I have never seen more empty platitudes in my life. Mr Ruble, you are the king of the straw man.

@J.B, Schmidt....What more basic information are you looking for. I clearly stated what the survival needs are and security needs are in reference to be able to an existence without threats, intimidation and physical harm, Much like what we expect in the suburbs and for the most part have achieved.

The material reality is that everyone's minimum material needs are met. That is far from keeping up with the Jones or the Schmidts. The role of society is not to meet the needs of the envious but meet the basic survival needs.

Of all the means for funding the disbursement of primary survival needs, the accumulation of revenue is the only secure manner to do so. As I stated in the main article, the progressive tax system is the least onerous to society as a whole.

@ann....Platitudes, straw man arguments? Are you claiming the basic values cited are platitudes and straw man logic; obviously you are not familiar with philosophical arguments and logic. The arguments between liberal and conservative are based on a logical foundation. In this case the foundation is the same for all civilized society, the full and stable functioning of the community, benefiting all.

@Lyle
Could you remain more vague?

What basic needs? If food, what calorie count per day? If housing, how much? If clothing, what are the standards? How much retirement? What level of health care?

For security. What is your ratio of police to population?

Is the current taxation level adequate based on your idea of societal needs? Should it be heavier on the higher end? Does the middle class pay to much?

I read your piece. It makes grand claims about subjective goals and places no actual quantitative value to any of it. If you believe in your system, then actually show us the functionality of it.

@J.B. Schmidt....You are asking about specifics and that was not my purpose but to help people understand the basic concepts. I don't know what the caloric intake should be or how those calories are obtained. I do know that getting the calories through junk food purchased at the local convenience store is not the best source of healthy food. When I was in the military they knew how many calories were needed, how many square feet of living space each person required, etc. It didn't matter if you were a simple seaman or admiral, the needs were the same. Determining what the basic needs are a function of the community.

@Lyle
That is the largest error in liberal thought. Liberals demand "assuring that everyone has access to clean water, adequate sanitation, healthy food, clothing, adequate shelter, healthcare and education". You then finish your article with, "Liberals are specific in what their expectations are for meeting the basic safety and survival needs of all." So, what are your expectations? Words like 'adequate' or 'fair' are throw away words that mean something different to everyone. They stand as the opposite of specific. It is that subjectiveness that dominates liberalism. Not to mention it is all based on the material. Where in your list is a citizens ability to preserve himself or family? How does addressing any of these perceived needs change the ultimate behavior for the good of the country? It doesn't. Instead, it brainwashes people to believe that the country (its government) is the source by which these needs are provided. We as citizens no longer can achieve on our own, rather we are beholden to a government. That in lies the difference in equality. Either we are equal to achieve (conservatism) or we are equal in our dependence (liberalism). Those 2 concepts are competing concepts and do not coexist.

@WaitingForTheSpark.....If there emerges a new world order, it will be not because of the liberals, but represents an adaptation to new environmental pressures.

Nice work with the photo Steve.

and the medias job to pound this over and over into our heads...

@Mr Lundt....Sorry, but you have missed the point. It is not convincing everyone that they are victimized, but the recognition that we all don't start in the same place and thus it must be taken into account. Therefore, the idea that we all have equal opportunity to achieve equal outcomes is purely mythological. If we all begin on a level playing field, then achievement, success or failure is based strictly on our own efforts and merit.

If two people are rope climbing and whoever reaches the top first wins; it is hardly fair if one is halfway up the rope before the contest begins. The same goes for unearned privilege through the accident of birth.

Nice!

@Bob McBride....My chief concern is that we all have our survival and security needs met and work toward a level playing field.

That's fine, Lyle. I'm sure we all feel the same way. But even within the rather loose confines of liberalism, there's no real agreement as to what that all entails. The only thing one can gather from listening to the various liberal groups is that there is a mandate that those deemed to have been successful (which most often is attributed to luck or privilege of some sort) "lift up" those considered less fortunate (the condition itself attributed mostly to a lack of luck or privilege). The classification of each condition takes into account ever-changing factors, not totally related to the actual financial condition of those who find themselves assigned to one category or the other. That's not specific - whatsoever.

The only agreement that your side seems to be able to come to is that if you're white, male and wealthy, you are so due primarily to privilege and, therefore, should be subject to "whatever it takes" in terms of confiscatory taxation and non-preferential treatment in order to compensate for virtually every other group and sub-group that can be identified as not having been the beneficiary of the same type of "privilege". It's really the only conclusion one can draw. Again, not specific whatsoever.

@Lyle,
As I've argued before, the biggest factor in making the playing field level is socialization. Until you (and I) take care of that problem, we might as well take money away from those that have more and burn it in the homes of the chronically poor to heat their homes.

I have produced studies that prove my point, and I am happy to do so again, if requested.

@Luke....Yes, socialization is critical, but it is not only socialization. There must be structural systems in place to facilitate the socialization process. Meeting the basic survival and security needs allows for effective socialization to occur.

@Bob McBride....I'm getting tired of the complaints by middle age to older white males who feel they are now being victimized by changes in society. This group is consistently claiming they are now being discriminated against. I too, am a white male and I don't feel victimized, why should you and others. White males still control all the major institutions and the bulk of the wealth. The white male has personalized the progressive income tax and claim that it is essentially unfair. We might as well call the income and inheritance tax the "Successful White Man Tax". All I can say is the white male taxpayer needs to accept reality and get over it. We are not victimized. It's like back in the day when I was in a higher tax bracket (54%), prior to the Reagan tax reform, I should be so lucky to be in the 70% bracket and by being there, it was a sign of success.

Lyle- Race has finally got to be eliminated from conversations. There are laws in place that guaranty that all people are created eqaul and have equal access to every opportunity afforded by this country. If there is discrimination, than the laws are not being enforced.

On that premise, the playing field has already been leveled. See that is the premise that I believe this country was founded on; that equal access is guaranteed, not equal outcomes.

The great philosophical divide will always be there as long as liberals keep pushing for equal outcomes, because government cannot create that outcome without wealth redistribution.

For the better of all society, fair would actually mean just that. A fair tax rate should be charged to all. Not progressively, but equally. If everyone has a skin in the game, the discussions of handouts and welfare states would end. Whether you make $10,000 or $10 million, every dollar taxed should be the same.

Neither party has embraced that concept, but nothing is fair about the current tax code. And if you would like to contribute 70% of your botomline to the government, please feel free to do so. But don't tell me that government deserves 70% of what my bottomline is.

Lyle, I don't feel victimized. I'm just pointing out that the singular thing you lefties unite around is billing wealthy white males for all your supposed equality-inducing schemes. Other than that, you guys are all over the place. You, Keith...all the rest of you seem to think you're rising above your own self interest for the betterment of all by repeating the same nonsense. You don't get points for flogging yourself publicly when the ideas you come up with are sketchy at best and ridiculous for the most part.

Put some numbers together, figure out a plan. Present something of substance instead of resorting to the same nonsensical lefty crap we can get anywhere.

Use your g/d head.

@Brian Dey....I'm sorry, but not all the obstacles have been eliminated. Why have you worked so hard in the school system, isn't it to assure that everyone can receive a good education? Aren't there differences in the schools where kids in Caledonia have better schools than the ones attending schools in downtown Racine?

There is no equality when it comes to taxes. You claim, having skin in the game is the critical difference, but what about those that are spending everything they earn just to meet basic needs? Does it make sense to supplement them on the back side and not on the front side. That's just like higher sales taxes, it disproportionally negatively impacts the low income earner greater than the high income earner. The sales tax is a flat tax and we can see the impact it has on people, such would be the same with a flat income tax.

I know you resent having to pay the Successful White Male Taxes, but it is the only way to adequately fund the expenditures that the nation has decided they want to spend.

@Lyle

We already provide for those things.

Lyle- Please explain which barriers are there. Discrimination is illegal. Enforce the laws. As far as education, we have made access to good education even better with the introduction of vouchers. And since we bus a large percentage of children from the inner city out to the suburbs, access is pretty good to a quality public education or at least a "level playing field". We also offer school choice within the district so there is no reason if a child wants a better education, they can't get it.

If you remember back to the good ole days of 70%+ tax brackets, there wasn't a whole lot of investment going on. The stock market remained below 1000, and was extremely vulnerable to crashes. Reagan proved that through lowing the tax brackets, you could receive more revenue. Companies and individuals weren't as apt to keep there money overseas, and employment rose. That is the formula you say didn't work, but history proves otherwise. Clinton had a modest rise in the upper tax bracket, but left corporate taxes alone. Yes he balanced the budget, but it wasn't because of a 4% tax hike on the rich. Further observation will show that he diverted funds from SSI to balance, but it was also an unprecedented growth dating back to the recovery of 1983 and continued unfettered through 2001 that kept the revenues flowing in.

Bur regardless, I don't think anyone on my side doesn't bellieve in a safety net, but we don't want to subsidize a lifestyle choice.

@Frank McGruber....We don't live alone, but in communities. I might agree with you if we could be entirely independent. However, we are clearly interdependent for our welfare and survival. You don't see babies raising themselves, do you?

The fact that life is not fair is precisely why leveling the playing field is so important. One of the key values of our society is success based on individual effort and merit. Does someone born into less than favorable conditions have the same opportunity as those born into wealth and privilege? The obvious answer is no. Should the one born with all the advantages be given all the benefits when they haven't earned them?

So should someone in poverty be given benefits if they didn't earn them?

@Brian Dey....Everyone should be supplemented to the extent to meet their survival and security needs. How can I make it any clearer.

Lyle your entire premise is wrong. Life isn't supposed to be fair.

For someone born into wealth, their parents very likely worked hard to provide that opportunity for their child. It didn't come about by accident. It was earned and striven for so it could be passed down. That is not something to be demonized. If a man wants to create a wealth dynasty for his descendents, that is something that should be applauded.

The wonderful thing about this country is that everybody has the opportunity to do what they want if they want to work for it. The key is the government has to stay out of the way. That's what is throwing a wrench into the cogs. Attempts at "leveling the playing field" only ruin it for everybody.

Unless someone is physically or mentally unable to work, there should never be a program to subsidize a lifestyle choice. Ther are plenty of jobs out there. Take a walk through Bayshore Mall and count how many places are hiring. Same applies to fast food places, service companies, etc. You might have to work two jobs, like many of us had to do at some point in our lives, But you have to start somewhere. And as long as we give people the option that they never have to work, then that gap in the middle class will widen.

Good point, look at the liberals treatment of Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, Alan West, et. al. If you don't stay the plantation, watch out, leftists will destroy you.

Are you serious? I contend that the examples of the people you put forth destroyed themselves (whatever that means) by their own actions. Did you actually reference plantations? Amazing. Sad but amazing...

Actually John, that is a great analogy. You just need to understand the metaphorical relationship to the antebellum South. I will take Avenging Angel's one step further, those that choose to stay are stuck in sub-standard housing in the worst area of the plantation, with no real hope of anything better unless they run away.

Great Job Avenging Angel!

Run away to what hope? Hope that the GOP offers? You need to take the blinders off that leads to your narrowly focused view of reality. Lip service is one thing. Actions through policies are another. Please identify what the policies are that offer the people you pretend to know anything about.

John, it's run away FROM. Run away from the false promises Liberal policies have spewed forth the past 50 years. Failed policies and programs such as:
relaxing sub-prime loan underwriting,
fighting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory rules,
Obama's Stimulus,
Obama Care,
Trillion dollar deficits,
cutting defense spending to increase entitlements,
most of the Community Reinvestment Act
taxing job creators to create jobs (even LBJ is going WTF),
investing in alternative energy companies that have since failed (Solyndra, et al)

That's a good start.

Listen to your echo chamber and feel justified. The majority of Americans feel differently...

Listen to your echo chamber and feel justified. The majority of Americans feel differently...

John, give us a little substance instead of the empty rhetoric of “your wrong”!

My final point is that of the great equalizer that Liberals love so well, a progressive tax structure. The fiscal cliff crisis showed us more than anything that Liberals love to tax the rich not because the government needs the money, or can't solve the spending problem without it, but simply because "they can afford it". What they fail to realize time and again that the rich will not pay those taxes, the middle class will. If taxes reduces a wealthy person's profit, they just need to raise the price to cover the difference.

Taxing the rich is just an overused crutch to sidestep what really needs to get done-find better ways of spending the public's money!!!

@The Anti-Alinsky....We are basically in agreement about succeeding due to effort. All I am stating is that those structural obstacles that inhibit success are minimized or eliminated. Shouldn't all have equal access to good public schools? Shouldn't all have equal access to achieve success and participate in upper mobility?

I disagree with you on what portion the "accident of birth" plays. The "luck" factor plays a great deal to which privileges one is born into. It is not only the physical environment one is born into, but it also includes non material issues such as culture, ethnicity, family structure, etc. For example; if the family places a high value on education attainment, then the individual will most likely also assimilate that value. If education is placed at a lower value, then the individual will adopt that value.

So who is not equally allowed to access public education? Who is not equally allowed to access upward mobility. This country was founded and succeeded on "rags to riches" stories of all races and both sexes. See that is where liberalism is flawed. There are people ou there, whether you choose to believe it or not, that have no desire to get out of poverty, or climb the corporate ladder. It is not our job as a society to subsidize them.

Until you guaranty equal effort with equal outcome, than social justice is futile.

Lyle, you state the everyone isn't born into an equal opportunity situation. I totally agree with you. Where the fork comes into the road is what can be done about it. You think that society (govt. actually) can, and should try and provide an intervention. If we saw any signs of success in doing this, I think liberals would have a great argument. However, we have not seen (at least in this country...which is what we can control) has not worked, and cannot work. It always comes down to personal responsibility, every single time, without fail.

As a parent, if I didn't want a child born into poverty, I have two choices. Don't have a baby while I live below the poverty line, or do the things that are necessary to get above the poverty line so when I do have children, they are not in poverty. It's really that simple. It's really not that hard.

Culture has to change from the inside. As long as we keep making excuses for failing cultures, morally bankrupt cultures, etc. they have to reason to change internally.

We can all hope for unicorns and rainbows, but until the individual, inside the subset of whatever culture they grow up in, decides to change their behavior, and take total responsibility for their, and their families lives, nothing will change.

@Brian Dey....You claim access is equal to opportunity. However, if a kid is hungry, malnourished, unhealthy or sick; how well can they take advantage of the opportunity presented? I have no problem, when their basic survival and security needs are met, to allow them to succeed or fail based on their own merit. If someone decides that they don't want to move out of poverty, then they can't expect to receive anymore than their basic needs.

@Chris....How bad would the situation be if, we, society didn't intervene? What is the price of social stability?

Some good points Lyle, but I have some comments:

You wrote: “If education is placed at a lower value, then the individual will adopt that value.”
That is a HUUUUUGE part of the problem Lyle. Milwaukee spends more per student than any other district in the state, and yet it is the fourth worst district in the COUNTRY. Much of that can be blamed on the district leadership, but it goes much deeper. If we end up giving someone everything they need without an education, why would they need one?

You also wrote: “if a kid is hungry, malnourished, unhealthy or sick; how well can they take advantage of the opportunity presented? “
With all the assistance available, how is it we still have children that are malnourished, unhealthy or sick? In Wisconsin, qualifying families can get up to $3,842 in food vouchers for a family of 4 (or as I like to call them ObamaBucks), and can get medical assistance under BadgerCare.

Finally: “I have no problem, when their basic survival and security needs are met, to allow them to succeed or fail based on their own merit.”
I think we have gotten to a point in our society where if someone needs help, we give it to them. But rather than helping them out of their situation, we seem to be encouraging them to stay there. We have gone from providing basic survival to phone, hi-def tvs, even home ownership.

Lyle, I think it is evident that we both see the same problem, we just have different solutions. The Liberal approach is "throw more money at it from a higher level" while the Conservative approach is "local intervention will be more cost effective".

We also seem to agree that MUCH of the problem lies in the culture of the inner city where education is not as valued as it is elsewhere. Rather than cater to the problem, we need to motivate individuals to become smarter and better citizens. We can not achieve this by just throwing money at them.
Right now we have gotten to a point where we provide debit cards rather than food vouchers because we might hurt someone's feelings.
We give high school diplomas even though many can barely read.
We create meaningless jobs to make someone that they can feel like they have contributed something.

All of this in order to try and create a sense of worth. People with REAL self esteem work to get off food vouchers, get a enough of an education to get a meaningful job and really contribute something to society.

Lyle, that's a question based on a false premise. How much better would the situation be if we didn't enable irresponsible behavior?

I understand that a liberal's first thought is"How can we solve other peoples problems." It's a hard pill to swallow when you realize that we can't solve other peoples problems. Once those people come up with a solution, we can assist them in achieving the solution, but we can't come up with a solution for them.

Since we (as a nation) decided to address the "problem", has it gotten better or worse? Did the LBJ's legislation solve any issues, or have we seen a downward spiral? There's a reason the expression of 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink' has been around forever.

Lyle:

It is an interesting question about how bad the situation would be if society didn't intervene. I think that it can be argued that some of the 'intervention' on the part of society (government) has contributed to perpetuating the need for intervention. For many years, we have created a dependent class of people trapped in the system, and made it extremely difficult for people to improve their situation. Perhaps some people would be better off today if society had not attempted to intervene a couple of generations ago.

@Chris....You and other conservatives question whether or not Johnson's Great Society was a success or failure. It depends from which perspective it is viewed. From my perspective it achieved much and if Nixon hadn't cancelled the programs, I don't know how far it could have gone. There are countless millions that were able to get a higher education, that the opportunity had before been denied. The civil rights legislation finally completed the promise of opportunity to millions who had been disenfranchised because of the color of their skin. The elderly finally had access to healthcare without bankrupting them or their families. The children born into poverty now had a guarantee of food, healthcare and education. All of that did not exist before the War on Poverty. Much of what we now take for granted didn't exist before the 60s and 70s. We need to keep things in perspective, up until the "Great Recession", people in general were better off, fewer lived in relative and absolute poverty and experienced a better quality of life than past generations. I think people have a false sense of how many live in impoverished conditions and how they got that way. The poverty rate has increased to around 16%, driven by the overall downturn in the economy. The vast majority are single parent households headed by women. All in all, it is not an issue of morality but that of economics.

@Brian Dey....The "rags to riches" story is primarily a myth. The US has a lower upward mobility rate than any other first tier nation according to the OECD. We are also experiencing a growing disparity between the highest income and the lowest income, with the middle class sliding toward the bottom. If all we have to do is present the opportunity, why aren't we seeing more and higher upper mobility? It can't all be due to people just being lazy and unwilling to want to move up.

@Lyle,

You know as well as anyone that we are one of the least homogenous of those countries, so the comparison is incommensurable. However, immigrants in our country are among the most upwardly mobile populations on the planet.

So who isn't upwardly mobile in our country? The answer to that question brings us back to the problem that you are faced with every time you bring up the topic. You might as well embrace that problem now, since you have in the past. In fact, you made a great observation about the maladaptive behavior of NBA players not being resolved once they won life's lottery.

The plight of the poor populations in the US will never be solved by giving them more money than is necessary to give them the basic necessities. As long as similar people group together and socialize one another, they will keep turning out a product similar to themselves.

Mr Ruble said "The "rags to riches" story is primarily a myth."

Mr Ruble that is the silliest and most stupid thing you have ever said. And that is saying a lot. Quadgraphics started how? Apple Computers? I could list people and corporations that started out in rags and are now in riches.

You sir are a petty envious oldster who has apparently never amounted to anything so you trash this great nation.

@ann

These issues are complex. Lyle is twice as smart as any liberal that posts on the Patch. Right now he is doing the typical liberal thing and trying to extinguish an emotion by throwing money at it. I am confident , however, that reason will prevail, because Lyle is simply too superior to take the simplistic lefty angle.

Like Lyle, I too am progressive, but I am a conservative. I am that way that I am because it seems the most reasonable.

Lyle- Sure, help them get back on their feet. But don't make it permanent. Maybe, when those that choose to live in poverty understand that a baby is not their meal ticket via the government, they might just amaze you and go out and work for it like everybody else.

I'm glad somebody does! Looking forward to your next Op-Ed in HSO... :)

@GearHead....It is unfortunate that you wish to make light of someone who suffers from enuresis and use them as an example that is basically a red herring to the discussion. This article focuses on the foundation of belief and values that modern liberals hold as essential to the liberal ideology. My question to you; do you believe that equal opportunity is tied to a level playing field? If so, then how is that level playing field achieved?

Who's talking about enuresis? I'm talking about acting out to get attention, resulting in spanking. Then growing up with an attitude the world is unfair. Geez Lyle, must every perceived problem be seen as a nail for your hammer? You certainly do personify the modern liberal, but shouldn't wear it as a badge of honor.

You can't level the field because people have unequal talent, grit and discipline. Any attempt to do so drags down the successful. Kinda like stealing the gas out of my car so you can claim to go farther in your electric car.

Lyle- Again Lyle, you need to define level playing field. In my humble opinion, the playing field is level. Equal access, not equal outcome.

In the liberal world, we would have to have a whole new set of laws that guaranty that no one can be discriminated based on intelligence. After all, it's not the individual's fault that they are intelligent-challenged.

@Luke....There are already standards set for those that are considered developmentally delayed and they will receive benefits for the rest of their lives, Anyone above those standards have the capacity to be independent. Therefore, intelligence does affect equal opportunity under the law.

@ann....The beginning of the destruction of low income families began back in the 1970s when the requirement was implemented that you couldn't have two adults in a household and still receive AFDC. This forced many families into becoming single parent families. Most children living in poverty, live in single parent households and many of them are single parent households because of divorce and not just out of wedlock births. From the time that AFDC was created in the 1940s until 1996, there were only about 5.8% of the population that were on permanent welfare. Welfare, for most, is still an emergency situation. We will continue to see high rates of government assistance until more people are finally employed.

Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) by the Social Security Act of 1935 as part of the New Deal, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1996 created by the Social Security Act=legacy of the worst president of all time, FDR.

Welfare still exists today- we just call it something different.
Example: A family with an earned income of $15,000 in addition to SSI benefits, gets a tax refund of $10,000.
Aid for Dependent Children is also available as part of SSDI. If a child has medical and or emotional problems, the child qualifies. If a parent qualifies for disability payments from SS, then dependent children qualify.
I have heard of kids with ADHD getting a monthly check from SS, tell me this is not a form of welfare.
These programs are not sustainable unless there is a reduction of fraud. I have no problem supporting someone who rightfully deserves it.
I do have a problem with people who use a Questcard to buy top cut steaks and groceries, while I am paying my own way buying ground beef and rice to stretch a meatloaf. Then the same couple using the Questcard load the groceries in an Escallade with spinners while I load my ten year old Chevy.
There was a time when the poor people on assistance did not have the luxuries working people did- today the people on entitlements have more luxuries than the working people.
Is this a great Country?

Never ask for hard facts from a Progressive. (at least, don't expect an answer based in reality)

That's right Dave. Your ideas keep people poor and in squalor.

Dave,

I agree 100% that there's a bell curve, however, I don't believe the curve is as large as it appears that you do with people's intellectual abilities. The real question that needs to be answered is what part of the bell curve needs to be supported to meet the most basic needs of survival. That's really the argument, isn't it? We need to provide for those that absolutely cannot provide for themselves. Those that choose not to provide for themselves, for whatever reason, are the issue that seems not go go away.

There will always be have and have nots.

Some people work harder are smarter are luckier have better parents...the notion that the government COULD or SHOULD change that is absurd.

Again show me an example where your Utopian society works.

Feel free to send in an additional 20% on your taxes this year. I'm sure the government will do the right thing and see that it works toward lifting up the needy.

And yet, you are against vouchers. Go figure...

Practical? No.

There isn't enough money to pay for your socialism and "entitlements".
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Funny you should mention tools Bren, given your being against Act 10 providing the tools needed by municipalities and school systems for successful self-governance.

Jerry Springer is a classic hypocritical liberal. He and better yet NBC Universal Domestic Television moved the show Along with with other daytime crap shows out of Chicago a few years ago.

Why?

Because the tax rate kept going up. He moved to CT for a lower tax rate.

Classic.

NBC and Jerry, both left wing organizations move to Stamford, CT because their liberal buddies kept raising taxes. This is your modern liberal.

@Steve: I would have thought it was because Jerry and staff we're to affraid they'd get killed on the streets by one of their fellow Obama stoner constituents.