Do you agree with me that Shrink hit the nail on the head this time?

Compliment - yes, an actual compliment from a Liberal





Shrink, I wanted to thank you for this posting on YA:





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>





This is one of the most cogent definitions of the difference between Left and Right that I have ever seen, and reminded me why I was a Republican once (note that I always spell it with a B). I printed it out. Well done.





I could reply to your spin on the left, but that would detract from the pleasure I had in reading this, so I will leave it alone. It's mostly true, anyway.





This one posting did more to persuade me than thousands of others have done. People forget what the basics are. Though I am not changing parties, it is nice to see our ';conversation'; approach a more meaningful level than Mike Stivic and Archie Bunker. There's too much bickering and nothing accomplished.





Thank you for your literate postings. It's rare in here.Do you agree with me that Shrink hit the nail on the head this time?
I like Shrink too.Do you agree with me that Shrink hit the nail on the head this time?
Shrink has a lot of fans.....me included. Kudos to you for giving credit to 'the other side' too! I once agreed with Humanist -and it does get you all warm and fuzzy knowing we can agree from time to time! =)
Yes, she gives well-thought out answers. That's why I put her in My Contacts.
Shrink is a very smart lady, and we are very lucky to have her here on answers. Her answers are very intelligent and I learn things from her all the time.





As for John Doe, the old, perverted, hippie, nerd, stalker aggressive, mean, immoral, hypocrite, POSER - you are the most lame, unintelligent, and icky man on this site. I spray the computer screen with RAID ant %26amp; roach killer every time I see you on it! I hope it works but disgusting cockroaches are hard to get rid of I know.


**Silver lining to you coming on this site - your wife called and thanked us that ';something'; finally got you to shower.
Actually, Shrink is usually right on. I do agree with you, she is absolutely right on again with her answer. It is very nice of you to recognize her. She deserves it.
YES! Americans FIRST, political parties second.


Democrat, not liberal, myself.





Keep speaking up.
It is an interesting, but extremely narrow-minded theory. What few people fail to realize, including yourself obviously, is that the states with the highest concentration of welfare recipients are in the Bible belt and the deep south - conservative strongholds. The largest drain on the federal welfare budget comes from states like North Dakota, where the federal government pays out over $2 for every dollar it takes in. California and New York get just $0.81 back for each dollar they pay in. The top 6 ranking states in per capita personal income for 2001 were all blue, whereas the bottom 15 states were all red. Amazingly, these same red states have the highest divorce rates, highest rate of ';out-of-wedlock'; children, highest crime rates, and highest rates of spousal abuse. There is more unemployment, as well as higher school drop-out rates and illiteracy in the red states.





It would seem to me that many conservatives are the ones who need to learn about fiscal and personal responsibility.





Just more typical liberal-bashing from Shrink with no basis in reality.
Once one buys into you're entitled it is unlikely that you will be appreciative of all life has given you. As entitled you can never be given enough.





It is also unlikely they will ever reach the level of enlightenment of Warren Buffet %26amp; Bill Gates. They are giving back at a level that far exceeds what they will benefit on their tax returns.





Speaking of tax returns I don't see the wealthy liberals falling all over themselves to donate back to the government; saying we shouldn't have been given this break here it is back as a donation!





Good job Shrink.
Shrink is my personal fave. She's great and I like to get the chance to make her laugh. Anyone else too.
No, Paul Grass ( the questioner) hit the nail on the head. I'm a liberal, but I agree that the welfare system frequently gets abused. Paul's solutions are fair and rational. Paul is right for the right reasons.


However, Shrink is right for the wrong reasons. And that point matters! When your right for the wrong reasons, you come to a conclusion about how things should turn out, but you don't know how to get there. While I agree with Shrink that teaching a child how to be successful in life should start in kinder garden, a lot of the rest of the stuff she said was crap.


1) The government HAS been known to try to ';get'; people.


2) Corporations with their tax evasion, opposing minimum wage, and their own corporate welfare, are in fact stealing from the poor.


3) Only somebody that is incredibly ignorant ( or stupid), or dishonest can deny that religion kills people and that evolution is true.


Why do you think Shrink's answer is so great ? It's just as crappy as most of the answers she gives. You should be complimenting Paul.
No, she is so wrong on so many levels, and like the rest of you, paints with a wallpaper paste brush.





Nothing like slurs and stereotypes, eh kids?





This place is getting so bad I have to shower after coming here...
No I don't agree with you, and here is why. I'll break it down by sections;





';This has to start with kindergarten, Paul. And we are working the opposite direction';





It does start with little kids, but what she's really saying is we don't indoctrinate them with myopic points of religious fundamentalists views.





';If you teach children that no one owes them anything, that they are lucky to be alive, that they must do their best to succeed, well, I doubt those children wind up on welfare. And if they do, it's temporary';





This is the ideals recently melded by the marriage of the religious and the right. Since the unemployment rate is at the lowest in history - this means nothing. There is no issue with welfare. Its a red herring.





';Liberals are teaching our children that life sucks, that the government is out to get them, that the rich steal from the poor, that religion kills people, that we evolved from monkeys, and that there is no hope. If this is true, what's wrong with welfare?';





Where to begin..... Totally untrue from A to Z.





Liberals teach the beauty of life is in the here and now, not that the true beauty and happiness comes after death. It may - but the evidence doesn't support it. We know we are here, we know we must do something here and now to improve things.





We want the government to help the poor and the unfortunate among us, not crap on them and tell them they are inadequate because they don't have the financial wherewithal


or the good fortune to be talented, or beautiful, or intelligent, or be born in a family with money.





We think the wealthy (as I am) have a social responsibility to all people, and that taking just for the sake of self aggrandizement isn't ethical. Economic theory that giving the wealthy handouts is good for the economy is ridiculous, just as heavily favoring the poor to the point of stifling entrepreneurship is also. The trick is in the balance.





Religion is a basic tool for hateful and malicious people to justify bigotry, hate, division, self interest, and most of all power. It's been this way for centuries and needs to stop. I'm not saying all the religious are this way - just the ones who use it as a way to put themselves above others and use them for their own purposes.





We not only evolved from monkeys, we are monkeys. The evidence is beyond reproach. Just this one point makes all of her other views suspect, because it ignores the careful diligence and hard work of thousands of brilliant people who care about the truth, and aren't satisfied with letting others tell them what they are





We think there is hope, and we have a real vision of how it would work. The ideas of the past have many good points, but we can make life far better if we open our minds and look at the options objectively. We think that division, hate, inequality, and injustice are the results of same.





Briefly - she has a very narrow view of what life is supposed to be like, and the majority of it flows from the belief that the modern version of fundamentalism and it's recent add ons by the fiscal conservatives is the only possible one. It may work for her and I don't begrudge her that, but to try and legislate it, or to beat others down and remove basic human dignity with it, is simply unconscionable in the modern world. She needs to open her mind and her heart to new ideas, instead of clinging to old ones that no longer are valid or supportable in a rational society.