posted
i tend to find liberal ideals unrealistic because they dont factor in the selfishness and rebelliousness prevalent in human society and rely too heavily upon conformity and altruistic generosity. there will always be conflicts when dealing with rights. its impossible to please everyone. should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
its a question of the role and limitations of government. where is the healthy balance of anarchy and totalitarianism? is economic policy paramount to social policy? clearly the two overlap so one could argue that they are of equal importance. but the issues within each policy are evidently of differing importance according to each individual
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
Neither democrats nor republicans will subscribe to the notion that government can eradicate conflicts entirely. both democrats and republicans will subscribe to the notion that the goal of government is heavily invested in the goal of mitigating conflicts dealing with rights. If you find liberal ideals unrealistic, you should hopefully be able to frame them using a useful dichotomy, especially when your definition of their ideological weaknesses could just as arguably be presumed on the part of conservatives (albiet just as messily). Take the over-reliance on 'conformity' and 'altruistic generosity!' Without even altering the wording, you can hurl that broad presumption at conservatives as easily as you can hurl it at liberals.
Hell, I could try that right now just for fun.
Here we go:
quote:Over-reliance on conformity: conservatives imposing their social and religious values, attempting to enshrine them in law, relying on the advocacy of discrimination to bring people to the polls, using gay marriage as a wedge issue, and generally trying to enforce their morals on Americans.
Over-reliance on altruistic generosity: conservative free-market theory answers all the tricky questions about sick elderly, orphans, poor people, and people suffering from financially unbearable strain that is not the product of their choices in life with a bulwark "individual charity will handle it!" — despite this never really playing out in truth, even in countries that vacated the financial obligations of their richest citizens.
See how easy that was? You would do well to refine your tendencies before jumping to the matter of why you tend to find liberal ideology 'unrealistic.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i tend to find liberal ideals unrealistic because they dont factor in the selfishness and rebelliousness prevalent in human society and rely too heavily upon conformity and altruistic generosity.
Well, I for one think that approaching a task from the vantage point of deep cynicism about its likelihood of success would pretty much always cause a person *not* to attempt to achieve the goals they are aware are most desirable.
For instance, few people in the US would *not* like to have free health care for everyone all the time, should such a thing be possible with no adverse consequences. Now, the liberal, or at least *I* as a liberal, believe that A) such an achievement is humanly possible, and B) will support work towards such a goal granted that I do not view the risks as being unworthy of the reward. I do not view it as an economic or political position, although my knowledge of and views on economics and politics justify, to me, the notion that such a thing is doable, and desirable.
In the case of health care, where does the conservative come down on the issue? You may correct me or state your own personal view on it, but as I see it, most conservatives are more accepting of the idea that such a world will not come to exist, because for reasons of human nature, socialized medical systems will not sustain themselves because they would lack several elements of motivation that currently are seen as driving forces in medicine- particularly in research and development.
Politically, Democrats and Republicans (note, capitalized and not synonymous with liberals and conservatives, end note) support or don't support these systems for more than philosophical reasons. It is obvious that Democratic constituencies more heavily support social medicine because they are more likely to benefit from social medicine, or more accurately are more likely to immediately benefit from it. Republican constituencies are, on the whole, also mostly on the side of potential benefit from social medicine, however Republican leadership and the social icons of Republicanism specifically are not, due to obvious tax implications. While the Democratic leadership would *also* suffer higher taxes as a result of social medicine (for instance, my parents, who are both well paid, and are in community leadership positions in the Democratic party), for the above state philosophical reasons, Democrats are more willing on the whole to accept the added burden, considering it a financial risk, rather than a straight loss. It is obvious to them that social medicine would confer benefits which have been widely studied and reported upon in other countries with superior medical systems (in average outcome), and which are socialized.
Now, on this point, I have to be very clear in where my bias comes from. I have studied and read books and articles, listened to interviews, looked at statistics, watched reports, and spoken to experts personally about this subject. I believe quite firmly, and not purely from faith, but from what I believe to be sound reasoning, that the fear of socialized medicine experienced in the States is almost purely a result of the intentional reality distortion of corporate machinery. I don't believe corporations are evil. I don't believe business is evil. However, it is not difficult to observe that in such a business as medicine, involving a topic very important and close to the heart of literally every person alive, a great deal of capital rests in people's hearts and minds. Corporations, consciously or not, intentionally or not, concertedly or not, will act to protect themselves as any responsible business will do. However, I believe what the private medical system in the United States is protecting itself against is progress, and I think they way it is being done is the only way it can be done- the only equal and opposite force to the prospect of the safety and freedom of a social medical system. By appealing to people's innate suspicions, fears, and ultimately selfishness, the medical business, through their proxies in the Republican party (really, the two entities working to preserve each other), are culling a tide of regressive hate mongering. And the results we see everywhere- in classrooms on the subjects of science and religion, on the dais when politicians like Sarah Palin, and like Barack Obama, insist upon their place in the American consciousness and lifeblood in order to calm our suspicions about their breed of people; and on television, where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between those things which are said out of knowledge, wisdom, and experience, and those which are said for political or financial gain.
But this cynicism, capax. This deep and abiding mistrust of our fellow man. I don't get that. It maddens me ever the more that these same people who are hooked by these attitudes of blase pragmatism are ostensibly America's most pious, most humanist and caring of people. How, I always ask myself, does a person so vehemently oppose social and medical reform, and then spend their money on for-profit charities? Where is the cynicism in that act? Sure, the charity is still "for profit," which means ideally it will expand itself and serve its function in the most capitalist of styles- put you're still giving up your own money out of the goodness of your heart. How, ultimately, is it that profit simply "works," and government simply "does not work?" And on top of it all, and I'm sorry if I sound arrogant or dismissive or peremptory, but there is a mountain of evidence showing that this is simply *wrong*. That this idea is simply *in error*. That in fact, government is *better* at doing these certain things (not everything!) because it is *government* and it is democratic, answering to the people it has been erected by and for.
Though much of the film "Sicko" was for me rather simplistic and vague and wishy washy, in the way that Michael Moore tends to be, he nevertheless interviews interesting people. And it was one of his elderly British subjects who stated simply that the origins of social medicine in Britain lay in democracy itself. That people, following WW2, and its great social upheaval and destruction of so much of Britain's people and culture and past, realized that if the government could spend money on war, and achieve victory at any cost, then nothing stood in the way of achieving what amounts to a smaller and far more incremental goal- that of providing every person with health care, regardless of personal station or circumstances. Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
quote: there will always be conflicts when dealing with rights. its impossible to please everyone. should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
A question for the ages, but not a question that is particularly helpful to either a liberal or a conservative. The job of government is governance. In a democracy like ours, we construct a system of government which is itself run under the charter of a document which is vested with the power of the public voice. Should common citizens become dissatisfied with their government, they may elect new government, they may run for office, and ultimately they are free to form conventions and alter the constitution itself, without the involvement of the actual government at all. I don't particularly understand this most recent obsession with the philosophy of governance, because the practices of the American government have not changed much recently. I tend to think, actually, that the constant mooning over philosophical differences is a rather unsubtle form of whining and prevarication. "We aren't losing the game, because we're playing by different rules." Or better "you're cheating." In the face of real and mounting losses in public support, the Republican party, and by extension some conservative movements, though not all, are adopting a terribly cynical and ultimately defeatist philosophy- the idea that they are not in government not because their ideas aren't good enough, but because their ideas are *too good* for government. Sarah Palin resigning from her post recently in order to launch a book campaign springs to mind as a rather poignant example of this phenomenon, and it is not the only one.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QUOTE]I don't particularly understand this most recent obsession with the philosophy of governance, because the practices of the American government have not changed much recently.
Health-care is 16% of the US economy. All that following bank takeovers, auto industry takeovers and impending energy industry takeovers and regulations involving anything that produces CO2 (ie everything). I can't even use the bathroom without being reminded the flush capacity is regulated.
I'm perhaps a little more simplistic in my logic. It isn't about "universal" or "choice", rather government control.
We have a universal education system that is failing when better private schools are often cheaper. The Progressives do as their Labor Union masters require. Fewer tax dollars in the form of vouchers could send the student to a successful school of their "choice". They prefer the failing, free, universal, socialized, public option of illiterate graduates. Conservatives look for free market solutions.
We hear repeatedly from progressives they only want "competition"....then why do the block conservative attempts to open up insurance markets across state lines? As with the teachers unions, labor unions would like the government to foot the bill for health care, (and they'll get card-check too).
I wish I could afford the $7k a year to send my daughter to the stellar Christian school down the road and it makes me sick that her marginally successful school gets $10.5k a year in tax dollars for her attendance.
Is it really about "choice", "cost" and "quality"? Give me one example of a government program that was as promised in terms of cost and quality.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't use any of those three words, and I am not going to play your "give me one example I can dismiss" game. I could as easily counter with the same question: how does privatized health care deliver in as promised in terms of cost and quality? It's the most expensive system in the world, and is ranked below the top 30 by the WHO. But I'm really not interested, Mal, because you don't actually care about those things- I don't know what you do actually care about. Clearly not your community, which is paying for your daughter's education at a rate you could not personally afford. So with the 10K christmas ham under your arm, you're crying because you haven't got a loaf of bread to go with it. And I'm sure you resent paying your taxes, because why indeed should a community pay for the education of all of its children when you yourself, on your own, could be paying for your own child's education- surely she'd be at an advantage then that could perpetuate itself through many generations. And one day, not long from now, there could be an oligarchy of a small few, who can afford all the things they desire, and the rest of us can all be workers who support it through a terribly inefficient division of labor, that supports an economic system devoid of growth.
Tell me it wouldn't end that way Mal, because you're the one who is constantly, and hilariously declaring yourself a member of the economically enlightened, despite your having a weaker grasp on actual economics than any liberal on this board. Explain to me how a total laissez-faire society doesn't eventually turn into an oligarchy based on the exploitation of cheap labor by a stagnant nobility. Tell me why your imagined paradise wouldn't be Peru, circa 1900, or the American South in the 19th century. Do tell.
What gets my goat about all this Mal is that you are an absolute warrior for the middle class you hate so much. You resent everything that's been given to you, because you believe you would be exactly who you are without it- and you forget everything that's come before, in the form of all these terrible government programs, to make sure you had a chance to be who you wanted to be. You didn't realize that by taking that deal, you were signing up to be a part of society, and work toward maintaining a system that made you one of its productive members. It must hurt so much, to be given something, and to then be expected to share it with others. You're like a kid on Halloween who cries at the prospect of being forced to share his prized haul with his little sister. Really, that's the way you sound. So are you still a child, or will you choose to put away childish things?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The issue is whether or not Sarah Palin's reaction should cause us concern about her ability to lead the country.
That may be your issue and you can post away on that all you want. But it's not my issue
I was posting on whether Sarah Palin's reaction was outside of the norm of normal human behaviour.
Thank you for this quality contribution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The WHO ranking system isn't about quality of care. I know you're the "expert" on the issue but I like the above article by an MD PHD.
It's not a gift from my community...I pay much more than that in taxes. I went to a private school....want to know how? I worked as a janitor there on the weekends and during breaks.
You can say that my grasp of economics is weak since I am not a Keynesian like the majority on this board. You should really get off this blog, get a job and figure out how the real world works. Let me take a stab....you're a professional student perhaps? Are you majoring in social justice? No, African American sudies? No, political science? Wait, environmental studies? Must be something like that...you see....I majored in accounting. After Micro and Macro Economics and Financial and Managerial Accounting I became very bored and switched to mathematics. If you understood economics, you'd be a conservative.
Unlike you, I believe in the potential of mankind and individual responsibility. You are a racist who feels bad for the poor minority because deep down, although you'll never say it, you think he's disadvantaged by his birth. You have no idea where I come from or what I have achieved. NOTHING was handed to me. Have you ever felt true hunger? The kind of hunger that is so strong you'll eat raw hamburger because cooking it would be too long? I began supporting myself when I was 16 years old and put myself through college working full time. I knew what I wanted and worked my ass off for it. You may view me a greedy, spoiled white boy who had everything handed to him by society and family but that only illustrates your bias.
You think I'm greedy? I give more to charity than I pay in taxes. I am a cold hearted SOB....screw the lazy, help the helpless. Charities help the truly needy. I don't want my money going to the ticks on the ass of humanity who line up for their "Obama money".
Equal opportunity, then you're on your own. Sleep in the bed you made.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, look, it's another mind-reader, telling us all what we really think deep down. He's not a racist despite ringing almost every racist alarm bell there is, everyone else is a racist because they think he's the racist, deep down.
Also, haven't you claimed in the past to make upwards of $100K/yr, malanthrop? By virtue of your like four jobs or something? Which would of course put you in a very high tax bracket, and giving more to charity than you pay in taxes as you claim would in fact leave you with quite a meager salary to support a family on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can say that my grasp of economics is weak since I am not a Keynesian like the majority on this board.
I said you have a poor grasp of economics because you didn't even correctly understand the definition of GDP and how it was calculated. Those are matters of fact that are independent of whether or not you are a Keynsian or not. If you can't get the facts straight, it does not lend credence to your opinions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said you have a poor grasp of economics because you didn't even correctly understand the definition of GDP and how it was calculated.
Also, just for the record, this sort of error casts a good bit of doubt on the claim that you're actually an accountant, malanthrop.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, haven't you claimed in the past to make upwards of $100K/yr, malanthrop? By virtue of your like four jobs or something? Which would of course put you in a very high tax bracket, and giving more to charity than you pay in taxes as you claim would in fact leave you with quite a meager salary to support a family on.
That's simple, he's lying.
And no, Mal I am not a student at present, nor did I ever study "social justice," nor do I believe for a second that you paid for private school by working as a janitor on the weekends, nor that you ate raw hamburger, nor that you have four jobs, nor that you give 25k a year in charity, nor that you learned anything about economics while studying accounting, nor that you actually feel superior to anyone here. As I said, you're a little boy crying out for help- and knowing that you suffered such a terrible abandonment at such a young age (assuming this is true) it makes a lot of sense why you're a selfish SOB. It really does. You still are one though.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to ask a few questions. Is there anyone that truly believes that giving people handouts is going to motivate them to be active contributors to society? I am speaking in general terms. I am not saying that some people don't need help, but I have had personal experience with people who choose not to work because they either are receiving more money from the government than from working, or just plain old don't want to work. I grew up dirt poor, and my family had to use welfare just to live. But instead of living off the government the rest of my life, I chose to lift myself up to a higher level. Is there really anyone that can say that there are not people out there that take advantage of the system? I don't think so. Does that mean that some people don't need help? No. But we need to think about when that help becomes more harmful than helpful. If you have a child in school, do you help them with their homework by showing them how to get the answers, or do you just do it for them, thereby showing them that they don't have to learn because someone will do it for them? In that example which sounds more appealing?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that example which sounds more appealing?
In your example, which scenario leaves my child starving to death on a cold streetcorner? Because that's what those "handouts" are meant to avoid.
Yes, we need to think about when help becomes more harmful than helpful. Sure. Do you think people don't do that already? Do you really think that this is news to people who help other people as part of their full-time job? I mean, do you really think a social worker is going to slap the side of her head and go, "Man! I didn't think of that! I should be making things harder for some of these people!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Very well put Orincoro.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i tend to find liberal ideals unrealistic because they dont factor in the selfishness and rebelliousness prevalent in human society and rely too heavily upon conformity and altruistic generosity.
I'm confused how you can think this. When a Senator was confronted with a crying women on desparate need for health care for her brain-injured husband, it was no hippie liberal who told her that her neighbors should be the solution, not the government. It was conservative Tom Coburn. It's liberals who argue that relying on the ordinary generosity of citizens is not enough, and that's why we need government to act in this way sometimes.
quote:there will always be conflicts when dealing with rights. its impossible to please everyone. should the goal of government be to mitigate the conflicts or eradicate them completely?
If you are anything other than a straight, white, Protestant male, things are unquestionably better for you now than they were 40 years ago (and lots of straight, white, Protestant males are happy about that too). Conservatives opposed all that change. Liberals wanted that change to happen. It's not about eradicating anything. It's about making society fairer tomorrow than it is today. Conservatives, by their nature, don't want to change traditional unfairnesses.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those generalities are...well, not very helpful at all, really. You'll find hardly any liberals, Democrats, or even liberal Democrats who want to subsidize laziness.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are anything other than a straight, white, Protestant male, things are unquestionably better for you now than they were 40 years ago (and lots of straight, white, Protestant males are happy about that too). Conservatives opposed all that change. Liberals wanted that change to happen.
This is not unquestionably true. Many people, from many different subgroups within America, believe things are worse today than in the past. Reasons they might offer for this range from economics to moral values to education to individual liberties lost, etc.
Also one could argue that many of the positive changes that have happened in the last 40 years were brought on by conservatives. Most fiscal conservatives would probably assert that the economic boom and advances in technology in the past four decades are due to free market economics.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom , I am not saying that we should make things harder on people that need help. My point is that we need to make it harder for people to abuse the system, because the abusers are making it harder to help the people that truly need it. And speaking from personal experience, I remember a time when my mother was working 2 jobs while trying to raise 4 children and watching people dressed to the nines walking out of the welfare office with hundreds of dollars in money and food stamps while they were cutting my mother off for making $10 to much money the month before. You want to talk about starving, try looking in your cupboard and seeing nothing but cornmeal. Or looking in your fridge and seeing nothing but ketchup. In my opinion, it is less about "helping", and more about helping people to help themselves. Or , to quote , "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime". Lets start teaching more people to fish.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
You seem to have shifted your objection to welfare from it discouraging people from working hard to it being abused.
In the former, do you have data suggesting that there is a significant number of people who are content to remain on welfare when they have a genuine chance for advancement? Given the current job market where there are tonnes of people who would love to work but cannot do so, this is a particularly hard sell.
Welfare fraud has been a scare tactic for ages ("welfare queens" and all that). It would be naive to think that it does not happen at all, however the weight attached to this argument has always been disproportionate to the actual prevalence of welfare fraud.
How would you propose "teaching more people to fish"?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
More generalities. There's no substance there. Nothing you've said can be argued against, even when you're actually saying something substantive, kanelock.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
BB, it's like we're tuning into a whole new wavelength in this relationship. Groovy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are anything other than a straight, white, Protestant male, things are unquestionably better for you now than they were 40 years ago (and lots of straight, white, Protestant males are happy about that too). Conservatives opposed all that change. Liberals wanted that change to happen.
This is not unquestionably true. Many people, from many different subgroups within America, believe things are worse today than in the past.
Well, yeah, there's that black teabagger who thought that the Confederacy was great for black people. He can believe what he wants, but I think there's a pretty strong argument that he's factually wrong, that his life is much better under now than it would have been in a modern Confederacy that honored owning human beings as chattel.
Do you really want to argue, for instance, that Ann Coulter would have a better life 100 years ago, where she not only would be completely unable to have any public voice in politics/entertainment, she would not have been able to vote?
I'd love to see you make that argument.
quote:Reasons they might offer for this range from economics
Okay, you really want to make the argument that blacks are worse off economically now that they were in the 1960's?
quote:to moral values
Again, they can argue this, and believe this, but the general consensus is that we treat each other more morally now than we used to, because we are fairer. Perhaps you don't appreciate how virulent and overt prejudice used to be towards all kinds of groups in the past.
quote:...to individual liberties lost, etc.
The 'right' to own another human being like furniture, or the legal 'right' to rape your wife are not generally considered "lost liberties" in decent company. Lawrence v Texas was all about individual liberties, where were all the conservatives praising that ruling?
quote:Also one could argue that many of the positive changes that have happened in the last 40 years were brought on by conservatives. Most fiscal conservatives would probably assert that the economic boom and advances in technology in the past four decades are due to free market economics.
The free market is not the opposite of liberalism. The unbridled free market that conservatives love so much ends up like Enron and Lehman Brothers: making a few cheaters wildly wealthy, and ruining everyone else. Liberals want a market with at least some controls. No selling snake oil. No letting monopolies ruin the market. No dumping of pollution into everyone's water supply without cleaning it up.
Do you object to any of those liberal restrictions?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
mystic, I do not have any hard data, as how many people would tell someone in a poll that they don't want to work.? That is why I made sure to state that it was from personal experience. Do you have data suggesting that there is not? Isn't the entire advancement of humanity to make life easier? In the eyes of some, how much easier can life be than going to the mailbox every month for that check?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People, please dial it down. Personal attacks are not ok. Not out of the blue, not as a "proportional response," no matter how well-deserved you may think they are. Bad logic is bad logic, but it's not against the rules. Unsubstantiated and un-agreed-upon premises remain so, but they are not against the rules. Ignoring someone's argument is poor communication, but it's not against the rules.
You're free to be upset. You're free to voice your frustration. You're free to ignore people who make ridiculous claims (whether as opinion or as fact). What you aren't free to do is make personal attacks.
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: mystic, I do not have any hard data, as how many people would tell someone in a poll that they don't want to work.? That is why I made sure to state that it was from personal experience. Do you have data suggesting that there is not? Isn't the entire advancement of humanity to make life easier? In the eyes of some, how much easier can life be than going to the mailbox every month for that check?
My affirmative statement would be how important welfare is for those less fortunate in society etc. etc. I have not given evidence of this but I would expect someone growing up on food stamps to appreciate their role. I regard this statement as being basically self-evident.
You respond (A) welfare encourages people to not work, and (B) welfare is abused You have provided some anecdotal pseudo-support for (B)- you've seen people on welfare wear nice clothes. You have no idea whether this is indicative of misplaced priorities (e.g. preferring clothes over three meals a day), indicative of having a wealthier relative who gave them a nice gift, indicative of someone wealthy having donated nice clothes or indicative of falsified income. I think the onus is squarely on you to show that your evidence shows what you think it does and that this phenomenon is widespread enough to call into question the integrity of the program at large.
For point (A) you've said:
quote:Isn't the entire advancement of humanity to make life easier? In the eyes of some, how much easier can life be than going to the mailbox every month for that check?
Presumably there are some behavioral economists who have looked into this sort of thing. Off the top of my head, I would guess that people are more motivated by, for example, the trappings of wealth and admiration of their peers, neither of which one would associate with being on welfare.
As an aside, I gather in the 70s the average American work week decreased, which is what people then thought would happen with technology increasing efficiency. That has long since reversed. It would appear that leisure time is not so highly prized. [Btw if you want a cite for this, you'll have to wait; I can't remember where I read it, and won't have time to search this afternoon.]
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Considering what the United States has shown itself capable of achieving in the last 70 years, I'm often rather shocked at the notion that those who call it "the Greatest Country on Earth," are nevertheless utterly cynical about this one very achievable goal.
I've often had this thought, but never had it put into words. Thanks.
Very well put Orincoro.
Agreed. Well said.
Agreed. A similar phenomenon shows up in the apparent utter devastation that would follow the implementation of cap-and-trade.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most humans are quite strongly motivated by status in their peer group, and are willing to work quite hard for it. The difficulty comes when, in a particular subgroup, status is correlated with not working, but rather with cheating the system. This is hard for your average middle-class poster here to identify with, but apparently does happen. But it's not a very large effect, as far as I can tell.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have more respect for the fifth generation welfare recipient than a person who lived in poverty and now, as you said...makes over 100k a year. It must be horrible viewing people with either self righteous pity or poisonous envy. The US has achieved more in 70 years than any other nation due to capitalistic ideals. No need to worry...the progressives are quickly transforming us into the nations we've outperformed for that same period of time. Nations where equality of outcome trumps equality of opportunity. Next you'll push for a Euro style Amero...better to pull down America to help lift up Mexico. All people and all nations are equivalent and the world is just so unfair. But we're making "progress".....kumbaya my lord. (sorry, said lord).
posted
Actually no, the US achieved all of those things as a nation because of good old tax and spend liberalism before the war, and even bigger taxing spending during the war without which we would have ended up with, well, one finds it difficult to project.
FYI, the Euro has been *very* good for Europe, but I still live in a European country that hasn't been allowed to have it yet. There's a system, and there are smart people trying to make it work. Real world governance doesn't correspond to your cartoonish fantasies. Oh, but do spout your crackpot theories about Ameros and other nonsense. Your credibility can't be hurt now, anyway.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You have more respect for the fifth generation welfare recipient than a person who lived in poverty and now, as you said...makes over 100k a year. It must be horrible viewing people with either self righteous pity or poisonous envy.
No, it's not self-righteousness or 'poisonous envy,' whatever in the world of amateur pseudopsychology that's supposed to be. The real issue is that the fifth generation welfare recipient can't be fairly compared to the "makes over 100k a year" guy because the latter is exposing himself to the forum as, well, a guy who argues like you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most humans are quite strongly motivated by status in their peer group, and are willing to work quite hard for it. The difficulty comes when, in a particular subgroup, status is correlated with not working, but rather with cheating the system.
From what I've heard, that's basically the entire country of Nigeria. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Next you'll push for a Euro style Amero...better to pull down America to help lift up Mexico.
From the viewpoint of pure utilitarianism, this might be true. The difference between a yearly income of 5k and one of 10k is much larger than that between 50k and 100k.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Next you'll push for a Euro style Amero...better to pull down America to help lift up Mexico
Actually, I'd rope Canada into the deal and call it the Camero. Our founding fathers demanded the forced inclusion of Canada into the United Colonies of Congress Assembled! Who are we to question their godlike powers of reason?!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't at all clear that creating a unified currency with Mexico would help Mexico. More likely it would eliminate the flexibility of Mexico's central bank to deal with currency situations (a flexibility they've needed several times in recent history), and the overall central bank would favor monetary policy benefiting the most productive parts of the US.
In other words, a merged US-Mexican (-Canadian) currency probably wouldn't lift up Mexico at all, or pull down the US. It would probably hurt Mexico to the benefit of the US.
And, unlike the old situation in Europe, there's relatively little currency friction between the US and Mexico. There just aren't enough currencies and countries involved to make the situation as byzantine (especially after various treaties). Thus, the benefits Europe has seen due to reducing transaction costs wouldn't be nearly as large.
This is before even talking about how one of the purposes of the Euro (and surrounding activity) is to prevent war in Europe, a situation that isn't of great concern between the US and Mexico.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't know. If I were President, I might be quite attracted to a way of solving the immigration problem once and for all. Just annex 'em.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have more respect for the fifth generation welfare recipient than a person who lived in poverty and now, as you said...makes over 100k a year.
Well, if I actually believed you make >$100K/yr and are a truly self-made man, I'd have a great deal of respect for you. That's an impressive accomplishment. Your style of posting, however, and the frequent dishonesty you engage in, puts your credibility down a peg or three.
Though if you make >$100K/yr, and give more than you pay in taxes to charities, you must be giving >$50K/yr away before you ever get a dime of it at home. That is impressive...and highly unlikely, when viewed through the lens of angry conservative guy on the Internet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mystic, I more than most appreciate the role of welfare. My problem is with the fact that I feel the role has changed. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, welfare started as a program to help people get back on their feet so to speak. Now it seems to have become a lifestyle. Are there people who need it? Yes. Are there people who abuse it? Yes. I feel that the true problem lies in the open ended system itself. How many people would not like access to a never ending supply of cash? I truly believe that most people are honest, decent, and willing to put in a hard days work for a decent wage. The problem lies with the few who feel that the world owes them a living, and they are going to take it.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is welfare a never ending supply of cash? It is enough to keep from starving, but not much more. By American standards, the life you live on welfare is pretty pathetic.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silence! Because after all, which is better, the parent who is justly strict, or the parent who is wildly permissive?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: except a large part of the "immigrant problem" is really "the racism problem"; annexing Mexico doesn't remove that.
And yeah, kanelock1, you seem to be misunderstanding welfare. Welfare, especially in the last couple of decades, has been changed (from what was already not a permanent grant) into very focused, goal-requiring programs (that vary at the state level). In particular, the welfare program is very focused on making certain recipients have jobs.
Now, there is still a problem area. Due to how a variety of welfare programs are structured, there is a stretch of income where a person earning one more dollar will receive one (or more!) fewer dollar in benefits. This means that, for the span of that plateau, there is little incentive to improve one's income. It would be much better if programs were restructured so that earning an additional dollar only involved a loss of ~half a dollar in benefits.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM: except a large part of the "immigrant problem" is really "the racism problem"; annexing Mexico doesn't remove that.
Shush! I have a nice simplistic solution which only requires the use of a bit of force, readily applied by the American army - who would, I'm moderately convinced, love to have a straightforward conventional campaign against an actual army, instead of all this COIN shizzle - and then you come here and point out that the problem is more complex than that? What are you, some sort of commie-sympathizing traitor? Why do you hate America?
Edit: And besides that, being against immigrants is a near-acceptable form of racism. Being against citizens who speak Spanish and have brown skin, isn't. So, make all the Mexicans citizens and you at least drive the opposition underground, or else force it to come out into the open as racism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the proposal is to give the Mexicans the rights and privileges of any other citizens, then you might not even need the force part.
Mexico's 100 million or so population combined with the pre-existing population in the US would control a pretty good chunk of US politics which should be a decently compelling reason to pass a referendum on joining or something similar.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well, obviously there would be a transition period in which the Mexicans were re-educated. :nods: Besides that, we can incorporate them as a single state - isn't it time 'New Mexico' had a matching 'Old Mexico'? - and what are they going to do with just two senators?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM: except a large part of the "immigrant problem" is really "the racism problem"; annexing Mexico doesn't remove that.
Shush! I have a nice simplistic solution which only requires the use of a bit of force, readily applied by the American army - who would, I'm moderately convinced, love to have a straightforward conventional campaign against an actual army, instead of all this COIN shizzle - and then you come here and point out that the problem is more complex than that? What are you, some sort of commie-sympathizing traitor? Why do you hate America?
I seem to remember another country doing something quite similar about 60 years ago. Does anyone remember how that turned out?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
