Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YOUR Plan for Welfare Programs

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:08:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Welfare is a real issue in the world today and different people have different ways for wanting to get combat it. This thread is for your own personal welfare plan for those members of society in poverty. Hopefully each person will present their own plan and criticize the plans of others.

Plan #1

Based on encouraging people to work rather than giving them free cash.

-No government money is given to those who do not work

-For those who do work, every dollar earned while below the poverty line allows for a one dollar subsidy up until the maximum point of the poverty line.

-Ex. Poverty line- 18 thousand. Money earned-8 thousand. Money subsidized- 8 thousand. Total subsidy- 16 thousand.

- If a person earns a income which is below the poverty line but if which subsidized fully will place them above the poverty line, then the difference between the poverty line and the income is subtracted and given to the person.

Plan #2

Based on encouraging people to work coupled with a basic net for those who are not working.

-50% of poverty line income is automatically given to the person if they have 0 income.

- If they have income, then the income is subtracted from the poverty line. 50% of that is then subsidized on top of the original income.

-Ex. Poverty line- 18 thousand. Money earned- 8 thousand. Money subsidized- 5 thousand. Total subsidy- 13 thousand.

-50% NIT

Introduce your plans!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:31:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How about my program: called JFP (Job Finding Program) if your unemployed go to a government office and we will find one for you!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

Well, I'm sure that would go over well......
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:42:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Norway's plan works pretty well. It's pretty much social security, which government incentives to get back to work.

Cutting social security benefits is just political suicide, IMHO. I don't want anyone to live off the government. I'm fairly certain even the most hardcore left-wingers would rather have people have a job instead of live off the system, but it's better than letting people die.
turn down for h'what
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:42:45 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Norway's plan works pretty well. It's pretty much social security, which government incentives to get back to work.

Cutting social security benefits is just political suicide, IMHO. I don't want anyone to live off the government. I'm fairly certain even the most hardcore left-wingers would rather have people have a job instead of live off the system, but it's better than letting people die.

The govt says in the constitution I can has live 4evah
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:46:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:40:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

Well, I'm sure that would go over well......

I like it. If you want to be alleviated out of poverty, you don't get to lend a hand to over population. I would make the sterilization permanent, though.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:48:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:46:30 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:40:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

Well, I'm sure that would go over well......

I like it. If you want to be alleviated out of poverty, you don't get to lend a hand to over population. I would make the sterilization permanent, though.

Agreed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:48:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Woops, I thought you said "not permanent." I disagree with making it permanent.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:50:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:46:30 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:40:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

Well, I'm sure that would go over well......

I like it. If you want to be alleviated out of poverty, you don't get to lend a hand to over population. I would make the sterilization permanent, though.

Not saying I disagreed, but can you imagine proposing that in Congress?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:54:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:48:59 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Woops, I thought you said "not permanent." I disagree with making it permanent.

I don't see how this would be a sensible approach, however. What if it was a single mother who had just lost her job? This certainly wouldn't apply to her. Your plan doesn't seem flexible nor sensible; in the end, if someone wants to have kids, they'll end up having kids. You could offer her incentives to, let's say, put the kid up for adoption so that the kid would have a life with a more fortunate family, but it's not going to stop people from wanting to have kids and having to remain on social security.
turn down for h'what
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

I agree. People on welfare have no business having children, but sterilization is horribly invasive. Also, who's going to pay for such an operation? The government should simply lessen the welfare time period if they have children. There's no need for personal intrusion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:57:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Abolition.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:00:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:50:27 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:46:30 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:40:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

Well, I'm sure that would go over well......

I like it. If you want to be alleviated out of poverty, you don't get to lend a hand to over population. I would make the sterilization permanent, though.

Not saying I disagreed, but can you imagine proposing that in Congress?

What would a Democratic congress complain about? You are helping the poor, and you are helping fix over population.

Even Libertarians like it; an extreme discouragement to getting welfare. Reduce the size of it = good.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:02:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:57:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Abolition.

Are you sure you're human?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:02:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:55:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
I agree. People on welfare have no business having children, but sterilization is horribly invasive. Also, who's going to pay for such an operation?

Good point. I should have said chemical castration, not sterilization. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The government should simply lessen the welfare time period if they have children.

What do you mean by this? You mean "If you have a kid that's X less months of welfare?" But then who's going to take care of the kid? Just let him starve to death? This doesn't sound like a very humane solution.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:55:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:39:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I think one of the most important things to do is to make mandatory temporary sterilization a prerequisite for acquiring welfare. You have no business having kids while you're on welfare, you can't afford one. It's not fair to the kid and it's not fair to society at large which has to pay for him. Also, with decreased birth rates for the least productive in society, the population at large will undergo gradual positive genetic benefits.

I agree. People on welfare have no business having children, but sterilization is horribly invasive. Also, who's going to pay for such an operation? The government should simply lessen the welfare time period if they have children. There's no need for personal intrusion.

I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants. In fact, I was able to convince my student assembly to kill this type of bill (in MYIG).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:04:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM, Contra wrote:

I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants.

Why?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:05:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM, Contra wrote:
I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants. In fact, I was able to convince my student assembly to kill this type of bill (in MYIG).

There was a proposal to chemically castrate rapists at CONA last year. That's where I got the idea.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:02:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:55:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
I agree. People on welfare have no business having children, but sterilization is horribly invasive. Also, who's going to pay for such an operation?

Good point. I should have said chemical castration, not sterilization. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The government should simply lessen the welfare time period if they have children.

What do you mean by this? You mean "If you have a kid that's X less months of welfare?" But then who's going to take care of the kid? Just let him starve to death? This doesn't sound like a very humane solution.

My reasoning was that lessening the time frame that they receive welfare would put pressure on the parents to stabilize themselves quickly. If they were warned about not having children and told of the consequences, and they did it anyway, then is this not their choice? If they make this choice and are still unable to care for the child, then he can be taken to a family that will.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:02:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:57:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Abolition.

Are you sure you're human?

Yes, I am a rational animal, what of it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:09:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:07:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:02:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/12/2012 9:57:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Abolition.

Are you sure you're human?

Yes, I am a rational animal, what of it?

most "rational animals" have a distinct intuitive faculty called "compassion." I don't think you were born with it...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:11:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:06:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
If they were warned about not having children and told of the consequences, and they did it anyway, then is this not their choice?

Yeah, it's their choice, not their child's choice. And even if it was their choice, if you cut them off welfare and they can't find a job, what are they going to do? Just die in the streets? That hardly seems like a fitting punishment for not using a condom.

If they make this choice and are still unable to care for the child, then he can be taken to a family that will.

There are already a lot of kids in this world that would love a good home that can't find one. We should be trying to stop bringing kids into the world in bad circumstances, not let it happen.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Negative Income Tax

- Give all citizens $6,000 a year
- Gradually reduce payments in coordination with Income
- Reduce NIT by 50% for each dollar earned
- Administered by IRS
- Eliminates welfare bureaucracies
- Improves work incentives
- Pay using progressive consumption tax

Example:

A family of 4 gets $24,000 a year ($6000 x 4). If the family decided to earn overall $2000 by themselves, the NIT would pay $23,000 (2000 earnings / 2 --> 1000 cut). So, for every $2000 in real earnings, the NIT is cut by $1000. Since it pays more to work as well as have NIT, it would increase the working incentive.

However, citizens will need to be doing work for the government (such as government sponsored employment) or with private business (preferably) to receive the NIT. So, you would need to be working in some way to receive benefits. So my NIT plan would be somewhat like the Earned Income Tax Credit -- which has been a large success.

The citizens receiving NIT on gov't sponsored employment could be doing many useful, yet not requiring much skilled, tasks (such as removing graffiti).

To pay for NIT, we could have a progressive consumption tax.

Best of all, my plan was proposed by Conservative Milton Friedman (although I edited it some). So, you GOP people would kind of be shooting yourselves in the foot here :P
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:14:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:04:54 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM, Contra wrote:

I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants.

Why?

Because it would be very expensive with nearly no benefits. A study in Florida showed that only 5% of welfare applicants used drugs (national level is about 8%).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:11:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:06:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
If they were warned about not having children and told of the consequences, and they did it anyway, then is this not their choice?

Yeah, it's their choice, not their child's choice. And even if it was their choice, if you cut them off welfare and they can't find a job, what are they going to do? Just die in the streets? That hardly seems like a fitting punishment for not using a condom.

If they make this choice and are still unable to care for the child, then he can be taken to a family that will.

There are already a lot of kids in this world that would love a good home that can't find one. We should be trying to stop bringing kids into the world in bad circumstances, not let it happen.

You have a point. In that case, I don't see why there should be any consequence on families on welfare that have children. Any kind of sterilization is out of the question. I guess the consequence is that by having children it would be harder for them given the same amount of money. They're already naturally punished for it, the government doesn't need to add.

Your idea of prevention is obscene, intrusive, invasive, demeaning, and abusive. It cannot be an option on the table.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:15:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:14:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:04:54 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM, Contra wrote:

I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants.

Why?

Because it would be very expensive with nearly no benefits. A study in Florida showed that only 5% of welfare applicants used drugs (national level is about 8%).

Right, that's testing for illegal drugs. I'm just requiring that you don't have children. There's a big difference, in that you don't have to spend even more money, feeding, clothing, and educating another dependent.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:17:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:15:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:14:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:04:54 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM, Contra wrote:

I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants.

Why?

Because it would be very expensive with nearly no benefits. A study in Florida showed that only 5% of welfare applicants used drugs (national level is about 8%).

Right, that's testing for illegal drugs. I'm just requiring that you don't have children. There's a big difference, in that you don't have to spend even more money, feeding, clothing, and educating another dependent.

Okay, that may be an okay idea.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:14:10 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:04:54 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:03:27 PM, Contra wrote:

I would vehemently oppose drug testing welfare applicants.

Why?

Because it would be very expensive with nearly no benefits. A study in Florida showed that only 5% of welfare applicants used drugs (national level is about 8%).

Only 5% of those tested positive for drug use while receiving benefits. You don't think, that I don't know, If you won't get welfare your not going to show up high, unless you have some spare pee with you.

Also, you don't have to test them for drugs every time they go to get welfare. Randomize testing. Jobs have drug testing, but you don't get drug testing every day you go to work.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:15:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
You have a point. In that case, I don't see why there should be any consequence on families on welfare that have children. Any kind of sterilization is out of the question.

Why is it out of the question? I don't want to see more children born into bad circumstances. This really about them. Having chemical castration for those that to society to provide for them is just common sense.

I guess the consequence is that by having children it would be harder for them given the same amount of money. They're already naturally punished for it, the government doesn't need to add.

No, if you have children, you get more money from the government to provide for your children. You aren't punished for having children but rewarded for it.

Your idea of prevention is obscene, intrusive, invasive, demeaning, and abusive. It cannot be an option on the table.

They are the ones asking for financial assistance. Not only is it not fair to the children for them to be born in such circumstances, it's unfair to society which has to pay for it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran