quote: We have enemies of Israel in our country that we allow because we have standards of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. That doesn't mean we don't respect Israel. Other countries may have similar standards.
You are mis-representing the issue. The problem is not that nations harbor people who simply don't agree with us. As you seem to be saying here. The problem is nations harboring persons like Bin Laden who is actively trying to kill americans. When the US finds someone supporting Islamic Jihad or Hamas or some other terror group fighting to kill jews, the US DOES stop these people. The US arrested Sami Al Arian in Florida for these crimes.
When a country protects someone like Bin Laden, it DOES mean that they do not respect us, and wish us harm.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To make a long story short, the UN is not useless but nor is it use[/i]ful[/i]. I do not count rubber-stamping and wrist-slapping among "useful" capabilities. This is not to say the UN should be flouted at will, nor that in its by-and-large impotence it does no good at all.
I agree with your overall sentiment.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the US finds someone supporting Islamic Jihad or Hamas or some other terror group fighting to kill jews, the US DOES stop these people.
Do we? If they violate U.S. laws we stop them. But if they don't violate U.S. laws, we are obliged by our Constitution to not stop them, no?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do we? If they violate U.S. laws we stop them. But if they don't violate U.S. laws, we are obliged by our Constitution to not stop them, no?
We are not obliged by the constitution, but we DO. We freeze the assets of groups pretending to be charities, but who actually funnel money to Hamas and company.
We created more laws after 9/11 that made it a crime to support terrorist organizations. The government could easily choose not to enforce them against people hamas and IJ, but they do, becuase Isreal is our ally. If the US hated Isreal as most European nations, led by France, do, we would allow these people to continue raising money and leave them alone.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is your only argument in favor of Bush's economy the fact that he's not as bad as Clinton?
I said nothing of the sort, please answer my question. I asked what Clinton DID that made the economy do so well during his 2 terms. The economy was clearly much better then, I am asking what exactly he did, that made it that way.
Well, when I questioned Bush's economic policies you didn't respond. Instead you asked me to defend Clinton's, which is odd since I hadn't mentioned Clinton at all. Clinton benefited from the rising economy inherited from Bush Sr. (which was recovering from the deficits that Reagan blessed us with) and was materially assisted by the techno bubble and stock madness. His main contribution was to protect the Federal Trade Commission and to keep friendly relationships with other countries (including the middle east) to keep money coming in. Your turn. How does granting more tax breaks help us now?
quote: Businesses will always profit under Bush, no matter how many school programs have to get cut, welfare programs have to go, veterans programs get axed, or regulatory boards get strangled.
I wish he would END welfare programs, and heavily restrict spending on all the others you mentioned. The way to control an out of control budget, is to cut spending. We all know that tax cuts add money to the economy and make it easier for businesses to succeed, you admitt this yourself. What formula for economic growth would you have us follow? Would you like businesses to fail? Perhaps we should soak the rich?
Just cut off all welfare? That'll do wonders for the crime rate. The way to control an out-of-control budget is to control spending. Businesses must have incentive to succeed, but people also need incentive to live, teach their kids, and buy the products the businesses produce. Go through the welfare programs and clean them up, certainly. Get tougher on people who abuse the system, but don't cut out the ones who use it to improve themselves and get out on their own. Stop rating schools based on a single test without regard for their population density, level of maintainence, or history, and stop giving their money to the schools that prove they don't need it. (I have a much longer rant on schools I'll save for another time, which essentially boils down to "Teachers, teach the kids. Principals and school boards, stop taking the lowest bids and sweetheart deals for construction and stop letting the parents jerk you around. Parents, support your school, some of you are just going to have to accept the fact that your kid's an idiot.) I can accept giving businesses breaks to succeed, but I insist on removing govt. contracts for companies who use out-of-country tax havens. I insist that regulatory boards be given the strength to actually regulate something, and that they be put in charge of someone committed to regulating and not the head lobbyist or activist against regulation for that industry, as has been the case for every one of Bush's appointees. I'll accept stronger tort reform to protect companies from frivolous claims, but only against cases proven to be trivial. Legitimate claims must not be blocked by anti-worker legislation. I don't want to strangle the free market, but I refuse to allow it to run unfettered so the crooks can take over. More so, I mean.
quote:Unemployment is still rising.
Not true.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Percent of labor force unemployed
June 6.4% July 6.2% August 6.1% September 6.1%
Depends on whom you ask. This article discusses how the survey of households provides a 6.1% figure, while a survey of businesses isn't quite as good. 93,000 more people out of a job in August.
quote:We should have continued to follow up on known terrorist cells,
Which ones did we not follow up on? In what contries are these terrorists, and how do you know about them even though the DoD does not?
Got me. But it doesn't look like there were any in Iraq (not before, anyway) and just imagine how much we might have accomplished if we took a quarter of the money and manpower spent and applied it towards nothing else but hunting down terrorist cells. We do know that much of the proof of terrorist connections to Iraq were false or exaggerated, yet we attacked anyway. Wouldn't it have made more sense to concentrate on a single goal, or would it have taken too long and not been as flashy?
quote:worked to improve relations with friendly countries so they would cooperate with our terrorist hunt
I believe just today or yesterday the philipine army siezed a bunch of terrorists in an al qaida connected group. The Pakistanis arrest terrorists every other day. Which countries should we have closer relations with, and why aren't these countries helping us now?
Saudi Arabia is an obvious one. There should be an organized worldwide hunt of terrorists and anyone else who threatens innocents to get attention. Every country should be involved in this, because it benefits everybody.
quote:used the shared dislike of terrorists to improve our relations with previously unfriendly countries
Which ones? You can say this, but without specifics, it is meaningless.
Any country that may harbor terrorists. I wasn't advocating that we magically resolve our differences, but after 9/11 we had an unparalleled chance to create a worldwide anti-terrorist manhunt. The bulk of the world was sympathizing with us, feeling our losses, and such a suggestion made to the U.N. would have received considerable support. You don't have to like us to want to track down murderous extremists in your country. If a country still wishes to protect them, the way Afghanistan did, then we have a more justifiable target.
quote:How does acting against the wishes of half the country translate to the highest polled position?
If 50% of the people support something, that would be a majority. Very rarely is there a 50/50 split on any issue. If one side has 50%, you can bet the other has 47% or 45% or less. But you avoid the question. Would you rather the president make choices based on what he believes is best for the country, which is what his office is designed to do, or should he be windvane for political issues?[quote]Follow his own mind regardless of expert opinion or evidence, or flipflop daily to the polls? Is there truly no middle ground between these two positions? It's not an either-or choice. The president must do what he feels is right, but it is sheer arrogance to ignore the opinions of that many people who advise against his course of action, including his own father and his father's senior advisors.
[quote] And now we've gained big. This makes it ethical, that we replaced their profiteering with our own?
Other than added security, what have we gained? How are we "profiteering"? Is giving the Iraqi people $20 Billion profiteering?
Sorry, when I said "we" in this case I meant American companies. The ones that got the contracts without bidding, without Iraqi involvement, the ones that are currently paying their employees up to $10,000 a month tax free, the ones with offshore tax havens, the ones that are being investigated for overbidding invoices. Didn't I mention all this already? And was it decided yet whether the Iraqis would be paying this money back? I didn't pay attention last week.
[ October 20, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Do you really? End all welfare. Let the old and the unemployed starve. Let children who's only problem is that they were born from parents too stupid to get off their drugs die. Let children who could be our next brilliant scientists/politicians/artists/business men succumb to the weather, homeless, foodless, without hope because they can't get to a school because they have to sell their bodies to get enough food to eat?
Do you want the riots of hungry unemployed demanding enough to survive, or the bloodshed when the paid police and private protection companies stop those looters and lost from rampaging in frustration?
Do you want to work for a boss who knows that he does not hold your job in his hands, but your life. That if he fires you, you may well starve before you get a new job. (This may not happen to white collar workers, but it will happen to those borderline workers)
Do you want to be married to the abusive husband, who, if you leave or have thrown in jail, will leave you without a cent to live on. Your choices, selling yourself on the streets or staying with a man who abuses you and holds your future in his hands.
Welfare does more than feed lazy people who don't want to work. I know five different women, screwed in divorces, who had to rely on welfare to survive for a year or less. They and their children are alive today because of it.
It stops the Socialists and the Communists and those who want all your money being divided between everyone, from gathering enough supporters to force a bloody battle.
It has helped weaken Unions, by allowing people to quit bad jobs to find good jobs.
It has helped increase our standard of living by tightening the job market.
UN
What is the big deal about the UN supporting us? Whether the UN is strong or weak, or should be strong or weak, is unimportant.
It gives the US international permision to do what it wants. This is important, not in our eyes, but in the eyes of our detractors. In a cabaret in Iraq, Baath'st members are talking to unemployed Iraqi men right now saying, "The rest of the world thinks the US is evil. They do not support this invasion. The UN has condemned it."
They cannot say that any more. (Well they can, but it is a lie we can prove.)
When other countries tell our ambassadors, "We want to help you, but our people are against it. They say the UN won't support you, why should we." THey cannot say that any more. Well, they can, but it is a lie we can prove.
This is important news, and good news for our troops over there. Bashing the UN and hiding behind US Tanks and Missiles will only get those other countries madder at our arrogant attitude.
The UN can do little to us. But if you want to sell your Monsanto made Herbicide, or your Coca Cola, or your Ford Truck over seas, you want people to respect theUS, not hate it.
Hate Too often I have heard this word thrown around, and usually by Pro-Isreali groups. Anyone who does not automatically agree with everything the Isreali government is doing is labeled with being Anti-Semitic. We either agree to let illegal settlements set up by Jewish fanatics grab land in other people's countries, or we HATE Isreal. We either condone mowing down the homes of Palestinean people because they may hide passing terrorist snipers. We either support your building a wall that puts the Berlin Wall to shame, and stretch it across Palestinean land to protect your own, or we Hate Isreal.
I love Isrealies.
I hate the stupid terrorists destroying both sides in this war.
I just disagree with how the present Isreali government is reacting.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just cut off all welfare? That'll do wonders for the crime rate.
Not all at once, but eventually, yes, all of it.
quote: but people also need incentive to live, teach their kids, and buy the products the businesses produce.
People do NOT need to be given an incentive by the government to teach their kids, or to live. These are things people want to do no matter who there are, or where they live. The question is how does government best allow this process to happen. I would say it happens best when people are allowed to decide for themselves how their kids will be taught, how they will live, etc. When the government tries to control these things, it fails.
quote: Depends on whom you ask. This article discusses how the survey of households provides a 6.1% figure, while a survey of businesses isn't quite as good. 93,000 more people out of a job in August.
This point goes to you. I see how the 6.1% number is less related to the overall jobs picture, than it should be.
quote: Well, when I questioned Bush's economic policies you didn't respond. Instead you asked me to defend Clinton's, which is odd since I hadn't mentioned Clinton at all.
I didn't respond, I answered your question before you asked it. see below:
quote:Bush's tax cuts have brought the economy back up to its full strength, with over 3% growth last quater. Some analysts are projecting 5% growth next quater. I would say that the tax cuts have added money to the economy and done their job.
quote: How does granting more tax breaks help us now?
More money in the economy of course. You seem to want weak businesses, but a strong jobs market, how do you propose such a feat?
The main reason I brought up Clinton's economy, is to illustrate the point that President's generally have a small effect on the economy. The boom of the mid/late ninties was not due to some wonderful Clinton policy, but many of the factors you mentioned. Likewise, Bush's economy is the result of many factors. It is known that the economy was dropping before he took office. His actions to help the economy have been successful. However, it is not possible for the government to to just whip up some jobs. What policies to stimulate job growth would you propose?
quote: Wouldn't it have made more sense to concentrate on a single goal, or would it have taken too long and not been as flashy?
You present a false choice. This is why I asked for specific examples of actions we could have done, but did not. What did the Iraq war distract us from? As was proven, it is possible for the US military to do more than one thing at a time and succeed.
quote:There should be an organized worldwide hunt of terrorists and anyone else who threatens innocents to get attention. Every country should be involved in this, because it benefits everybody.
Sounds good to me, but how do you propose prodding countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran who do not cooperate? What if every country in the world doesn't want to help?
posted
By the way, you were right, political opinion is rarely exactly 50/50. The latest Gallup poll (from 10/6-1/8) reported this: "Ratings of Bush's handling of Iraq have also hit a new low. Just 47% approve while 50% disapprove, the first time this approval rating has dipped below 50% in the year in which Gallup has tracked his handling of Iraq." Not quite 50/50, true. And I freely admit that opinion was strongly in favor of attacking Iraq before the war. I wonder if we knew then what we know (or don't know) now, if it would have been as uneven?
I was going to respond to the "kill welfare" line, but it's been done much more effectively than I could. How about Social Security? That thing we;ve been paying into our entire working lives which is getting drained now? Would that be considered welfare?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who said anything about doing nothing? Listening to them, via their voice in the U.N., when our decisions impact them will lead them to respect us more and be more willing to listen to us when their decisions impact us.
I totally disagree. They don't want us to listen to them; they want us to do what THEY want, period. Most countries aren't open to an honest exchange of ideas.
quote: As for your second point, it isn't true. We have enemies of Israel in our country that we allow because we have standards of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. That doesn't mean we don't respect Israel. Other countries may have similar standards.
The US doesn't allow or support people who try to harm other nations. The government doesn't like the competition.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you want the riots of hungry unemployed demanding enough to survive, or the bloodshed when the paid police and private protection companies stop those looters and lost from rampaging in frustration?
Can you honestly tell me there are not enough jobs out there for those who want to work? These scenarious you put forth are not a defense for socialism.
Should we stop robbing peter to pay paul? Paul says no, paul says he will riot.
quote: That if he fires you, you may well starve before you get a new job.
People do not STARVE TO DEATH in this country because they got fired. As I said before, there are always jobs available to those who want them. This attitude is shameful. You have so little confidence in americans as to think they will simply wither and die if the government stops sending them a check.
quote: I know five different women, screwed in divorces, who had to rely on welfare to survive for a year or less.
Religious and other charities exist for just these sorts of situations. Charities can cover those who are truly in need.
quote: How about Social Security? That thing we;ve been paying into our entire working lives which is getting drained now? Would that be considered welfare?
And why is it getting drained? Who's money is it to begin with? The program is fundamentally flawed, it needs to be gradually phased out somehow. Those who paid in, should get what they paid in, and those who have 40 years of work ahead of them, should not be forced to fund the current generation's bad planning.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, there aren't enough jobs out there for everyone to work a job that supports their family in all locations.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the US hated Isreal as most European nations, led by France, do, we would allow these people to continue raising money and leave them alone.
Dan said:
quote: Too often I have heard this word thrown around, and usually by Pro-Isreali groups. Anyone who does not automatically agree with everything the Isreali government is doing is labeled with being Anti-Semitic.
You have a point. I would merely point out that the French government is very cowed by their 10% muslim population. The French have been notoriously anti-semetic in the past.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People do NOT need to be given an incentive by the government to teach their kids..
Um, yes they do. When their children could be, instead, selling papers, shining shoes, walking the streets or any number of other quick income fixes for the family, going to school is not an option uncaring parents will make.
And this does happen, often. In other countryies that have not developed a culture of education, schooling is not the norm.
As far as living, yes, people need hope that things can get better. They need to know if they try for the better job and fail, they won't freeze to death the next winter. Otherwise, they remain dish washers their entire life, out of real fear.
You make assumptions that most people are smart enough to choose what's best for them, and for the country.
And those who are not?
You make no provisions for caring for them.
I guess we just let the fools and unfortunate die.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Do you have any to support your view that there are jobs for everyone? That they can be aquired is a reasonable amount of time? That they will support people enough to live on?
You mentioned earlier 6.1% unemployment. I argue there are not 6.1% of American's who are too lazy to work.
What if you are right? What if 99.9% of American's can get a job. That .1% of Americans would do what? Live off of the Charities in the US? Sure, I mean every day I hear about charities saying, "Oh yes, we have more than enough money. We have more than enough to go around. Don't send us any more. Send us people instead."
Oh, wait, no I don't.
You said, "People don't starve in the US."
I disagree. The homeless are found all year around dead on the streets of our cities. They die from diseases caused by malnutrition.
However, we don't have the mass Starvation here. Then again, we have a Welfare program to stop anything like that.
Of course getting rid of Welfare, the safety net, and what do you have to stop it?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You make assumptions that most people are smart enough to choose what's best for them, and for the country.
And those who are not?
You make no provisions for caring for them.
I guess we just let the fools and unfortunate die.
It is NOT the government's job to give direction to someone's life. As I mentioned before, private charities cover the unfortunate. I also say that philanthropy would increase greatly if people did not have to give away 40% of their income to the gov.
Will you knowingly let the government decide what's best for YOUR life? This is what the gov. forces on us when it takes our money and gives it to those who did not earn it.
Explain to me how people got along before the great society programs? Was their mass starvation? The answer, of course, is no. People got along just fine. What has changed that caused people to be unable to care for themselves? What has destroyed the minds of americans to such a degree that the government needs to give them a reason to live?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, I think at this point there is nothing I can say to convince you. I urge you to volunteer at a woman's center, a Salvation Army, a soup kitchen, or other local service center that deals with out-of-work people. You appear to be as blind to that world as Mr. Bush, and so it's no wonder that my arguments have no effect. Saying that all poor people just don't want to work only serves as an argument when you can continue to shelter yourself from seeing it. Starvation isn't the problem. As you said, it is difficult to starve here. Housing is much more of a worry, which is why the poverty level should be measured on costs of housing (which have skyrocketed) rather than the cost of food (which hasn't gone up nearly as much in proportion).
I highly suggest reading "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. One day during a discussion of poverty with her editor, she mentioned that someone should do some "old-fashioned reporting," go out there and try for themselves what it was really like having to subsist on poverty level wages, on $6-7 per hour. She left home and family to try her luck as an unskilled worker, working as a waitress, housecleaner and Wal-Mart clerk. Before she started her experiment, she set some ground rules: she wouldn't depend on any skills gained from her education or usual jobs, she would take the highest paying job on offer and do it properly - no pretending - and she would try and find the cheapest (safe) accomendations she could find. She presented herself as a divorced homemaker reentering the workforce after many years, with three years of college as an educational background. She also decided to not take her experiment too far; if she didn't make enough from her job(s) to affort the rent, enough food or a car she used her own money to cover for it. After all, this was an experiment to see if people can survive on a minimal wage job, not an endurance test.
As it was she found that even working two jobs, seven days a week, she barely managed to cover living expenses. Food wasn't that much of a problem, but housing did her in every time. During her stint at Wal-mart she had to stay at a weekly motel because more permanent living arrangements kept failing to materialize.
She wasn't buying luxuries. She wasn't drinking it or snorting it or gambling it away. She was an intelligent woman and a hard worker, and she literally took whatever job she could get as soon as it was offered. She had no chance for savings, and like those around her she was living from paycheck to paycheck, with no cushion for emergencies. That's the reality of low-wage living.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You appear to be as blind to that world as Mr. Bush, and so it's no wonder that my arguments have no effect.
I love this. This is the perfect example of the attitude that is created by the welfare state. You can't win right away, so there must be something wrong with me. Its not YOUR fault, how can you be expected to support yourself?
You haven't explained how people got along before these programs were created.
Dan_raven
quote: You said, "People don't starve in the US."
Robespierre:
quote: People do not STARVE TO DEATH in this country because they got fired.
quote: During her stint at Wal-mart she had to stay at a weekly motel because more permanent living arrangements kept failing to materialize.
Here we go, the living arrangements failed, not the woman trying to get them. Why do you want a society where no one is allowed to fail? This is not something granted by the constitution, nor should it be. There is no RIGHT to health care, there is no RIGHT to nice housing. If you want these, things, they must be earned.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You haven't explained how people got along before these programs were created.
Well, there's always feudalism.
But let me get this straight. Because people were able to survive before the creation of welfare programs, those programs are bad and should be discontinued? People were also able to survive before the discovery of fire. Should we retroactively get rid of all that fire has brought us?
Just a thought.
Edit:
>> There is no RIGHT to health care, there is no RIGHT to nice housing. <<
I'd argue that those things are filed under "pursuit of happiness." But what do I know? I live, quite happily, in Canada.
quote:You appear to be as blind to that world as Mr. Bush, and so it's no wonder that my arguments have no effect.
I love this. This is the perfect example of the attitude that is created by the welfare state. You can't win right away, so there must be something wrong with me. Its not YOUR fault, how can you be expected to support yourself?
Oh, I can argue for days. I just don't see much sense when I'm defending a concept you seem to treat with contempt and a class of people you consider mythical.
If you do not believe that there is anyone on welfare who is not doing their damndest to get off welfare and is struggling day to day to get by, then what could I possibly say to convince you otherwise?
quote:Here we go, the living arrangements failed, not the woman trying to get them. Why do you want a society where no one is allowed to fail? This is not something granted by the constitution, nor should it be. There is no RIGHT to health care, there is no RIGHT to nice housing. If you want these, things, they must be earned.
I didn't say nice housing. I said housing. Minimum wage is $5.15. If you never get sick and don't take vacation, that's $10,712 per year, of which the government and withholding and insurance will take roughly a third. Round up to $7000. Rent, if you're fortunate enough to find someplace that cheap, will be at least $300 a month. That leaves us $3,400. Take out $30 a week for food, we're at $1840. Transportation is tricky. Car payments would eat that and more, or you could buy a cheap car and pay constant repair bills. Let's go with public transportation - you are still allowing public transportation, yes? - so maybe $12 a month for the bus if you can get reduced rates. $1696 left. That leaves $141 a month left for clothes, medicine, daycare, doctor's visits, emergencies, and savings. Take a single parent with a child and a minimum wage job, and make the numbers work. Feel free to move them around if you wish.
A 2001 U.S. Conference of Mayors study found that 37 percent of adults seeking emergency food aid were employed. Officials in 63 percent of the cities surveyed identified low-paying jobs as a primary cause of hunger. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s September 2001 report Out of Reach, “The national median housing wage, based on each county’s housing wage for a two-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent weighted by Census 2000 population estimates, is $13.87 an hour, more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. This means that on average, there must be more than two full-time minimum wage workers in a household in order for the household to afford a two-bedroom housing unit at the Fair Market Rent.” America’s Second Harvest reported in October 2001 that among client households (who receive emergency food assistance from soup kitchens, food pantries and shelters), four out of 10 (38.9 percent) had at least one employed adult. Of the adults in client households, 17 percent (or 2.5 million adults) worked full-time. One reason for such poverty and need among workers is the eroded value of the minimum wage. In the past, the minimum wage provided enough income to lift a family of three out of poverty. During the 1960s and 1970s, the poverty level for a family of three was roughly equal to the yearly earnings of a full-time, year-round worker earning the minimum wage. The minimum wage, however, remained unchanged at $3.35 an hour from 1981 until April 1990, and thus minimum wage earnings slipped significantly below the poverty level. Recent increases have not restored all the lost value. To reach the poverty level for a family of three in 2001 ($14,129), a full-time, year-round worker would need to earn $6.80 an hour—$1.65 more than the current minimum wage.
Overtime can help, but that's being taken away too (sorry, it's to be placed at the discretion of the employer, who as we know always puts the worker's needs above profits).
quote:If you want these, things, they must be earned.
And that's fine. But they can't be earned at a reasonable rate of exchange, or even an unreasonable one. A person living alone at the minimum wage level has to work two jobs to get by, especially if they have a kid. That leaves no time for schooling, better job hunting, or any other way of improving their situation. There's a fundamental flaw in our economy that a single nonprofessional person can no longer support a family on one paycheck. Fix that, and you can kill welfare.
Oh, and what did they do before? Well, when they could hunt or farm freely they did that. When they lived in the bigger cities, they worked long hours at miniscule wages. They lived packed in apartments and tenements, which made it easier for diseases to spread. And yes, some starved. There's a reason for the child labor laws, the fair wage laws, the labor laws, because so many companies were using their workers like cattle. Kinda the way some American companies use overseas sweatshops now, in fact. But mostly, they died young. Perhaps that fits your needs, I don't know.
[ October 20, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Rob, if I'm reading you correctly, you're buying into the right-wing paradigm of a world filled with lazy, drug-addicted morons on welfare who want nothing more than to suck all the money they can from you and belt out another couple babies. And, of course, steal your SUV while executing children. Right?
(Note: My mistake. It's a conservative position to execute minors -- it's a liberal position to execute fetii.)
Please, oh please, let me do a little speculation. You're a white male. Born upper middle class or richer. Probably well educated (at a private school?). From a between-the-coasts state, predominately white, and probably heavily conservative? When asked about racism, you rattle off the names of some of your black friends? You believe Middle Easterners (excepting Israelis, of course) tend to be blind religious fanatics who use the innocent United States as a scapegoat for their own problems and a target for their meaningless hatred? C'mon, tell me how much of this I got right.
Just to crown it, out of interest, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh on your way into work (your work being a white-collar job, probably management or administration)?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, sorry if I sound obnoxious. I'm pulling more than a little David Bowles right now. Please consider Chris to be the Rude Liberal Cabal's spokesperson rather than me.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still only quasi-liberal. I tend to favor the free market, only I also believe in completely open government and some sort of structure to keep corporations honest. And I do think that a percentage of the people on welfare are lazy, drug-addled wastes, I know for a fact that there are people willing to milk the system for all they can get. But I also know for a fact that not all of them are, and I suspect that the wastes are a very small minority of welfare recipients indeed. I think Clinton tried too hard to be liked and didn't try hard enough to govern. I don't really care if he got some on the side but I was annoyed he did it on my time, and he should have had the grace to refuse comment or apologize rather than lie. And the timing of his bombings on the mornings of significant findings in his case offended me deeply. And I think Bush is either too arrogant or too blind to understand anyone not in his tax bracket. He has an end in mind, whatever it is, and he's barreling towards it no matter what, and frankly it scares the crap out of me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: you're buying into the right-wing paradigm of a world filled with lazy, drug-addicted morons on welfare who want nothing more than to suck all the money they can from you and belt out another couple babies. And, of course, steal your SUV while executing children. Right?
This is fantastic. You guys have said more about what I think than I have.
Now we encounter the arch-liberal arrogance. I am accused of arrogance because I say that the government has no right to control people's lives.
quote: Please, oh please, let me do a little speculation.
You on the other hand, have become the ghost of christmas past and are graciously giving me a look back at my horrible life.
quote: You're a white male. Born upper middle class or richer. Probably well educated (at a private school?).
Very good profiler! I am white! Welcome to racism land, where all people who belive in self reliance are white.
quote: Born upper middle class or richer.
Sorry profiler! Guess again!
quote: When asked about racism, you rattle off the names of some of your black friends?
You sicken me. Do you even live within 30 miles of a black person? I bet you are afraid to refer to blacks as "black" when you speak with them. No of course not, your liberal guilt cripples you and you use the term "african americans."
Welcome to the discussion, you coward.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But let me get this straight. Because people were able to survive before the creation of welfare programs, those programs are bad and should be discontinued?
Again, show me where I said this is the reason they need to go. Why do you intentionally misrepresent my arguments?
The reason they need to be abolished is because they are destroying the poor of this country. They have created a class of government slaves. since the Great Society was introduced to try to spend our way out of the great depression, these programs have been building up a class of people who are taught that they cannot provide for themselves and that there is no hope.
quote:I'd argue that those things are filed under "pursuit of happiness." But what do I know? I live, quite happily, in Canada.
Pursuit, canadian, not achievement. In America we do not guarantee the achievement of happiness. Only the right to PURSUE it without violating the rights of others.
quote: I'm defending a concept you seem to treat with contempt and a class of people you consider mythical.
I do hold redistribution of wealth in contempt. You seem be saying that I think there are no poor... explain what you mean.
quote: Take a single parent with a child and a minimum wage job, and make the numbers work.
You forget the earned income tax credit of course. Which adds $1000. But of course we get back to responsibility. Why does this woman have a child she obviously cannot support? Now don't jump on me and say I hate single mothers, because we will have trouble if you people go down that road. However, at some point, people are responsible for their own actions. Or is this one of those situations where you want to government to make some life decisions for her?
quote: There's a fundamental flaw in our economy that a single nonprofessional person can no longer support a family on one paycheck.
If you cannot support a family, why create one? Who is negligent in those circumstances?
quote:Perhaps that fits your needs, I don't know.
This is why we can't have nice things. You went and got all crazy. Seriously, what is it about my views that gets you guys so foamed at the mouth? I am accused of endorsing sweat shops, becuase I think people should have the freedom to pursue happiness?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, I think I agree with your general sentiment. I don't think you're saying society should stop trying to help people in need, but that you'd like to rid people of the mentality that a government-run welfare program must exist because... some people... just... *shrug, bite lip sympathetically*, aren't going to be very successful.
What do you think would be a workable way to have a progressive society that has room for those who can't keep up the pace? I'm really serious, I'm not baiting you.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you think would be a workable way to have a progressive society that has room for those who can't keep up the pace?
A good question. One of the government activities which you all may be surprised I support is education. State universities are spectacular. However, every level below the universities is corrupted. If the elementary school program can be fixed, and the highschools fixed, that would go a LONG way towards fixing the problem. Knowledge is one of the best ways to solve many problems.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the answer I boiled it down to, too. Looks like anyone who cares is stuck trying to fix the damned education system. I swore I would never, ever, ever have anything to do with education, but guess what I'm studying now.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I totally disagree. They don't want us to listen to them; they want us to do what THEY want, period. Most countries aren't open to an honest exchange of ideas.
Most PEOPLE aren't open to an honest exchange of ideas either, yet democracy still functions - people still abide by a government where everyone has a say and believe such a government is valid. The same goes for the U.N., except you have countries instead of people.
posted
Some things are non-negotiable, though- the more surely people can be moved out of the "my opinion counts, blah blah" arena into the more objective reality of cause/effect, the better- not to squash opinions, but to put some reins on the process and keep things in control. We live in a society where the general population runs on successful persuasion rather than wisdom; as long as that's acceptable, we're looking at a future where democracy means Arnold Schwartzenegger becomes governor.
What we're looking at with the UN is a collection of human beings trying to keep the world in order. All the world's different philosophies and cultures are built up on a relatively small plot of common ground, the more firmly rooted people are in those basic, fundamental truths we have figured out, the better our chances of finding stability as a global population.
Not that schools can make that happen. But I agree, it's about education in a broad sense.
edited because I read Tresopax's post. Now I don't think mine makes sense.
posted
>> Again, show me where I said this is the reason they need to go. Why do you intentionally misrepresent my arguments? <<
I asked for clarification. That's hardly a 'misrepresentation.' You clarified:
>> The reason they need to be abolished is because they are destroying the poor of this country. They have created a class of government slaves. since the Great Society was introduced to try to spend our way out of the great depression, these programs have been building up a class of people who are taught that they cannot provide for themselves and that there is no hope. <<
So rather than the de facto class structure in America holding them down, your view is that it's actually the welfare system? Is there any data that supports this claim?
I'm Googling as I type this, but haven't been able to find any. I've found lots of anecdotal evidence, but the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' I have also found that during Clinton's term, welfare expenditures increased and so did the number of people on welfare; however, what I did not find was that those people were lazy and unwilling to work. Even an increase in the poverty rate does not imply that. So I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that the mere existence of welfare programs has created a culture of dependence.
>> Pursuit, canadian, not achievement. In America we do not guarantee the achievement of happiness. Only the right to PURSUE it without violating the rights of others. <<
So if I'm a bum on the street, the fact that I have, in theory, the same chance of pursuing my happiness as a big shot lawyer living in downtown New York means we're equal?
This is why I lean to the left. Equality versus equal opportunity. They are not one and the same. In other words, as far as I'm concerned the hard-working and/or fortunate successful should have to prop up the lazy and/or unfortunate unsuccessful, simply because they're the ones who can afford to do it.
I'm a university student. I've never taken a loan in my life and I'm about to graduate with a small monetary surplus and an engineering degree that promises to be fairly lucrative (in fact, in America my chemical engineering degree is the second most lucrative first degree in the country). I already pay out a good-sized chunk of my income in taxes and the size of that chunk is only going to increase. The difference between you and me is that I don't mind doing it. I do not object to paying taxes – and taxes in my country are much higher than yours. In fact, I oppose tax cuts in the current Canadian economic climate. In our recent provincial election, I voted against the party that promised to cut provincial taxes; I voted for a party that promised to cancel further planned tax cuts. 'Trickle-down' is a phrase that Conservative governments in Canada use to justify balancing their budgets by selling off provincial assets while cutting taxes for large corportations, slashing funding to universities, and otherwise wrecking things for the next government that gets elected when people finally wise up.
I'm okay with the fact that some of the taxes I pay (I don't think of tax dollars as "my hard-earned money," which is another key difference between us) will subsidize the lifestyles of some do-nothings, because it will also help out plenty of deserving people. I believe it makes more sense for the federal government to redistribute the wealth than to do it on a small-scale local basis.
Taxes are not "the government taking my money." Taxes are what you give the government in exchange for the privilege of living in their country.
>> These funny old things. Go ahead, see if it guarantees happiness. <<
For someone who accuses others of intentionally misconstruing his arguments, it's interesting to watch you do the same thing to others. BtL never mentioned happiness. But I did give your Constitution a gander, all the same.
>> Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. <<
The section does not enumerate things like shelter and medicine in the "providing for the general welfare of the United States" category, but I expect that's where the government files welfare programs. Welfare is certainly not disallowed by your Constitution; nor is it outside the scope of the government's power as far as I can tell.
Edit:
>> A good question. One of the government activities which you all may be surprised I support is education. State universities are spectacular. However, every level below the universities is corrupted. If the elementary school program can be fixed, and the highschools fixed, that would go a LONG way towards fixing the problem. Knowledge is one of the best ways to solve many problems. <<
I agree completely, though I'm curious as to what you think should be done to "fix" elementary school and high school programs.
But in a democracy the government isn't afraid to confront those who break its laws, while the UN seems to be.
Don't get me wrong; I would love to see a strong UN. You know me, I'm USA #1 all the way but a strong UN would keep everybody safe, or at least safer than they are now, and would bring everybody else UP to us; not us down to them as many people want.
Robespierre:
While I think some of your points are valid, you are missing the mark on a few of them. Most unemployment is transitional; people moving from one job to another. Second, unemployment figures only count people who are looking for a job, not those who have given up or just stopped looking for some reason. The numbers should only be used as a loose guideline when looking at other data, not as gospel.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in a democracy the government isn't afraid to confront those who break its laws, while the UN seems to be.
Any evidence of this?
If you're going to say the Iraq situation shows this, that would be a bit like saying our government is afraid to punish tax evaders because we refuse to put them to death. The U.N. DID punish Iraq severely with sanctions and inspections - it just felt invading Iraq was unnecessarily severe. And, considering it now appears the sanctions and threats were sufficient to get Saddam to eliminate his WMDs, it seems they were right in this judgement.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The United Nations is long on confronting, short on doing more than verbal confrontation. Concerning Iraq, let's be clear the sanctions were, at best, sufficient only to get Saddam Hussein to dismantle his current operational stocks of WMD, they obviously have not convinced him to scrap his programs. The most forgiving thing that can be said about Saddam is that he was waiting for the pressure to be off him, then he was ready and obviously willing to start it up again.
And who, exactly, was providing the pressure? The United Nations? Nonsense. The United States was applying the pressure under the auspices of the United Nations. The nations in the UN had neither the will nor the means to apply pressure to force Saddam Hussein to do anything, with the exception of the United States and Great Britain and those allied with us against Iraq. The pressure you speak of, Tresopax, would have existed without the UN, and would not have existed without the United States.
Where is the UN confrontation towards constant human rights abuses all over the world? Where is the confrontation you speak of, Tresopax, towards the PRC, N. Korea, Israel, USA, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, where's the confrontation across nearly all of Africa?
The UN would be an effective and just group in resolving disputes in, say, Pluto or the Crab Nebula, where none of its members-particularly the permanent Sec. Council members, have even the slightest "personal" agenda at stake. Otherwise? It's largely hamstrung and hypocritical from the start, by its very design.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.N. has no army. Hence, it relies on member nations to back up it's word. That's how it works. The U.N. was putting pressure on Iraq via the U.S. and Britain and Russia and France and all the other members willing to back it up. Without the U.S. it would still have been putting on pressure, since Britain, France, Russia, China, etc. would still back it up. Obviously it would be less pressure and the U.N. would have less to work with, since the U.S. has a gigundo military.
Also, the U.n. should not be expected to be magic. It cannot solve all the world's problems. It must weigh the costs and potential problems with military intervention before advocating it, and in the case of Iraq, N. Korea, China, Isreal, etc. it has decided the costs outweigh the benefits of using war to stop human rights abuses. This does not mean they do not confront those problem, though. The U.N. uses other, more subtle methods when war is unwarrented.
First in foremost, the U.N. can use it's moral authority. Don't discount this verbal method of confrontation. It is fairly effective considering it's low cost. It could not stop the Iraq war, but the U.N. refusal of support for it could cost George Bush an election in 2004 and result in the end of the preemptive strike doctrine. That's pretty good considering it cost no money and lives to do it.
quote: but the U.N. refusal of support for it could cost George Bush an election in 2004 and result in the end of the preemptive strike doctrine.
You make a good point here. However, I do not think the concept will be swept away so easily.
Suppose a democrat wins in 04, which is possible at this point. If this president sees a state that poses a threat to US, this president will be under intense pressure to attack. Not only from the right, but from the left, who does not want to be blaimed for the next 9/11 attack. I think a democrat president would jump at the opportunity to prove he is not "soft" on defence.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
