As long as that help is from the private sector. 

Conservatives indulge in their own liberal caricatures.  Liberals are just “bleeding hearts” willing to give anybody money without expecting them to do anything for themselves.  Liberals want to keep giving people money even when they no longer need it.  Liberals believe government should do everything. 

Liberals do not look for simplistic answers to complex problems. And Liberals do believe that government has a role.  We can debate what that role is but there are just as many conservatives who will dismiss that view without giving it fair consideration.  Reagan helped formulate that conservative ideology with his view that government is the problem. 

“The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it)”

And that is your own caricature at work.– liberals aren't willing to ask hard questions.  Balderdash again.

“Conservatives, contra wise, believe that people should be able to do for themselves, and if those people fail, that's just their tough luck.”

That's not what conservatives believe.

On an individual level, they do believe that society works best when people are expected and expect themselves to do “do for themselves.”  They believe, as one way of perceiving it, that freedom is about responsibilities as well as about rights.  Or a slight alternate – freedom is a responsibility, and not just a right.

But conservatives do not remotely believe that any person failing should get no help – which is my interpretation of “tough luck,” as Jeff puts it.

They believe there can be too much help. They believe that help should be directed at helping someone no longer to need it. They believe that a startling amount of personal misfortune is actually, when traced back, a result of bad decisions; but by and large that doesn't mean those people don't deserve help, although it does underscore conservative reasons for being somewhat parsimonious about it. And, they most definitely do not believe that government is inherently the best or most legitimate way to respond, for a host of reasons having to do with the soul aspects of generosity and the difficult-to-deny eagerness of government to perpetuate itself.

That line is the point at which Jeff becomes (I'd assume) unable to actually debate conservatives, if he really believes what he says. If I agreed that conservatives were literally that heartless, I too would be consumed by a desire to reveal their darkness – which seems to be the main motivation lurking behind so many liberals' language and arguments on these matters.

Addressing points is a charade, so often, and it must be because of this lurking idea about the moral hollowness of the conservative view of human relationships.

JF:

“Unless those people happen to be us.  Then, we're owed help.  After all, we're different than they are.  The conservatives believe that we deserve it, even when those people don't.”

His argument jumps topics, mid-paragraph, from what seems to be about the individual level, to this point that seems to be about a collective kind of misfortune, like the bridge.

Assuming that's what he's talking about, the idea that conservatives in Minnesota or anywhere are nearly all opposed to a formal kind of collective aid response to New Orleans or other such disasters is simply bizarre.

The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it) regarding whether the money will actually do any good, or may end up simply rebuilding something that is just waiting to once again be destroyed.  To me, it's not an inherently ignoble endeavor to ask such questions – far from it. But to a liberal who believes as Jeff reveals he does above, those questions would be received – along with everything else they say – as disguise for heartlessness.

The point is that we shouldn't wait for the “unfortunate circumstance” to befall individuals and states.  The fallout is greater and the cost higher.

You're don't actually believe, do you, that conservatives were and are opposed to helping New Orleans, in any way whatsoever? Or more mundanely, that conservatives oppose any help for anyone in any unfortunate circumstance? 

If you really do believe those things, you have some reading to do.

You’re don’t actually believe, do you, that conservatives were and are opposed to helping New Orleans, in any way whatsoever? Or more mundanely, that conservatives oppose any help for anyone in any unfortunate circumstance? 

If you really do believe those things, you have some reading to do.

The point is that we shouldn’t wait for the “unfortunate circumstance” to befall individuals and states.  The fallout is greater and the cost higher.

“Conservatives, contra wise, believe that people should be able to do for themselves, and if those people fail, that’s just their tough luck.”

That’s not what conservatives believe.

On an individual level, they do believe that society works best when people are expected and expect themselves to do “do for themselves.”  They believe, as one way of perceiving it, that freedom is about responsibilities as well as about rights.  Or a slight alternate – freedom is a responsibility, and not just a right.

But conservatives do not remotely believe that any person failing should get no help – which is my interpretation of “tough luck,” as Jeff puts it.

They believe there can be too much help. They believe that help should be directed at helping someone no longer to need it. They believe that a startling amount of personal misfortune is actually, when traced back, a result of bad decisions; but by and large that doesn’t mean those people don’t deserve help, although it does underscore conservative reasons for being somewhat parsimonious about it. And, they most definitely do not believe that government is inherently the best or most legitimate way to respond, for a host of reasons having to do with the soul aspects of generosity and the difficult-to-deny eagerness of government to perpetuate itself.

That line is the point at which Jeff becomes (I’d assume) unable to actually debate conservatives, if he really believes what he says. If I agreed that conservatives were literally that heartless, I too would be consumed by a desire to reveal their darkness – which seems to be the main motivation lurking behind so many liberals’ language and arguments on these matters.

Addressing points is a charade, so often, and it must be because of this lurking idea about the moral hollowness of the conservative view of human relationships.

JF:

“Unless those people happen to be us.  Then, we’re owed help.  After all, we’re different than they are.  The conservatives believe that we deserve it, even when those people don’t.”

His argument jumps topics, mid-paragraph, from what seems to be about the individual level, to this point that seems to be about a collective kind of misfortune, like the bridge.

Assuming that’s what he’s talking about, the idea that conservatives in Minnesota or anywhere are nearly all opposed to a formal kind of collective aid response to New Orleans or other such disasters is simply bizarre.

The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it) regarding whether the money will actually do any good, or may end up simply rebuilding something that is just waiting to once again be destroyed.  To me, it’s not an inherently ignoble endeavor to ask such questions – far from it. But to a liberal who believes as Jeff reveals he does above, those questions would be received – along with everything else they say – as disguise for heartlessness.

As long as that help is from the private sector. 

Conservatives indulge in their own liberal caricatures.  Liberals are just “bleeding hearts” willing to give anybody money without expecting them to do anything for themselves.  Liberals want to keep giving people money even when they no longer need it.  Liberals believe government should do everything. 

Liberals do not look for simplistic answers to complex problems. And Liberals do believe that government has a role.  We can debate what that role is but there are just as many conservatives who will dismiss that view without giving it fair consideration.  Reagan helped formulate that conservative ideology with his view that government is the problem. 

“The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it)”

And that is your own caricature at work.– liberals aren’t willing to ask hard questions.  Balderdash again.