This is topic rouse the silver beast: the proposition for entirely replacing Medicare appears in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Guess how many elderly sick people will be able to get coverage for under $15,000 a year on the private market.
quote:Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A 25% top bracket tax rate???
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Moving farther away from a government-pay healthcare. BAH! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And taking it out of the poor and elderly. Excellent! Anyone know where I can find a nice ice floe?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And taking it out of the poor and elderly. Excellent! Anyone know where I can find a nice ice floe?
Not on the government's dime. I've heard Iceland likes its elderly though.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"... if you seek conservatism, come here to this bridge. Mr. Obama, close this bridge. Mr. Obama, Mr. Obama, build up this wall!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It seems conservatives really are hell bent on making America a 3rd world country. Why??
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is this weird relationship they imagine between prosperity and virtue. They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve". It is built into our national psyche. We tend to believe that we ourselves are deserving of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well in their (meager, I feel) defense, they don't actually think that more people are going to starve when more people get what they 'deserve', kmbboots. I realize that's an outlook that appeals to...well, I'm not sure I'd call it your vanity, but it demonizes your enemies whom you obviously (with some justification) dislike pretty strongly.
Anyway, in the kind of worldview that designs a plan like this, fewer people will starve if more people have what they 'deserve' taken from them by the government. Thus ensuring fewer people get what they don't deserve leads to fewer people starving, a laudable end goal to aim for, surely. A pretty tenuous chain of reasoning, I think...but then many of us believe in things that, from without, look pretty flimsy indeed, kmbboots.
Anyway, I think the plan is terrible and dangerous, and I very much hope it won't be passed. I guess I just don't see much point in castigating these guys for being so antagonistic to people getting what they don't deserve without examining why they feel that way. One of those reasons, though not I think the primary reason, is that it ends up being better for everyone as a whole-fewer people starving.
You can't fight `em if you don't understand `em.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Guess how many elderly sick people will be able to get coverage for under $15,000 a year on the private market.
You are looking at a huge change in the way the market works, and assuming only the changes you dislike will happen. If there were actual large-scale competition for customers in the private market, as opposed to the current system of supplying services for a few weirdos without a job, prices would fall drastically. What's more, if Medicare costs the government 15000 per customer, why shouldn't individual customers be able to buy insurance at that average price? Presumably the insurance companies are making a profit at that level.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I am talking about a "real" belief. If you look at prosperity theology, for example, or even Calvinism, acquiring wealth upon wealth is seen as a sign of grace- a sign of God's predestined favour. It came over on the boat with the Puritans. It undermines the fact that the gap between rich and poor is growing and will only get worse on this trajectory. It props up the absurd notion that if we leave things alone, it will all work out. It is a big part of why people think that everyone would be better off without help.
kmboots, I wonder if the idea of "trickle-down economics" is coupled with Calvinism in this. That is, the wealthy get wealthy because they make the right choices, are disciplined, are virtuous, etc. -- and when they do well, the benefit to them also gets slowly and gradually dispersed down to those who have less. Sort of like the tide rising all boats, as the saying goes.
Of course, there are problems with both of those basic assumptions. There is no reliable tie between virtue and prosperity, certainly not to the level where either entails the other. And wealth has been getting more and more concentrated in the US, not dispersing downwards.
---
Added: Every time this topic comes up, I am reminded of how damn lucky I have been. There were so many points at which being able to ask for a recommendation from someone who already had status, or being able to ask for a small loan over a period of a few months, etc., made the difference between making it through to where I am now and having to give up and stay where I was.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I know that's a real belief, or at least prosperity theology is. But that's not quite what you were saying. You said 'They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".'
I don't feel that's true. They believe that someone getting what they don't deserve causes more people to starve in the long run, so it's pretty inaccurate to say they're less outraged by people starving. They think the two things are linked. I think that's a pretty flawed belief, as I've said. One of the reasons I think that way is because of the things CT mentioned-it's sometimes who, not what, you know and people often have little choice in who they know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is this weird relationship they [Conservatives] imagine between prosperity and virtue. They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve". It is built into our national psyche. We tend to believe that we ourselves are deserving of course.
Boots, you have a habit of picking a single odious (and usually over-the-top) motivation for for everybody who holds a certain view that you disagree with.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, according to a not insignificant portion of adherents to the aforementioned philosophy, people going hungry (more accurate than "starving"?) is consistent with God's plan. Messing with the presumed Divine Order is worse. So yes, more outraged.
Which belief in particular (if any) would you like to defend, mph?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That link doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, kmbboots. Which is whether or not some conservatives want people to starve more than they want people not to get what they don't deserve (you know what I mean).
I've already agreed, repeatedly, that the plan is stupid and dangerous, so I'm really not sure who you're trying to persuade about that.
Anyway, I'm not even sure which 'they' we're talking about anymore. Calvinists? And even in prosperity theology, I think if we actually, y'know, asked someone who believed in it they would say something like, "Enacting this plan would lead, ultimately, to fewer people starving." That's generally how conservative economic philosophy works: tough love. But if it makes you feel better, they're cold-hearted (even evil) bastards who think God wants more people to starve, and are willing to work to make sure that happens.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Boots: somebody shouldn't have to get up and defend a belief for you to not make sweeping and untrue statements about those who hold it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some of the numbers here are staggering.
quote:The federal government expects to spend about $275 billion in 2011 on Medicaid, the program that provides medical care to the poor and disabled, up from $117.9 billion in 2000.
quote:Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.
Is there a book or comprehensive study out there that can explain why these insane increases in spending have occurred? What is the justification for health costs spiraling out of control at such an incredibly rapid rate?
And how much do you want to bet one of the deductions they try to eliminate is the home mortgage interest deduction, which, unless they merely cap it, will affect the poor far disproportionately to the wealthy. I'm not saying I even particularly like that deduction, but it's a huge boon to a lot of families come tax time, and removing it without some replacement or time to adjust could screw a lot of people over.
And furthermore, if Medicare services 48 million people, and they'll all get an average of $15,000 in premium payments, doesn't that equal dramatically more money than we currently spend on Medicare?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What is the justification for health costs spiraling out of control at such an incredibly rapid rate?
Two obvious reasons are the aging baby boomers and the constant invention and development of new (and usually more expensive) techniques, procedures, and equipment.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
KOM--if average fee for Medicare to cover one person is $15,500/hear then a $15,000 seems to fit.
But its not that simple, since what we are dealing with are averages v.s. specifics. For an average cost to be $15,500, then there are people who's insurance will cost less, and people who's insurance cost's more.
The insurance companies will strive to pick up all the people who cost less.
They will refuse to service those who cost more without that fee being covered.
So for Aunt Mildred, her cost may be $20,000. That leaves $5,000 that she has to cover to get insurance. If she is living off of Social Security because some financial hiccup ate all her savings--that gives her a choice--pay the $5,000 for health care coverage--or buy food.
An average is not a safety net.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, the link was to make the point that people in this country actual are at least "food insecure".
I am talking less about individual well-defined individual religious beliefs than I am a pervasive thread of belief that is woven into the foundations of the US. We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example. It isn't a matter of individual evil; it is part of what we breathe. We don't even notice it but it colours the way we, as a country, think about the poor.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And how much do you want to bet one of the deductions they try to eliminate is the home mortgage interest deduction, which, unless they merely cap it, will affect the poor far disproportionately to the wealthy.
Shouldn't that be the other way around? The majority of that tax benefit should go the rich. And it also is a subsidy from renters who tend to be less wealthy toward home-owners who tend to be more wealthy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What is the justification for health costs spiraling out of control at such an incredibly rapid rate?
Two obvious reasons are the aging baby boomers and the constant invention and development of new (and usually more expensive) techniques, procedures, and equipment.
I'd like to see something more specific. For example, how many new people are using Medicare every year? How many die and leave Medicare? In other words, what's the net increase year over year.
And what is the increase in cost to coverage the average Medicare recipient over this time period?
For Medicaid, to what degree has the current economic problem contributed to an increase in costs? In other words, have a dramatic number of new poor people signed onto Medicaid?
How much of these costs are inflated?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example.
Are you claiming that Benjamin Franklin thought, to use your words, that it's better for somebody to starve than for them to receive something they didn't "deserve"?
Posted by hef (Member # 12497) on :
I was actually telephone surveyed about this around a week ago. The number I was quoted wasn't 15K, but 11K. It was an incredibly biased survey that had many assumptions I found quite objectionable. The last question I was asked was if I considered myself a member of the Tea Party.
I don't think that aging baby boomers describes why the cost of health-care has gone up so precipitously. I have two friends who work for non-profit hospitals. One (in Atlanta) is in charge of giving away the excess money to various charities so the hospital can remain non-profit. The other (in Chattanooga) mentions the continuous brick-and-mortar projects his hospital engages in to remain non-profit. The conclusion I reach is that in non-profit settings, they simply charge too much money. In for profit hospitals, I can only assume that this money lines the pockets of the corporation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lyrhawn -- I don't have anything specific. Like I said, those were obvious reasons.
Another obvious reason is that the better we get at prolonging life, the longer those people are going to be receiving expensive. medical care.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I am talking less about individual well-defined individual religious beliefs than I am a pervasive thread of belief that is woven into the foundations of the US. We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example. It isn't a matter of individual evil; it is part of what we breathe. We don't even notice it but it colours the way we, as a country, think about the poor.
Ah, so people don't disagree with you because they have legitimate differences of opinion, but because they haven't yet worked their way past clouding influences like you have. That's horrible.
Take a look at Benjamin Franklin yourself -- his stated position is that he wants reduced welfare because he thinks it will lead to people being better off, but you've recast him as wanting welfare because he thinks poor people "deserve" to be poor, when quite the contrary, he talks about how removing welfare will lead to those same poor people not being poor (incompatible with what you've talked about the position being). Stop being dishonest about the positions of others.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And how much do you want to bet one of the deductions they try to eliminate is the home mortgage interest deduction, which, unless they merely cap it, will affect the poor far disproportionately to the wealthy.
Shouldn't that be the other way around? The majority of that tax benefit should go the rich. And it also is a subsidy from renters who tend to be less wealthy toward home-owners who tend to be more wealthy.
Read what I said again. It will affect the poor/middle class more than the wealthy. A thousand dollars (random number) means a lot more to a family of four making the median national average for household income than it does to someone living in a half million dollar house making multiple six-figures.
And you're right about the second part, which is one reason why I said I'm not exactly tickled by what the deduction does.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What's more, if Medicare costs the government 15000 per customer, why shouldn't individual customers be able to buy insurance at that average price? Presumably the insurance companies are making a profit at that level.
Medicare stands out for both the high level of customer satisfaction and its low administrative costs. Unless people are actually getting less services or some remarkably competitive market (of the sort that we've yet to see in private healthcare) emerges, then we should expect the same care to cost more money under this plan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyrhawn: That doesn't sound right.
Normally with tax brackets, if the family of four gets a thousand dollars (which would be a bit odd, here they pretty much wouldn't be taxed on a return*) then the person living in a half million dollar house will get much more than a thousand dollars.
*
quote:Because the MID is available only to the one third of taxpayers who itemize their deductions. These are mainly in the top half of households by income, with the highest percentage of itemizers in the top income tax bracket. Moreover, the MID is more valuable to itemizing taxpayers in the highest tax bracket than to middle-income taxpayers in lower tax brackets.
Since that family on the median income is much more likely to take advantage of social services, they're much better off with a slightly better funded government without the deduction than a slightly poorer government with the deduction.
Edit to add: In other words, eliminating the deduction would be a pretty progressive thing to do, which is why I suspect it won't happen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What is the justification for health costs spiraling out of control at such an incredibly rapid rate?
Two obvious reasons are the aging baby boomers and the constant invention and development of new (and usually more expensive) techniques, procedures, and equipment.
None of this explains why the cost of medical has risen faster in the US than it has in any other developed country. The average age of people in Japan and Europe is higher than it is the US and the life expectancy is longer. And yet, they spend about half as much per capita on health care as the US. In fact US health care is so much more expensive than any where else that Americans pay more in taxes for medical care than do the citizens of countries like the UK, Canada and France, even though our taxes only cover a small portion of the populations and theirs cover everyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example.
Are you claiming that Benjamin Franklin thought, to use your words, that it's better for somebody to starve than for them to receive something they didn't "deserve"?
No. I am claiming that Benjamin Franklin thought - or at least wrote - that virtuous people would be prosperous.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ah. I'm glad that we agree that there is a difference between the two beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:I am talking less about individual well-defined individual religious beliefs than I am a pervasive thread of belief that is woven into the foundations of the US. We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example. It isn't a matter of individual evil; it is part of what we breathe. We don't even notice it but it colours the way we, as a country, think about the poor.
Ah, so people don't disagree with you because they have legitimate differences of opinion, but because they haven't yet worked their way past clouding influences like you have. That's horrible.
Take a look at Benjamin Franklin yourself -- his stated position is that he wants reduced welfare because he thinks it will lead to people being better off, but you've recast him as wanting welfare because he thinks poor people "deserve" to be poor, when quite the contrary, he talks about how removing welfare will lead to those same poor people not being poor (incompatible with what you've talked about the position being). Stop being dishonest about the positions of others.
And why would Franklin think that the removal of assistance would make a poor person better off? How does taking something away from a poor person make them less poor?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve". It is built into our national psyche.
This is the position you say is grounded in Ben Franklin. Where are his statements in there, and where in there is what you just wrote?
quote:No. I am claiming that Benjamin Franklin thought - or at least wrote - that virtuous people would be prosperous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Ah. I'm glad that we agree that there is a difference between the two beliefs.
Do you understand how the one belief - that virtuous people are prosperous - could also encourage the belief that people who are not prosperous are also not virtuous?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"Could encourage" is a far cry from "always causes" or "is synonymous with". And even that is a faaaaaaaar cry from your original statement.
quote:And why would Franklin think that the removal of assistance would make a poor person better off? How does taking something away from a poor person make them less poor?
There's an important difference between not giving something and taking it away.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. How do we help a poor person be less poor by stopping the help he was getting?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Okay. How do we help a poor person be less poor by stopping the help he was getting?
Ben Franklin thought it was because people who are supported without working are less likely to work, as he said. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but being dishonest about what he said is no good.
And, whatever one thinks the most moral way is, he was demonstrably right that removing benefits could lead to people being less poor. For instance, the number of people leaving unemployment skyrockets just before unemployment benefits are up, no matter how the duration of unemployment benefits changes. That's pretty dramatic proof that removing the help people are getting induces, in many cases, a person to be less poor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So you take away that support thus making more likely to make someone work - and thus more virtuous. Work being considered a virtue. Can't you see how it all ties together? Why, we even have a special designation for those exceptional poor who are "deserving" poor the assumption being that most - or at least some - are undeserving.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And, whatever one thinks the most moral way is, he was demonstrably right that removing benefits could lead to people being less poor. For instance, the number of people leaving unemployment skyrockets just before unemployment benefits are up, no matter how the duration of unemployment benefits changes. That's pretty dramatic proof that removing the help people are getting induces, in many cases, a person to be less poor.
This is very far from "proof" of the claim for two key reasons.
1. People leave unemployment when they stop looking for a job, not when they find a job.
2. The closer people are to loosing their unemployment benefits, the more likely they are to accept a lower paying job for which they are over qualified. Over the long run, people are often better off continuing to search for a job than accepting whatever is available now.
3. Unemployment benefits are a percentage of the pay from your previous job. If you accept a job that pays less than your last one, you may end up poorer than you were accepting unemployment even in the short term.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The unemployment decrease right before the benefits run out seems likely to be desperation. When I have a little cushion, I will invest my time in good jobs vs say McDs, but when that cushion is gone, I'll take the crap job. Perhaps if I was still searching for a good job, a month later, I would have ended up better off, but instead I was working at McDs, so now I end up worse off over the long term. Even that supposedly straightforward and dramatic proof of taking away helping people may not be proof, without looking at income levels. I have not looked at that info enough to say for certain which way it goes.
ETA- or what Rabbit said.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Can't you work at McD's at night or on the weekend, while still looking for a "better" job?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Ace- nope the only shift they had open was 9-5. Also, assume no internet access at home (that costs money and you are broke) and no laptop so you can't hang out somewhere with wireless access which makes filling out job apps much more difficult.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with fugu's point that removal of unemployment benefits is an excellent way to ensure people get back to good, long-term secure work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Can't you work at McD's at night or on the weekend, while still looking for a "better" job?
Let's assume that you had a job earning $40,000 per year. You are a frugal individual, so you only need $20,000 of that income to pay all your basic bills (mortgage, utilities, transportation, food). That's typically what you are allowed to collect in unemployment. To make half your previous earning (after payroll taxes) at a minimum wage job you'd need to be work 50 - 60 hours per week.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I agree with fugu's point that removal of unemployment benefits is an excellent way to ensure people get back to good, long-term secure work.
My point was a little weaker than that: that the removal of unemployment benefits frequently (not necessarily in most cases, just many cases) leads to people returning to good, long-term secure work.
Additionally, that for people who return to such work it is better than having been on unemployment (both for themselves and for society).
This was in response to a statement that seemed to be implying that it was impossible for removing welfare benefits to improve someone's life.
What's especially relevant is, we aren't really talking about the remarkably good cash benefit program that is unemployment (not that it couldn't be improved), we're talking about the welfare programs in Franklin's day (insofar as we're talking about Franklin's positions), which were rather . . . less good.
quote:So you take away that support thus making more likely to make someone work - and thus more virtuous. Work being considered a virtue. Can't you see how it all ties together? Why, we even have a special designation for those exceptional poor who are "deserving" poor the assumption being that most - or at least some - are undeserving.
Wow. You can't talk about this at all without saying that people who disagree with you really mean something they most definitely haven't said (and are in some cases explicit about not meaning). That's awful.
Look at Ben Franklin's actual words instead of this fantasy you seem to imagine of them:
quote:I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
quote:Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
He is quite clear that he believes many people on welfare are perfectly capable of being better off, but that the existence of the welfare systems he saw was what was leading their lives to be worse off. That is his position, and you don't get to tell him it wasn't really his position, but that he thought the recipients of welfare were less virtuous. He explicitly states that he feels people will, as a whole, be better off without the welfare systems, not that people will be worse off but that's okay because the ones who are worse off aren't virtuous, as you've been repeatedly attributing to him. Stop being dishonest about the stated positions of others.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm right there with you actually, fugu (I can't tell if you're playin' along with me, heh). I only ever thought you were saying what you actually said: that the impending removal of benefits will in many cases be a solid motivator towards employment-JUST employment, mind, I was being over-the-top sarcastic with the type of employment (I point that out for kmbboots and AoS).
I'm really not sure WHAT I'd be accused of having believed if I hadn't stated explicately, recently, I thought this plan was bad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I am saying that it is a reflection of the Protestant work ethic to care whether someone took made Monday a holiday, whether they were industrious. It took Calvin to even make working for a living even respectable or Capitalism (investing money to make money) a way of life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You've said quite a bit more than that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If that's all you were saying, Boots, I don't think anybody would have gotten on your case.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're saying a heck of a lot more than that, unless you're ready to retract some of the things you've attributed to others falsely.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".
is far, far more than
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am saying that it is a reflection of the Protestant work ethic to care whether someone took made Monday a holiday, whether they were industrious. It took Calvin to even make working for a living even respectable or Capitalism (investing money to make money) a way of life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Triple jinx!
(Sorry, Rivka.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, whaddaya hafta do to get out of a triple jinx?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A triple lutz
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Triple Lindy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The triple jump.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There seems to me to be two ways to make a living. One is through work that produces some thing or service. The other is through non-producing earning. (NOTE: Not Non-Productive. Just, not actually making a product or service).
Productive work--called often Labor--is a virtue. It increases the worlds, nations, regions, etc's wealth.
Non-Productive--sometimes called gambling--has never really been called a "virtue". Sometimes it can lead into an increase in apparent wealth. Other times it allows for the increase in actual wealth.
Examples of Non-Productive Earnings are Gambling and Investing.
Does the guy who won the 300 Million lottery seem to be more virtuous, more deserving of that money than the guy who worked hard repairing cars and makes $35,000 that entire year? How about the person who worked 12 hour shift as a nurse in the hospital? We equate (thanks to Calvin) hard work with earned value. Gambling, getting money through luck instead of work, is less appreciated.
So a person who inherits money got that money through luck--who they happened to be related to--and not hard work.
Some hard work may have gone into keeping the rich relative happy--being kept in the will--but its not the same as the maid who cleans the mansion 5 days a week.
Investments are the same. Buying low and selling high, putting money to work so you don't have to, if done with effort, allows for labor to produce wealth. It is not production itself.
Here is the kicker before I have to leave.
It is impossible to become wealthy--truly successfully wealthy--without getting that wealth from Non-Producing Earnings.
Labor can, at best, get you into the middle class.
Labor is the virtue. Until 1600's, investments and gambling--non-producing earnings--was considered a major Sin.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Cynical musing: Maybe the idea is to farm out Medicare to industry so industry can ration care, rather than the government directly rationing care. This assumes that the political hit for farming out is less than the hit for directly rationing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:It is impossible to become wealthy--truly successfully wealthy--without getting that wealth from Non-Producing Earnings.
If I start a business, grow my business, and become wealthy, truly successfully wealthy, I have not gotten any of that wealth from Non-Producing Earnings.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Cynical musing: Maybe the idea is to farm out Medicare to industry so industry can ration care, rather than the government directly rationing care. This assumes that the political hit for farming out is less than the hit for directly rationing.
I have my suspicions as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:It is impossible to become wealthy--truly successfully wealthy--without getting that wealth from Non-Producing Earnings.
If I start a business, grow my business, and become wealthy, truly successfully wealthy, I have not gotten any of that wealth from Non-Producing Earnings.
I disagree. You aren't going to become extremely wealthy (like >10^8 wealthy) unless your business goes public and your stock skyrockets. Bill Gates didn't make his billions on profits from the sale of MS products, he made his billions on appreciation of MS stock. His earnings on MS stock are no different from the earnings of any other holder of initial offer stock.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Maybe that just means that without non-producing earnings, it's not possible to become obscenely wealthy?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The triple jump.
He even shows how to get out of a septuble jinx, twice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Maybe that just means that without non-producing earnings, it's not possible to become obscenely wealthy?
These sound like words spoken by someone who didn't have the good sense to be born to obscenely wealthy parents.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Or even truly successfully wealthy.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Or even comfortable. I think saving for retirement would be effectively impossible without non-producing earnings. Inflation would rapidly eat away what you managed to stick under the mattress.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".
is far, far more than
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am saying that it is a reflection of the Protestant work ethic to care whether someone took made Monday a holiday, whether they were industrious. It took Calvin to even make working for a living even respectable or Capitalism (investing money to make money) a way of life.
Of course, but it is all part of the same mindset. If a person was saved (which was decided by God and predestined) this would be evident in his prosperity. (And prosperous investments counted.) To way oversimplify, you could kind of tell who was saved by how prosperous they were. Poverty was (and is) seen as something shameful.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It is still a huge (and completely unfounded) leap from that oversimplification to that first quote of yours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You may not see it where you are, but in the debates over taxation and social programs, I see an awful lot of talk about "welfare queen" and people who "should have saved" and "why should I support people are too lazy to work". Just the other day, I came across a post on a religious site, "Instead of bashing successful people, why don't you encourage people to work harder.. The bible says "Teach a person to fish"..." Anger over "handouts" seems to be everywhere.
I am saying that the roots of this are deep.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course, but it is all part of the same mindset. If a person was saved (which was decided by God and predestined) this would be evident in his prosperity. (And prosperous investments counted.) To way oversimplify, you could kind of tell who was saved by how prosperous they were. Poverty was (and is) seen as something shameful.
I don't get it, kmbboots. I come at things quite differently than you do in many cases, so it's no surprise our conclusions will be quite different as well in just as many cases. It surprises and mystifies me sometimes, but that's life, right? People don't have to agree with each other.
But here, though...I mean, is fugu right? Can you really not talk about some charged political topics without saying your opposition believes and means things they haven't said, and even has said quite clearly they don't believe and mean? I admit it's often appeared that way to me in the past, that you ascribe terrible motives to people whose politics fundamentally disagree with you. But as frustrating as that perceived habit is - I wouldn't have said for certain I was right about it - I would remind myself, "Hey, not everyone has to agree, etc."
However, in this case, it seems pretty clear that you're not going to admit that far-right conservatives don't actually, deep down, object less to people starving than they do to people getting undeserved government support. People aren't even asking you to say that this works, just that these kinds of people believe it. But don't appear capable of admitting it, choosing instead to live in a world where your rivals in this matter are Dickensian.
But what about Franklin? At least you've got to admit you were flat-out wrong about him, right? I suppose it's possible you could come up with a quote that contradicts the references fugu found from Franklin, but in that case it would be a wash and you still wouldn't be able to claim Franklin as a supporter of this doctrine you believe he supported.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I disagree. You aren't going to become extremely wealthy (like >10^8 wealthy) unless your business goes public and your stock skyrockets. Bill Gates didn't make his billions on profits from the sale of MS products, he made his billions on appreciation of MS stock. His earnings on MS stock are no different from the earnings of any other holder of initial offer stock.
Can you be truly successfully wealthy without being a multi-billionaire? Is $2 million a year enough to qualify for the vagueness of truly successfully wealthy?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You may not see it where you are, but in the debates over taxation and social programs, I see an awful lot of talk about "welfare queen" and people who "should have saved" and "why should I support people are too lazy to work". Just the other day, I came across a post on a religious site, "Instead of bashing successful people, why don't you encourage people to work harder.. The bible says "Teach a person to fish"..." Anger over "handouts" seems to be everywhere.
I am saying that the roots of this are deep.
Yet again, this isn't even close to your claim that
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Can you be truly successfully wealthy without being a multi-billionaire? Is $2 million a year enough to qualify for the vagueness of truly successfully wealthy?
Well, there are two issues here I think. Wealth is a measure of assets, your net worth. Earnings (productive or not) is a measure of income.
Theoretically, you can be fabulously wealthy with no income (drawing down on a pile of cash under your mattress) and you can have very high income with no wealth (you blow everything on hookers and drugs).
So if I understand the definition of non-productive earnings (in context, sounds any income generated by investments as opposed to salary or employee/owner benefits):
$2 million a year doesn't necessarily tell us whether someone is wealthy or not.
It is also possible to become fabulously wealthy without non-producing earnings, you simply have to get your wealth without producing any investment income (such as capital gains in the Bill Gates example).
So one of:
a) Inherit massive wealth (ex: The Queen, inheritance isn't income) b) Take over a country and corrupt money (ex: Mubarak or Putin, corrupted money is not considered to be "earned", productive or not) c) Have some awesome string of luck and win the lottery repeatedly in a jurisdiction like Canada (no gift tax, lottery is not considered income)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Of course, but it is all part of the same mindset. If a person was saved (which was decided by God and predestined) this would be evident in his prosperity. (And prosperous investments counted.) To way oversimplify, you could kind of tell who was saved by how prosperous they were. Poverty was (and is) seen as something shameful.
I don't get it, kmbboots. I come at things quite differently than you do in many cases, so it's no surprise our conclusions will be quite different as well in just as many cases. It surprises and mystifies me sometimes, but that's life, right? People don't have to agree with each other.
But here, though...I mean, is fugu right? Can you really not talk about some charged political topics without saying your opposition believes and means things they haven't said, and even has said quite clearly they don't believe and mean? I admit it's often appeared that way to me in the past, that you ascribe terrible motives to people whose politics fundamentally disagree with you. But as frustrating as that perceived habit is - I wouldn't have said for certain I was right about it - I would remind myself, "Hey, not everyone has to agree, etc."
However, in this case, it seems pretty clear that you're not going to admit that far-right conservatives don't actually, deep down, object less to people starving than they do to people getting undeserved government support. People aren't even asking you to say that this works, just that these kinds of people believe it. But don't appear capable of admitting it, choosing instead to live in a world where your rivals in this matter are Dickensian.
But what about Franklin? At least you've got to admit you were flat-out wrong about him, right? I suppose it's possible you could come up with a quote that contradicts the references fugu found from Franklin, but in that case it would be a wash and you still wouldn't be able to claim Franklin as a supporter of this doctrine you believe he supported.
Rakeesh, I used Franklin as an example (certainly not alone) of the pervasive "work (virtue)= prosperity" ideology. Take a look at Poor Richard:
"Sloth makes all things difficult, but industry all things easy."
"God helps them that help themselves."
"At the workingman's house hunger looks in, but dares not enter."
"Be ashamed to catch yourself idle."
This is not meant as an indictment of Franklin - he was a great man in many ways - but as an example of the kind of thinking about work and prosperity and virtue that is part of the American psyche.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:$2 million a year doesn't necessarily tell us whether someone is wealthy or not.
With $2 million a year, I would be wealthy (at least, what I consider wealthy) in short order.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Too soon to tell.
Many people who come into wealth manage to blow through a lot of income with their income quickly rising to match expenses. Insert saying about "money corrupts"
(That said, "doesn't necessarily" gives my perception as to proportion)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Many people are morons.
In this specific, I am not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Too soon to tell Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, so fugu was right. I don't know if you're unwilling or unable to accept that while you might in fact be right about what Franklin actually thought about poverty, work ethic, and virtue, you don't actually have a means of knowing that for sure on the basis of what he is known to have said and written. You ought to stop speaking as though you do-and you certainly, certainly did mean it as an indictment of Franklin.
I arrived at that conclusion by reading your remarks on how bad prosperity theology is, and recalling things you've said about it in the past, your misattribution of beliefs to him, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is what I wrote about Franklin.
quote: I am talking less about individual well-defined individual religious beliefs than I am a pervasive thread of belief that is woven into the foundations of the US. We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example. It isn't a matter of individual evil; it is part of what we breathe. We don't even notice it but it colours the way we, as a country, think about the poor.
And clarified here:
quote:
quote: Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We were founded by people who held this belief. Look at Benjamin Franklin, for example.
Are you claiming that Benjamin Franklin thought, to use your words, that it's better for somebody to starve than for them to receive something they didn't "deserve"?
No. I am claiming that Benjamin Franklin thought - or at least wrote - that virtuous people would be prosperous.
Are you saying that Franklin's writings don't support the idea that virtuous people would be prosperous?
ETA: And as far as this being an indictment of Franklin, no it isn't. Any more than I would have indicted just about any American in our history. My mention of Franklin isn't to show that he was an especially bad; it was to show how widespread this ideology is. That perfectly nice, smart people believe it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Rakeesh, Examine this quote from Franklin carefully.
quote:I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Ignore for the moment the fact that Franklin's observation is contradicted by every study of poverty I've ever seen.
Is there a way to interpret this quote that doesn't essentially mean -- "The poor are poor because they are lazy, so the best way to help them is to motivate them to work by making their lives more miserable." I'll agree that Franklin has phrased it in more "polite" terms, but aside from that I'm struggling to see the difference.
There must be some other way to interpret it, because others here don't seem to be reading it that way, so please tell me what it might be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Every 'study of poverty'? Franklin lived in the eighteenth (and nineteenth) century. Good sociological studies hadn't exactly come in back then. So sure, I'll ignore that Franklin's observation doesn't coincide with a branch of science that didn't really exist yet.
As for another way to interpret it, the simplest most straightforward way to interpret that particular quote would be to remove the word 'lazy', something which might be supported by the words...but then again might not. Also, Franklin makes no reference at all to how they became poor in that statement. None whatsoever. Furthermore, he's not speaking in absolutes as your interpretation does.
And then of course we come back to the problem of this only being partially related to the idea of those believing in prosperity theology wanting people to starve more than they want people to get something they don't deserve.
I don't understand this dissonance. Is context and intent something that's important to understand unless it's a belief we really, really dislike?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Context is part of what I am trying to explain. I am trying to give some context to why we care about whether our tax dollars go to welfare queens or people who should have done a better job of planning for their old age or even lazy bums. It isn't because we are horrible people; it is because this idea has been part of us.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:$2 million a year doesn't necessarily tell us whether someone is wealthy or not.
With $2 million a year, I would be wealthy (at least, what I consider wealthy) in short order.
Fewer than 1 in a thousand American households earn $2 million/year or more a year. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think you'd be really hard pressed to find anyone (short of pro-athletes and fortune 500 CEOs**) with that kind of income that wasn't earning a significant fraction of it from investments.
**Whether or not pro-athletes and CEOs deserve those huge salaries is the subject for another debate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Case in point: context and intent aren't just for your point of view. They're also for the points of view you really, really dislike. One might even claim that someone who believes something you strongly disapprove of also has some underlying intention, some reasoning behind it that renders them more than a caricatured stereotype.
'Context' isn't what you're trying to explain. Context is not the word used when someone `splains how their side is virtuous and awesome and complicated, and the other side is ill-informed, dumb, and vaguely malignant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you even reading what I am writing?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Every 'study of poverty'? Franklin lived in the eighteenth (and nineteenth) century. As for another way to interpret it, the simplest most straightforward way to interpret that particular quote would be to remove the word 'lazy', something which might be supported by the words...but then again might not. Also, Franklin makes no reference at all to how they became poor in that statement. None whatsoever. Furthermore, he's not speaking in absolutes as your interpretation does.
You haven't actually answered my question. Yes, Ben Franklin is more polite, so he doesn't use the word lazy. But the fact that he says it in a nicer way, does not imply he meant anything different.
He says that he thinks the best thing we can do for the poor is to motivate them to work harder by making being poor less comfortable.
Does this not very directly imply that the poor lack the motivation to work hard (i.e. they are lazy)? Is there another way to understand this that I'm missing?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Are you even reading what I am writing?
Ow. My head hurts. Reading what people write? Look, that's not necessary here. I know, based on my interpretation of what you're saying, what you really mean deep down in your mind. It's not necessary to read what you said.
Though in point of fact I did. I was juxtaposing your eagerness to explain your context with your willingness to dismiss their context, that context being that they feel their outlook is a means to diminish poverty and starvation in the long run.
---------
Rabbit,
You asked for another way to interpret it-I said to remove the word lazy. Once you remove that word, it becomes much more, almost entirely, neutral in terms of morality. If you forcibly insert it, though, you're basically now reading his mind.
"Just because he says something different, doesn't mean he meant something different." A good approach is to start by not approaching your opposition as though they believe terrible, easily-dismissed things. Though that does make politics more fun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I have been trying to explain the context of the beliefs I don't hold - trying to put the idea that people should and do get what they "deserve" and that if they are virtuous and work hard they will be prosperous into an historical and philosophical and religious context. Are you using the word context in a way I don't understand?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You asked for another way to interpret it-I said to remove the word lazy. Once you remove that word, it becomes much more, almost entirely, neutral in terms of morality. If you forcibly insert it, though, you're basically now reading his mind.
Take the word lazy out if you like. Is there any way to make sense of Franklin's quote if you presume that the poor are highly motivated to work regardless of whether or not they are receiving help?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I have been trying to explain the context of the beliefs I don't hold
This is why we've objected -- you've gotten it terribly, terribly wrong, and in a way that only makes sense if you assume that those you disagree with are moral cretins.
Such as when you said that this is part of the same mindset:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you claiming that Calvin didn't see prosperity as an indicator of grace? That we weren't founded by people who were heavily influenced by Calvin? That we don't equate work and prosperity with virtue? That we* don't get bugged when people who don't deserve help get handouts?
What part of this is "terribly, terribly wrong"?
*Yes. "We". It bugs me too even though I know it shouldn't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You've put forth evidence supporting a claim that people are bothered by others getting handouts they don't deserve.
But nothing that you've said or shown justifies this:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't "deserve".
Kate is not justified in accusing all conservatives of such sentiment and I'm sure that few if any conservatives would admit to holding such sentiments.
But I hear conservatives express outrage over "welfare queens", "entitlements" and "hand outs" far far more frequently than I hear them express outrage over homelessness, malnutrition and poverty. Even in Sunday School discussions where we are studying scriptures on the importance of helping the poor and giving to beggars, I hear lots of outrage expressed over those who take advantage of charity and very little expressed over the plight of the working poor. It saddens me greatly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think it applies to all conservatives - nor do I think that allconservatives are hell bent on making the US a third world country. I do think that the sentiment/ideology I have been talking about - and trying to put in some historical context - is a big part of why we see cutting programs for the poor and elderly and ill as a viable solution.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
mph, As a latter day saint, you have very likely been in an adult Sunday school class studying King Benjamin's speech on several occasions. I've been in such classes at least half a dozen times and every time, when we get to the scripture that says
quote:And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
there are those who argue adamantly that homeless people don't deserve our help and that it's actually wrong to give to them. This argument generally prevails even though it contradicts the scripture in every way.
Why do you suppose that so many LDS people are more vocal about their outrage over homeless people buying alcohol, than mentally ill people dying on the streets in the winter?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think it applies to all conservatives - nor do I think that allconservatives are hell bent on making the US a third world country. I do think that the sentiment/ideology I have been talking about - and trying to put in some historical context - is a big part of why we see cutting programs for the poor and elderly and ill as a viable solution.
Which sentiment/ideology are you talking about? The one where industriousness and prosperity are linked to virtue, or the one where it's better to see somebody starve than to see them get an undeserved handout? You keep equating the two, but they're not the same thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rabbit -- I taught such a lesson two weeks ago and while we spent a lot of time discussing who needs help, and opportunities to serve others in the community that we might have been unaware of, not one person said anything along the lines of what you're describing.
I have heard similar sentiments in the past, though.
I also think it's a mistake to try to judge how important something is to people by how vocal they are about it. By that metric, Charlie Sheen is terribly important in a lot of people's lives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't think it applies to all conservatives - nor do I think that allconservatives are hell bent on making the US a third world country.
To be honest, I don't think any conservatives actually want to make the US a third world country. I do think that the policies that conservatives support ARE making the US into a third world country, but I don't think that's their actual goal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not equating them; I am saying that they are connected. That the seeds of one are in the other.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Inevitably?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure what you are asking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... By that metric, Charlie Sheen is terribly important in a lot of people's lives.
Seems about right.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, you're saying that one idea that some people do believe, a belief that is quite pervasive in our culture, either can or does lead to another belief which grotesque and despicable.
Do you believe that it is inevitable that the first leads to the second? If you believe the first, do you automatically believe the second?
Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Inevitably?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It implies a projection into future societies and cultures.
Is industriousness inevitably linked to prosperity? Is idleness inevitably linked to poverty?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So, you're saying that one idea that some people do believe, a belief that is quite pervasive in our culture, either can or does lead to another belief which grotesque and despicable.
Do you believe that it is inevitable that the first leads to the second? If you believe the first, do you automatically believe the second?
Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough? And if working hard is a virtue, are they not virtuous enough?
ETA: And even if you can, do you think that most people will?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough?
Yes.
Now, please answer my question.
--
Rabbit, see my above clarification.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
Is it possible to be more outraged by freeloaders than by starving people, and yet believe its better for someone to get handouts they don't deserve than for them to starve to death?
Is it possible to be more outraged by starvation than freeloading, yet more vocally outraged about freeloading?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do think that the policies that conservatives support ARE making the US into a third world country, but I don't think that's their actual goal.
This. To the jillionth power. This is something I can agree with as being a fair-minded statement, though I disagree that these policies would make us into a Third World country-that's just hyperbole, though the policies are badly regressive.
But what I quoted above is radically different than saying 'prosperity theology conservatives would rather people starve than people get what they don't deserve'. That's inaccurate (again). Prosperity theology conservatives think the act of giving people what they don't deserve leads, in the long run, to more people starving.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough?
Yes.
Now, please answer my question.
Okay. I am curious as to how.
I don't think it is inevitable. I do think that it creates a climate where such sentiments flourish and thus it becomes "morally acceptable" to cut assistance to poor and elderly. It makes such questions as whether they deserve it or whether it is "fair" to give them something they haven't earned part of the equation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But what I quoted above is radically different than saying 'prosperity theology conservatives would rather people starve than people get what they don't deserve'. That's inaccurate (again). Prosperity theology conservatives think the act of giving people what they don't deserve leads, in the long run, to more people starving.
Because they believe in prosperity theology. That if people are good enough or saved enough they will be prosperous. And that if they are not it is because they are not saved.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
I think the belief that the virtuous will prosper leads inevitably to a condemnation of those who do not prosper. I think when people see poverty as evidence of moral failing, they feel less compassion for the poor.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sounds at the base, like a belief in a just-world .
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
I think the belief that the virtuous will prosper leads inevitably to a condemnation of those who do not prosper. I think when people see poverty as evidence of moral failing, they feel less compassion for the poor.
Or if not less compassion, less compulsion to do something about it and more justification for not helping.
Mucus, I think that the just world idea is part of this as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because they believe in prosperity theology. That if people are good enough or saved enough they will be prosperous. And that if they are not it is because they are not saved.
I understand prosperity theology, and the conclusions you're drawing about them from their belief in it. The conclusion I take issue with is the one that has been quoted at least half a dozen times now, "They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't 'deserve'." They are outraged by people starving. They're also outraged by people getting something they don't deserve. They think the solution to both problems is the same. For them, it's a pretty nifty problem because it's so easily solved. Two birds, one stone.
And, lest I be misconstrued, I think they're quite mistaken, and personally I think one's material wealth in the world isn't a crappy indicator of one's standing with eternity, it's not relevant to those questions at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure I understand your last sentence.
Why do you think that they think the solution to both problems is the same?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure I understand your last sentence.
Why do you think that they think the solution to both problems is the same?
Because kate, they believe (as did Ben Franklin) that giving stuff to poor people actually causes more poverty.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As for answering the question and admitting that, thank you.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted byr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough?
Yes.
Okay. I am curious as to how.
How is it possible? Many ways. The two aren't contradictory at all.
I believe that hard work and industry are virtues. I believe that if I work hard, I will likely prosper. I have been blessed with relatively good health, with an above-average intellect, with the opportunity to get a good education, and a good job. Barring tragedy, I expect to do well for myself and my family. This prosperity is dependent both on the aforementioned blessings and on my own hard work. If I had not worked as hard as I did in the past, I would not be as prosperous today.
I believe that there are people who fail to prosper because they are lazy. I believe that this is a character flaw.
There are also those who are incredibly rich and who are equally lazy. This too is a character flaw.
I believe that there are many reasons that people are poor that have nothing to do with their personal work ethic. Life is not a level playing field, and not everybody has the same opportunities. Some people get a raw deal, and no amount of personal industry will reverse that.
This makes it so that you cannot know how hard somebody works based solely on how prosperous they are.
But as a general rule, I think that if you work hard, you will prosper more than you would otherwise. It doesn't mean that you'll prosper more than others prosper, just more than you would have if you didn't work hard.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* That's technically accurate but stated in such a way as to be misleading. (Not sayin' that was your intent, though.)
"They believe (as did Ben Franklin) that giving stuff to poor people actually causes more poverty in the long run, because it cannot be sustained over time." There are of course a few problems with this belief, not least of which is its inherent misstatement of the application and intent of welfare-that it's just 'giving' poor people stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you are virtuous you will prosper. You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached. That is a difference between you and many of our founding fathers and was clearly disputed by evidence. You seem to believe that all thing being equal, working leads to more prosperity than otherwise. But when since the dawn of history have all things been equal?
The Rabbit, I know why they thought giving stuff to poor people causes more poverty. Rakeesh, I am not even sure why you are arguing with me anymore.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I never claimed to believe that. You're trying to change your question after I went to the effort of replying to it. Here's what you asked:
quote:Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough?
This is what I was replying to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. I lost track of which point we were talking about. It was an error rather than a deliberate change. I should have written "work hard" instead of "are virtuous" in that last post. It should read like this:
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper. You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached. That is a difference between you and many of our founding fathers and was clearly disputed by evidence. You seem to believe that all thing being equal, working leads to more prosperity than otherwise. But when since the dawn of history have all things been equal?
Does that make more sense?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay, I'm wading in.
quote:I think the belief that the virtuous will prosper leads inevitably to a condemnation of those who do not prosper. I think when people see poverty as evidence of moral failing, they feel less compassion for the poor.
This is how I was raised. I was taught that the poor are poor because they choose it, and they have the opportunity to get out of poverty anytime they want to but they choose not to.
As I got older I began to view things a little differently. As mph stated, hard work will generally make you more successful than not working, but there are plenty of people who are rich but lazy, and people who work very hard yet remain poor.
Then I took classes in my education study that focused on the effects of generational poverty, and what happens to people raised in it - what their worldview is, etc. And I said "Oh, okay, I see. that's why the cycle of poverty is so hard to break. They don't view money the same way I do. They don't value the same things I do...and I don't value the same things they value. My middle class protestant worldview is not the same as theirs."
So I went into my teaching positions at urban, primarily high poverty schools thinking I had the information I needed to make an impact. I could help students, education was the way out, I could make an do something and I understood the barrier, so now I can break through it.
Two years later I am almost exactly back where I started. I'm jaded, cynical, and ready to ascribe everything to the laziness of those in poverty.
Why? Because I've given all I have to my job, as do most of the teachers I know (not all, certainly, but most). I offer students ways out - I teach content they need to know to be successful on college entrance exams. I use projects in my class that focus on their futures and their opportunities - we examine careers, we focus on ways to get funding for college even if your parents can't help you, etc., etc. Our counselors spend long hours helping students - they are very good at getting them into college.
But most of the students that leave our high school and enter college drop out in the first year.
There's a reason there is high burnout among urgan teachers, social workers, counselors and others that work with people in poverty. You feel you like you have done your best, worked your hardest, and the people you are trying to help don't seem to care. I offer my students a way out of their life, but they would rather deal drugs and live a life of crime, poverty, and an almost guarantee of an early, violent death.
When you see that day after day it's easy to say "they have a chance out, but they don't want to do it."
So I have no answers, but just wanted to talk from the perspective of someone who is tired. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you are wealthy and powerful (and want to stay that way), you need to convince lots of other people that they want you to stay wealthy and powerful. This is why in every era of the world, the ruling class has promoted a belief system that said it was moral for them to remain the ruling class. In ancient Egypt, the Pharoah was a God. In feudal times, Kings and noblemen ruled by "divine right". When the Feudalism gave way to mercantilism, a new dogma was needed to explain why merchants who were able to amass great wealth had the moral right to that wealth and power. Calvinism provided that moral justification. The basic underlying idea, that wealth makes right is a pervasive part of our culture. Even though few people believe it when spoken in those terms, it's influence is pervasive in our laws, culture and attitudes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper.
Yes I do.
quote:You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached.
Yeah, I don't believe that it's an absolute truth, that it trumps everything else in the universe.
But I still believe it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Belle, would that you (and others like you) were enough. I taught in an inner city school and had a sort-of opposite response. I was teaching younger children, though, and didn't do it long enough for the kids to burn me out. I was burned out by the system.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper.
Yes I do.
quote:You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached.
Yeah, I don't believe that it's an absolute truth, that it trumps everything else in the universe.
But I still believe it.
It is an "if/then" statement. Do you believe that a slave will prosper if he works hard? Putting a "sometimes" in there changes it. You even gave examples where it wasn't true at all.
ETA: How do you makes sense of, "Some people get a raw deal, and no amount of personal industry will reverse that" but if you work hard you will prosper. Do you mean in the next life or something else I am not getting?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Like I already said, I believe that it's a general rule. It is not without exceptions.
And, barring tragedy in my future, I believe that I am not one of those exceptions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@Belle and kmmBoots
I have a friend who studied to be a teacher in urban schools. She originally was in a program (City Year) being something like a student-teacher to elementary school kids. She found that experience rewarding. She didn't necessarily reach everyone, but she reached a few individuals. She's continued to try and be involved in their lives since. (It was obvious that their parents were doing a horrible job, and without some kind of continuous mentor they'd be completely lost)
Later on she got an actual job teaching in middle school, and her experience was essentially Belle's. She quit a few months ago due to the endless stress and lack of anything to make her feel like it was worthwhile.
Generalizing from those (hers, boots' and Belle's) examples, I'd guess that the biggest problem is bad parental role models, and you can only really address that problem when the kids are young enough that they haven't fully absorbed their parent's worldview. And you need to be involved enough with individual kids long enough to make a difference. Essentially you need to be willing to be a parent, or close to , which is one of the hardest jobs out there.
I'm sure this isn't exactly a new idea for Belle or anyone else. But it seems like trying to fix things through the existing system is basically hopeless, but if you're able to tutor individual kids, you might make a difference (not in the overarching problem, perhaps, but at least in individual kid's lives).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's a reason there is high burnout among urgan teachers, social workers, counselors and others that work with people in poverty. You feel you like you have done your best, worked your hardest, and the people you are trying to help don't seem to care. I offer my students a way out of their life, but they would rather deal drugs and live a life of crime, poverty, and an almost guarantee of an early, violent death.
When you see that day after day it's easy to say "they have a chance out, but they don't want to do it."
So I have no answers, but just wanted to talk from the perspective of someone who is tired.
My experience is quite different from yours and yet there are similarities. I'm currently teaching at a University in a developing country so I'm dealing with poverty issues from a different angle. Like you, I had came hear with a lot of idealism and hope. After 3 years, I'm tired and demoralized. There are just so many cultural and systemic issues that prevent real change.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Like I already said, I believe that it's a general rule. It is not without exceptions.
And, barring tragedy in my future, I believe that I am not one of those exceptions.
If you believed you would be one of those exceptions, that no matter how hard you worked you weren't going to be able to make ends meet, what would it change.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no idea what you're looking for.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Moving farther away from a government-pay healthcare. BAH!
Why bah? That's a good thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Start a foundation to raise money to be given to elderly or poor who can't afford medical care. If everyone who is so eager to force others to pay would work to raise the money without force, I bet they'd have some good results.
That's the moral hazard in having the government do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have no idea what you're looking for.
An honest answer.
Do you work hard primarily because you believe you will be rewarded financially for doing so, or would you work hard even if you had little to no hope for financial reward?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why bah? That's a good thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:An honest answer.
That was entirely uncalled for.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:An honest answer.
That was entirely uncalled for.
I think you completely misread my tone on that. I did not mean to imply that you don't normally give honest answers. You said you didn't know what I was looking for with my quesiont. I was trying to say that question wasn't fishing for anything in particular or trying to catch you in some corner, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the question.
If you did not believe you would be rewarded financially for working industriously, would you keep doing it? I find it a thought provoking question myself and I'm interested in hearing other peoples response.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll tell you this -- if I were independently wealthy, I certainly wouldn't keep my current job. It's a good job, but I'm definitely in it for the money.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Rabbit, you're double-posting again.
fixed
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Boots, going back to what we were talking about earlier:
Yeah, my position on the matter isn't absolute. It's got a little bit of nuance. It's not a blind reiteration of what I've heard from others. I'm not a moron or a monster. I think that's true of most of the people you demonize.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Porter, I'll get back to this tomorrow when I have a computer.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Rabbit, I am interested in the studies you mentioned on the last page. My basically entire experience comes from my mission (experience in this area). I dealt with (as in was in contact with for multiple days) several hundred people who were on welfare or something similar while serving there (Spokane, WA mission). My experience was almost unilaterally that of the conservative argument, that those who were on welfare were not looking for work, had no ambitions to rise out of the situation they were in or get off of whatever form of welfare they were in. This same group also shared a lack of desire to improve in any other area of their lives. In fact, in my albeit limited experience there the only other social force that was as destructive to individuals was drugs (part of why I don't find jokes about meth to be funny, ever). I have never, and am no now, claiming that my experiences are proof of anything, nor have I advocated destroying the welfare system. Yet I am curious as to explanations and I'm supportive of what I would term "progressive reform" (a term that means something specific to me, not a general term) for welfare.
All of which I add in the hopes of, in some way, contributing to the discussion as well as explain why I'd be interested in studies on this.
[As a side note, not meant as a put-down on anyone here but more as a fyi, one of the reasons I rarely participate in these discussion is that I'm pretty sure that if I do it at the beginning of the discussion someone will call me heartless and accuse me of wanting to either destroy the country or kill helpless thousands. Which I've discovered hurts, even when I don't know who the heck someone is posting here, so I've stopped. At least at the beginning of threads].
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Hobbes, The specific claim I was referring to is this one.
quote:I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Now I have no idea what Franklin did or did not observe in his travels, but this is certainly not true to day. Those countries with the best social welfare systems also have the least poverty. They have also experienced the greatest decrease in poverty over the past 50 years.
I know that there are many poor people that have no motivation to work or improve their lot. The question is whether welfare and other social program are the cause of this lack of motivation and I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion.
[ April 07, 2011, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I see. I was referring to this:
quote:Ignore for the moment the fact that Franklin's observation is contradicted by every study of poverty I've ever seen.
I read your links. Well the second one anyways, the first was a link to a one page document (the rest wasn't viewable without subscription) on "Antipov's Nikiforov Syndrome: The Embedded Novel in Trifonov's Time and Place". I have to admit I was throughly unconvinced by it [the second one, not the first of course ]. The point seems to be two: after distributing more wealth from up to down there's more wealth down. And two, this clearly isn't having a negative impact on economic growth because the economies of these nations show no statistical correlation to their welfare program. The first point is hardly surprising (and the paper admits that, thus the inclusion of the second point), the second point is very poorly supported. Also, how well the economy grows as a result of welfare isn't my primary concern, my primary concern is that those on welfare long term seem to be generally de-motivated for life in all aspects.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: [QB] I see. I was referring to this:
[QUOTE]Ignore for the moment the fact that Franklin's observation is contradicted by every study of poverty I've ever seen.
Yes, and I was clarifying that by "Franklin's observation" I meant his observation that in countries where more aid was given to the poor, the poor faired worse than in countries where less aid was given.
That is the observation which is contradicted by studies. I think the data in the two studies I linked to is fairly unequivacal on this sole point. Countries with stronger social welfare programs (like Norway, Germany and Sweden) do not have more poverty than countries like the US with weaker social welfare programs. Those same countries have also seen a greater decline in poverty over the past 50 years than the US.
Whether or not the studies support or contradict any broader contentions about the benefits of welfare is perhaps debatable, but they do very clearly contradict the observation that countries that give more assistance to their poor have more problems with persistent poverty. If you disagree, please explain why?
[ April 07, 2011, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MPH, I don't think and have not ever said that I think you are a monster or a moron. Nor do I think that Hobbes is heartless. And though I think that just reading stories from the forum communities that we share would be enough to disabuse you of the notion that hard work is any guarantee of prosperity, I certainly hope that nothing happens to change your mind about your own prosperity.
Let's say for argument's sake that the poor are poor because they are lazy. They could work but are unwilling and that is not going to change. Should we feed, cloth, and provide them with a place to live and necessities for life?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Should we feed, cloth, and provide them with a place to live and necessities for life?
In this hypothetical, is it possible to make them less lazy via education?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:MPH, I don't think and have not ever said that I think you are a monster...
Not me specifically (and not those specific words), but on many occasions you have essentially said that of large groups of people. More often than not, I'm a member of those groups you demonize.
Like at the beginning of this thread where you indicated that conservatives are so monstrous that they would rather see somebody starve than receive an undeserved handout.
quote:And though I think that just reading stories from the forum communities that we share would be enough to disabuse you of the notion that hard work is any guarantee of prosperity...
Disabuse me? If you think that I believe in this, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In this hypothetical, is it possible to make them less lazy via education?
Heh. Sometimes it seems like my education was designed to teach me how to be lazy and still get acceptable results.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:MPH, I don't think and have not ever said that I think you are a monster...
Not me specifically (and not those specific words), but on many occasions you have essentially said that of large groups of people. More often than not, I'm a member of those groups you demonize.
Like at the beginning of this thread where you indicated that conservatives are so monstrous that they would rather see somebody starve than receive an undeserved handout.
quote:And though I think that just reading stories from the forum communities that we share would be enough to disabuse you of the notion that hard work is any guarantee of prosperity...
Disabuse me? If you think that I believe in this, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.
But you have said that you believe that work will make you prosperous. As a general rule. How many exceptions must there be for it not to be a good general rule?
Do you think that one has to be a monster to rather see someone starve than get what they don't deserve? I don't think so at all.
ETA: I'm a liberal and it is a close thing for me. It still makes me furious to give a handout to someone on the street even though I can spare it and he is hungry. Why the hell should I give this bum my hard earned money? I don't think I am a monster for thinking it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Heh. Sometimes it seems like my education was designed to teach me how to be lazy and still get acceptable results.
Come to think of it, so did mine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Let's say for argument's sake that the poor are poor because they are lazy. They could work but are unwilling and that is not going to change. Should we feed, cloth, and provide them with a place to live and necessities for life?
Let's say that I personally think that the answer is yes -- it is my duty to help people regardless of how much they deserve it.
It does not follow from this that I believe that it's necessary or even acceptable to force others to do so, as is the case with taxpayer-funded welfare programs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you think that one has to be a monster to rather see someone starve than get what they don't deserve? I don't think so at all.
Absolutely. And frankly, I can't believe that you don't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think it is acceptable to force me to pay for military efforts I don't personally agree with?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But you have said that you believe that work will make you prosperous. As a general rule. How many exceptions must there be for it not to be a good general rule?
If you know that I believe there are exceptions, you KNOW that I don't think that it's a guarantee.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
It does not follow from this that I believe that it's necessary or even acceptable to force others to do so, as is the case with taxpayer-funded welfare programs.
Is it then reasonable to conclude that you find people starving preferable to government programs that force people to pay taxes to help the poor?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you're talking about me, no, it's not reasonable to conclude anything about what I personally find preferable based on a strictly hypothetical conversation.
If you're talking hypothetically, no, because you've skipped over a lot of other things that need to be true in order for your statement to be reasonable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Do you think it is acceptable to force me to pay for military efforts I don't personally agree with?
I think that there's a very real cost any time we force others to pay for things against their will. The bar for "is this something that we should do" is almost always lower than "is this something that we should do and force everybody to pay for".
But there's still a bar, and there are situations that meet that bar.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was that a yes or a no?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Do you think that one has to be a monster to rather see someone starve than get what they don't deserve? I don't think so at all.
Absolutely. And frankly, I can't believe that you don't.
So on those occasions where I am sufficiently angry about handing our money to panhandlers that I don't give them money, am I being monstrous?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Neither. It's a "It depends on the specific situation."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I am getting the feeling that this conversation has run its course and that not much is going to be forthcoming from you. Rather than hound you into engaging, I am just going to let it go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Should we feed, cloth, and provide them with a place to live and necessities for life?
In this hypothetical, is it possible to make them less lazy via education?
Nope. Why does it matter?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Do you think that one has to be a monster to rather see someone starve than get what they don't deserve? I don't think so at all.
Absolutely. And frankly, I can't believe that you don't.
So on those occasions where I am sufficiently angry about handing our money to panhandlers that I don't give them money, am I being monstrous?
When you didn't give the panhandlers money, did they starve? Did you know that they would starve? When you knew that they were starving, were you upset that other people were giving them money? Were you more upset by that than by the fact that they were starving?
If the answer to all of these is yes, then absolutely, you were acting exactly as monstrously as you described conservatives as being.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. I am getting the feeling that this conversation has run its course and that not much is going to be forthcoming from you. Rather than hound you into engaging, I am just going to let it go.
I don't know where you're getting this from. You asked me my opinion, and I gave you my full opinion.
The answer isn't a simple yes or no.
In fact, I was considerably more forthcoming than if I had simply said yes or no, because I gave you the reasoning for my answer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can never anticipate how off the wall Hatrack's discussion is going to be on something I crosspost here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"It depends on the situation" without giving the situations and "it's not reasonable to conclude anything about what I personally find preferable based on a strictly hypothetical conversation" feel like evasion. And I am still boggled by the things you say you believe even though you know they aren't true though I think that has reached a dead end as well.
But it really isn't worth getting contentious about it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I am still boggled by the things you say you believe even though you know they aren't true though
That's because you keep reading into what I say things that I never said. Things that are directly contradicted by what I did say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You do know that I am not trying to, right? The things you write seem to me to contradict each other.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that it's something you do. I've seen other conversations that you had with people that ended the same way., with you frustrated that they keep contradicting themselves and with them frustrated that you keep reading into their posts things that they've explicitly denied.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you understand why I might think that when you say you believe if X then Y (if work, then prosperity) with no qualifiers then lots of people for whom work has not brought prosperity would change your mind.
If not, we can just blame it on me and my lack of reading comprehension.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
...where did Porter say he believes if work, then prosperity with no qualifiers? Perhaps I'm missing something, but a quick look on page three shows at least two places where he very specifically states he believes there are qualifiers. Or are you using a general 'you' and not talking about Porter at all?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you understand why I might think that when you say you believe if X then Y (if work, then prosperity) with no qualifiers then lots of people for whom work has not brought prosperity would change your mind.
Um, said that I believe that if I work, I will prosper, and explained what I meant by that, you replied by saying that I don't really believe it, since there were qualifiers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I responded with this:
quote: M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper. You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached. That is a difference between you and many of our founding fathers and was clearly disputed by evidence. You seem to believe that all thing being equal, working leads to more prosperity than otherwise. But when since the dawn of history have all things been equal?
And he responded with the unhelpful:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper.
Yes I do.
Again, how many exceptions does a rule have to have before it isn't really a rule to believe in?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is the problem here that you believe I was using the word "you" to mean just you in particular?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You're leaving out the second half of that post you're quoting. That part that explains the first half:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached.
Yeah, I don't believe that it's an absolute truth, that it trumps everything else in the universe.
But I still believe it.
I made it clear that I do believe that if I work I will prosper, with conditions.
As you made it clear that you knew that there were conditions to that belief.
--
quote:Again, how many exceptions does a rule have to have before it isn't really a rule to believe in?
I assumed this was a purely rheotorical question, as I can't come up with any answer that would do anybody any good.
You seem to be going back and forth getting on my case for having qualifications, and then getting on my case for not having qualifications to my belief.
quote:Is the problem here that you believe I was using the word "you" to mean just you in particular?
While I did assume that your "you" meant me in particular, I don't think it really changes much if you didn't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Heh. Sometimes it seems like my education was designed to teach me how to be lazy and still get acceptable results.
Come to think of it, so did mine.
Absolutely. This seems the case for most people. I didn't learn how to actually work hard to get results until I got a job.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you understand that believing "sometimes work brings prosperity if certain other things are also true" is not the same as "work brings prosperity"?
For me, there is a huge gap between the two.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course! "Work brings prosperity" is vague. Without explanation, you don't know whether there should be a "always", "generally", etc. in thrown in there.
But I gave you that explanation.
You keep reading "always" into what I must mean, despite my explicit and repeated denial.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Work brings prosperity" is a promise. There is nothing vague about it. It meant, in terms of Calvinist thought, that if you were saved you would show that in terms of work and that would be evident by your prosperity. "God helps those that help themselves." Really? Look at the Franklin quotes - mine and Fugu's. Again, I am not saying that Franklin was a bad guy; I am showing a common way of thinking.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"Work brings prosperity" is a promise. There is nothing vague about it.
That is simply not true unless you read into it things that are not there.
quote: It meant, in terms of Calvinist thought, that if you were saved you would show that in terms of work and that would be evident by your prosperity.
From what I have explained in this thread, it should obvious that this is not what I mean when I say it.
I'm OK with that -- I make no claim to be a Calvinist.
quote:"God helps those that help themselves."
This too is vague. Just because I believe that God helps those who help themselves does not mean I believe that God only helps those who help themselves.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I was explaining Calvinist thought in America. You may not be a Calvinist, but our founders (not just the important ones, but people in general) were.
It doesn't necessarily mean that God only helps those that help themselves but it does mean that if one helps himself that God will help him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Or that he is more likely to.
eta: To clarify, I could have said the above like this:
Just because I believe that God helps those who help themselves doesn't mean I believe that he only helps those who help themselves, or that he always helps those that help themselves.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Just because I believe that God helps those who help themselves doesn't mean I believe that he only helps those who help themselves, or that he always helps those that help themselves.
Yes, it does mean "always." When making a statement "if P, then Q", the default assumption is "if P, then always Q" not "if P, then sometimes Q." If you mean sometimes, you need to specify sometimes. And the difference between a sometimes statement and an always statement is huge.
(Since Calvin may not have made rigorously correct logical statements, I have no idea what his actual beliefs were. But when we're at this level of conversation, you are obligated to make your statements mean what they actually say, and clarify when you have no idea what the actual statement was)
quote:quote: "Work brings prosperity" is a promise. There is nothing vague about it. That is simply not true unless you read into it things that are not there.
Logic breakdown (not addressing port's particular beliefs, just the particular statements in question)
There's two statements that have been sort of used or implied in the past few pages:
A) "If you work, you will be prosperous" (i.e. 'work brings prosperity')
And:
B) "If you work, you will be more prosperous than if you didn't work."
Neither statement says that working is the only way to become prosperous. But it does say that if you work, your prosperity will increase. (A implies it'll reach a specific threshold, B implies it'll just be a little greater than it would have otherwise)
Given statement a), the following is also true:
A2) If you are not prosperous, you can't have worked. (If you'd worked, you'd be prosperous)
Kmmboots is (I think) making the statement:
"If you believe that 'if you work, you will prosper,' (with no caveats) then you must also believe that if you didn't prosper, you didn't work, therefore you were lazy."
The only point I see to disagree with is at the "therefore you are lazy" part.
Whether that's statement is true depends on what you mean by "work." For example, pushing a rock up a hill all day for no payment is hard work. You can have a poor person who does that, and is clearly not lazy (because they're doing all this work) but who never prospers because they're working the wrong way.
So you could believe:
"If you do (the right) work, you will prosper. But not everyone knows what the right work is. People who don't prosper are then either too lazy to work, OR they are not doing the right work."
I don't know what Ben Franklin's particular take on that was.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yes, it does mean "always." When making a statement "if P, then Q", the default assumption is "if P, then always Q" not "if P, then sometimes Q." If you mean sometimes, you need to specify sometimes. And the difference between a sometimes statement and an always statement is huge.
I disagree.
When I am hungry, I eat. When I am thirsty, I drink. When I am tired, I sleep.
These are true statements despite the fact that I do not always eat when I am hungry, do not always drink when I am thirsty, and sometimes stay up far too long when I'm tired. I never claimed otherwise. It's intended as a general statement describing what I generally do.
And in the case we're talking about, I repeatedly and explicitly said that it was a general rule. General rules always have exceptions. And if that was unclear, I explicitly said that there were exceptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Raymond, Calvin's take on it was more like, ""If you believe that 'if you work, you will prosper,' (with no caveats) then you must also believe that if you didn't prosper, you didn't work, therefore you were (here is the change) not one of the saved."
ETA: Again, oversimplified but I am talking about a pervasive attitude as much as specific doctrine.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh my. Are you calling Benjamin Franklin a Calvinist? Benjamin Franklin was a strong anti-Calvinist. What's more, less than a third of the signatories on the Declaration of Independence were Calvinists (even stretching the definition to members of all sects that were considered Calvinist, despite those groups often rejecting the part of Calvinist theology you're talking about -- there was only one person who was directly a Calvinist), including few of the most famous group. Sam Adams was one of the few famous Calvinist founding fathers. Much of the praise heaped upon Calvin particularly by the founding fathers was for his contributions to religious liberty, not the views you are talking about.
In other words, this mantra you have been repeating about the founders being Calvinist is at best grossly exaggerated, but really just plain wrong. It was enlightenment thought that was driving the thinking of the time, that was influenced by parts of Calvinism, that also placed a value on work, but that did so while recognizing the importance of societal institutions in people's ability to better themselves.
And again, look at Franklin's quotations. He explicitly states that it is the existence of the welfare programs that he believes are keeping people poor, and that if the welfare programs were removed, he believes most of those people would cease being poor, and that thus he supports the removal of those welfare programs.
Certainly he believed in the value of hard work -- that's why he wanted to construct an environment where hard work was rewarded. But he also believed the poor under welfare systems were capable of such hard work, as he explicitly states. Stop falsely attributing the position to him that he didn't think the poor were willing to work hard, that "if you were saved you would show that in terms of work and that would be evident by your prosperity" -- he says the opposite! How do you keep failing to read what he wrote?
Not that I expect you to ever do this. You're too entrenched in your own false beliefs about the beliefs of others.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:And in the case we're talking about, I repeatedly and explicitly said that it was a general rule. General rules always have exceptions. And if that was unclear, I explicitly said that there were exceptions.
The disconnect here is (I think) due to different levels of logical rigor. When you're spending FOUR PAGES arguing about semantics, you're either ranting for fun, or you need to actually use precise language. We are far past the area where "When I'm hungry, I eat" should be considered a true statement if you're actually trying to reach an understanding.
I think kmmboots did read into statements you made in ways you didn't intend. But when SHE said:
quote:"Work brings prosperity" is a promise. There is nothing vague about it.
She's referring to the literal meaning of that phrase, not a colloquialism.
It is debatable what people ACTUALLY believe. But it's not debatable that if people *actually* believe that particular phrase, they must believe other things by extension.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I can never anticipate how off the wall Hatrack's discussion is going to be on something I crosspost here.
Same here. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back here, year after year.
Some of our BEST conversations over the years started in threads that had nothing to do with the topic eventually being discussed, or in threads that were spawned by unrelated conversations in another thread.
It's also why I laugh when new people try and insist the thread "stay on track", particularly if they started the thread. I would have missed out on SO MUCH good stuff if it HAD been possible to force people "back on track" that it boggles the mind.
Well, MY mind, anyways. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fugu, I think Franklin was great. You don't need to defend him. Again, I was just using him as an example of the pervasive attitude toward work that stemmed from Calvinist origins. Would you at least agree that the Pilgrims and Puritans were Calvinists and that they had a profound influence on the country?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We are far past the area where "When I'm hungry, I eat" should be considered a true statement if you're actually trying to reach an understanding.
Reaching an understanding in such a case should not be difficult when the person elaborates that a) they're talking about the general case and b) there are exceptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. You were saying that when you said it there are exceptions and I was saying that it isn't the same thing with exceptions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And I agreed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did you? Okay. Now that we are there.
Do you understand that people who lived in a society that believed the statement without explicitly named exceptions could also come to believe that those who didn't prosper, didn't work, weren't virtuous, and were undeserving of help? Bearing in mind the whole just world theory as well.
I can break that into smaller steps if we need to.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(phrasing things as "do you understand" is kinda inherently condescending, or at least comes across that way to me)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Do you understand that people who lived in a society that believed the statement without explicitly named exceptions could also come to believe that those who didn't prosper, didn't work, weren't virtuous, and were undeserving of help?
Duh. Of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Do you understand" is not meant to be condescending. It is me checking where we are. Nor is the remark about smaller steps. I was making a couple of bigger leaps there and acknowledging it.
Okay. I think that we live in a society that is still coloured by those ideas and that it is understandable rather than monstrous for people to believe that some people don't deserve help.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That seems like a reasonable statement to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Fugu, I think Franklin was great. You don't need to defend him. Again, I was just using him as an example of the pervasive attitude toward work that stemmed from Calvinist origins. Would you at least agree that the Pilgrims and Puritans were Calvinists and that they had a profound influence on the country?
I would consider it more convincing that you wanted to use him as an example if you didn't keep lying about what he said.
Yes, Calvinist thought had a major influence on this country -- as I explicitly said in the very post you're responding to. That doesn't mean that the founding fathers "were" Calvinist -- they weren't,, no matter how much you assert to the contrary, or that anyone influenced by Calvinist beliefs has the attitude that the poor deserve not to be helped (even if the person buys into the belief that it is mostly the poor's fault, it doesn't follow that they believe support for the poor should be removed).
I don't think you realize that in this conversation it is you who is drastically (and insultingly) misunderstanding everyone else, not the other way around. It isn't that if you could just make people understand your argument, you'd convince them.
You asserted that the sort of people who support this bill think poor people don't deserve assistance. That is drastically wrong. Are there some people who believe it? No doubt yes. But no, most conservatives (on this board or otherwise) do not believe it. Most Republicans (in Congress or otherwise) do not believe it. This is amply demonstrated by action -- for instance, charitable giving that helps the poor is high among Republicans, and that is incompatible with the belief you have ascribed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fugu, have you not seen the signs, for one small example, complaining about government handouts?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You asserted that the sort of people who support this bill think poor people don't deserve assistance.
Discounting extremely weird and disregardable fringes, at worst you have 'poor people don't deserve government assistance, because charity will cover all real needs' — which still isn't the same thing.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The problem with "Charity will cover all Real needs." is how does a charity define a real need?
A religious charity is well within its right to define people in real need as those needy enough to sit through a sermon in order to get help, or to get baptized, or to switch to Islam, or to vote Republican, etc.
The reason that the government got into the welfare business was because charities were not able to help all those in need.
The question seems to boil down to which is preferable--having adults who are not really in need get welfare checks or having 1 baby in need starve. Do we go with a system that is too lenient, or to we put up with the cheats and lazy bums to make sure we help as many of the truly needy as possible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The question seems to boil down to which is preferable--having adults who are not really in need get welfare checks or having 1 baby in need starve. Do we go with a system that is too lenient, or to we put up with the cheats and lazy bums to make sure we help as many of the truly needy as possible.
Why shouldn't we help the cheats and the bums? Why assume they don't need it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Fugu, have you not seen the signs, for one small example, complaining about government handouts?
Perhaps you confuse believing there should be assistance given to the poor with disagreeing that particular government programs do it, or the government do it at all.
What's more, perhaps you confuse the some with the most, or the many.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does private charity suffice? Has it ever?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why shouldn't we help the cheats and the bums? Why assume they don't need it?
I think the assumption is that the cheats and bums would benefit more from getting a job than from receiving a handout and that the handouts enable self destructive behavior. I do think there is at least some truth in this.
I think it is a genuine moral dilemma. Sometimes people will in fact step up when aid is refused. Other times, when aid is refused people end up homeless and die of exposure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If they have enough(decent food, safe shelter and so forth) via assistance without stepping up, should we care if they step up?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Does private charity suffice? Has it ever?
That's a different question. You're making assertions about people's beliefs. Even if those beliefs are not the best beliefs (as nobody's beliefs are), you don't get to say they don't believe them. Don't try to change the question because you don't like how your previous argument looks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I really wish you would stop accusing me of far worse than I am accusing anyone of.
So are you saying that people, despite everything, think that private charity is enough? Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I think the assumption is that the cheats and bums would benefit more from getting a job than from receiving a handout and that the handouts enable self destructive behavior. I do think there is at least some truth in this.
I think it is a genuine moral dilemma. Sometimes people will in fact step up when aid is refused. Other times, when aid is refused people end up homeless and die of exposure.
Definitely. This is a vast, complicated question that involves complex interactions that can mean things that look like they help can really do more harm than good -- for instance, look at the emerging consensus that western aid to many countries in sub-Saharan Africa is net detrimental, despite its huge magnitude.
That complexity is why it is so harmful to misconstrue and demonize the positions others hold about such problems.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I really wish you would stop accusing me of far worse than I am accusing anyone of.
So are you saying that people, despite everything, think that private charity is enough? Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
Contained in here is, I think, the source of most of our confusion. People believe wrong things all the time, for a variety of reasons. There's nothing uncharitable about pointing that out. And I consider it far more charitable than saying they're evil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good lord. I am not demonizing those people and their positions I am excusing them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, where, where did I say anyone was evil?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I really wish you would stop accusing me of far worse than I am accusing anyone of.
You're accusing people of having beliefs they would consider morally repugnant. Oh, and of being stupid:
quote:So are you saying that people, despite everything, think that private charity is enough? Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
I think you've shown quite well that you feel it is necessary to make people you disagree with into idiots and horrible people, instead of dealing with their beliefs directly and forthrightly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Good lord. I am not demonizing those people and their positions I am excusing them.
You've said people hold positions they don't hold, that you consider morally much worse than the positions they hold, and tried to say that they must hold the positions they don't hold because they're logical extensions of their position (even though your argument in that direction has been ludicrous). That's basically the definition of demonizing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. I haven't. Where did I call anyone stupid or horrible or evil? I have said repeatedly, that they are not horrible people. I have even given an example of how I share the attitudes I ascribe to them.
ETA: Man, talk about accusing someone of beliefs they don't hold. Should I feel demonized?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why shouldn't we help the cheats and the bums? Why assume they don't need it?
I think the assumption is that the cheats and bums would benefit more from getting a job than from receiving a handout and that the handouts enable self destructive behavior. I do think there is at least some truth in this.
I think it is a genuine moral dilemma. Sometimes people will in fact step up when aid is refused. Other times, when aid is refused people end up homeless and die of exposure.
Another issue is that we are genuinely dealing with scare resources here, in terms of public goodwill and the actual money involved when compared to the scope of poverty and disease throughout the world.
It makes sense to prioritize higher those that can genuinely be lifted out of poverty or to make a difference in fighting disease. (And prioritize lower, those who actually have some alternatives)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:If they have enough(decent food, safe shelter and so forth) via assistance without stepping up, should we care if they step up?
Yes.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus, are we really dealing with scarce resources?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:If they have enough(decent food, safe shelter and so forth) via assistance without stepping up, should we care if they step up?
Yes.
Hobbes
Why?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't see any reason why wouldn't care unless the only marker of a successful society was the total people alive and even then if we only cared about a few years worth of the future. Though you've been coy about it I take it you don't think it's important?
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that work is a better marker of a successful society. Nor do I think that supporting the relative handful of people who would do nothing is enough to do us any real harm.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, are we really dealing with scarce resources?
Yes, especially in terms of goodwill. But money as well if we're not tracking how effective that money actually is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure what you mean by effective? Are we effectively feeding, housing and clothing people? That could be pretty well tracked. Also, it would put money back into circulation - buying food, clothes, and so forth - so that is good, too.
But in terms of good will? I am trying to figure why that will isn't there.
(If it were just that people are evil, that would be easy.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Effective in terms of solving the problem, e.g. raising people out of poverty (permanently). If there are X people that require money periodically to sustain them and Y people that simply need money once, then it makes sense to prioritize the latter first, let them contribute to the economy, and then address X afterwards. And as The Rabbit points out, if it turns out that the people in group X can better sustain themselves with a job anyways, then its a win-win.
As for goodwill, it should be fairly obvious that there is a fairly limited supply of goodwill for welfare and foreign aid. (Maybe we can figure out how to deliver those in bomb form)
Edit to add: Here's an example, fugu has pointed out that huge amounts of aid in Africa are detrimental. Assuming thats true, throwing more money at the problem not only makes the problem worse, but it reduces the likelihood that people will contribute to future programs that actually might be beneficial.
[ April 07, 2011, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Where did I call anyone stupid or horrible or evil?
Your description of conservatives preferring to see a person starve than receive a handout (not the version you applied to yourself, which was very different) was horrible and evil. (I am saying that what you described was horrible and evil, not that you were.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't see any reason why wouldn't care unless the only marker of a successful society was the total people alive and even then if we only cared about a few years worth of the future.
I can think of many other measures of "success" such as happiness and health. These measures are, incidentally, high in societies with substantial welfare programs, universal health care, etc.
Clearly there must be some economic productivity for a society to thrive, but I don't know that productivity should be a universal measure of success.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:No. I haven't. Where did I call anyone stupid or horrible or evil? I have said repeatedly, that they are not horrible people. I have even given an example of how I share the attitudes I ascribe to them.
Look at the post of yours people keep referencing where you falsely describe people as holding a position you find morally repugnant! Look at your post not far above this, which says people are either stupid or hold a position that you find morally repugnant! Read your own posts! I would keep quoting them, but apparently that doesn't make you read them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. I was aking if you thought they were stupid. I think that while lots of people believe things that are clearly not true, sometimes there are reasons.
If I thought that people who hold the position I suggested were morally repugnant, I would have to find almost everyone and myself just as morally repugnant. There are millions of people starving that I do nothing about. I, if it comes down to it, would rather people starve than than give up various luxuries. For example. That, if anything, should be more morally repugnant than our cultural inclination to be angry when people get things we don't think they deserve. What it isn't is as easily tapped into by politicians who want to cut social programs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
You give only two possibilities: stupidity, or having the position you find morally repugnant. You have excluded the position many people specifically state they hold (as I had just pointed out): that charity for the poor is important, but not the business of government.
How else should your statements have been interpreted? What possibility do you allow for in the post other than stupidity or holding a position contrary to the one people state (and act as) they hold?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think "would rather let people starve than have to government help them' is less repugnant?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Do you think "would rather let people starve than have to government help them' is less repugnant?
Try to consider if maybe there are other options. I don't hold out much hope, despite their mention in this thread, but maybe it'll happen.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Kmmboots, I don't think I know what you actually are trying to say. But when everyone in the thread thinks you're demonizing the opposition, you shouldn't be trying to explain why that isn't what you said. You should be trying to figure out why the wording you used gave everyone that impression. And then not use that wording again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you think "would rather let people starve than have to government help them' is less repugnant?
For pity's sake. That's not what they believe. They believe that having the government help them* will lead to more people starving in the long run.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, or a belief that makes a whole lot of sense. I'm not asking you to agree with that-and I don't think anyone else is either. All I'm asking you to accept is that this is what they believe. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on. I believe they are as intelligent and have the same motivation and ability to be informed as anyone else. So why?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on.
This is what it always comes down to with you: refusing to believe that people can possibly believe what they SAY they believe.
Your lack of imagination and empathy are really rather impressive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on. I believe they are as intelligent and have the same motivation and ability to be informed as anyone else. So why?
So why? You've had a few examples of why someone might believe such a thing in this very thread, recently. Your response to those examples is to suggest they're probably not intelligent, informed people, or that there's something else going on.
My initial reaction to Hobbes's post was to think he was being a little thin-skinned, but then I reasoned that everyone's got a different threshold for what bothers them, and (of course) it's his decision, obviously. Then I thought about it for a moment and realized, in this discussion - with these participants, and I thought at the time of you particularly - that his reluctance made more sense. I didn't say so because that'd be an uncalled for, insulting thing to say, and I wasn't sure I was right anyway.
I didn't expect to see his reluctance be proven so accurate so clearly so quickly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is saying that I assume that someone is intelligent the same as suggesting they are not intelligent? How is asking why someone believes something the same as saying they don't believe it? ETAF I've read over my exchange with Hobbes. I was neither insulting nor did I suggest that he was heartless. It would have been nice to have been treated with as much restraint.
[ April 07, 2011, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You haven't asked if they believed it. You've stated they are either lying about what they believe or are stupid (if you want, I can quote where you say that again, but it seems useless).
Whatever, this is useless. Rivka's observation is extremely accurate, unlike your ability to remember what you've written.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on.
There's the problem right there -- your refusal to accept that it's possible for good, intelligent, informed people to hold certain views that you disagree with.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be fair, boots has said 'there must be something else going on' for someone who is intelligent and informed to believe thus and so. That's not quite saying, "You're lying," but it requires about as much extra leaping as does the whole 'if they don't prosper they're lazy and unworthy according to these beliefs' as is going on.
I know you think you weren't insulting. But you have said it doesn't make sense for someone who is intelligent and informed for someone to believe in ways they have described themselves as believing in this thread, recently. Furthermore they've given reasons why they believe some of these things. But you still say there's no reason for them, if they're intelligent and informed, to believe that way-unless there's something else going on.
Given what you're actually saying, and given what you started saying - that these people would rather see people starve than they get what they don't deserve - you're being treated with quite a lot of restraint.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure how "you say you hold certain beliefs but you really don't" could be anything other than an accusation of lying, but fair enough. Replace "lying about what they believe" with "really believe something they say is not what they believe, which would be amoral according to what they say they believe".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When people looking at the same data reach wildly incompatible conclusions there has to be some reason for it. That doesn't mean I doubt that they are coming to the conclusions they say they are.
So "starve" is the word that is such an obstacle? Fine. I retract "starve". How about "go hungry" or "suffer from malnutrition"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on.
There's the problem right there -- your refusal to accept that it's possible for good, intelligent, informed people to hold certain views that you disagree with.
Is it a problem to necessarily consider people, perhaps, 'good, intelligent, misinformed' if they hold a view that you, with a fair degree of research into it, find to be fundamentally bogus on one or more levels?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:When people looking at the same data reach wildly incompatible conclusions there has to be some reason for it.
Yes. The reason is that people are different with different experiences, and those different experiences have led them to expect different outcomes from the same stimulus.
That does NOT mean either one is wrong or evil. It doesn't mean either one is stupid.
Assuming that not only one of you must be wrong/evil or stupid, but that it MUST be the other person because of course YOUR experiences are the only true ones, is a serious problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I thought people were merely stupid or heartless or evil, or morally repugnant, or even misinformed that would be an easy answer. I wouldn't be bothering to have this conversation. There would be no reason to ask why. Why is this country, peculiarly among developed nations, so reluctant to take care of our poor, ill, and elderly? What is different about us from France or Germany or Ireland or Canada or Sweden that makes this such a problem? Since I don't think that half our population is more heartless, or stupid, or selfish, or evil, or misinformed, it must be something else.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, they have access to information or experiences that you do not have or are choosing to ignore.
Instead of trying to figure out what is wrong with them and assuming you have all the relevant information, maybe you could figure out what you don't know and then try to learn it.
Several people have offered suggestions of where to start.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote: What is different about us from France or Germany or Ireland or Canada or Sweden that makes this such a problem?
Maybe the Revolution with a healthy portion of settlers' independent streak?
Maybe a side-effect of the troubles?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: At a glance, that would explain why Australia has a similar senior poverty rate to the US. Not sure how to explain Ireland though which is surprisingly high. http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/images/retirement_1-eng.jpg
Maybe a side-effect of the troubles?
I suspect the high poverty rate among the elderly in Ireland has to do not with current troubles but with past troubles. Thirty years ago, Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe, now its one of the wealthiest. The GDP per capita in Ireland nearly tripled between 1995 and 2008. That suggest that most of the elderly were earning a lot less during their productive years than current workers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ireland is mostly Catholic. No Protestant work ethic there.
Edit to clarify: There are Protestants in the North but it doesn't have the same deep Puritan roots as we do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I suspect the high poverty rate among the elderly in Ireland has to do not with current troubles but with past troubles.
Thats what I suspected too. I probably should have capitalized "the troubles" to make it more explicit as The Troubles.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would have said that you were more accurate without making that explicit. The Troubles refer to N. Ireland and the past 40-50 years or so. Ireland's poverty is a result of 800 years of British occupation, war, theft, and starvation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sure.
Anyways, my main thought was just that swampjedi's independent settler idea does seem consistent with separating out US+Australia versus Canada/UK/Europe.
I have no strong feelings/thoughts about the others in the middle though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I suspect the high poverty rate among the elderly in Ireland has to do not with current troubles but with past troubles.
Thats what I suspected too. I probably should have capitalized "the troubles" to make it more explicit as The Troubles.
Possible, but since The Troubles predominantly affected north Ireland, which is part of the UK, and the 31% elderly poverty rate is for the Republic of Ireland, I think its less likely.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Wasn't Canada also settled by independent, freedom loving Protestants? Sure, there are some Catholic French Quebecers--but when you think of the independent minded, individualist, its hard to imagine anyone tackling the same frontier as the US, but 20 degrees colder as being similar.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The earliest European settlers were mostly French, Scottish, and Catholic. The Jesuits were big in Canada. British a bit later but Loyalist.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
That's why I included the American Revolution in my guess.
My grasp of Canadian history is woeful, but I don't recall a similiar definitive "breaking ties" event like the US had. I welcome correction if I am wrong, though.
ETA: The "making it for yourself" part should still be similiar, though. After all, the American Dream used to be more attainable, at least when there was unsettled land to be had.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So I take it nobody's actually defending the Paul Ryan budget?
Good.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, I think there is a big cultural difference. Personally, I kinda feel like we didn't "really" gain independence until Trudeau repatriated the constitution. So thats like a 200 year difference in how much we wanted independence Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
Observation: I was watching the news and a contributor (not a reporter) made a statement to the effect of, "Obama stayed out of most of the budget debate that has been going on and has only gotten really involved at the very end." This statement is a fact. The reporter interviewing the contributor then said something to the effect of, "I agree with you that Obama should have gotten more involved earlier in this debate." This statement is an opinion.
It very well might have been the contributor's opinion that Obama should have gotten involved earlier. However, that is not what the contributor said. I, for one, appreciate when a reporter focuses on fact rather than opinion. So, for me, while this tangentially is related to the budget issue, I've noticed that reporters do this on occasion (on all news channels) and it drives me CRAZY! Am I correct in my analysis? And, if so, am I justified in being frustrated by it? And, does this warrant a whole 'nother thread?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So I take it nobody's actually defending the Paul Ryan budget?
Good.
This is clearly not the place for that.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Well, I think there is a big cultural difference. Personally, I kinda feel like we didn't "really" gain independence until Trudeau repatriated the constitution. So thats like a 200 year difference in how much we wanted independence
Ornery Americans... Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So I take it nobody's actually defending the Paul Ryan budget?
quote:Ryan has moved us off Unreality Island. He is forcing Americans to confront the implications of their choices. With a few straightforward changes, his budget could be transformed into a politically plausible center-right package that would produce a fiscally sustainable welfare state while addressing the country’s structural economic problems.
I tend largely to agree. Maybe block grants for Medicaid are a bad idea, but they do solve a fiscal problem. Maybe fixed revenue Medicare needs to be balanced with (in Brooks terms) `technocratic' rationing. Maybe the tax target should be 20% of GDP instead of 18%.
But, in general, if we want to continue being taxed at about the rate we're being taxed today (and by 'we' I mean those in the under $250,000 category whose taxes President Obama has promised not to raise), the Ryan budget is about the level of government we should expect. The alternative is to raise taxes (not just on the rich, but on the middle as well) to pay for more benefits. I'll be interested to see whether Obama's budget will embrace such tax increases or if it will instead decrease benefits. My hope is that he'll adopt the Simpson-Bowles' recommendations (which includes both tax increases and benefit cuts); my anticipation is that he will do neither, validating our collective cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I've read the Brooks article. In my opinion, it's a joke. There are many arguments in there that don't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Example:
quote:As my colleague David Leonhardt reported in The Times, two 56-years-olds with average earnings will pay about $140,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes over their lifetimes. They will receive about $430,000 in benefits. This is an immoral imposition on future generations.
That doesn't follow at all. Above-average wage earners will mostly receive no more benefits from Medicare than average ones (probably less, on average, since they may have actual insurance they like better). So it may be that their higher Medicare taxes will go quite some distance toward covering the cost of the average wage-earners.
Here's how much you should trust that Brooks article (it also addresses the issue of whether middle-class taxes would have to be raised to maintain our current level of spending):
quote:Fact-checking David Brooks could be a full-time job. Just yesterday, he wrote this about the federal budget problem:
>Raising taxes on the rich will not do it. There >aren’t enough rich people to generate the tens >of trillions of dollars required to pay for >Medicare, let alone all the other programs.
Almost every word of this is wrong.
Medicare doesn’t require “tens of trillions,” unless your budget horizon is something like twenty years. This year, Medicare will cost $572 billion. In 2020, according to the CBO, it will cost $949 billion. Over the next ten years, it will cost $7.6 trillion, which isn’t even a ten of trillion, much less “tens of trillions.”
...
Right now, the top 1% of the U.S. pop has something like $1.4 trillion in income. The next 4%, $1.3 trillion. The next 5% has almost a trillion. (Computed from Piketty and Saez data here.) In other words, you could entirely fund Medicare by hitting up the top 1% for about a third of its income. Yeah, I know that’s politically impossible, but they’ve got the money—we just can’t have any of it.
Of course this comes from a very liberal source, but the numbers by themselves are what matter to the point at hand, and I don't think he's lying about those.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
From the link:
quote:In other words, you could entirely fund Medicare by hitting up the top 1% for about a third of its income.
Wow. If it takes 1/3 of the wealthiest one percent's income just to fund Medicare, let alone SS, defense, Medicaid and the rest, it seems to sort of prove the point. I'm not opposed to raising taxes, but I just don't think there's sufficient potential revenue in the top bracket to pay for spending at the current levels. Either something must be cut or taxes must be raised broadly. Preferably both (ala the Simpson-Bowles proposal).
From early tea-leaves reading (based mainly on stuff David Plouffe said over the weekend), it looks like Obama's proposed budget will increase top bracket taxes, leave middle class alone, and take a 'scalpel' to Medicare. I think he'll need to cut a lot with the scalpel to make up for not raising taxes more broadly.
<edit>And Henwood's suggestion of single-payer as the solution to the Medicare/Medicaid problem is short-sighted. During the 90s, US healthcare costs grew less rapidly than several single-payer systems. The problem of cost growth doesn't seem to have been solved in other countries that have moved to a single-payer system.</edit>
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Fair enough, but it was a thought experiment rather than a serious proposal. As he said, raising the top bracket taxes that much in the present environment would get you killed politically. The point was that Medicare is nowhere near as expensive as Brooks implied.
By "increase top bracket taxes," do you mean he'll actually raise them, or just roll back some of the unfunded temporary tax cuts put in place by Bush?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Fair enough, but it was a thought experiment rather than a serious proposal. As he said, raising the top bracket taxes that much in the present environment would get you killed politically. The point was that Medicare is nowhere near as expensive as Brooks implied.
By "increase top bracket taxes," do you mean he'll actually raise them, or just roll back some of the unfunded temporary tax cuts put in place by Bush?
I don't know. This article from Daily Kos explicitly links Plouffe's statements to repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I don't see that anywhere explicitly in the text of Plouffe's statements (but I haven't read a full transcript).
<edit>Here's the transcript from Meet the Press (note: the labels of who is speaking seem to be off) in which the only mention of the Bush tax cuts is by Paul Ryan saying his plan makes them permanent. I'm not sure why Kos thinks Plouffe was saying Obama's budget will roll back Bush tax cuts. That may have been his meaning, but it's not made explicit in his statements. Instead, he just says that those fortunate enough to have enough could pay "a little more.
Here's the quote:
quote:I think the president's goal, and he's been clear about this, is to protect the middle class as we move forward here. So people like him, as he'll say, who've been very fortunate in life, have the ability to pay a little bit more . Now, under the Republican Congressional plan, people over $250,000 get over a trillion in tax relief. So this is the important thing, you're making a choice. You're asking seniors and the middle class to pay more. You wouldn't be having to do that if you weren't giving the very, very wealthiest in this country just enormous tax relief.
From a framing perspective, Plouffe's use of "tax relief" should be really troubling to Progressives. He's already conceding the cognitive frame that taxes are a burden from which we need relief.</edit>
<edit2>Furthermore, if he's talking about repealing Bush tax cuts he's only talking about doing it for those with incomes over $250,000, essentially making the cuts on those below that threshold effectively permanent. Again, I think this should be very troubling to Progressives, because it means the President has already accepted that he can't raise taxes on the broad middle.</edit2>
[ April 11, 2011, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So I take it nobody's actually defending the Paul Ryan budget?
Good.
Dest, I'm pretty sure you meant this as meaning that you are glad that no one here is supporting this budget and are glad for people's discernment, but I've got to say, it comes across as more than a little tinged with the idea that it's good that no one dares to express support of it here, no matter if they do support it. I think the latter idea, and I'm not saying that you intend it this way, something to shy away from even giving the impression of.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I entirely agree, and I'm sorry if I gave anyone that impression. I can see how it might seem that way from the wording. There is some bullying that goes on here, and I don't want to be a part of that.
I was mainly trying to get at the fact that -- as was immediately pointed out by the careful commentators out there -- the Ryan budget simply ignores present-day realities about how much money is needed to run the government, instead pretending that we can dial general spending back to 19th-Century levels. In that sense it's not a serious proposal, and I would be sad to see people defending it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:From a framing perspective, Plouffe's use of "tax relief" should be really troubling to Progressives. He's already conceding the cognitive frame that taxes are a burden from which we need relief.
Yeah, hopefully it was a slip of the tongue. "Tax relief" is up there with "collateral damage" in my dictionary of favorite politically-whitewashed phrases.
quote:Furthermore, if he's talking about repealing Bush tax cuts he's only talking about doing it for those with incomes over $250,000, essentially making the cuts on those below that threshold effectively permanent. Again, I think this should be very troubling to Progressives, because it means the President has already accepted that he can't raise taxes on the broad middle.
I'm not sure I get why this should be a concern for liberals. He wants to tax the rich way more than the non-rich, and this should bother me why?
(Especially since the top 1% has been doing so very well compared with the middle class of late.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm not sure I get why this should be a concern for liberals. He wants to tax the rich way more than the non-rich, and this should bother me why?
(Especially since the top 1% has been doing so very well compared with the middle class of late.)
From what I can tell, if you want to maintain spending at current levels (about 25% of GDP), you need to broaden the tax base, which means raising taxes on the middle class. Just raising taxes on the uppermost 1%, even if you raise those tax rates extremely high, won't do it; there just isn't enough potential revenue there. The other option is to cut government spending, which is (outside of Defense spending) something that Progressives (here and elsewhere) have generally equated with balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly and defenseless. That's why I think Obama's insistence that a middle class tax increase is off the table should be troubling to Progressives.
<edit>I guess according to Reich, if we raise taxes on the wealthy to 70% (or 85% after including state and local taxes) that would generate enough revenue to keep spending at 25% of GDP. But Obama isn't proposing anything more than raising the top bracket to appr. 40%. If that's as far as he's willing to go, and there are no other increases to speak of, then the level of revenue won't be more than about 20% of GDP, by my rough calculation. If that's the case, then (absent eliminating all defense spending) Progressive favored programs have to be on the chopping block if we want a sustainable level of spending.</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's that important to save those poor oppressed rich people and their diminishing share of the pie or something
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If I can't trust someone to keep their promises, why would I believe that calling it a "covenant" and getting their signature in blood would make a difference?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If I can't trust someone to keep their promises, why would I believe that calling it a "covenant" and getting their signature in blood would make a difference?
Let us say you are hypothetically an old, white, heavily religious conservative easily pandered to?
*pans camera to crowd in video*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If I can't trust someone to keep their promises, why would I believe that calling it a "covenant" and getting their signature in blood would make a difference?
Let us say you are hypothetically an old, white, heavily religious conservative easily pandered to?
*pans camera to crowd in video*
Rabbit looks at crowd and wonders why "obese" seems to correlate with that same demographic.
[ April 13, 2011, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
without the prominent obesity, you lose the dramatic irony when you have large quantities of health issues and diabetes that turn them into even more of a bubbling fiscal disaster under the ryan budget!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: without the prominent obesity, you lose the dramatic irony when you have large quantities of health issues and diabetes that turn them into even more of a bubbling fiscal disaster under the ryan budget!
It really boggles the mind to think that the old, overweight guy with the cane on the front row is gung-ho to cut medicare and social security. Even if he is in the over $250,000 a year tax bracket (which seems improbable), paying his own medical bills is going to cost him a whole lot more than the proposed modest increase in his taxes.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
What do you guys think of the do nothing plan Slate proposed? They claim if Congress does nothing, everything will work out. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed giving us that revenue source, the AMT fix will go away giving money there, caps on paying medicaid drs will stay in place, cutting costs there, etc.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm not sure I get why this should be a concern for liberals. He wants to tax the rich way more than the non-rich, and this should bother me why?
(Especially since the top 1% has been doing so very well compared with the middle class of late.)
From what I can tell, if you want to maintain spending at current levels (about 25% of GDP), you need to broaden the tax base, which means raising taxes on the middle class. Just raising taxes on the uppermost 1%, even if you raise those tax rates extremely high, won't do it; there just isn't enough potential revenue there. The other option is to cut government spending, which is (outside of Defense spending) something that Progressives (here and elsewhere) have generally equated with balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly and defenseless. That's why I think Obama's insistence that a middle class tax increase is off the table should be troubling to Progressives.
It should probably be troubling to progressives who think running a deficit during hard times is bad. I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that we still need to be stimulating growth at present.
Spending as a percentage of GDP was over 25% during the later Clinton years when there was a surplus. I would hope that when times are good again, it will be politically possible to return the tax rate to about the same level as it was then at all brackets, but for now that's not going to happen, and probably shouldn't.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The other option is to cut government spending, which is (outside of Defense spending) something that Progressives (here and elsewhere) have generally equated with balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly and defenseless.
As for defense spending, I think I'm one of the rare conservatives who would love to see some cuts to the military budget but i dont think it's a likely scenario. Both parties realize it's a politically dangerous proposal with consequences that shouldn't be overlooked.
According to some, drastic cuts to the defense budget would slow economic growth and deficit reduction. The military offers a way for many people of all demographics to get an education and income and represents a major employer in the US, both directly and indirectly.
What's more, statistics show most demographics -excepting Asians and women but including black and hispanic minorities and low-income earner - are proportionally represented in the military, but a decrease in military jobs would have a disproportionally negative effect on low-income earners and minorities. For the nation overall, jobs and contracts lost due to a decrease in the defense budget would add to unemployment and reduce taxable revenues. You simply cannot tax zero income.
And you have to assume the impact would be considerable because it's not as if the money is being spent elsewhere in the ecomomy for things like entitlements and social programs or education funds; its being use to pay down our enormous debt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For the nation overall, jobs and contracts lost due to a decrease in the defense budget would add to unemployment and reduce taxable revenues. You simply cannot tax zero income.
This applies to pretty much any federal budget cut.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it wouldn't be hard to maintain the areas where low-income/minority earners in the military are unaffected, while cutting a fair bit of largess (like private contractors and/or mega-corps like Boeing)
Maybe I'm wrong about the distribution of military money, though.
-Bok
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: As for defense spending, I think I'm one of the rare conservatives who would love to see some cuts to the military budget but i dont think it's a likely scenario.
You are not that rare, as long as they are making the right cuts. Every federal program is loaded with fat that needs to be trimmed. For instance, there are a lot of bases that should be closed but won't be because of job losses and re-election hopes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its pretty well established that defense spending has less economic impact (dollar per dollar) than any other government program.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It really boggles the mind to think that the old, overweight guy with the cane on the front row is gung-ho to cut medicare and social security. Even if he is in the over $250,000 a year tax bracket (which seems improbable), paying his own medical bills is going to cost him a whole lot more than the proposed modest increase in his taxes. [/QB]
Lots of people believe in causes that do not benefit them personally.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It really boggles the mind to think that the old, overweight guy with the cane on the front row is gung-ho to cut medicare and social security. Even if he is in the over $250,000 a year tax bracket (which seems improbable), paying his own medical bills is going to cost him a whole lot more than the proposed modest increase in his taxes.
Lots of people believe in causes that do not benefit them personally. [/QB]
quote:President Obama and Paul Ryan are two of the smartest, most admirable and most genial men in Washington. It is sad, although not strange, that in today’s Washington they have never had a serious private conversation. The president has never invited Ryan over even for lunch.
As a result, both men are misinformed about the other, and both have developed a cold contempt for the other’s position. Obama believes Ryan wants to take America back to what he sees as the savage capitalism of the 1920s (or even the 1760s). Ryan believes Obama wants to turn America into a declining European welfare state.
Talk about false equivalence! Whatever the two gentlemen in question may intend, only one of them has put forward a plan that could actually be implemented without serious bad side effects.
And here he seems to be getting nostalgic for the insane idea of "privatizing social security."
quote:Every few years, Republicans try to reform the welfare delivery systems to make them more marketlike. Every few years, voters, even Republican voters, reject this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It really boggles the mind to think that the old, overweight guy with the cane on the front row is gung-ho to cut medicare and social security. Even if he is in the over $250,000 a year tax bracket (which seems improbable), paying his own medical bills is going to cost him a whole lot more than the proposed modest increase in his taxes.
Lots of people believe in causes that do not benefit them personally.
Indeed. [/QB]
Certainly, but fairly few fight for causes that are to their detriment.
I myself have voted to raise my own taxes, but then I'm well enough off that I didn't need to go without anything important to pay the added tax. That isn't true for most people on Medicare. A cut in their benefits would be a real burden.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Certainly, but fairly few fight for causes that are to their detriment.
I don't know that that is accurate. People are often manipulated to be really committed to work against their own interests. Race baiting is a pretty clear example.
I think that the Tea party fight against health reform is another pretty obvious one.
If you can get people to buy into your narrative, it's pretty remarkable how badly you can get them to screw themselves before they'll check it. If you really do it right, the fact that they are obviously screwing themselves will get them to buy into your narrative even more.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:President Obama and Paul Ryan are two of the smartest, most admirable and most genial men in Washington. It is sad, although not strange, that in today’s Washington they have never had a serious private conversation. The president has never invited Ryan over even for lunch.
As a result, both men are misinformed about the other, and both have developed a cold contempt for the other’s position. Obama believes Ryan wants to take America back to what he sees as the savage capitalism of the 1920s (or even the 1760s). Ryan believes Obama wants to turn America into a declining European welfare state.
Talk about false equivalence! Whatever the two gentlemen in question may intend, only one of them has put forward a plan that could actually be implemented without serious bad side effects.
And only one of them has put forward a plan that honestly deals with the government's inability to keep up with healthcare costs. The 'bad side effects' are a recognition that the government can't continue to pay more and more of the pie to healthcare costs. I don't like the privatized solution Ryan proposes, but the only reason Obama's plan (and the House Democrats' plan) don't have "serious bad side effects" is because they turn a blind eye to the healthcare cost growth.
I think there are a lot of positives in Obama's plan; I think taxes should be higher (both on the wealthy and less wealthy) and that Defense should be cut (along with farm subsidies and a host of other budget items). But without a hard commitment to index healthcare entitlement growth to the equivalent year-to-year rise in GDP, I feel like the President's plan amounts to kicking the real problem of entitlement growth down the road.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MrSquicky, I guess what I meant is quite rare for people to fight for causes which "they believe" will be to their detriment.
I agree that its fairly common to see people fighting against their own interests, but it still boggles my mind to see them doing it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sounds upset. And you can see why: President Obama, to the great relief of progressives, has called his bluff.
Last week, Mr. Ryan unveiled his budget proposal, and the initial reaction of much of the punditocracy was best summed up (sarcastically) by the blogger John Cole: “The plan is bold! It is serious! It took courage! It re-frames the debate! The ball is in Obama’s court! Very wonky! It is a game-changer! Did I mention it is serious?”
Then people who actually understand budget numbers went to work, and it became clear that the proposal wasn’t serious at all. In fact, it was a sick joke. The only real things in it were savage cuts in aid to the needy and the uninsured, huge tax cuts for corporations and the rich, and Medicare privatization. All the alleged cost savings were pure fantasy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: The 'bad side effects' are a recognition that the government can't continue to pay more and more of the pie to healthcare costs.
I was mainly talking about the bad side effects of reducing non-entitlement spending to the level it was at in 1920 (including defense!). This is what the Ryan budget proposes, and it could not be done without wrecking the government and civil society.
Of the two plans on offer, one of them (like you say) puts off dealing with certain inconvenient realities about healthcare costs. But the other one, if implemented, would lead to an immediate collapse of the nation's military and infrastructure. This is the sense in which Obama's plan is much more "serious" than Ryan's.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I was mainly talking about the bad side effects of reducing non-entitlement spending to the level it was at in 1920 (including defense!). This is what the Ryan budget proposes, and it could not be done without wrecking the government and civil society.
Who's telling you that? It isn't true.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
It wouldn't wreck the government and civil society or ryan isn't proposing it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That what's described is what the Ryan budget proposes.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The second [boxed line in the figure] shows spending on everything other than health care and Social Security, which is projected to fall in half as a share of GDP in just 10 years, and eventually to fall to levels comparable to those during the Coolidge administration — even as the US presumably maintains a post-isolationism-level military force.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Fugu, is Krugman wrong about this?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, you're reading it wrong. The budget projects unrealistic gains in GDP, not budget cuts. That is, absent those gains in GDP, there'd be no return to such levels of spending. It wouldn't lead to any "immediate collapse" because it wouldn't happen; the Ryan budget's proposed spending on those things over the next ten years isn't a radical departure from current spending levels -- the only way the amounts will be reduced to that percentage is if growth is phenomenal, leading to pretty much the opposite of "wrecking the government and civil society."
What's more, that's only an aggregate percentage, so your statement about everything in that bucket being reduced (ignoring that "reduced" is the wrong word) is also wrong; some programs would be maintained, others would be cut.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:No, you're reading it wrong. The budget projects unrealistic gains in GDP, not budget cuts. That is, absent those gains in GDP, there'd be no return to such levels of spending.
Ah, I see what you're saying. But are they really predicting that GDP will (roughly) double in ten years? That's the only way non-entitlement spending could "fall in half as a share of GDP" without significant cuts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm actually mistaken, reading it. The Ryan budget does target percentages, not numbers (though they're based in overly optimistic ideas of economic performance, as shown by response to the Heritage projection). That's the only way it keeps the short term numbers looking decent. However, the long term numbers still look decent even if one doesn't assume unnamed short term cuts.
The Ryan budget is no panacea; it isn't really a budget, either. It is mostly a statement of policy goals and potential areas of compromise that, even discounting the ones with handwaving, represent a remarkably approachable set of options. There's a lot to like in the budget, too, such as revenue-neutral tax code simplification. As a budget it fails. As the starting negotiating point for the GOP, it succeeds pretty well.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sure, fair enough. I'm definitely not saying it was a political mistake for the Repubs to get behind it.
But it does seem to me that Obama's budget would actually work OK as a budget, not just as an opening rhetorical maneuver. In that sense, comparing the defects in Ryan's proposal to problems with Obama's is a sort of false equivalence. One of them, as you say, isn't really a budget. The other one is.
Thanks for clarifying about the math side of things, but I'm not sure I get this:
quote:That's the only way it keeps the short term numbers looking decent. However, the long term numbers still look decent even if one doesn't assume unnamed short term cuts.
In what sense to the long-term numbers look decent and the short-term numbers indecent? (I guess I'm not sure which numbers you mean. The 6 and 3 percent figures for non-entitlement spending?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
fugu: if you are committed to seeing the poor pay less and the rich pay more, what in Ryan's "budget" is approachable?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Pay less than the rich, or pay less than they are now?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Less than they are now, relative to the personal cost of services.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: the tax restructuring is fantastic if that's your goal, as is lowering the corporate income tax (I've always found your love of the corporate tax amusing, since it has disproportionately high negative effects on low and middle income earners compared to high income earners).
The medicaid and medicare changes themselves are not particularly desirable, but they indicate a high willingness to bargain in those areas by the GOP. The basic idea isn't even bad, especially for medicaid, which only sustains low costs because it pays providers far less than the cost of providing service, which is then made up for on net out of private insurance payments. That needs to change to have a chance at a serious healthcare system; a system where the direct providers aren't even able to cover their basic costs isn't sustainable, and rosy numbers under such a system are an illusion, not a sign of efficiency.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the tax restructuring is fantastic if that's your goal
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)