Yes. You have bought into their propoganda that Libs care for the needy by writing them government checks. Johnson's "Great Society" which included his own misguided effort to "help" the needy, was one of the most horrible failures of all time and increased poverty and government dependency more than anything.

Libs are not compassionate, they are misguided and have a very different way of trying to achieve the same result as conservatives. One method works, the other does not.

Why would you be wrong? Nobody's really WRONG it's just completely different views of how things should be dealt with, there's no side saying gas the needy and lets go out for some ice cream.